Whatever else you might say about Keysar Trad, he always puts his case eloquently and soundly. Some of the comments above rather neatly prove his point that many people in our society just want Muslims to cop whatever is dished out to them, and that they should just keep quiet and 'get back in their box', as John Greenfield puts it. I hope OLO editors let Greenfield's disgraceful comment stand, since there is no reason why anybody should be denied the right to make a fool of themself in public, as Greenfield so often does.

And the bozo who calls upon Keysar to get an academic qualification before he can speak in public - what an elitist pile of tosh! It's apparent from Mr Trad's writing that he is well-read and has a nuanced, critical and informed understanding of many different forms of literature.

Two of the main actors in this debate - Keysar Trad and Bronwyn Winter - have both consistently made lively and constructive contributions to Australia's intellectual culture over many years. Which is more than can be said for many of their detractors in the comments thread.

Dear Graham..... we note with interest that Kaysar approached you.

Yes..some posts seem a bit insulting, but I surely hope that a detailed examination of some underlying issues of Islam as a faith are not considered in that category.

Kaysar has one interest. 'Islamic apologetic' and as such he must be open to serious criticism of a detailed and technical nature. If he is allowed to make claims which cannot be substantiated from the foundation documents he stands on, then.. we are then witnessing pure unadulterated propoganda.

His 'job' is to give Islam a clean slate, and claim we all misunderstand it.. well... I would challenge Kaysar or anyone to dispute the information I placed here, and surely don't consider that out of order here or anywhere else.

My hope is that other posters who have gone for the slur rather than the doctrine will read up on the appropriate issues and return, better equipped and more knowledgable about that faith and its history.

We must never EVER forget, that 9:29 of the Quran is a 'command' to 'fight' those who do not believe in Allah.. its not an 'option'... but a command. He will try to baffle you with 'It means fight BACK' but I can absolutely prove this NOT to be the case, from the lips of Mohammad and his companions.

-In context.
-Properly understood.

The difficulty with doing so, is that Islamists always try to push the issue of violent conflict such that it is inevitably the 'other' side at fault.
Al Mughira (one of the companions) said to the Persians Caliph Omar was invading "We have been commanded to fight you" "invading" is 'his' (the narrator) word...not mine.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
<<Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.">>

<--note the word used. "Invade"

This event is based on 9:29 as it is quoted by Al Mughira further down.

They are old books. Will all the fundamentalists of all stripes give the rest of us a break from it just for 24 hours?

It's getting to be like the deluded Israel story. The story of poor little Israel fighting off the mighty arab armies, that didn't happen and never will while Israel has 200 nukes but they like to claim victimhood in Israel even while they massacre the neighbours.

Muslim, christian, hindu, jews. Who cares. Keep it to yourselves.

Thank you Mercurius, I could not have said it better myself.

To Anarkali, posting a view that highlights the obscurity of a course text to the topic is not curtailing academic freedom, it is rather pointing that the academic in question is teaching a topic under the wrong heading as there are plenty of material as I indicated which should comfortably fit into this heading. When we talk about academia, we normally expect learned impartial objective approaches to the topic. It is an injustice to find something so remote as the perfumed garden and teach it under this pretext.

Mr. Right and John Greenfield, I would like to thank you both for proving my argument.

Boaz, consider this question before I answer your contextual error. Christ said as reported in Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." (NIV). Does this statement define Christ? I say it does not. Christ, like Muhammad, peace be upon them both, is defined by statements such as "love your enemies" (Matt 5:44), and Muhammad: "Repel evil with goodness" Qur'an 23:96 and 41:34 and in the Hadith “none of you is a true believer until you love for others that which you love for yourself” and the Hadith “you are not true believers until you love others”. You are quoting Sura 9 out of context. This is a Sura referring to a particular event where a raiding party slaughtered a group of unarmed Muslims despite being party to a peace treaty. Chapter 9 is a historical narrative about that event and the appropriate response. The cited Persian conflict is far more complex than your attempt to describe it. You totally ignore the historical context of that struggle and threat that the Christian Romans couldn’t neutralise which the under-manned Muslims took on to save the known world at that time, including the Christian Romans from the threats of the Persians who had been in constant war with the Romans ... word limit forces me to stop here.

i'm no fan of keysar trad, but reading the hysterical responses to his article, i might change my mind.

Unbelievable. Now we are being told that the Muslim world saved the Roman Empire from being invaded by the Persians! The truth is rather more unpalatable for westerners- the Islamic hordes picked up great swathes of territory from both empires, at the fringes where defence was difficult. A new empire was "on the block", the Islamic.

It was really touching to read Trad's description of the high esteem in which women in general, and the prophet's wives in particular are held. The fate of an early critic of the prophet's, Asma bint Marwan, is instructional- murdered while nursing one of her several children. The age, number and manner of collection of his wives is also illuminating. The treatment of women in the "modern" Islamic world is hardly grounds for celebration, either.

I'm no Christian, but to see the lives and works of Jesus and the Islamic prophet compared on an equal footing is astonishing. To my knowledge, Jesus engaged in no slavery, murder, ethnic cleansing, rape or caravan raiding, and took no child brides.