"if Sheikh Hilali had made that same kind of declaration (like Pell) to Members of Parliament of the Muslim faith"

Here we go again comparing the likes of Hillali to respectable clergy like Pell.

In other words what Irfan is suggesting (while enjoying our liberal democratic freedoms) is that Islam is to be respected as equal to other religions and dogmas in this multicutural soup....

I say to Irfan: when in Rome...

First you need to prove to us, Irfan, that Islam is a main stream religion that is ready to take criticism (like Catholicism for e.g.)without resorting to blood and murder every time someone mentions freedom of thought.

With a respectable head of state, like Hillali, how do you expect us to take you seriously and listen to your rant. BTW he is still in office isn't he?

Hirsi Ali is risking her life talking about freedom - something she never encountered in Islam until she discovered western democracies.

Sorry Irfan - we have a brain, we can think freely - and I speak for most intelligent Australians (of any religion) in saying NO to Islam and yes to freedom.

You really don't learn anything do you Irfan? Either that, or you can't get out of being tribal.

To compare the vile, redneck, misoginistic, homophobic, slimebag that is the leader of Australia's Islamic community, Sheik Taj el-Dene Hillbilly, sorry, Hilali, to Cardinal Pell is outrageous, and clearly shows you are a Muslim who certainly doesn't live in fear.

You know very well that if Pell made comments like Hilali's, or any number of the rednecks that make up the Muslim leadership, whether that be Dr. Ali - who claimed the wheelchair bound in-bred Yassin who founded Hamas was a "moderate", to the slick speaking Waleed Ali's who own organisation's website promoted racist hateful literature, he would be out.

Christians who had been loyal to Pell would protest in an instant of a comment like Hilali has made, and his church would be boycotted. You know this, you know what westerners are like, so your argument is simply pandering to the paranoid delusional mindset so many Muslims have.

Everyone's out to get Islam, we slaughter innocent Iraqi's, that sort of nonsense.

You're really grasping at straws now aren't you? Not only were there no protests against the perverted Hilali, there was a rally of support organised!

No Muslims have boycotted his mosque, no Muslims ever walk out of hateful sermons, instead they support it. Polls all across the western world show that most Muslims want to live under the barbaric Sharia code, most agree in some way or other with terrorism, and hardly any think jihad means inner struggle.

But what is worst of all is that those like you, educated Muslims, enjoying the fruits of our freedom, a freedom your closed values is utterly terrified of - and has led to countless racial bashings, pack rapes, because some who hold such backward values can't handle the freedom we enjoy, don't speak up....

...Why aren't you protesting against the Hilali's? Why do you tell those off who do say things about Islamic values? You're tribal is all, you can't see past your skin colour, your culture, you're values.

Those like you need to get out of the way so those like Hirsi Ali can tell most westerners, who are utterly ignorant of Islam, the truth.

Don't you think we are entitled to demand such questions answered? I personally think the vast majority of Muslims are xenophobes, bigots.

There hasn't even been one protest about Hilali! This is utter insanity.

Come on Irfan, this victim mentality is exactly what paranoid delusionals think, which is the current state of Muslims worldwide. Your religion is under scrutiny because globalisation has brought us all closer, and quite frankly, you're terrified that this open, excessively tolerant western liberal culture, liberal values, will envelop your Arabian tribal values.

That is a good thing though. It was good that the Imperialistic Japanese took on western values - although they still have a long way to go in regard to human rights, and good that the enlightened Germans didn't stay with fascism.

However, it is the core values of Islam that are the problem. Those like you don't want to focus on that, but I see that as akin to someone trying to reform Nazism - it can't be done.

Sure, there are Nazi's who wouldn't hurt a fly, but the underlying belief system is immoral. Islam is the same. I used to an ignorant twit like many who thought all religions were the same.

It is only upon reading Islamic texts themselves, but more importantly how they have always been interpreted, that makes me worry. And no, it isn't fearmongering to worry about Islamic values, for they are utterly savage and inferior.

You think this yourself, unless you've got a ticket to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

And you didn't answer my question about Mohammed, how on earth can you people see him as the best example? Surely you know of his life?

Well...I'm probably going to be the bad prawn at the barby here, because I don't have so much trouble with what Irf is saying as Ben and Coach.

My major concern is that the incident demonstrates one of the flaws of 'hyper' organized religion of any flavor where it involves a beaurocratic or orgnizational heirarchy which requires 'OBEDIENCE' from the flock to the beaurocracy as much as to Christ.

It can be a stage worse than that, where the 'beaurocracy' alters it's understanding of the foundations over time and promotes THAT understanding as 'the' understanding which then must be adhered to in order to remain 'that' denominational orthodoxy.

The Catholic Church does have some 'interesting' takes on certain doctrinal issues, one of which (and it forms the primary basis for the emergence of the Protestant movement) is the 'sacrement of indulgence'. Readers may wish to read further on what Dr Google shows up on this, and they could also fill in some blanks by reading "History of the Reformation and Luther"

From his 95 theses.

Number_27 There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

Number_31 One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.

COMMENT
I have no problem with myself saying to Peter Costello, a Baptist, or John Howard an Anglican (as is Kevin Rudd) 'as a Christian citizen to a Christian' citizen....

"We should pass legislation which stops XXX rated pornography to come by mailorder from ACT to States which have OUTLAWED the sale of such material." but in saying this to them, all I am seeking is that their VOTE on that issue, relfects both their and my convictions as Christians. If we have the numbers.. so be it, if we don't... we live with the outcome. But I have zero 'clout' other than an appeal to individual spiritual conscience.
They in turn, must weigh up the electoral consequences of voting in such a way.

That...is democracy

Irfan,

Thats an interesting point.
I was watching BBC world and I think our moderators have a weakness in comparsion. the moderator or interviewer would clearly articulate if the view is personal, social or religious.
In the absence of a proper approach to public interviewing, the door will always be opened for different media interpretation.
Right now it appears to be:
- A person says a contraversial comment.
- We see his quote in the media followed by "what he meant was.."
- What comes after "what he meant was.." depends on the character, popularity, etc..
After all Mel Gibson is still in Holywood. If it was Hirsi Ali making the same comment she will probably be in guantanamo by now.

Brotherhood of the ring:

Its all about Islam and muslims for you isn't it? What was in your life before OLO and Islam bashing?

Boaz,

Unless I missed something and Irfan please correct me here, the article context is about two topics:

1. in a secular democracy, the religious institution and state are separate. Clergy views and opinions regardless of its ource should be confined to personal or social views.
2. Matters like abortion, stemcells, etc.. can be oposed by many human beings regardless of religious convictions or non-religious people at all. Cardinal Pell does not have monopoly on morality since other religions and no-religion groups could share the same views on moral or human grounds. An atheist could feel as strong about the stemcells research without the need to dig a book and quote 'chapter xxx' page 'y' says so.