I agree with anarkali when they say:

"The question is whether it is remotely appropriate to attempt to curtail someone else's academic freedom." They answer in the negative.

I think the course should run. Keysar wants to say it is not an appropriate title for the course (or that the content is not suitable for such a course and then presents a narrow conservative alternative to the course.) Academic freedom means not just accepting other views being put but analysing them and seeing if they are worthy of debate and then debating them.

Unfortunately some of the posters with their stereotypical responses - from Christian fundamentalism to overt racism and xenophobia - give weight to Keysar's arguments. Let's discuss the issue rationally and defend academic freedom.

To paraphrase Keysar :

"A genuinely tolerant Muslim should not be so insecure"

The course is Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature. The lecturer has a Ph D in “expressions of female sexuality and homo-erotic desire in 9th-13th century Arabic literature”.

A course on female Arabic erotica is no threat. It adds to the knowledge of our society and so should be cherished. And it appears to step outside the bounds of the conservative analysis Keysar presents. Different voices are to be welcomed by adding to our knoweldge.

Interestingly Keysar does not take up the homo-erotic issue. Perhaps that is because like conservative Christians such a concept is anathema to thsoe who take life's lessons from texts written tens of hundreds of years ago in a particular historical, social and economic context.

I don't have a problem with Keysar defending his religion. I do have a problem when that defence is aimed at defending his own particular view at the expense of alternative voices.

But I guess I am a relativist. Islam is no threat to Australia or the West.The West is the threat to most of humanity. How many dead Iraqis are their as a consequence of the sanctions and then the invasion. Something well over a million people. i fear fundamentalist Christian George Bush more than i fear any Muslim.

Kayser, you are being disingenuous and it does you no credit. The ANIC letter does not just put a point of view - it seeks "a reassessment of this course, its content, and the manner in which it is taught." We would be rightly outraged if religious or political lobby groups attempted to make a similar intervention regarding other courses on Islam. And of course there are plenty of people out there who would be perfectly happy to do just that, and who would also claim that they were only seeking "objectivity". University students are adults who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds regarding Dr Habib's course content, as a university environment entitles them to do.

Dear Keysar Trad
I am not a religious person but I can not deny my Christian roots.
1. There are not first and second class religious, there are not first and second class citizens. It is your right to express freely your thoughts, believes and it is our duty as democratic citizens to protect your rights and encourage you to express your thoughts, believes, as every one else.
2. Although I come from Christian environment,( my grandfather was priest, my nephew is priest) I can not imagine that Muslim religion has won the hearts and minds of 1 billion 300 million people or more without to offer to them something useful, something very important. While I disagree with sharia law I suspect that there are other things which I ignore that make Muslim religious attractive to so many believers. Probably we know only some sides of Muslim religion and even then not as they are really.
3. While I am not interested at all for any religion I have found that last years the relations between Christians and Muslims are not very good and if we do not use our brain they could become worst. I understand the worries and hate against al-Qaeda but I am afraid that some extreme Christians use it as an excuse to attack all Muslims, that some immature, irresponsible persons promote the war between the two main religions on our planet.
4. I think it is time to promote the open discussions between people from different religious, to promote the understanding and cooperation between people from different religious and civilizations, forour common future, for mutual benefits.
5. people from both sides must understand that extremists from any side are a very small minority and stop to see them as powerful and dangerous to drive us in dangerous paths.
6. I am sure soon humanity will overpass this problem and will become stronger and more experiencedAntonios Symeonakis
Adelaide.

Mr. Trad,

Your claim that my post and John Greenfield’s post prove your argument is absurd. I firmly believe that you are using the tolerance and secularism of Australia to state your case, while complaining when others use it to say anything about Islam you don’t like.

You like to give it, but you can’t take it.

If you felt insulted about anything I said, I’m sorry for that. But I don’t see how you can ask to have your negative views about Australia and Australians published and not expect a sharp reaction. You have the advantage of regular media coverage, but most Australians never have the opportunity to reply to you.

Perhaps you should spend more time contributing to OLO or some similar site where you can receive immediate feedback from average Australians.

If you have truth on your side, surely you don’t need to hide behind the media where you are never challenged - just reported to stir people up.

Well said, Mercurious.

A few comments -

Boaz stated: "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."

What rot. Boaz, you can't control how people interpret a faith. As Trad pointed out, some aspects of the bible sound ugly. Some might follow the verses in Leviticus and yes, I've heard your winding explanations for all the commands to put people to death.
My point is, there are no firm rules in any religion, only the way people interpret it. The Christianity of today, is not the Christianity before the enlightenment.

I take it, your Christianity, is not that of the Salem witchhunters, nor that of the hatemongering Westboro fanatics.

You can claim they got it 'wrong'. Fact is, there's no 'right' answer, only interpretations, be they malign or benign. So your statement you can 'prove' Islam intends this, I say, what absolute rubbish. Don't condescendingly preach at another religion as to what they really must mean.

Mr. Right:

Stated: "Your claim that my post and John Greenfield’s post prove your argument is absurd. I firmly believe that you are using the tolerance and secularism of Australia to state your case, while complaining when others use it to say anything about Islam you don’t like. You like to give it, but you can’t take it."

More rot. Of course he's using tolerance and secularism to state his case. You are too. He has the right to verbally respond to criticism. In this thread, nobody is calling for censorship of anything but defamatory trolling, therefore, he can 'take' it.

When any muslim has the temerity to speak out and defend their religion, they're accused of not being able to 'take it.'

So what? They're supposed to not even respond verbally/written? Just take abuse and stay silent?

Cont'd.

Secularism is indeed something that must be defended. Bronwyn Winter's article summed up my thoughts on the issue better than this does.

I've heard many times, on these forums, some conservative christians lamenting the fact that the 'Left' as it were, sticks up for Muslims, while enjoying harpooning conservative Christians.

From where I'm sitting, there's not defence of radical Islam from anyone but those on the fringe of political movements.

In fact, defending civil rights also means freedom of religion. Whatever religion, so long as you're not hurting anyone. Civil rights, a cornerstone of most left-leaning belief systems, means it makes sense to defend others. Especially when they are being oppressed.

And yes, the responses to this piece do prove a level of oppression.

In fact, the arguments made against Islam only apply when people are determined to only see extremists, and treat all people in that manner. The whole idea that 'leftists' are aligning themselves with abhorrent regimes is nonsense, which only makes sense when you view everyone as an extremist.

It's merely the rejection of any one faith over another. Put simply, it sickens me that somebody who makes a fairly benign article as this, is subjected to such a response.

I know on these forums I've lampooned more Christians than muslims. Well guess what? I haven't seen any muslims in here, making comments such as Greenfield's.

Respond to each as they warrant. This piece doesn't doesn't call for such vitriol.