CJ Morgan says:

"The objections of Muslim fundamentalists to a university subject should be accorded exactly the same status as objections from, say, a fundamentalist Christian or radical feminist group - i.e. zilch."

While I agree, I think there may be limits. I would not want a course on say creationism in the science faculty. It might be OK in the English department under fiction. Similarly I would oppose any course giving a platform to holocaust deniers pushing their filth for genocidal and fascist reasons.

But I digress. I was going to say i think you should add Liberal students to the bunch of those attempting to control academic freedom. Evidently these free speech advocates (not!) want to attack left wing courses. Apart from the fact that it highlights their irrelevancy, it does show that the bully boy tactics of Howard are being passed on to the next generation. As a left winger who hopes to return to a academia, I personally find the Liberal students attack on free speech more confronting than a petition against a Uni course on female eroticism under Islam. But there does seem to be a symmetry of thought and approach between thsoe who oppose certain courses on Islam and those who oppose left wing teachers and left wing courses.

Indeed I think the Liberal Students' attacks should be opposed as strenuously if not much more strenuously than any attempt to change the Islam and Women course in question on this post.

As for the nonsense from The Australian about Griffith Uni taking $100,000 from Saudi Arabia - big deal. Go for more I say.

The Australian is just pandering to the racist thread within Australian society. Interestingly Saudi interests own about 6 per cent of news corp (publisher of the Australian.) Why don' they publish that and rail against that "evil" attempt to control News Corp? Funny that.

I am just one person with many commitments and deadlines and I really cannot keep up with all this negativity, so I hope that most of us can move on to other articles after this response.

I wrote my article because of two injustices, the first by the UWS teaching erotica under the heading of Islamic Studies, I gave my reasons with better examples of women as accomplished teachers and leaders who should not be sexually objectified as erotica normally does, but hey, as long as Muslims are concerned, many forget about the message and shoot the messenger and the entire religion.

The second injustice is what the writer of the earlier article said about me and others and her claim that the alert raised by Muslims was somehow a threat to secularism as quoted. Many who posted comments could not see the forest for the trees. And Boaz, as he does elsewhere jumped on this to attack Islam ignoring historical injustices from his biblical faith against Muslims, including the injustices that are presently taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. I am not going to call his quotes selective because I do not expect him to have an in depth knowledge of Islam, I would just say that he is quoting from biased sources.

Having said that, let me be the first to acknowledge my own personal imperfections, both intellectual and physical (smile) and apologise to any person who may have been offended by anything that I wrote. My aim is pure but my abilities are only human with the commensurate limitations (c).

Everybody, it would be my pleasure to meet over a coffee or tea and explore your questions over the course of the year. Email me, it is searchable.

With my love and best wishes.

K Trad: Negativity on OLO. Surely you jest?

<< as long as Muslims are concerned, many forget about the message and shoot the messenger and the entire religion.>>

The message: interference in Australian institutions by minority interests, failure to show respect for the intellectual freedom of others. Courtesy of a fellow Muslim in the very first post.

<< And Boaz, as he does elsewhere jumped on this to attack Islam>>

No. BD, myself, and others are CRITICAL of Bronwyn Winter’s article, her revisionism and her conclusions.

<<…I do not expect (BD) to have an in depth knowledge of Islam, I would just say that he is quoting from biased sources.>>

Anyone can undertake the due diligence on this. The sources are none other than the Qu’ran, the Haddiths, and Muslim interpretation of these in light of the historical record.

Biased? That looks like rigorous scholarship to me. As BD pointed out in the post on Winter’s article, you would think that Mohammed was the final authority on all things Islam. Now, who is biased?

<<My aim is pure but my abilities are only human with the commensurate limitations (c).>>

Human. Flawed. In the likeness of …. ?

<<With my love and best wishes.>>

That’s an interesting mojo, the type that you see on Christmas cards – in the spirit of the season and that kind of thing.

BTW: what does the “enemy” have to say about Jesus?

“Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God!” (Luke 4: 34)

ah yes, the holier than thou christians come to preach. it would be more convincing if one of them wasn't busy defending torture on a different thread.

Bushy.... I was making observations of fact, not defending torture per se.

Kaysar... ur a slippery one :) "My love and best wishes" :) ummm...ok, if u say so. We can interpret that comment in the light of another quote of yours about 'human scum/dregs' ie.. being those who were sent out here as convicts.

BIAS? well.. as KatieO said.. my sources are.. none other than the Quran, Hadith and biographies of Mohammad.
In 'my' interpretation of Surah 9, I actually gave the 'Muslim' interpretation FROM those Islamic sources.

So..ur judging your own camp there mate.

PROPOGANDA.. Notice all, how Krafty Kaysar tries to link 'Christianity' with:
-Injustice against Muslims historically (Victimhood further promoted)
-Injustice today in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestinian territories.
(Does he mention the horrific violence of Arab on Arab IN those territories..nope..its "alllll about we evil 'Christians'"

I've never denied historic fact Kaysar and 'ChristenDOM'..not 'our Biblical faith' was responsible, not just for injustice against Muslims, but injustice to MANY diverse groups, including indigenous Australians.

But please..PUH-lease..don't try to connect this with the Word or Work of Christ, because that cannot and should not be done.

Only one with a malicious or..uninformed position would do that.

So, please avoid telling everyone how much you love them, and in the previous breath you have maligned Christ and the Gospel of Gods grace and wrongly vilified the Christian community in general!

OLIVER.. your point about the Eucharist and the Queen.. excellent observations. It becomes messy when "The Faith" is given or seeks, or defends royal or political power. The problem is, Jesus did NOT come to set up a 'Christian State' so...when people try it, it all goes horribly wrong.
This should be abundantly clear from the Shia Sunni Ahmadiya divides on the Islamic side. But their problem is MUCH worse.. Islam IS.. a "State". (in making or in waiting, or both)

My love and best wishes to you Kaysar :)

"Love" has to tell patients 'You have cancer' at times, yours appears to be terminal at this point.

The problem is not secularism, the problem is Islam. Its a religion of discrimination and violence.

Notice that Mr.Tradis is very selective. Quote: "The Koran has numerous references to women, some by name. Actually the Quran few references to individual women, about 6, and only Mary is named (and no, she is not part of the Trinity). Yes, the Quran has a chapter named "Women" and it also has a chapter named "The cow."
He fails to mention the "women are worth 1/2 of men" and "beat your wives" verses and many others that have led to the sorry situation of women in Islamic societies. He mentions Aisha but fails to mention that Mohammad beat her ("he hit me and caused pain") and the consequences of her life (including the verse that Muslims still use to whip and kill victims of rape) or even the hadith in which she said "I have never seen women suffer so much as the wives of the believers." He mentions Omar but the life of the second Caliph reveals a deterioration in the status of women (lookup "41 initiatives of Umar"!). He mentions women and poets but fails to include Asma bint Marwan in your list (A poetess killed while nursing a baby, on the orders of Mohammad).

His facts are selective. His motive is suspect.

Be aware that the so-called "misunderstandings" in the media are mostly just reporting what Muslim do and say. It is so much easier to put the blame on others (as Muslims always do) than to change things. It is not that we have different standards, but that Islam wants to be exempt from all standards and criticism.

He mentions 'Islamic literature'(The hadith) to support his arguments, so I will remind him that this same "Islamic literature" is filled with violence against non-Muslims and women, as herein:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348
With that one incident I think it is fair to say that anybody that says "Praise be unto him" after the name of Mohammad loses all credibility.

Once again, this is about Muslims wanting to end our freedoms, again.

Kactuz