mil-

You have a really abusive manner of addressing people.

" GeeZuz: get it right. You're the mouth-frothing Islamophobe, so just going by your obsessiveness yours would appear to be the warped head. As one other OLO-er once said to the Islamophobe den: what did you guys ever do before UBL and 911? It must have been terrible. "

" So have another cup of invective, paranoia and megalomania, and I'll watch what you vomit up next. "

Your the one frothing.

All the name-calling and the anger (as opposed to passion) is very childish and a sure sign that the poster has forfeited the debate, both logic-wise and values-wise. It might work to a certain extent in a verbal debate where style over substance can win out. But in a written debate where it is so easy to quote the poster, the tactic is suicidal, no pun intended.

Most of you are so far off-topic you've disappeared over the horizon, those people who are really interested in the article will find this essay alarming. "Islam and human rights" on this site
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=daceykoproske_29_1 It reveals the real agenda.

Mac,

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=daceykoproske_29_1

Many thanks for this reference.

It does highlight the seriousness of the situation, and should therefore be prescribed reading for all--but I bet there are not many pollies and policy makers in Canberra even remotely aware.

Thanks (meredith & kgb). Your application of a double standard here (“affirmative action” for fundies?) is an implicit compliment, and I appreciate it. Yes, I do have higher standards, including a consistent sincerity in substantiating my arguments and lending them sensible structure. That's why I went to such length and detail qualifying my identification of “Islamophobia” in this thread.

This is also a very strategic issue. Statist and legal regard for Islam within Malaysia does not treat the Muslim identity as more or less identical to “Malay” identity: significant Chinese, Indian and Iban Muslim minorities would dispel that notion. Malaysia does, however, aim to prevent recurrence of the fate of Singapore's Malays or, perhaps more profoundly, the colonization of the Philippines where, against colonial war and missionary peace, some sixteen Malay sultanates fought against overwhelming odds. Muslims held out only in Mindanao and other southernmost islands; anti-colonial resistance was much harder to coordinate among those where missionary surveillance and divided loyalties predominated. Another historical analogy sometimes used by Malaysian leaders is the plight of indigenous Australians – hence my comparison between the Bumiputera system and more recent Australian programs and policies aimed at countering the effects of dispossession, lost cultural heritage, family breakup, etc., among aboriginal communities. Past missionary intervention had some ameliorating and even positive effects, but it mostly either exacerbated or consolidated processes of profound dislocation in indigenous culture and identity.

Given the strategic nature of these matters, state sovereignty is a critical factor. China's suppression of Falun Gong is strategically driven, whereas Indonesia's higher-proportion of Malay-sourced ethnicities are probably less vulnerable to such latter-day imperialism. Malaysians decided to preserve Malay culture via Islam, identifying Islamic heritage as the strongest source of resistance or, at least, a preferable bulwark when compared to the confusion offered by modern Christendom e.g., secular/moral majority, gay clergy/prohibition, creationism/science. Then there's the greater contradiction in a separate opposition of “secular humanist” liberalism. It is interesting that such modern crusades focus most of their zeal on other, mostly non-Christian cultures (but Islam gets a disproportionate amount of their heat compared to say Hinduism too).

Yes, thanks for the link Mac. A very nice website.

mil-observer: there you go again. It is typical of the Muslim and 'rabid left' mindset to shoulder all the blame on Western governments and institutions. Rather than see intercivilisational politics as a 'two way street' you choose to ignore the obvious deficiencies of Islamic ideology. A deficiency that has existed and grown since Mohammed the Prophet decapitated the Banu Qurayza in an act of genocide and then screwed a succession of young women.

Wahhabism and all its associated sexism, intolerance and violence is a direct result of Islamic culture. All you doing mil-observer is exaggerating the impact of British foreign policy to the point of irrationality.