>>Hirsi Ali's comments on the prophet Mohammed were a "no-go zone".

They (prophets) are not just like you and me, they have special status - you're supposed to show respect,">>

That's the view of Nada Roude of the NSW Islamic Council as quoted in The Australian of 29 May 2007.

See:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21811256-16947,00.html

Well no, actually in a free society Muhammed is fair game as is Jesus, Moses, Karl Marx and Buddha. We are under no obligation to show respect to Muhammed. Muhammed is no more a "no-go-zone" than John Howard.

Worryingly, Ms Roude is quoted as saying:

"The reaction from the community is likely to be quite worrying."

Is that a threat?

Why should we be worried about the reaction from "the community?"

According to The Australian:

>>She [Hirsan Ali] has two public functions at the Sydney Writers Festival: a discussion on Saturday and the festival's closing address on Sunday. Both are sell-outs.>>

Worryingly there are indications that Islam is becoming less, not more, tolerant. In Malaysia the courts have rejected the plea of Lina Joy to be recognised as a Christian. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6669857,00.html

"Worryingly there are indications that Islam is becoming less, not more, tolerant."

A bit like the Western world, then.

To be honest, the best thing in the world right now would be for Muslim people to be less tolerant - of anachronistic, disgusting, leaders like Sheikh Hilaly.

Sorry, title should be:

"Is Muhammad a no-go-zone"

I'm a bit worried about the inclusion of John Howard in this illustrious company...

>>Muhammed is fair game as is Jesus, Moses, Karl Marx and Buddha. We are under no obligation to show respect to Muhammed. Muhammed is no more a "no-go-zone" than John Howard<<

Putting that imagery aside for a moment, the writer should be aware that blasphemy laws still exist around the world. In Maryland, it is still on the statute books that it is an offence if "any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof...", which is pretty blunt.

I am of the opinion that free speech should be the deciding factor until it crosses the line of the law of the land.

I have no idea whether we have blasphemy laws in Australia. If we do, I would suppose them to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.

Pericles

I'm reasonably certain that Maryland's blasphemy laws would not survive a court challenge. The US Supreme Court has almost always come down on the side of free speech.

You write:

>>I am of the opinion that free speech should be the deciding factor until it crosses the line of the law of the land.>>

That begs the question.

What SHOULD the law of the land be?

Free speech is the most fundamental of all civil liberties. If we cannot discuss matters freely then all our other civil liberties will vanish.

To be meaningful free speech must include the right to attack ANY belief system. And, to put it bluntly, I see no reason why the words and deeds of a seventh century so-called prophet should be immune.

Pericles.. yes.. we do have blasphemy laws still on our books, but they only relate to the Church of England. If I recall correctly, if one is a member of the CofE.. to blaspheme God is an offense.

I enquired about this in connection with the "Da Gospel according to Ali G" EOC complaint I raised.

Just touching on the "Judao Christian" think raised by Ifran, I suspect one of the reasons for making this point to citizens is that some of them will come here and feel it is their own religion which should be protected, and that its 'open season' on Christianity.

The Muslim reaction to negative statements about Mohammad is the classic example. It should also be realized that to them, proclaiming Christ as the Son of God is EQUALLY if not MORE offensive.

The 'JudaoChristian' emphasis in the citizenship test is actually wayyyyy too late. Far better to carefully outline to Muslim would be migrants that "THIS... is now it works in Australia"
1/ Islam and Mohammad can be criticized by anyone, and even ridiculed.
2/ Spefici Islamic laws/practices are not acceptable in Australia
-Wife beating.
-Arranged marriages.
-Honour killings.
-Raping of girls with no head covering.

They should be given a test as follows:

-The hadith about MOhammad mutilating the bodies of prisoners should be read to them. Then they are asked "Do you approve of mutilating prisoners as punishment"?
-Then, the hadith about Mohammad marrying 6 yr old Ayesha should be read to them and the question "Do you approve of 50+ yr old men marrying 6 yr old girls and having sex with them at 9"?

and so on. They should then sign a conditional visa which stipulates that if they seek to CHANGE Australian law TOWARDS such values, then their citizenship will be revoked.

Now Pericles, you should be able to think up some juicy questions to aim at Christians now right ? :)