One thing I learned when discussing Islam with Muslims is that you need to check everything they say. They have been known to (gasp) misquote, twist and even invent things about Islam (I am shocked!).

Take Mr Cicek's quote: “A Muslim is a person whose tongue and hands will not harm others”. Hum, here is how Islamonline.net renders Bukhari's hadith: "The Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe". Notice the difference? Muslims are not supposed to harm Muslims - but its open season on infidels. Of course, if the writer knew the Quran he would know that even this isnt true because Mohammed attacked other Muslims and (gasp) mosques (9:107, 110) filled with women and children - with Allah's permission because of "unbelief", of course.

I have extensive experience in talking with Muslims about Islam and the news is not good. The so-called nice moderate Muslims either are not honest about their religion or they will blame anything and eveything except Islam. They will say bad translation, out of context, that was then; They will blame jews, Israel, Colonialism, Capitalism, Globalization, Hollywood, Crusades, Bush, Western Culture, ignorance, poverty, etc -anything but the evil words that are clearly given in the Koran.

So what to do? I don't know. Time after time a Muslim will tell you the words in the Quran don't really mean what they say. They will say that other Muslims that do the things taught in the Koran are not "real Muslims" (whatever that is). Muslims totally ignore the evils they do, but demand respect from Western cultures. They seem to have no standards for themselves.

It is my opinion that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Some of them may be nice people and say nice things, but you can not count on them to stand up for human rights, equality and our freedoms. They cannot be trusted. Look at Islamic societies, if you doubt this. Sadly, the only honest Muslims are the radicals.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.

Kactuz

radical christians kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.

cj morgan (whisper it) wrote:

"I think that Australia needs more Orhan Ciceks and fewer STEVENLMEYERs, Philip Tangs et al in our approach to integrating Australian Muslims successfully."

Actually I think Australia needs all of us. Australia needs people – like cj morgan – who will do the welcoming "warm and fuzzies". It also needs old curmudgeons like me who remind Cicek and others that freedom is indivisible; that the same freedom that allows them to practise dawa allows me pour scorn on their beliefs.

It also requires sceptics like me to question Cicek's credentials for representing more than a tiny fraction of the wider Muslim community.

Cicek is one face of Islam. Here is another. Fethullah Gulen, who features on Cicek's website, talking bollocks about evolution.

http://www.fethullahgulen.org/questions-and-answers/2129-what-is-the-reason-for-the-persistence-of-darwinism-in-the-general-culture-of-the-masses-though-many-of-darwins-hypotheses-have-been-challenged-and-even-disproved.html

You may say that Gulen is simply echoing what many Christian fundamentalists say about evolution. You would be right. But Christian fundamentalists do not get voted world's number one public intellectual in a poll conducted jointly by the Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazines. See:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4379

Note that the man voted the world's number three public intellectual issued a fatwa against pokemon back in 2003. Among the reasons for the fatwa: Pokemon promoted evolution.

And here is yet another face of Islam. Seems the Taleben is buying children for use as suicide bombers. Their target is mainly other Muslims.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/07/2009-07-07_taliban_buying_children_to_use_as_suicide_bombers_in_pakistan.html

Another question. You write about "integration". To what extent do Muslims want to integrate with Australian society? What does "integration" in this context mean anyway? I though a tenet of "multiculturalism" was non-integration

It's almost superfluous to point out, stevenlmeyer, but the 'zine that gives us the "world's number one public intellectual" also believes that the most dangerous country in the world is... the United States.

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/07/the_worlds_10_most_dangerous_countries

With an editorial policy that believes the US is more dangerous than, say, a nuclear North Korea (which doesn't even make the top ten!), it is hardly surprising that their readership will return such a skewed result for "public intellectual" rankings.

I'm a little surprised that "a sceptic like you" would consider this trifle worth even a passing reference.

If you are sceptical, you certainly know how to hide it.

Orhan makes the case oft made by “moderate” Muslims: Islam, its prophet, and its mainstream community are made of "sugar and spice and all things nice" – don’t associate them with "frogs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails".

It reminds me of a recent argument between a Western academic and a Muslim student: The Western academic had argued that slavery was just as prevalent in Muslim as Christian societies. The student objected saying that the Koran rated all humans equal – therefore, if a society or individual maintained slaves, they were not Muslim. Strangely enough, when the art works of those same societies are presented – no one objects to them being labeled the great arts of Islam!

I am also reminded of an incident in the recent Mumbai massacre:
When the terrorists corralled the hotel guests with the intention of shooting them.
Two of the guests --volunteered-- that they were Muslim and escaped the sentence.(an all too human reaction –of course! but some how it leaves a deep after taste)

The lesson seems to be: if there is a dividend we’ll take it – if there is a debt we want no part of it.

If we were to apply Orhan’s formula to Australian indigenous issues we’d declare it be simply the acts of a few extremists – we as a nation bear no responsibility – and, there certainly wouldn’t be an apology!

In the final analysis, it is rather ironic that the supporters of multiculturalism who preach much about --INCLUSIVENESS -- would seek to exclude some heritages from the sort of deconstructionism, and group guilt we have been told is healthy and proper when applied to mainstream Western heritage

Bushbasher.

I generally play the ball and not the man. However your postings are so unfair, so intellectually dishonest, so gratuitously offensive, that I despise you personally.

Why do you find it necessary to be so dishonest?