"Debate" has nothing to do with accepting each other's "choices". It has to do with the criticising and defending the substance of each other's positions. It has to do with the evidence, or lack of it, that, in practice, significantly many Muslim women are physically and/or psychologically abused.

Bush-basher

In Australia, significantly many Women of all ethnic back grounds, (including Anglo), are physically and/or psychologically abused. This is not a religious/ethnic phenomena – but rather a global male cultural phenomena.

Why do the men who do abuse women do so? Because they can. When will this abuse end? When the men who are not abusive take responsibility to change this No-longer turning a blind eye when they know their colleague/ mate / boss / brother is abusing their spouse. BY SAYING to them IT IS NEVER OK to abuse women.

Billy C, you may be right or wrong, but I think the point is that you're arguing the right point. What I think is the wrong point is someone simply claiming "you should respect my choice".

I respect Ayaan Hirsi Ali's choice to leave Islam for atheism. I respect Shakira Hussein's choice of remaining in Islam. I don't respect the choices of people who tell lies to gain asylum in Western countries and then join far-Right anti-immigration parties whilst making movies with confirmed anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.

I say we give Ayaan Hirsi Ali a year. She'll have been kicked out of the American Enterprise Institute for her pro-abortion views. Then she'll be writing a book called "The Caged Republican".

Yes, well, I'd be more convinced if I saw Muslim women leading an active movement to assert the "moderate" interpretations of the Koran. But even so would women ever have equal rights under sharia law ? for instance, would women also be allowed to marry more than one husband ? would they be allowed to chastise disobedient hubbies ? would men be expected to cover their hair to avoid the lustful eyes of women (as if!)? I don't think so. And I have waited a long time to see Muslim women and the mullahs and sheikhs actively denouncing and disowning the hideous practice of genital mutilation, which is pre-Islamic but still regarded by millions as part of Islamic culture in countries like Egypt, Sudan, etc. I guess once you've had your clitoris cut out and your face covered and you're not allowed to leave home by yourself, you're more beaten animal than human and in no condition to be politically active. So unfortunately women of huge courage and strength like Hirsan Ali and Fatima Mernissi are rare as diamonds.

By the way, being anti-immigration is not "right wing" or nasty. Maybe people should stay in their own countries and fix up the mess there rather than come here, where Anglo-Celtic women have struggled for a century to win equal rights. How I hate to see women in the veil in my suburb, because to me it means women are going back to some dark age of oppression by a brutal patriarchal society.

I see this article as yet another islamic whinge. debate the woman mate that is if you are game! While you are at it have a bloody look around this globe and see where there is gutless terrorism and see where the followers of the religion of peace are 99.99% of all stupid, insane terrorists including the craven clowns who blow themselves up along with innocent bystanders. Then see what idiotic, dictatorial nations have state enforced misogyny which includes female mutilation. You mate are lucky you live in a Judeo/Christian or Christian/Judeo nation and enjoy all the blessings that this belief engenders. I can well understand you and yours constantly carping and whinging you follow the one true? (pagan) god and this god should be blessing islamics but just look at what nations have decent free democratic strong viable Governments the islamics - NO mate the abhorred, by islamics, pigs and monkeys or the followers of the God of Abraham/Isaac & Jacob - the real Abraham, Isaac & Jacob not the ones stolen by the islamics. Regards, numbat

'Female genital mutilation' is cultural and not religious. But it is done in the name of Islam.
Ditto the burkka and the hijab.
'Islam is a religion of peace' Off the top of my head a list of nations where Moslems are killing non-muslems in the name of their religion- Indonesia,Thailand,Malaysia, The Phillipines,India, Pakistan, Iraq,Lebanon, Israel,England etc
Ditto,where Moslems are killing Moslems in the name of their religion- Indonesia, Pakistan,Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Gaza, Iran.
Give us all a break!

Let's face it, religion is rubbish and Islam is toxic rubbish.

Shakira, with all the polish of your argument you cannot hide the fact that you are a purveyor of pharisaical sophistry. Islam that treats women as second class citizens in comparison to men, and uses them as objects of sexual gratification and procreating machines, which Hirsi Ali so courageously and fearlessly exposes, is a religion for those who live in mental caves.

Moreover, trying to be too clever by half, by using the title of her book Infidel as the title of your article whose ruse is to cover your belief that YOU also consider her to be an infidel, you expose yourself as a complete fool. With all your pretensions of being a modern educated liberated Muslim woman, your cowardly attack upon her, impugning her integrity of telling lies so she could enter the Netherlands and escape an arranged marriage that she didn't want, proves you to be not a free Muslim woman, but bondaged to the rusty chains of bigoted Islam.

Does this violence against women whom Islam does not accept as being equal to men, and your polished "violence" against the person of Ali Hirsi, who in your moderate Muslim eyes she is an infidel, help the cause of Islam or your cause as a professional "moderate" Muslim fighting the misogynists in your ranks?

See:Australian Political Chronicle-http://ausiechronicle.blogspot.com

Your response to Ali is the response of the cowardly to the brave.

To Shakira ,
‘I will never forget reporting my fear of a male Muslim relative to the British police and being told: "We prefer you people to sort these things out among yourselves." This was not misguided multiculturalism, it was old-fashioned sexism and racism.’

No Shakira I disagree, it was not racism or sexism – it was the fruits of multiculturalism. Regrettably, almost every time the police need to take action against members of one or other of the chosen multicultural groups they get accused by some spokesperson of racism and then have to contend with an anti-police bureaucracy who just love to find fault.

They hesitated for the same reason that after the Cronulla riot they declined to stop motor vehicles driven by members of certain sensitive ethnic groups or went soft on investigating crimes allegedly committed by the same groups.

To Infran
What a show!
You pull all the taboos you can from your hat in an attempt to besmirch Hirsi Ali.
-The far right
-Holocaust deniers
-Anti-Semitism
-Pro-abortion
While all the while trying to keep a straight face & feign objectivity

Horus, are you denying that Theo Van Gogh described Jews being burned in gas chambers as being akin to the cooking of caramel? Are you suggesting that Hirsi Ali has openly distanced herself from Van Gogh's anti-Semitism? Do you regard Van Gogh's description of women as beings "who think with their c#nts" as acceptable discourse?

Far-Right lunatics support people like Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali, holding them up as scions of human rights. Still, this is the same far-Right who 60 years ago were saying the same things about Jews and Judaism. Not much has changed.

Infran
1) You seem to saying that Hirsi Ali was sullied by her (fleeting) associations. At one stage she made movie with Van Gogh or perhaps had coffee with him so therefore she carries his philosophical legacy like an unborn child.
But I thought you were arguing that Muslims were not all guilty because some of their associates murdered,raped & tortured …?
[ Ah! maybe its one of those principles that can be taken up or discarded whenever it suits -what is the special theological term for that ?]

2) I seriously doubt you experience too many pangs about the injustices suffered by the Jews.I suggest the Jewish argument is merely something you employ to sustain your mask of objectivity.
Reading between your lines, you seem stoically indifferent to the worldwide injustices suffered by minorities in Islamic communities.

3) In a pluralistic society it is not for me to dictate what is expectable . And it is certainly not open for some fanatic with a knife to dispense what they perceive as justice/revenge .

In not excepting the equality of women Islam miss treats them.
Those who wish to look deeper should be appalled at what they find, yes Islam miss teats females.
Those from the left of left who deny these facts betray a fundamental of the left of center that all people should be treated as one

I know, lets have a new name, we can be the; Infidel/ Dissident - anti Proletariat Republic of Australasia and a Looter free zone;
And become the International Paradise; out side of the Ideological Utopian Twilight Zone.

Sounds good, but can we achieve it?

Irfan,

I don't know what Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks about Jews. Presumably she has not said anything in public or you would have quoted her instead of van Gogh.

Now consider the following two statements:

(1) Hirsi Ali collaborated with a Jew hating film maker

(2) Hirsi Ali is telling the truth about Islam.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

BOTH can be true.

Van Gogh's comments on Jews are a red herring. Your introduction of van Gogh's statements about Jews into this debate tells us more about Irfan than about Hirsi Ali. If you cannot rebut your opponent then smear her. If you cannot smear her directly do it by association.

Irfan,

Do you, like Nada Roude of the NSW Islamic Council, believe that Muhammed is a "no-go-zone" who should be immune from criticism?

(The Australian 29 May 2007)

Do you think the Australian government should deny Hirsi Ali a visa?

"Like the religious extremists she decries, Hirsi Ali believes there is only one Islam, and that it advocates violence and misogyny."

Shakira appears to believe there are many brands of "Islam"..ok.. fair enough, there is the "original" then there are the "China made fakes" right?

It seems that Islam is not as robust as Muslims would have us think, there are many versions. Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Ismaili.. then the version from Pakistan where some dill claims to be the FINAL (yes.. really) "last messenger" and he even has a strong following.. just shows.. invent a nutty religion and you will get followers. In his case it all hinges on a variation of interpretation of ONE single verse in the Quran.

But nothing changes the core elements. Where did they come from?
One account has Omar (later 2 become Caliph) suggesting this or that would be good.. and VOILA. "Revelation" arrives soon after in accordance with Omar's suggestions. Amazing stuff.

http://www.bogvaerker.dk/Bookwright/Umar.html

THE AGREEMENTS OF (THE VIEWS OF) OMAR (AND THE SUBSEQUENT CONFIRMATORY REVELATIONS IN THE QURAN)

Some of them make them amount to more than twenty.

Mujahid said: 'Umar used to hold a view and Qur'an would be revealed with (confirmation of) it.

'Ali said: In the Qur'an there are some of the views of 'Umar.

Ibn 'Umar said: When people said one thing and 'Umar said another, the Qur'an would be revealed with the like of what 'Umar said.

COMMENT: Not a bad trick if you can get away with it.

"AussieLarrikin" the 'character' says the following:

(Mohammad speaking) "Omar.. that's pretty good mate.. hang on a tick let me goto my bedroom .. OK! I'm back...and guess WHAT? -Allah just told me that too". (AussieLarrikin wonders why Allah needed help from Omar)

Now back to BD the 'me' person.

If the Quran says 'a-b-c' is Islam and Shakira says 'd-e-f' is Islam, I think the Quran wins.

And the Quran says "If you have (sexual) pleasure from a woman, make sure you pay her" (words to that effect 4:24)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Mut'ah

Now...there is another 'name' for that practice.

"She challenges Muslims to debate her..." Moderate Muslim need to stand in solidarity with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, rather than the usual knee-jerk reaction of condemning her for speaking out.

Horus said this about Irfan: "I seriously doubt you experience too many pangs about the injustices suffered by the Jews. I suggest the Jewish argument is merely something you employ to sustain your mask of objectivity. Reading between your lines, you seem stoically indifferent to the worldwide injustices suffered by minorities in Islamic communities".

I can only concur with this statement especially the last sentence. In another OLO forum I asked Mr. Irfan whether or not he would he show solidarity with people who are being oppressed by Muslims in many countries around the globe.

His response was to ignore that completely and immediately launch into a tirade about Western Christians "rabbiting on" about the plight of Arab Christians and yet being strangely silent about the plight of Arab Christians at the hands of those pesky Israeli Jews.

While I admit that Israel does not have a particularly good record in protecting Christian rights in the Occupied Territories, their record is infinitely better vis-a-vis Christain minorities than any of the Muslim majority countries that surround them.

So the question is posed again, Irfan. Do you feel any solidarity with the Christian or other non-Muslim minorities who are marginalised, victimised and vilified in Muslim-majority countries?

I can never understand why more people don’t see a connection between the Eastern cultural preoccupation with covering women up, and the Western cultural preoccupation of keeping women as scantily clad as possible.

They are simply two sides of the one patriarchal coin.

Nor can I understand why we fail to see the connection between the under-sexualising of women in Eastern cultures (sometimes through surgery) and the oversexualising of women in Western cultures (sometimes through surgery).

Both cultures want to maintain the myth that all women are sluts at heart - that way, we never have to treat them as the equals of men.

Shakira,

** Former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali **
Caught up in a row over her Dutch citizenship, Somali-born former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali has left the Netherlands.
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_5160000/newsid_5167300?redirect=5167376.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1 >

Her TV interview on the BBC which is self explanatory: Ayaan was discredited and proven dishonest who lied about everything in her life. She was dumped as an intellect and MP in the Netherlands, UK and Europe.

Here is an interesting comment from another Somali female living in the UK (on the BBC website)
“Even though Miss Ali is entitled to the opinions she holds, I was amazed to see someone who claims to be so educated fail to distinguish between religion and cultural practices. There is no denying the problems that do exist, but being the Muslim (Somalian) daughter of a Muslim mother and father, I do not agree with her view that my religion can somehow stop me from getting an education or having freewill. Furthermore, the facts surrounding Ayaan Hirsi Ali's reason to seek asylum are awfully similar to the claims of many fellow Somalian asylum seekers”

I guess my question is why do Australian media promote the discredited and the leftovers of European intellects? Don’t Australians deserve better than another fatwa best seller?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is more accurately described as an Apostate rather than an Infidel.
She is a source of annoyance, pain, anguish and anger to those of the Old Faith who lack unconditional compassion for all human beings.

Fellow_Human
I watched the BBC interview that you presented on your previous post.
My first comment is that the BBC is well known for its sympathy towards the Muslim population of UK, against the interests of the indigenous i.e. British, population. The BBC is infested with left wing multi-culturalists. Therefore it is disposed to try to discredit anyone which might have, shall we say, an embarrassing story and point of view for the Muslims.
As far as Ali's lies are concerned, if you put yourself in her place trying to escape the oppression of an arranged marriage, and a fundamentalist Islamic State, with its 7th century retrograde culture, wouldn't you do whatever was necessary? (Maybe you wouldn't, as you seem to prefer this type of culture)
In any case, these so-called lies are very small beer compared to the utter barbarity of Islamic fundamentalism.
I am an agnostic, and proud to be so, when I see the results of your stupid religion. As I said before, religion is rubbish and Islam is toxic rubbish.

I wonder if stevenlmeyer would have been so forgiving of Hirsi Ali had she not abandoned her ancestral faith and made a movie attacking the status of women in Judaism. Perhaps a film showing Hebrew letters superimposed on the heads of women who have shaved them in apparent obedience to their husbands and the alleged dictates of Jewish sacred law.

Nothing can justify the murder of Van Gogh. Yet the way some make Van Gogh out to be some kind of hero of free speech just shocks me. If someone assassinated David irving, would you regard him as a victim of free speech? Yet Irving arguably shows far more reverence to Judaism and the Holocaust than Van Gogh.

Hirsi Ali must have known all this about Van Gogh. She could have worked with another film maker. Was Van Gogh the only documentary maker in the Netherlands? Why choose him, given the enormous resentment he has earned from Jewish, homosexual and women's groups in the Netherlands?

More red herrings from Irfan.

I'm not "forgiving" Hirsan Ali anything. I don't know whether there is anything to forgive.

Why did she choose van Gogh as her collaborator?

I don't know.

Maybe the other documentary film makers in The Netherlands remembered the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie and decided they did not want to take the risks inherent in making such a film. As it is van Gogh paid with his life and Hirsan Ali practically had to go into hiding. My understanding is that Hirsan Ali needs round the clock protection from angry Muslims to this day

Irfan wrote:

>>If someone assassinated David irving, would you regard him as a victim of free speech?>>

What on Earth does this mean?

Van Gogh was not a "victim of free speech." He was a victim of a Muslim fanatic called Mohammed Bouyeri.

I hope no one takes it into their head to assassinate David Irving. If someone did I would not regard Irving as a "victim of free speech." I would regard him as the victim of whoever did the deed.

For the record I think the Australian government should have granted David Irving a visa. Even holocaust denying scumbags should be allowed to have their say WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING MURDERED.

Irfan wrote:

>>Why choose him [van Gogh], given the enormous resentment he has earned from Jewish, homosexual and women's groups in the Netherlands?>>

However it wasn't a Jew, homosexual or woman who assassinated van Gogh.

So far as I know Hirsan Ali does not required protection from Jews, homosexuals or women. The prime threat against her emanates from Muslims.

On the other hand homosexuals in Muslim majority societies do have a great deal to fear.

Irfan, you have not answered my question.

Do you think the Australian government should deny Hirsi Ali a visa?

Bushbasher and Billy C, I see all kinds of people psychologically abusing all kinds of other people, at work the boss can say whatever he or she wants to, they are the boss.
The lady has the courage to say just how bad islam is, as a religion and as "a way of life" while so many poncy politicians hide behind screens of tolerance towards intolerance knowing that they wil be out of the political picture by the time it all gets wound up.
So often we hear of the moderate majority but from living in muslim society i can assure you that every musim is sitting on the fence with both legs on the one side.
Aghanistan, Iraq, wherever there is an islamic culture, forget it, abandon it, draw a line around the parts you want to save and protect it.

Froggie,

You are entitled to your opinions but the facts remain:
Ayaan is a proven liar and discredited in both political and literature arenas. There are a lot of bad cultural practices in many African and mulsim countries. But why do the ‘right wing’ Australia like Alan Jones keep promoting daily for a proven discredited liar? Why didn’t he tell the truth to the Australian public?

If I were Hirsan Ali and my clitoris and genitals had been mutiliated with a 'pair of scissors' when I was about 5 years old then I'd probably be mad as hell too. In this context Hirsan Ali's rage is completely understandable and I don't blame her for it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/women-are-losers-in-world-of-islam-says-author/2007/05/29/1180205250367.html

I'm sure that female genital mutilation is not a normal Islamic practice. However, there must be a religious component involved because the practice still obviously exists in several Muslim countries like Egypt or Sudan.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT770061997

So why does female genital mutilation remain entrenched in these Muslim societies? I imagine that it's because Islamic law (and monotheistic law generally) enjoys fiddling around with the genitals of young children as a 'right of passage'. This example is spectacular in its insanity;

'However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands".

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543886

Don't you just love the phrase, 'is preferred by husbands'!

Maybe, just maybe, Hirsan Ali has valid reasons to be an outspoken dissident and might be doing us all a favour by opposing such misogyny.

Fellow Human, are you trying to imply that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is lying about being circumcised as well?

I have a confession to make.

If I were in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's position and I thought a lie would get me a better life in Holland guess what? I'd tell that lie.

Fellow_Human, how many asylum seekers here in Australia to you imagine have been completely truthful about their circumstances? How many do you think may have told a few lies to gain a better life for themselves and their families in Australia? Do you blame for that?

Is there anyone here who has never told a lie?

Perhaps you have told a lie under less dire circumstances than those Ayaan Hirsi Ali faced?

I watched the BBC interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the net. What I saw was a woman who remained calm and dignified while a bullying Gavin Esler did his best to discredit her

The important thing to remember here is religion if not a rational process. As such you free to follow or invent any set of beliefs you want, anybody who believes that there is not as many flavours of Islam as Christianity must be hiding under a rock. To try and separate culture from religion is also silly as they both define and strengthen each other. For instance the mythical figure Jesus is black in many countries. So at the moment their are many Christians and others saying the Islam needs it's version of the reformation, two points one Islam has already had it's revision. Number two is what the Islamic world needs is to go through a similar process as the Enlightenment. What enlightenment did more then anything else was allow democracy, now the enlightenment has started and has been going on for some time, Turkey is a good example. What the west needs to learn is we can't force it, (it fact most of our actions have had the opposite effect) it needs to make on it's own. Will there be religious nuts that will not like the process yes just look at Christianity there are many who bemoan the enlightenment and that's were the real battle for the western world is. The "War on Terror" is a side show.

Step into the light.

TR,
Thank you for your post and your links, they provide much needed information about FGM and its effects. The highlighting of FGM is one huge benefit of the visit by Ayaan Hirst Ali.

Of most concern is that FGM is carried out here in Aus and is against the law. About 50 patients are treated, per annumn, for post FGM problems at Auburn hospital in Sydney. It is unknown how many are treated in other hospitals throughout the country or how many girls are mutilated and do not get medical assistance.

No person has ever been charged with FGM, or aiding and abetting, and medical personel are supposed to report any instances. This is not done because it may discourage the seeking of medical help for post FGM problems. This is the wrong attitude.

Much information should be given out locally and to prospective immigrants that after a certain date new laws will come into force to jail and/or deport those responsible. Parents and guardians should be told straight out that no Australian born girl should suffer FGM.

We have a moral responsibility to stop this barbaric practice being carried out on Australian girls.

MPs need to be lobbied in this regard.

"Irfan, you have not answered my question. Do you think the Australian government should deny Hirsi Ali a visa?"

I have no idea under what category of visa Hirsi Ali came to Australia, hence I cannot comment on the legality of the decision. However, the Minister does have a residual discretion in these matters. The Minister has in the past refused visas to persons whom s/he believes could cause division or gross offensive to a substantial portion of the population. Hence I note David Irving and Gerry Adams have both been refused visas.

However, on balance, the fact remains that Hirsi Ali was here to attend a Writers' Festival. She is apparently a writer (although there are doubts on whether she actually wrote the essays and speeches that made up "The Caged Virgin"). Her books are best sellers. In her capacity as a writer, there is no reason why she shouldn't be allowed in Australia.

By the way, the man you describe as an Islamic extremist was in fact a lone deranged and mentally ill person who just happened to be Muslim. I suggest you read Iam Buruma's Murder in Amsterdam to obtain more info.

Banjo,
I don’t disagree will what you say-but I have a couple of points of query:

1) “No person has ever been charged with FGM, or aiding and abetting, and medical personnel are supposed to report any instances. This is not done because it may discourage the seeking of medical help for post FGM problems”

Why is it then that doctors are also required to report cases of sexual abuse -AND DO.
Isn’t the later also likely to stop involved parties seeking help.
I suspect the real reason is that many medical & social welfare professionals fear to tread where multiculturalism/ethnic factors are involved.A limited sample it may be - but I had (very reliable ) feedback on one suspected “sexual abuse’ case where the investigators backed off only when the wife raised the argument that the officers did not understand her culture & the on going investigation was causing her & her husband embarrassment in their ethnic circle.

2) “Much information should be given out locally and to prospective immigrants that after a certain date new laws will come into force to jail and/or deport those responsible.”

I recall cases where we couldn’t deport a convicted drug peddler because some “humans rights body /judge ” determined it would disadvantage his Aussie born kids.
I’d image we’d have even worse problems getting the above through - ( quite apart from the fact that the offenders in the FGM cases are likely to have a lot more kids, for us to ‘disadvantage‘!)

Horus,
I don't for a moment doubt what you say about ethnic factors involved in not charging any person with FGM. My inquiries have given me the unofficial reason, by a medico, about discouraging those needing medical help. A question was asked in NSW Upper House, by Gordon Moyes MP, last year about this and as far as I know there has been no answer. This leaves open the charge that the law is discriminating in favour of some ethnic groups. (so whats new?)

Regarding your second point. Yes I am aware of such rulings by judges, but the message must go to those locally and to prospective immigrants that we will not tolerate FGM. At present i believe they are told by relos here that not to worry, you can do it on the quiet here. Or send the girl back home to be "done". ( need politicians with spine)

Frankly, I would like to see us stop immigration from those countries whose nationals carry out FGM here. Being a cultural matter it is nigh on impossible to change their ways. Bullfighting is cultural too, but a bit more difficult to hide by someone wanting to do it.

It is absolutly shamefull that we allow Aussie girls to be treated in such a way.

Snappy Tom,

“are you trying to imply that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is lying about being circumcised as well?”
Nope, FGM is a common problematic practice in many African countries and not religion related (Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians for example). My comments is the same as her fellow Somali country girl above: she is unable to distinguish between African traditions and Islamic faith.

Tortasaurus,

Whats interesting that after she lied to get a visa, she became an MP and her first action was to support a regulation to deport asylum seekers and refugees who lied about their status! (please watch the interview again). Europeans (& I am assuming most Aussies except for Alan Jones) saw intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy in her actions.

The question why there are so many cheerleaders (including Alan Jones) who are marketing her to the Australian public as a leading intellect while she was shown the door in Europe politically and intellectually?

TR,

I notice all the links you provided either are anti or far too conservative views of the Islamic faith.
If you are interested in balanced view, here is a reasonable website:
www.readingislam.com

Irfan,

Whatever Mohammed Bouyeri's mental state, van Gogh was not a "victim of free speech." He was a victim of Mohammed Bouyeri.

Similarly if David Irving were to be assassinated he would not be a "victim of free speech" whatever that means. He would be a victim of whoever did the deed.

Irfan,

Once again you evade my question.

I did not ask you a legal question. I'm not interested in the type of visa Hirsi Ali has.

I asked an opinion question.

My question was:

Do you think the Australian government SHOULD deny Hirsi Ali a visa?

If you were advising the minister would you advise him to deny Hirsi Ali a visa?

In case you're interested, if it were up to me I would have allowed David Irving in to have his say. Appeasing those who want to censor speakers is a dangerous trend. Short of explicit incitement to violence, or slander, people should be free to say whatever they want.

'TR,

I notice all the links you provided either are anti or far too conservative views of the Islamic faith.
If you are interested in balanced view, here is a reasonable website:
www.readingislam.com'

Thanks fellow_human for your concern. However, I tend to disagree. All my links are true reflections of the Islamic religion and are therefore not biased one way or the other.

Islam IS by definition a totalitarian political ideology with a nasty monotheistic god at its centre. The reason it works so well is that all its adherents are taught to be submissive (Islam means submission) from day one of their indoctrination. Therefore, the ideal Muslim is a non-critical, non-thinking automaton who can be putty in the hands of any lunatic cleric with a political agenda. And indeed there are plenty of those clerics around.

What we have is the worlds greatest brainwashing exercise that is crying out for dissidents and infidels of any persusion to bring down the collective delusion and give it some sanity.

I write what I write for the benefit of Muslims who are the first VICTIMS of the Islamic faith. Indeed, I am wholly concerned for their welfare which is my number one priority.

TR,

“Therefore, the ideal Muslim is a non-critical, non-thinking automaton who can be putty in the hands of any lunatic cleric with a political agenda”

I am sure many lunatic clerics are grateful to you since you are assisting them promoting their version of Islam.

Dear F.H. I read that site you linked us to,

1/The main source of Shari`ah is the Qur'an, the LITERAL WORDS OF ALLAH said out of His infinite wisdom and knowledge. -there is the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The Sunnah includes what the Prophet (peace be upon him)
-said,
-did, and
-approved of.

2/ Shari`ah refers to a set of rules, regulations, teachings, and values governing the lives of Muslims. Shari`ah embraces worship, morals, individual attitude and conduct, and other spheres like political, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CRIMINAL and CIVIL.

3/ There is only ONE TRUE RELIGION coming from the One and the Same God,... This religion is Islam.

Now.. one would be forgiven for looking closely at what Mohammad 'approved' of and 'did', and considering if these things are more likely to have come from a Holy God or, to put it in the politest and least offensive way "Another place".

Lets summarize so the picture is absolutely clear.

ISLAM/SHARIA
Based on "Literal Words of Allah" (Quran) so.. I offer you 23:5-6
"slave girls are sex toys".
9:29 29. Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allâh,
(2) nor in the Last Day,
(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger
(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:30 'Christians and Jews are cursed, deluded and to be destroyed'

What the prophet DID. "Mutilate prisoners, poke out their eyes, cut off their hands and feet, torture Jews to get their treasure".
Had sex with a child, claiming Allah told him he could. (If Allah told him 'then', why not now?)
KILL political enemies, KILL those who turn away from Islam.

What the prophet APPROVED of. 'Temporary/pleasure marriage' (Sunni sources claim he forbade it only at Khaiber, Shia sources claim it still applies.

CONCLUSION: Islam, darkness....or light?

"No man comes to the Father, but by me" Jesus..The Christ, the Son of God.

I'm sick and tired of Muslims whinging and trying to shut down those who disagree with the inherent facts of their faith, like Ali.

Why don't we hear the Muslim community leaders condemn violence against women? Why, because the books of the Muslim faith can be used to justify such acts. See this site for an interesting analysis of the verses of the Koran which justify beating the wife: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/wife-beating.htm

Quite an interesting read. For my part, I think Ali's got it right - Islam has got it very, very wrong.

stevenlmeyer, i really don't know how to make my answer much clearer. If the government is prepared to ban speakers using its residual discretion, it should be consistent.

If we ban Gerry Adams because we think he will be divisive, we should ban Hirsi Ali also. If we ban Irving because we don't want to offend 200,000 Jews, why should we allow someone who offends 360,000 Muslims? Unless, of course, if we regard Muslims as 2nd class citizens.

Personally, I think people like Hirsi Ali should be allowed into the country, just as should Bilal Philips and other speakers usually banned. The government should be consistent. Ministers who don't exercise their discretion consistently are undermining the legitimacy of the discretion.

Now, which part of this simple English explanation is beyond anyone's understanding?

B_D, you claim that sharia is derived from the literal meaning of the words of the Qur'an. In the case of some wahhabist Muslims, that might be the case. But had you even the most elementary knowledge of sharia, you'd know that this view represents a form of heterodoxy.

If you are going to comment on the religious traditions of others, at least try and be accurate about it. Don't just rely on something you read from JihadWatch.

Also, try and sound coherent. And learn to spell.

Boaz,

I understand Islam bashing is your purpose in life, but at least you don't need to feel so hot under the collar and resort to nastiness and name calling. If you google Muslim christian debates “deedat vs swaggart” you will see the art of interfaith dialogue: no name calling or nastiness.

A question to the 'fellowship' of the ring: if Heresy Ali wrote her book in the critique of the bible or the Old testament to explain why Rwandan Christians murdered 800,000 Non-Christian 'infidels a decade ago, could she have got the same cheering and 1/2 page in the Australian?

Talk about the Australian value of 'fair go'!

Irfan I find radical Christians have as much about them to dislike as any radical religion.
In my country Australia I think every view should be heard free speech must be protected.
However how many Muslim country's would let me speak of my view religions are man made fables?

Frankly, it seems to me most of the posters here are agreeing on most of the issues.
In brief:

*) The Federal Government shouldn't be banning the visits of anyone on the grounds that the visitor is divisive. It's unwarranted censorship, of which Australia has a proud tradition.

*) Religious (in fact, any) fundamentalism is loathesome.

*) Alan Jones is a divisive dick

*) The Australian newspaper is a bunch of divisive dicks.

Where I think it gets contentious is the question of whether Islam is more prone to fundamentalist interpretations, and if so why and what do we do about it?

bushbasher I like and agree with every word in your post.
Time and events will tell us how we are to deal with Islamist fundamentalism.
We may unfortunately learn from some the art of blind hate, educated to kill hate, and sadly that dreadful belief some have that only some humans have rights.

Your quote is utter insanity!

Islam doesn't just allow violence against women, it is violence against humanity!

NO ONE LISTENS ANYMORE TO YOU PEOPLE. You haven't held protests against your filthy immoral redneck cleric leaders, we see the polls about how many want the utterly backward Sharia, and frankly, you worship a paedophile.

Until you denounce this, you will always be looked at by leftists as some sort of in-bred spastics.

For too long, the civilised west has been blindfolded, had our hands and feet bound, by the stupid leftists.

When our hands our untied, you better run, because when western man gets his hands on you, and FORCES your beliefs to answer to REASON, you are finished!

How does it feel to have an identity which is nothing but tradition, no substance! Your idea of heaven is a brothel and bottleshop.

Islam is the most intolerant religion on the planet, you give kids weapons, your schools preach hatred, you are racist, xenophobes. Your marriage practices reveal your utter fear of being enveloped by the greatest culture in the world, western culture.

Go hide!

You say we are hypocritical, because we break our own rules to deal with animals? We are the police, the west is truth, that's why everyone WANTS TO LIVE HERE>

The flows of third world cultures to the advanced, civilised first world, GIVES US A MANDATE TO SMASH everything about such societies.

There is no caliphate coming, this entire period is simply a means for us civilised westerners to get back to our roots.

Shakira, don't you love all these Western men who are so much more aware of Islam and how it treats women? Guess you haven't caught on to your victim status.

As I wrote on a previous thread. I think this is the funniest thing ever. All the right wing and conservative Muslim haters adulating Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

At least she was smart enough to queue jump to the Netherlands and not to Australia! When you next excuse her 'understandable lies' I hope you think of how Australia treats its asylum seekers or 'illegals'. There is obviously not a single 'mandatory detention' advocate on this thread! You don't even have to come from a refugee camp. Residency in a country you're not too happy with? Come right over.

Unlike many of you, I've followed Ayaan for a number of years in the Netherlands. She was a very influential person. I admired what I thought were her courage and convictions.

It was not the left who got her into strive, but the conservatives, her own party included. In the Netherlands the conservatives prefer genuine asylum seekers. The left has a tendency to be a bit more laisez faire about these thing.

Just because a person is saying things you may like to hear does that automatically mean that person has the credibility and authority to say those things? In Ayaan Hirsi Ali's case I don't think so and so do very many in the Netherlands.

Gees, Benjy, settle down. You're beginning to sound more explosive than a suicide bomber.

I think it's really amazing that the people who never seem to praise Hirsi Ali are the Dutch. Whether from Left or Right, not a single Dutch person (apart from Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen) have anything nice to say.

Even on Janet Albrechtsen's blog today, the 2 persons of Dutch background who made comments were stinging in their criticism of Hirsi Ali.

I've just finished listening to the unedited version of the interview I did with her yesterday. She actually said that she supported military intervention in Turkey to overrule a democratically elected conservative government. She would rather have martial law than democracy. What sort of enlightenment is this?

However, one thing I do agree with her is her views on abortion. I hate to disappoint all the lunar-Right Christian fanatics here, but Hirsi Ali is pro-Choice.

'Gees, Benjy, settle down. You're beginning to sound more explosive than a suicide bomber.'

Ha-dee-ha-ha.

I'm glad that I don't personally know of anyone who has been killed by a terrorist.

Irfan, you would have to be the Piers Ackerman of ONO. What a goose.

Another kafir's tale.

See:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9984934

You can also hear Marina Nemat being interviewed being interviewed by Phillip Adams.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1943268.htm

Of course this has nothing to do with Islam. It's merely a "cultural practice" in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Funny how these "cultural practices" always seem to involve death and mutilation.

I've made a bet with my husband about how the usual gang of Islamic spin doctors and apologists will respond.

Hi Irfan
You read enough of Janet's article in the Australian to draw out two critical letters from Dutch readers, but it is strange that you did not notice that the vast majority of letters praised Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and were totally in support of her stand against a misogynist, retrograde, 7th century, dismal and tyrannical religion, namely Islam.
Trying to denigrate and discredit her for some relatively minor flaws does not invalidate the main thrust of her message.
Why don't you get it, Irfan? You are trying to defend the indefensible. You would waste a lot less time if you put your considerable skills to persuading and dragging your fellow Muslims by the scruff of their necks into the 21st century.
It's happening anyway, Irfan, so just get with the programme. Sooner or later, either the easy way or the hard way, Islam will be transformed into something relatively acceptable, and best of all, private: i.e. not a political system in the guise of a religion.

You're comments about Hirsi's willingness to overthrow the Turkish government is, like all people who think like you do, ignorant (deliberately so) of context. Yes Erdogan's Islamist government may be democratically elected, so was Hitler's. When a government talks of implementing aspects of Sharia law, that makes non-Muslims fearful of the past. There are many who know of Islam's supremacist code Irfan, of the status of minorities within it. The concept of dhimmitude has been well explored, but it is Islamic holy texts which reveal best how savage the treatment of non-Muslims is themselves.

This is why you're arguments can never be won. It is Islamic values, Islamic traditions, Islamic beliefs themselves, that doom Islam. They condemn Islam among the enlightened, for things like Apostacy, which are tenets of mainstream Islam (as seen in Britain with Salmam Rushdie, as well as the treatment of Muslims who leave Islam - 3000 police reports in U.K in 2005 alone of Muslims who had been beaten, stabbed, threatened with death, because they became Christians).

You'll have to do better than that Irfan.

It's also funny how Irfan mentions she lied on her application form. Given that leftists (you're not one, you can't be if follow Islam) tell us to ignore that, they were desperate, would say anything to get here, it's a weak argument.

Hirsi Ali's comments prove she's right. She has bodyguards 24hrs per day because Muslims resort to violence when one criticises their religion.

This is what Irfan need to focus on, not telling us we've got it wrong. Not only don't you need to worry about that anyway Irfan (the Hilali's speak with condfidence, as they know we westerners are civilised and won't kill them for their words. It's churches attacked, not mosques, after overseas terrorist attacks mate, Anglo shopkeepers run out of Bankstown and Auburn, Aussies bashed and pack raped - the police had to protect the girls families at court, not the perpetrators...now THAT says EVERYTHING.)

You are in the way,tribal mentality is holding it back. Get out of the way if you aren't going to criticise Islam, for now that the ENLIGHTENED WEST has shone a torch on your backward values, we can all sit back and laugh as it collapses in on itself.

Give women power and Islam will be gone in one generation...

You know the WEST is superior, that is why you're here!

How dare you want to shut her up because she speaks truth, because you don't want to hear that you're values are inferior.

You worship a paedophile for crying out loud. A murderer, intolerant assassin who slaughtered Jews. No folks, that ain't hate speech, that comes from ISLAMIC HOLY TEXTS, this is what Muslims say themselves.

No wonder Islam is so violent. Look at what they follow. An example to show you the difference.

Christ on his death bed forgave those who killed him, Mohammed ordered the genocide of non-Muslims in Arabia, which is why they don't allow Christianity there.

Irfan hold onto their values because too racist to follow enlightened western ones because the ppl who came up with them had diff colour skin.

Fellow Human,
Your attempt to discredit Ayaan Hirsi Ali message based upon her lies in obtaining Dutch citizenship are a distraction from the main issue and are unworthy of any free thinker. To paraphrase a contributor to another site, Martin Luther King stole his thesis presentation and cheated on his wife, however this does not mean that he wasn't a great moral/political leader. As Jesus was supposed to have said, let he/she without sin cast the first stone. Those who have never told a lie, feel free to criticise Ayaan Hirsi Ali, though I can't imagine there will be too many in this group. Her central tenet is that the nature of Islam itself, as directed in the Koran and through Sharia law, binds Muslims inextricably to the 7th century. In demanding submission from its adherents, Islam denies anything other than a literal interpretation of the Koran. And this literal interpretation is where people like Osama Bin Laden get their authority. He doesn't spout ridiculous interpretations of the Koran, his quotes are literal and they provide succor to those committing acts of terror. Attack her arguments with reason and you may convince me, attack the women personally and I am forced to believe that in the battle of ideas you have no firm ground to stand on

MLK,
Do you actually have the gall to suggest that there is some kind of moral equivalence between forcing a woman to wear the proscribed clothing, which they do in Islam and the under dressing of women in the West. Women who don't have the correct attire can be imprisoned or flogged in some Islamic countries where Sharia law exists. The idea that this is comparable with the societal pressure which some women suffer in the west is outrageous and is an example of the way that leftists and feminists excuse their abandoning of women in Islam. This is cultural relativism at its worst.

Paul