And so the nth Muslim steps up to the dais, talks about Muslims, and again refuses to deal with the real issue: THE IDEOLOGY OF ISLAM.

Of course peaceful Muslims exist. But a growing Muslim community only remains peaceful IN SPITE OF THE IDEOLOGY OF ISLAM and IN SPITE OF THE EXAMPLE OF MUHAMMAD.

Ergo, any community with a growing Muslim community is at LONG ODDS TO REMAIN PEACEFUL.

But still, the nth Muslim pleads: PLEASE TAKE A CHANCE ON ISLAM.

Six years from September 11 and still this non-debate continues. When will a Muslim stand up and confront the issues?

SYED: Islam, like other religions, is open to various interpretations

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018752.php

"The Qur'an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers -- see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

... all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers ..."

SYED: Scholars in the field of Islamic studies know well that most informed Koranic readings need careful scholarly analysis and explanation

Careful, like this? ...

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09/islam-is-most-warlike-religion.html

"Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions.

"The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard.""

continued...

SYED: phrases like 'jihad' ... requires a dissertation

http://abandonskip.blogspot.com/2007/11/paul-stenhouse-islamic-incitement-to.html

"Muhammad's conduct demonstrates his understanding of the Quran's message.

If his understandings were correct, then all attempts by Islamic apologists to prove that Islam is a basically tolerant and peaceful religion fail when confronted by the Medina Sura and the indisputable facts of Muhammad's life and subsequent history of Islam ...

To those who would claim the nature of Jihad and the militaristic aims of Islam are misunderstood by non-Muslims, we turn back a challenge that Muhammad repeatedly flung at his adversaries in Mecca: prove me wrong 'if you care about the truth'."

And here's a dissertation on Muhammed by Serge Trifkovic ...

http://abandonskip.blogspot.com/2007/11/serge-trifkovic-look-at-muhammad.html

"On the whole, Muhammad's practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions. Allah's order to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is an injunction both unambiguous and powerful. The word "genocide" was not even coined when Muhammad conveyed Allah's alleged dictum, "When we decide to destroy a population. then we destroy them utterly." (17:16-17) Disobedient people "we utterly destroyed." (21:11) That Islam sees the world as an open-ended conflict between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb), which must be conquered by jihad, is the most important bequest of Muhammad to history. The end of Jihad is possible only when "there prevail justice and faith in Allah" everywhere. (2:193) Muhammad thus postulated the fundamental illegitimacy of the existence of a non-Muslim world. Muslims could contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never jihad's complete abandonment short of the unbelievers' abject submission."

SYED: al-Qaida ... they think this is what Islam or Muslims are

http://at-draft.blogspot.com/2007/10/west.html

Quotation from Abu Qatada, the Al Qaeda-linked cleric:

"I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam," Abu Qatada said about six years ago. "Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?"

This article is not worthy of Online Opinion, which is a place for debate, not denial.

Islamaphobia is justifiable - in the sense it is an irraitonal intense and disabling fear - it is as silly as a fear of spiders and just as treatable - Just as it is unlikely that the world as we know it will be over run by spiders so to it is unlikely rampant islamism will be our undoing - unless of course, as some are already, the rest of as act out against this irationality and continue to be provocative, stupid and jump at shadows

The author's point is that the media should be doing a better job. As the author is in the media, then his ascertions should reflect that better job.

He refers to the wonderful history of Islamic importees, but, does not tell us, even as an aside, of the Islamic shooters of Silverton during WWI. In his references to Indonesia, are the many and continued refusals for Christian Churches to be built (and actively shut down) even mentioned?

The validity of the 'Abrahamic connection' does not take into account that Allah also has a connection to an earlier moon god and that the call that 'Allah is great' comes from a polytheistic tradition where one group of followers claimed Allah was 'greater' (ie better) than the other tribes gods etc. Whether Islam is a religion in the Western or Judeo-Christian sense or merely another personality based interpretation /appropriation of Christianity disguising a political system is surely still open to critical debate and further consideration.

Anyway, the claim "hardly any print or electronic media group has shown the other side of the story or interviews of those who want to build the Islamic School" should have been addressed by the author.

The reason this might be difficult is because the proponents and funding may not be from/by Australian Nationals. Has the media found out about this incorporated group and how it has not lodged returns with the Department of Fair Trading for the last 5-6 years as required by law?

Questions about the spokesman's connection to the proposal, whether local bus companies have been approached to provide Muslim exclusive male and female only bus services (ie no other public passengers) and how these things relate to the notion of being part of the wider society etc. have not been raised or investigated by a lazy media.

If the Islamic community gets bad press, then this reply - a pro-Islamic apologetic as already provided in the mainstream media - is not convincing.

Again, we need to be careful when saying that being anti-Islam - as an ideology - can also be equated with being anti-muslim or racist and denigrates individuals.

Phobia or not, are we facing a clear and present danger, and is it immediate? History as a predictor is problematic, but, we are not only dealing with history as Islamic behaviour continues to be very much on display and I don't see a lot of charitable work for the wider community being sourced and channelled from the Islamic community (here or abroad)- at least not yet - but we see plenty of mega-mosques being founded in the west at great expense.

If this was a local initiative, then I wouldn't be worried, but, just as Sir Henry Parkes would have gone into Parliamentary meltdown if the Vatican was funding the early Catholic schools (note there was no problem with the Catholics providing free healthcare!), Fred Nile expresses an historical, cautionary, reaction.

Whether it is as sectarian and unfounded as Sir Henry's is yet to be determined, but if the local community is not funding this proposal, then this is not just a planning or education matter, but, a National Sovereignty issue and perhaps demands more attention?

Can the author tell us who is behind this Camden proposal and why they haven't hosted their own forum? That way we may be able to get both sides of the story if we choose to attend, because you clearly can't rely on media reports.

It's a bit late for Australians to object to Islamic schools after sitting back for years and saying little or nothing about large scale Islamic immigration.

I've made my views on Islam clear over a long period of time - the religion is not compatible with Australian society.

However, I try to be fair and, now that the stupid mistake that has seen our Muslim population grow to 300,000 has been made and cannot be overturned - thanks to apathetic Australians - how the hell can it be fair to prevent one religion from having its own schools when most other religions in Australia are actually encouraged to estabish schools and given tax payer funds to help relieve the education load for government's?

If the Islamic schools are monitored by the government as all other schools, state and religious are - required to have an approved curriculum in accordance with the needs of Australia and its kids - where's the harm, and what does it matter where these schools are located?