The number of references to 'right wing'..... wow.. is this an indication that we should equate 'right wing' with truth...and 'left wing' with suttle bias, lies, propaganda and the smoothing over of inhuman outrages that beset us ?

The reference to the Heinemann book... is noteworthy, because it highlights a major problem with the sugar coating of Islam.. by left wing propagandists who see value in the 'Islamic vote' or support.

Just two points will suffice to illustrate how insulting and disgusting it is that such a text should EVER be used to brainwash the minds of young Australians.

““Before Islam … Women could be married against their will."

“Before Islam … Women were not as important as men.”

Surah 65:4 refers to the divorce of PRE-MENSTRUAL female children.

According to Syed Abu Ala Maududi, an influential Islamic scholar, the mention of an 'iddah'.. waiting period of 3 months(to see if they are pregnant) in that verse has only ONE meaning... the men were having sex with these child wives.

So...this raises not only the question of Paedophilia in the fancy dress costume of 'marriage' but also, the issue of 'without their permission'....

How can anyone expect that a child of 7 can give informed consent to her being married off ? Of course she cant.. she might be able to mouth the words.. to please mum and dad... but mature..informed consent ? not a chance !

Then there is the issue of Institutionalized domestic violence.
Surah 4:34 clearly allows WIFE BEATING... but did the Heinemann text mention this ?

Did it mention that Muslim men are allowed to sexually abuse female captive slaves ? Surah 23:5-6

All I can say is that we reap what we sow.... as the Jungle Doctor story goes..The old Grandfather telling his naive little grandson who found an abandoned baby Leopard and brought it home... "Little Leopards grow into big Leopards..and big Leopards kill"

Its about time we realized that radicals will try to radicalise moderates...

UNDERCOVER MOSQUE.. investigation into 'moderate and tolerant' Major mosques in London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

I agree with the author that political correctness has gone made in this country, and I think it is important that history be told in the right context without the guilt. However America,Canada,New Zealand and Australia all continue to honour their so called settler origins, whilst refusing to acknowledge that their invasion on our land was illegal under Aboriginal and European law at the time.

Aboriginal groups in all four countries were not the noble savage's portrayed by the do gooders prior to invasion, we stole each others women and then forced them into marriges not of their choice. But its also true that christians supported the anti slavery movement, but then they also founded it as a business and supported it through Rome whilst making huge profits from it for hundres of years.

As for Howard's racist refusal to apologise to Aboriginal "children" saying that the current generation should not have to pay for the mistakes of the past. What about his insistence on Japan apologising for its troops behaviour during WW2, so why is he asking the current generation of Japanese for an appology.

Why should we the current generation of taxpayers keep being asked to support older generation for something they did years ago, we didn't ask them to so isn't it the same issue

I am all for the truth so let stop all this political nonsence and call a spade a spade, Aboriginal people were illegally invaded by a hostle force, who have unlawfully occupied our land and resources. The so called christian country forgot the comandment "Thou shalt not steal" or Kill and took our land and murdered men,women and children.

All agressive acts against Aborigines intentional or not resulting in death were the direct result of the ilegal invasion of this land. White middle class women are not disadvantaged and should not get any special treatment in employment. Finally, you are either Aboriginal or not and there is no such thing as a traditional Aboriginal person.

Ladies, Gentlemen and others....

Why would we find such texts surprising?

Wasn't it Michel Foucault who opined that it is the victors who write the history? (maybe someone earlier - perhaps a more erudite contributor than me can provide a source).

Or, at a more sinister level, George Orwell wrote: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

The latter is more in keeping with the sort of historical revsionism we see in a large part of the mass media today...

... or is it just keep 'em stupid (with "bread and circuses") so we can control 'em.

Food for thought....

I see a few anti-conservative socialists expelling their venom whilst they sit around enjoying the fruits of capitalism.

Any history which yields more to Germaine Greer than John Howard can have little to commend it.

As for “victors justice” dearest Margaret, a lady who saw the world through clear lenses and not those coloured by a reddish hue, "The Nuremburg trials were attacked at the time as 'victor's justice'. And this is precisely what they were - and were intended to be."

Better the “victors justice” of the allies than those of the Nazis or for that matter later the potentates of the USSR.

Those who think Ronald Reagan was a barely worth a mention she said

(On Who Got Credit For Ending The Cold War) "The role of Ronald Reagan had been deliberately diminished; the role of the Europeans, who, with the exception of Helmet Kohl, were often keen to undermine America when it mattered, had been sanitized; and the role of Mr. Gorbachev, who had failed spectacularly in his declared objective of saving communism and the Soviet Union, had been absurdly misunderstood."

So the leaving the recording of history to the demented and stigmatized view of the lefties would be as incorrect as leaving it to Hitler or Stalin.
The difference, I would note is, under our “capitalist democratic” model of government, which with others prevailed in the cold war, allows those of the left to indulge themselves in historic fantasy.

Ultimately, the authoritive “historic truth”, will only be produced when written by those who can distinguish left-wing fantasy from right wing reality.

Another whack-a-mozzie hijack, Boaz?

Shame on you.

>>Just two points will suffice to illustrate how insulting and disgusting it is that such a text should EVER be used to brainwash the minds of young Australians. “Before Islam … Women could be married against their will." “Before Islam … Women were not as important as men.” Surah 65:4 refers to...<<

I guess any old excuse will do for you to take the opportunity to give us that tired old rant of Boaz-selected-and-selectedly-interpreted Surahs, that are included only to support this particular hobby-horse of yours, which is to accuse Muslims of being rampant paedophiles.

One paragraph from one book amongst a wide range of literature that is available on the Victorian curriculum - take a look at this list, and try to put that paragraph into some perspective:

http://dozer.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/subjectresources/subject/34/all/yr7tbs.htm

As for...

>>Surah 4:34 clearly allows WIFE BEATING...<<

...I'm not entirely sure whether you included this in an approving or a disapproving way, given that you are a self-confessed daughter-beater. Can you perhaps provide a similar verse from the Bible, Boaz, that you yourself use to justify beating young girls?

Now that would be worth reading.

Oh, I forgot to mention.

I'm sure it must have been an oversight, but you omitted one small detail from your link to the Wikipedia article on the Undercover Mosque programme

>>Its about time we realized that radicals will try to radicalise moderates... UNDERCOVER MOSQUE.. investigation into 'moderate and tolerant' Major mosques in London.<<

The article states: "The documentary presents film footage gathered from 12 months of secret investigation into mosques throughout Britain.".

But the following sentence reads: "However, a police investigation found that the programme makers had spliced together extracts from 56 hours of video and the speakers' comments were taken out of context."

I know that it must be tough on you Boaz, conducting a 24/7/365 mission to blacken the name of Islam and insult its many adherents.

But it is not a good look, when the examples that you put forward clearly demonstrate your own predilection for adjusting reality to present only those angles that reflect your unique agenda.