Perhaps the Sheikh could do a double act with Pauline Hanson around all the comedy venues. I know Hanson detests Muslims but that doesn't matter - it'd be a sort of George and Gracie routine.

Seriously, people who take Muslims to task because of extremists making outrageous statements should remember that Muslims in Australia, like the world, are heterogeneous and have little in common except a shared religion. And even then they have different interpretations of their belief. I have worked with Fijian-Indian Muslims one of whom almost certainly voted Liberal. I know a young gay man from a Muslim background - he changed his name from Mahommed to Michael because the gay community in Sydney is as racist as everyone else. Australia has Muslims from Malaysian backgrounds and Lebanese backgrounds - not much in common there.

I do get sick of people who expect Muslims to rise up in unison to condemn the likes of Hilaly everytime he opens his mouth. He's not their responsibility - he himself makes the choice to be a bigot and nobody else should take the rap for it.

Shakira you just cannot win unfortunately as there are so FEW of you real moderates the rest seem to have the guts of a two bob watch. But having said that why does "TAQIYYA" keep coming to my mind. Regards, numbat

DavidJS,
How did you conclude that Pauline Hanson "detests' muslims? I am sure Pauline has never said any such thing. Like many others, Pauline is more likely to believe that the cultures of many muslims are not compatible to our society. There is ample evidence and history to support this view.

You say you get sick of those expecting all muslims to rise in unison to condemn Hilali. Let me assure you there is many who do not wish Hilali to be replaced. These people that say if Hilali goes and Sheik Faiz Mahommed and the fat, bearded Sheik in Melbourne go also, who else is going to disclose what muslims really believe and teach their congregations and children.

You're right, Banjo. In fact, I over-generalised. Pauline Hanson is on the record for supporting "Christian Muslims [sic]." And I'd like to add that this country also needs more Jewish Muslims and Buddhist Muslims to balance things up.

Yes, Australians do seem to expect 'others' to rise up and condemn this-that-or-the-other that is seen as wrong.

I suspect that most Australians condemn the Germans of the 1930s for allowing the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Yet how many Australians rose up and condemned Howard when he decided that invading Iraq would be nice? (Was this any more justificed than the Nazi Germany invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland at the start of WW2?)

Most of us are highly apathetic while expecting action from others.

This bloke is an idiot and should be kicked out off Australia just as i said before if The Australian Peoples Party won office it would be one of the first jobs done.

He is a threat not only to himself but also to those he represents.

The Australian Peoples Party

www.tapp.org.au

members and candidates wanted

tapp - it's quite easy to say he should be kicked out, but I rather suspect that while a call like that is easy to make, it's harder to nut out where you draw that line.

Logically, the first thing you're saying there is that Australian citizenship can be revoked. Tell me, does this also apply to Australians who don't have a second nation to go to?
Your precedent there is, that Australian citizenship is not permanent, and is at the whim of the government.

Next point - what exactly, do you consider a deportable offence? Who decides? Effectively, would the People's Party be giving politicians permission to revoke the citizenship of individuals and send them overseas?

Do they need to have been tried in a criminal court? What are the charges? Are you honestly telling me, that we'll give someone a suspended sentence for something like assault, but we're willing to send someone overseas for vilification? I take it then, you don't subscribe to the notion that actions speak louder than words.
It's all well and good to run with a popular notion, but politicians need to operate within a certain framework, or else we live in little more than a banana republic.

I don't like Hilaly and I certainly don't condon anything he says.

But I'm not a huge fan of empty rhetoric, & I believe in due process.

This would come under The Australian Peoples Immigration policy.

He doesnt like australia
he doesnt like the people
he tell people everywhere he goes what he thinks of this great nation of ours

And i do believe he still does have a country to go to

This is australia and since he doesnt like it i am quite happy to place my size 8 1/2 gp boot size to his a##se to send him on his way.

People come to australia for a better life and those who wish to come here and flout the law i am quite happy to send them packing with a no return to australia.

Immigration should be stopped/ halted thats it.

It is not beneficial to this country to keep bringing in people when we have those unemployed.

Wish to give up some of your water
wish to give up some housing
wish to give up some of that poisious food that we keep importing.
maybe not the last one.
But that comes under australian product.
Here we are talking policy, which at least i can refer you too.
Isnt it time we did what is right for the people and this country of ours or should we keep towing the liberal and labor party agenda.
A agenda created by those party's for themselves.

Whereas the only agenda TAPP has is for the people and this country and doing the right thing.
When you decide to do the right thing it is better than just playing follow the leader

The Australian Peoples Party

www.tapp.org.au

members and candidates wanted

DavidJS,
You said "I know Hanson detests muslims......"

I put it to you that is a lie. You know no such thing.

You have been picked up making up stuff. The correct thing to do would be to apologize, and maybe add that you said it without thinking or because it suited your agenda, but you haven't.

You have further demeaned yourself by endeavouring to belittle the person of your unfounded comments. Your character on display!

TRTL
I agree with you. Tapp, We would be no better than the worst regimes in the world if we started withdrawing citizenship from those we disagreed with. That action would only be warranted if a person was convicted of a terrorist attack, and then only if he had dual citizenship.

We can, under present law, only deport a non citizen if he is guilty of an offense with a 2 year jail sentence. For example, the K brothers should be deported when their sentences are served.

The fact is that Sheik Hilali is a citizen and can enjoy all the rights that all citizens have. The same as you and me.

Now you are not going to get rid of Sheik Hilali that easily.Labor under Paul Keating created this bucket of bile.Keating went against all the advice of his own Public Service and welcomed the Sheik with open arms.

John Howard might be just tempted to keep this smelly old rag around long enough just to remind the electorate of how Labor will import votes of any ilk just to secure power.As Graham Richardson was so fond of saying,"We'll do whatever it takes."

You have real courage Shakira. I think the vast majority of us are on your side, and are listening to your common sense.

The Yanks will, negotiate with Iran, will fail to stop their move to become nuclear armed and everyone will learn to deal with the consequences...which I don't believe will involve any sort of armed intervention. Iran is not Iraq nor Afghanistan.

Great article Shakira. No doubt you will be corrected on your misinterpretation/denial/leftwing/ accademic thinking of the 'true' nature of Islam by very knowledgeable non-Muslims.

There are many non Muslims who have known and know Muslims of various ethnic groups, various sects and various levels of commitment to their faith and found them to be like any other group of people.

What's a moderate Muslim anyway?

I don't know how helpful this will be for everyone but I found them worth the read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p06s01-wome.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/a_widow_into_iran

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is MUFTI?

One definition I have read is "A Muslim scholar who interprets the shari'a."

Another meaning for "mufti" refers to someone who is deliberately not wearing a uniform but instead chooses to disguise his appearance by wearing civillian garb.

In regard to the person under disussion which, if either of these definitions apply?

Funny, but this doesn't read to me as if Ms Hanson has any love of Muslims (although her own ethnic composition is in part Middle Eastern), taken from Gerard McManus, "Once more into the fray", Herald-Sun, 17 March 2007, pp 27-28:

The Herald Sun visited Hanson at her rural retreat near Ipswich to discover why she wants to run for Federal Parliament again as a Senate independent....
But it is Hanson's view on the Muslim question that is certain to unsettle the major parties.
"We have to decide now whether we want to go the way Britain, France and the Netherlands have gone," she says. "England's being lost, it's losing its identity and its way of life.
"Do we want that here?
"Who's saying anything about this in Australia?"
The major parties want to "manage" the Muslim question through a combination of education, tolerance and application of the law to the radical fringe. But Hanson says that this is impossible.
"The fact is they are Muslim first and Australian second," she says.
According to Hanson, Muslims already here will have to assimilate to the Australian way of life.
But the shutters should be put up to stop new Mulsim arrivals, she says.
Hanson says the Muslim way of life is "totally opposite" to the Australian way, citing instances of multiple marriages, forcing women to wear the burqa, closure of swimming pools to males and shopping centre bans on Christmas decorations.
"There was the report about Muslim kids urinating on the Bible, and Muslim police officers who can't shake the hand of their own superintendent," she says.
"Female Mulsim [in original] policewomen can't even arrest a man."

Shakira
the problem you highlight is real, no question about that.

The deeper problem though, and the one which must be addressed is:

"Which type of Muslim is closer to Mohammad, the Quran and Sunnah ?- these supposedly unrepresentative figureheads or the moderates who are in cringe mode because of them"?

If I were to write a thesis on 'GREAT CRIMINALS OF HISTORY' they might include the following:

-Pablo Escobar. Infamous drug trafficker who also did many wonderful altruistic humanistic socially beneficial things, such as build hospitals, churches, soccer pitches for the poor etc. (But of course he tortured, murdered and pillaged those who went against him)

-Pope John XII (955-964)
ascended to the papacy at age 16. This totally depraved individual is said to have slept with his mother. He kept a harem at the Lateran Palace. He enjoyed sexual relations with men, women, and children, and performed "shows" for audiences during which he copulated with horses.

-Adolph Hitler
did many worthy things for the German people. Reduced unemployment, prodided affordable cars for the masses, and many other virtuous acts. He had a major flaw though, he decided to liquidate all Jews and any people or nation which opposed his plans for German Dominance.

-Mohammad of Islam.
Did many worthy things for the Arab people, Reduced oppression of women, united tribes, provided economic advances.
Unfortunately, he had a major flaw, he destroyed Jews. He managed to wipe out one tribe (Banu Qurayza) and exile others, and had no qualms about torturing people, mutilating prisioners and stealing and distributing his victims wealth to his gang.

So, the problem, restated is... how close are these Hilayli's and Ahmadinejad's to the man they seek to represent to the world ?

My opinion is "pretty close...but at this stage probably not as bad"
Though Irans leader is probably closer than Hilayli.

CONCLUSION. Why follow such a man as Mohammad in either moderation or extremity ?

I probably shouldn't dignify Banjo's previous comment. However, there is plenty of evidence of Hanson's detestation of Muslims. For example:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hanson-turns-on-diseased-africans/2006/12/06/1165081010724.html

Suggesting an immigration moratorium on all people from a particular religious grouping is detestation (and bigotry) as far as I'm concerned. No correspondence entered into. Even worse, she puts the boot into African people as well. I'm surprised she hasn't had a go at Jewish people. Maybe they're next.

No doubt Hanson fans will whinge that she was taken out of context. Hilaly supporters say exactly the same thing. Fortunately, both Hanson and Hilaly are fringe-dwellers in Australian political life and we'll be hearing less and less of them.

DavidJS,
Why don't you simply put forward any evidence that 'I know Hanson detests muslims' or simply fade out of the picture. You have been caught out lying and your creibility is shot.

Anyone, including Ms hanson, has a right to advocate that certain people not be allowed to immigrate here, on the grounds of incompatability. This does not mean that person 'detests' those people. Did not Fred Nile make the same call recently. Would you say he 'detests' anyone? By the way the word detest means to dislike intensely, loathe.

Now you introduce a strawman by way of the African refuges.

Now, Ms Hanson was commenting about the inadequacy of or health screening. Read the smh article that you claim is evidence, she makes no critisism of the Africans themselves.

From memory, shortly after the article appeared, a health official or a politician admitted that only a percentage of refuges were actually health screened or a long time elapsed between screening and the refuges coming here.

You continue to confirm your lack of integrity by not being able to put up evidence of your unfounded claim of detestation.

Banjo says: "Ms hanson [sic], has a right to advocate that certain people not be allowed to immigrate here, on the grounds of incompatability"

I say: that is racist statement pure and simple.

Banjo says I introduced African people as a "straw man".

I say: it is a further illustration of what a racist Hanson is. And I also say that Hanson has a right to say what she likes and I say I have a right to call her a racist.

And I guess Hilaly's statements about women being "uncovered meat" weren't sexist at all but actually showed a senstivity towards women, eh Banjo?

What a REFRESHING read,
our press should print less from Hilali
& more from Shakira Hussein .

Though it’s important to remember that Hilai is not just
an errant, isolated individual but is probably more
in line with the dominant, traditional strain in Islam than Shakira. The lack of a critical reaction from the Egyptian media re his earlier outburst in Cairo, speaks volumes ( they obviously saw nothing out of the ordinary )Can you image the uproar if a Pauline Hanson, or others, had said Anglos had more right –(the Aus media establishment - not to mention many of our noble OLO posters - would have raised the roof)

Re Led Zeppelins fans reaction/stereotyping- it is a typical human reaction.The real test is how figures of influence /authority reacted to the parodying of something they held sacred .Imagine if Led Zeppelin had the will & wherewithal to call on their fans to kill the offender & anyone associated with them, & were able to offer instant gratification in heaven via 16 virgins for anyone who took up the offer…

That aside-good article Shakira –more please…

One thing I should like to know, and perhaps Shakira can enlighten me if she reads my post, is this.

Do Hilali's comments in any way influence the attitudes of any number of Islamic Australians? I realise that most including Shakira are opposed to his views but are there any substantial numbers who would learn from his example? Or would the majority just wish the old bugger would disappear and ignore him?

I would guess that Aussie Muslims in time will become agnostics and iconoclasts with the rest of us, and that what seems to be happening in France will not occur here. We are like that, it is in our convict formation and effects every group of immigrants who come here.

Any answers, and please no Bible or Q'uran bashing, I just couldn't stand any more of that.

One thing I should like to know, and perhaps Shakira can enlighten me if she reads my post, is this.

Do Hilali's comments in any way influence the attitudes of any number of Islamic Australians? I realise that many including Shakira are opposed to his views but are the any substantial numbers who would learn from his example? Or would the majority just wish the old bugger would disappear and ignore him?

I would guess that Aussie Muslims in time will become agnostics and iconoclasts with the rest of us, and that what seems to be happening in France will not occur here. We are like that, it is in our convict formation and effects every group of immigrants who come here.

Any answers, and please no Bible or Q'uran bashing, I just couldn't stand any more of that.

DavidJS,
You really are something else!

First you state that you know that Hanson detests muslims. I say you are making that up and you are unable to refute that. Now you say i am racist for saying "Anyone, including Ms Hanson, can advocate that certain people not be allowed to immigrate here, on the grounds of incompatability" Thats a racist statement?

In 2006, Ms Hanson makes public allegations that our health screening of Africian refugees is inadequate. That she is concerned of the risk this imposes to Australian citizens. Later her concerns are shown to have some merrit.

Now you say this illustrates just how racist Hanson is?

According to your mind, the term racist can mean whatever you want it to and cover any situation you wish. But it is a good term to throw at others, especially when your other defenses are shown wanting.

You certainly have a right to call anyone a racist. Ms Hanson, me, the Governer General or the Pope even. Just how much credence others give that call is another matter entirely.

And you still have not shown any evidence that you know that Hanson detests muslims.

Banjo, to attribute a set of negative characteristics to an entire race and/or sect of people constitutes racism and/or sectarian bigotry.

Fred Nile says we need to ban Muslim immigrants until a study is done of the extent of their integration. So, it seems some Muslims don't integrate.

Then again, some clergy can't keep their hands off little boys. Should we therefore not allow churches to run kindergartens, orphanages and preschools?

Bigotry is bigotry, even if it is based on traces of truth.

Hanson has grouped all Muslims (apart from the Christian ones - wherever they are) as people who shouldn't be allowed to come to Australia for a given period. That is racism (or if you want to get technical, religious bigotry) because a group has been singled out on the basis of prejudice ie: prejudging a group of people on the basis of assumed characteristics. Nearly everytime she opens her mouth she condemns herself as a racist. Or maybe she revels in being a racist. Either way, she fits the definition. To put it another way, if I declared that no more Jews should enter Australia because they are incompatible with our lifestyle or they are diseased I could justifiably be labelled an anti-semite.

Of course then I could argue my comments were taken out of context. Or make an exception for Christian Jews.

Oh irfan: In another post you just disappeared without answering the questions asked of you. Then low and behold you pop up again with "some Clergy cannot keep their hands off little boys" Strange this coming from one whose religion allows pederasty - that's sex with boys who are hairless or not having reached puberty - but sees sex between men as a sin, funny religion eh irf? Not only that but one of the "rewards?" in your paradise is the female virgins off course but also a number of perpetually untouched little boys. Which will you have in your arabian tribal paradise my pagan moslem friend? Regards, numbat

Well Irfan there are many Muslims who not only refuse to intergrate but want to impose their entire vile belief system upon all Australians.

The very fact that Sheik Hilaly has not been sacked shows that he has many followers in the Muslim community in Australia.His foul and disgusting attacks on our society which affords him and his ilk of a leisurely lifestyle in our country is beyond any notions of understandering or tolerance.Hilaly's apologist Keyser Trad should also think seriously about whether he has a future here.

Muslims are very vocal about their religious views being offended,yet balk at suppporting the very country which gives them sustanence and freedom from oppression.

We view many Muslims in our country as biting the hand that feeds them,and Muslims seemingly,don't want to prove us wrong.

Irfan,
You like giving people labels. You have called people racists, armchair nazis and now you call me a Sectarian Bigot. I accept that and am honored to be the first person to be called such on OLO.

A bigot is a person who is not tolerant and yes I am not tolerant of those that flaunt our laws and social standards, promote disharmony, conduct cockfighting and carry out FGM.

I differ from Fred Nile, Pauline Hanson and many others in that I do not think there is enough evidence to stop the immigration of muslims as a whole. However there is more than enough history and recent evidence to say we should stop the immigration of Lebanese muslims on the grounds of anti social attitudes and conduct. Stop immigration of serbs and croats for the same reasons.

If you, or anyone, can show me evidence that Leb muslims are fine upstanding citizens who promote harmony and croats and serbs are peace loving and their fighting is just youthful play, I will change my mind.

I also think we should stop immigrating those groups that persist in staging cock fights and any groups that carry out FGM. We should not compound problems by introducing more of the same. In addition, I would deny citizenship to any of the above that are not already citizens. They have shown they are not worthy of the rights of our citizenship. If any of the above groups feel they are being unfairly treated, they can blsme others in their group for that.

I want our descsndants to have a harmonous and cohesive society and it will not come about if we continue to import those that will not or cannot be part of our community.

I informed this thread earkier that there were people that expressed concern that if Sheik Hilali goes there will be no one to disclose what muslims are thinking and teaching their kids.

Well, no need to worrry. Sheik Swaiti, in Canbera, apparently praised Islamic Jihad in Palestine, Afghanisstan, Iraq, kasmir and Chechyna and called on God to grant them victory, in Fridays sermon.

According to the "Aus" today, this was in the Arabic version but was left out of the English translation.

This Sheik also works for the ATO and is under investigation by the ATO for not declaring monies received from Saudi Arabia.

Looks like all is not lost, if Hilali goes.

There is a single unsettling point that a lot of discussion seems to overlook. Many of us in Australia have come to understand that there is a component or piece of dogma somewhere in Islam that promotes the idea that Islam should be dominant, and non-believers are to be either converted or obliterated. This seems to lead to the idea that Jihad, which started out to be that "inner struggle " for each individual to understand and come to terms with his Islamic faith, should be seen as an obligation to progress the idea of dominance by Islam. By any means including subversion and violence. This is the part that tests our national commitment to inclusive multiculturalism. In fact, it is scary. Because it is wild eyed and irrational. If there are indeed reasons why the Islamic nations and communities need to rise up and assert themselves to achieve a proper place in world equilibrium, let there be more discussion about what those reasons are, and how the issues might be satisfied. Is it about oil, expolitation, the awfulness of the Crusades, the competing elements of logic in the respective belief systems ...... ?

I enjoyed your article, Shakira, and I know things are never as simple as they seem - in this case, to speak of "the Australian Muslim community" involves some degree of fantasy.

Okay, but I'm not sure that justifies what still seems to be a general public silence and inertia among the various Muslim communities in Australia. They could still speak up more than they do. They don't have to say much about "sacking" Hilali, but they could still dissociate themselves from what he says (and tell us what they do stand for). I know some do, but not nearly enough.

I'm with logic who wants to know just what the damage is: how many Australian Muslims, whatever their particular pedigree, take Hilali seriously? How many hate Australia? How many want to include Australia in a newly established caliphate? And so on.

I think it makes sense to be afraid of Islam. However, I also believe in fear-management (eg the need for information). Then, once informed (not sure when that will be), I believe in an ethical response to fear: something better than hatred, for example.

Our main source of information are the various Australian Muslim communities. So, give us reasons not to be afraid!