Foxy,

Stereotyping? Me? What do you mean? Be more specific.

Are you referring to my characterization of Muslims are people who believe the Quran and consider Mohammad to be a great moral example?

Or is it because I said our leaders are pathetic, spineless, narcissistic, self-serving fools?

You know, there is always a glint of truth in stereotypes, no matter the object of reference.

Foxy says <<I beg to differ with you yet again>>

Well you might be permitted to beg, but you wont be allowed to differ if Islam gets the upper-hand.

I don't know who the biggest dogmatist on this thread is, Ify, who believes every word from the Koran is good and true and wont be swayed by any amount of contrary evidence -- or Foxy, who holds similar for every word she reads on New Matilda.

Well, Son of Gloin..... 50+pages, 300+ comments.
It looks like your topic is a winner, or at least that people think the question to be relevant in this age.

Congrats....

Jay Kactuz

Foxy has tried to clinch a point by one of the oldest and most threadbare tricks in the book – appeal to an authority. Not to the authority’s facts and arguments – no links to or citations of any of that, just that his knowledge is more believable than the exhaustively referenced facts based on the Moslems’ holiest texts on what Islam requires, when the chips are down and opportunities beckon, of every single adherent (over and above killing apostates and unbelievers and uppity daughters) or the adherent is not a dinkum Moslem.

So they’re off lickety-split to Iraq and Syria’s killing spree.

And who is this authority? None other than Professor Abdullah Saeed, holder of the Sultan of Oman’s Chair in Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne.

So I tried closing Foxy’s information gap by Googling him to see what he had actually written that carried her away. I found nothing – only an account of his academic beginnings in the Moslem terrorist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia followed by further studies in the same vein at Melbourne Uni, his positions at Melbourne and – well, nothing really except an incident which wasn’t a good look, and a mealy-mouthed explanatory statement [1].

[1] http://theconversation.com/separation-of-men-and-women-in-lecture-theatres-another-islamic-controversy-1377

Dear Emperor Julian,

You found nothing of any substance about Professor
Abdullah Saeed?

Well then we should really question
your research skills (if any). Because the man has
published widely on a range of issues concerning
Muslim thought.

Including - "Terrorism and Justice:
moral argument in a threatened world." "Interpreting
the Qur'an," "Freedom of Religion: Apostasy and Islam,"
"Muslims in Australia," "Understanding Jihad,"
and many more.

He is Head of Arabic and Islamic Studies
at the Melbourne Institute of Asian Languages and Societies
and he has been actively involved in the development of
Islamic studies at the University of Melbourne.

I simply assumed that any one with half a brain could gleam
all this information from the web by Googling it.
Obviously I over estimated the abilties of some people.

Foxy,

What you are not saying is that the good Professor looks to a different reading of the Islamic manual. That necessitates a departure from orthodoxy, a complete about face, which is seemingly impossible even for some who have voluntarily taken up citizenship in western democracies and in spite of their claims that they were fled in fear of the orthodoxy they demand again in their new home.

It is you yourself not the professor who holds the opinion that all Muslims make good Australian citizens, except for a few aberrants whom you probably believe are 'made' that way by your despised 'whites'.