The reason Maori culture plays a greater role in New Zealand culture than Aboriginal culture does in Australian culture has nothing to do with mutual respect. It comes out of the fact that in the case of New Zealand, two extremely war-like societies encountered each other and had to accept each, albeit with a large grain of fear and suspicion. In the case of Australia, the encounter was less even. This article compares Australia and New Zealand in such a non-sensical way. It's like saying after WW2, the Japanese suddenly realised democracy was the way to go, whilst missing the fact that over the preceding decade, Japan was hell bent on conquest and only greater force caused a change of heart. Cultural acceptance (or non-acceptance) usually comes at the end of a lance (real or figurative), or opposing lances, as the case may be.

To pick up on something another poster wrote, Judeo culture was deemed as relevant and valid in anti-Semitic Europe because of its scientific and artistic power.

Why isn't Muslim culture perceived as relevant or valid? It might be because culturally, intellectually, scientifically, in complete opposition to the Jews who punch remarkably above their body weight, Islam punches absurdly below its (given the 1.3 billion Muslims, how many Nobel Laureates have there been, for example?). When Islam was still a military force, thanks to the Ottomans, it was taken seriously. Now the only reason anyone pays any more attention to the Islamic world is because of that black liquid. Once that runs out, everyone from Beijing to Brisbane to Brasilia will openly view the Islamic world as an unco-ordinated, three hundred kilo simpleton to be openly mocked, if given any attention at all.

Irfan,
You do not say so outright but seem to imply that NZ muslims are held in much higher regard by the non muslim community there, than is the case in Aus. I wonder if the ethnic heritage of NZ muslims is the same as in Aus. Do you, or anyone else, know the approx national make up of muslims in NZ? I do recall you saying that Lebanese make up, by far, the majority of muslims in Aus. This could be a factor in muslims integrating and accepting inclusiveness in NZ.

As you know, I believe we here have an ongoing problem with anti social attitudes of Lebanese muslims. The males act in an arrogant and belligirant manner. Even those of 2nd and 3rd generation. By the way that Muffti of Bosnia seems a pretty cluey bloke. Not only NZ muslims could do well to take in what he said.

I have known plenty of Kiwis and their social values seem exactly the same as ours. I'll even grudingly admit that some of them can play cricket and Rugby. Can't be more neighborly than that.

Irfan Yusuf states: "What will make New Zealand values more meaningful is that New Zealand doesn't pretend it is a Western cultural monolith sitting awkwardly in the Asia- Pacific region."

"New Zealand values are British values, derived from centuries of struggle since Magna Carta. Those things make New Zealand the society it is." - Former NZ opposition leader Don Brash in 2006.

If anything, New Zealanders are more comfortable with themselves because they aren't in Anglo-denial. Nor are they burderned with migrant minority commentators snidely denigrating their nation's Western heritage.

Stephany’s claim of “Islam’s free market heritage” is based on an article that has factual errors e.g.

The article makes the following claim

“It is no coincidence that Makkah (modern Mecca), the site of Islam’s seventh-century theological birth, was also home to a thriving trading community. The early history of the Muslim world is a history of commerce….”

But the truth is that Makkah (modern Mecca) was an important trade and religious centre before the founding of Islam. However after its founding, Mecca became an even more important religious centre (for Islam) but commerce was reduced to a trickle.

The reason was that Mohammed and his band of followers did very little commerce and trading but rather the wealth was obtained by extreme violence through plundering, robbery, terrorising the merchants and caravans that plied the trade routes.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan51028.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_the_Prophet
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/terrorist1.html

Islam opposes free-trade and the free-market even today because of their laws regarding receiving interests on loans and many other irrational practices. Just a few days ago (13/4/2007) a Muslim council in Malaysia issued a fatwa (edict) forbidding Muslims to trade in shares http://news.asiaone.com.sg/st/st_20070414_110410.html

Stephany need not be “amazed how few Muslims know about this pre-cursor of Adam Smith” because there is virtually no such teaching in Islam. Íslam is about what the Muslims actually do, and not how the texts are interpreted.

Put aside NZ for a moment & compare the Aussie experience with India.
http://www.outlookindia.com/rantsmag.asp?fodname=20060123&fname=Cover%20Story&sid=1&pn=10

Philip Tang,

The Sword of the Prophet looks to be an interesting book. I've ordered it from Amazon,

I'm always a little wary of anti-Islam books – as I am of pro-Islam ones. I'm never quite sure I'm getting the full story.

What makes Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" so powerful is that he documents all his claims – often by quoting the relevant Islamic histories.

This is also what makes the Middle-East Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org) so influential. They document fully any claims they make.