Thank you Turnrightthenleft, I am grateful that you have contributed to the discussion, God bless you.

Anarkali, I had nothing to do with the ANIC petition, I did not write it and was not consulted on it, I did not sign it either. I wrote this article for the simple reason that Bronwyn Winter dragged me into this debate, that necessitated a response. I was minding my own business, I did not seek to defend or criticise the ANIC petition, but I do appreciate their right to protest and as an independent body, ANIC are entitled to express their concerns, I am not a member of ANIC, but that is not the issue at all. I have not complained about teaching the book in question, my concern is that placing it under the heading of "women in Arabic and Islamic literature" is misleading and in my view a misrepresentation of the course in question. If they want to teach it, it should be taught under a course on erotica and not Islamic studies, in which case, we would not be buying into the debate, but may rather helpfully suggest additional similar titles to help the academics broaden their horizons.
For the information of those concerned about my media role, I step into the media in order to answer your pressing questions whose priority and relevance is determined by a news producer or chief of staff. The media does not report every opinion and certainly does not report everything a person wishes to say, it reports what it thinks its consumers want to hear, if I fit into a story, they approach me for comment, if I don't, then they don't, it is very simple. I am not hard to find, easy to do a search and find an email address for me.

TRTL, brilliant posts.

Keyser Trad,

The argument isn’t about whether you have a right to defend your religion. You clearly have, as your regular appearances on TV and in print show. But you are arguing for the right to tell the university what they can and can’t teach, that isn't appropriate.

Did you say “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and...the descendents of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.” Or is that just a misunderstanding?

Is it true that amongst other points, Sheik Shadi called for an Islamic court to be set up which would give the power to stone Gays/Lesbians to death. And that you rejected the concept of Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Vilification legislation and urged Muslims to defy these laws.

Did you post this “The Hadith is clear about this issue, apart from the Hadith that states that both parties must be killed, it also states that a Muslim man is not even permitted to sodomise a woman, for sodomy is sinful.” http://www.well.com/user/queerjhd/cmnov9.htm

Do you believe in Polygamy? http://www.speednet.com.au/~keysar/polyg.htm
“In the circumstances, when a Muslim man takes on an additional wife, he does so out of a sense of social responsibility to ensure that these women have a provider not only financially, but also a husband that provides them with emotional and physical support.:”

Do you receive low income support for your family?

Do you believe that Sharia law has a place in this country?

Did you say “yet, from the Muslim viewpoint, our ideology is the best salvation for the people of Australia, and the people of the world in general. Yes, we are a threat to the culture of drunkenness, paedophilia”

Or this (regarding assimilation) “They do not film a fat Australian woman in tight bicycle shorts …or an Australian drunk … or an Australian welfare cheat. NO!! They show a Muslim woman wearing a Hijab, she is not assimilating”

I notice that you suggest that Boaz’s interpretation of surah 9 is a misunderstanding. Is that the type of misunderstanding that Hilali was always suffering from?

TBC

Keyser

Are these your words? “In a way, they feel safe because of the quantity of water which surrounds this country, so they feel fortified behind this great body, it gives them a feeling of security. But the reality is, the land belongs to God, not to them, and if those foreigners, whom they fear as migrants are not permitted to enter as migrants, they will come as settlers, in numbers so large that they will not be able to process them, hold them, or stop them. What will they do then? If these foreigners who are restraining themselves, because they see a legal hope, that they can come to this vast mainly uninhabited land for whatever reason, are told that there is no longer a legal way to come here, what will they do?”

Did you preface it with this surah “see they not how many generation We destroyed before them, whom We had established in the earth more firmly that We have established you, and We shed on them abundant showers from the sky, and made the rivers flow beneath them. Yet We destroyed them for their sins and created after them another generation."

Is this moderate islam?

Keyser in a secular society you certainly do have the freedom to share your views without fear of persecution but in such a society there will also be open criticism and debate.

I can understand the frustration felt by Muslims where 'Islam' is used to desribe a particular national, ethnic or cultural entity. Many forget that Muslims have emigrated from various countries as diverse in culture, language and religion from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe.

There is a tendency by some to ‘lump’ Muslims together as one group and literal interpretations of the Koran to futher a particular bias. One unintentional byproduct of the “War on Terror” was to reinforce the view somewhat that Muslims are the enemy rather than one particular nation eg. Iraq when they invaded Kuwait (also an Arab Islamic nation which the West defended).

From what I understand most Australian Muslims are Sunni with some minority groups such as Shiite Muslims and even smaller numbers of Bektashis, Ahmadias, Alawis and Druze. Some of these groups have more in common with other religions than fellow Muslims and some Arabic immigrants are Christian (particularly from Lebanon).

In a tolerant, secular society, integration and participation of Islam into Australia society assumes responsibilities on both sides to ensure that dogma and racism do not interfere with that common goal.

Muslim immigration is relatively new to Australia, other countries are into the third and fourth generations. Muslim and non-Muslim Australians must find it in their hearts to accept the differences and take a harder line on militant groups within their own communities (such as Hizb-ut-Tahir who speak about a global Islamic state and overthrowing Western democracies). The same goes for fundamentalist Christian groups like white pride or the Klu Klux clan.

It will be up to moderate Christians and Muslims to reduce the divide. This is already happening to some extent with interfaith youth conferences and activities. Muslims groups are also now included in talks with governments on policy whether it be education, national security or migrant resources. These are all steps in the right direction

Dear Kaysar.....

it is already abundantly clear that you are being brought to account for your own words in times past (well done Paul L)...where you have vilified Australians in general, and non muslims everywhere.

So, in the light of these expressions of your own mind, it makes it rather difficult to 'gently' treat the religion you espouse.

You have many questions from Paul L to answer, I have a couple more if you don't mind.

1/ Does Islam permit the systematic mass slaughter of surrendered prisoners by victorious soldiers? you know..like Srebriniza etc?

2/ Does Islam condone the beating of a wife as a last resort when she does not comply with your wishes? (bearing in mind that there is ample instruction from Saudi and other Muslim majority places on Youtube explaining just how to do this)

Regarding Surah 9 :) don't get me started. I know the history and the context and what I brought to you is NOT 'out' of context.

There is an absolute direct connection between surah 9:29 and the decision of Abu Bakr to invade the Persians, sending Omar to do this.
The decision was based further on a report from one Muthana who explained that HIS raids on the borders of Persian territory met little resistance, thus, an invasion was viable. Yes it was 'complex'... but not overly so and not such that my post was in any way 'out' of context.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/12_abu_bakr.htm

Here is the sequence.

A) Mohamad died.
B) Some who had been intimidated and coerced into Islam, left it.
C) Abu bakr decided to 'teach them a lesson' and attacked them.
D) It was claimed that the Persians supported the free thinkers (apostates) Thus, invasion of the Persians was justified.

E) The Persians had NOT invaded....nor were they CAPABLE of invading.
F) Omar is despatched to invade them, and Al Mughira then uses 9:29 to justify the invasion to the Persian envoy.

Thus, you cannot claim that 9:29 was just a 'historical situation' which cannot be applied to all time.(including_now)

'In' context... 'Correctly' interpeted, based on 'facts'.