Critical examination of Islam by the media - fair or not?

In various countries in the west, Islam is relatively misunderstood, and whilst this is no doubt in part due to certain elements within the media blowing the worst examples of people nominally called Muslims out of statistical proportion, It is also equally valid and important to understand that certain actions by the Islamic clergy, particularly where such clergy are prominent members of the mainstream Islamic community in the west, do also at times contribute to these misunderstandings, and for the same reason that the claims of myself or any other member of the wider community are not above subjection to a moderate degree of cynicism, neither are the claims of any Muslim clergy or scholars.

The media, then, fulfills a righteous obligation to report on such things fairly and without bias and the wider public have the right - and in certain cases - the moral obligation, to analyse the sayings of the Islamic clergy (as much as the sayings of everyone else). It is hoped therefore that this expression of opinion will be approached in an open mind and not merely as an anti-islamic and/or islamophobic venting.

Given that the upcoming "60 minutes" investigation into the ridiculous spectacle that is sharia4australia preacher Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon may have been inspired by the inflammatorily entitled article published by "The Australian" newspaper PM Go and Let the Muslims Take Over (January 20th 2011), let me start by first of all speaking in favour of Australia's Muslims.

Although the article appears to report fairly on what Mr Conlon believes, it doesn't in my opinion take into account what percentage of the Australian Islamic community Mr Conlon's views are representative of. Nor does it state what percentage of Australia's Muslims belong to Mr Conlon's "Sharia4Australia" sect.
For myself I grew up in Roselands over Lakemba side and Mr Conlon is not the first hate preacher in Australian Islam, nor is he likely to be the last. Having said that, these rare groups generally seem to have tiny prayer rooms which fit barely a handful or so of Muslims. They are ususally run without connection to the wider Islamic community on premises that may be in the same suburb as the mosque, but not particularly near it. I don't believe that his views are representative in it's critical aspects of the wider Islamic community. Given that neither himself nor his sect currently even have so much as a wikipedia article on them it seems that a whole TV investigation with the appearance of being designed to alarm and frighten the general Australian public are just giving the fellow undue weight. Surely the article in the paper was more than enough.

Getting back to analysis of the views of prominent mainstream Australian Muslims, The Sydney Morning Herald, in it's article entitled, 'Muslim leader wants elements of sharia in Australia' states that president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews wants parts of sharia which he considers not to be in conflict with Australian law/values to be enforced for Muslims as part of an auxiliary legal system running in parallel to the Australian legal system.

An example he gives of a part of sharia law which could be adopted is as follows;
"Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not", "There is still a preference for the child to go with the mother, but the father has the ultimate decision."

This raises certain interesting questions.

How does one objectively decide what is in line with Australian values?
One way is to have elections to decide which leaders are best aligned to the will of the Australian people who then have secular laws enacted which set minimum standards to be practiced by people regardless of whether they wholly believe in the values behind such laws or not.

What happens if a Muslim man divorces a Non-Muslim woman? Which legal system takes precedence at the interface, Australian law or sharia?

How is such an evidently sexist aspect of sharia consistent with the Australian value of the equality of men and women?

How is there a preference for the child to go with the mother if an embittered father has the final decision?

Is such a verdict automatically in favour of the final decision being with the father? If not what are the exceptions?

Why should taxpayer's money be wasted on unnecessary duplication of the legal system?

Why should there be one law for Muslims and another law for others?

If certain aspects of sharia really are consistent with Australian laws/values (instead of being contradictory) why the need to have a seperate legal system in the first place given that Muslims could comply with such aspects of sharia simply by following the Australian laws which are (allegedly) consistent with it?

These questions are only a small part of a long list of potential questions which would need to be answered before a seperate sharia could even be considered properly for satire - how much longer the list in need of answer for such a suggestion to be taken seriously!

Finally I don't wish to leave you with the impression that there are no authenticly peaceful Muslims in the west. There are and it would be nice to see some media coverage for them also.

One good example of many that could be found for media coverage is the reflective introspection entitled 'A Memo to American Muslims' by the distinguished M. A Muqtedar Khan. Perhaps interviews and encouragement could be given to this distinguished leader of the Islamic community who has dedicated himself to upholding justice without holding an excessive level of regard for hypocrites just because they call themselves by a name to deceive people.

Kind regards.