I would direct my main comment to "On Line Opinion's - About the Author". It seems to me that the article should read that Irfan Yusuf is a commentator of the "Muslim" media and cultural issues. It would be great to read articles written by Irfan about all Australian media and cultural issues. I feel that the Australian Muslim minority do not need to be defended so often by Irfan.
Also, Irfan there is no need to continually put Catholicism down, its been done, actually, over done. I am constantly amazed that so many non-Catholics make it their business to study Catholicism. At least with Catholicism a commentator may say or write whatever they wish, the Catholics keep turning the other cheek. Its a little different when commentators criticise the Muslim faith.
And, Irfan actually you as a second generation Australian commentator is expected to support Christians in Saudi Arabia or for that matter anywhere in the world. I would also expect that you would give unbiased commentary on Israel, isn't that what is expected of any Australian commentator.

Where in the article did he put Catholicism down? All he said was that you shouldn't treat all Catholics as saying and practising the same thing. I think that's a fair comment. The easiest way to spread hate against a group is to pretend they are all the same.

Bozo, I agree, this article is not anti-Catholic – if anything I sense a tone of approval in its discussion of Catholicism’s diversity. And your comment is spot on that the easiest way to spread hate against a group is to pretend they are all the same.

This is another good article by Irfan - placing people in pigeon holes dehumanises them and reinforces the prejudices of the “pigeon-holer”

Irfan, your article would benefit from some clear statements of your own beliefs and how closely these tally with those regularly expressed by your prominent co-religionists elsewhere. For instance, do you believe that:

a) It is morally permissible to marry a one-year-old girl?
b) It is ethical to kill people who renounce the Islamic religion?
c) Publishing cartoons showing Mohammed should be punishable by law?
d) Complicity in calling a teddy bear 'Mohammed' should attract the death penalty?
e) Perpetrators of 'honour killings' should be released after two hours' detention?

All these attitudes are attested by news reports accessible via

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

and elsewhere. Are you prepared to renounce all these lunacies and say that they are utterly wrong? If not, then your claim to be 'different' from more radical Muslims elsewhere looks pretty thin.

Jon J

If you read Irfan’s aricles, you’ll find that he regularly addresses these and other excesses and lunacies advocated by a minority of Muslims. And yes, he’s said quite clearly that they’re wrong. But to demand that Irfan "renounce" radical Islam through such disclaimers is to practice guilt-by-association that is a thin veneer for prejudice – exactly the kind of pigeon-holing the article warns against.

Why should a Muslim commentator be required to open every discourse with a repudiation of extreme views that they quite obviously don’t espouse? Would you require liberal Christians to begin each article with “I don’t believe in the rapture, damnation of unbelievers or the sinfulness of homosexuality”; or secular humanists to enter every debate saying “I’m not a Marxist or fascist, but …?”

"The easiest way to spread hate against a group is to pretend they are all the same". Bozo_Dagwood - Comment No. 2 (June 26, 2008 4:28:09 PM)

Could this quote from Bozo possibly be from the same person who wrote the following in another OLO discussion on June 21st: "Your lot [white Christians - SP] .. showed their love for Jews by murdering 6 million of them. And your lot stood by while Bosnian Muslims were massacred".

Why is it OK to pretend that all "whites" or all "Christians", or all "white Christians" are exactly the same Bozo?