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.

Pastor learns about Islam, tries to bridge gap with Christians

From time to time one comes across heartwarming initiatives by peoples from various religions such as the one below by Christian minister Dr Ben Johnson, retired professor of Christian spirituality at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur reported by an ajc.com article which can be read here. 1

'During lunch 18 months ago, Dr. Ben Johnson had an epiphany as Dr. Aisha Jumaan, a Muslim, spoke to him about her faith and her experience of God.

"It came to me that this woman loves and worships the same God I do," says Johnson, a Christian. "I had this sharpened awareness that in that moment she was in touch with God, just as I was. It was a dawning and an awakening, and it was liberating because it liberates you from standing on a pedestal and looking down on someone else."

It also inspired Johnson to take on a life-changing mission.

At a time when many Christians, including some in his own church, were openly hostile towards a religion they believed advocated terrorism and was at war with the United States, Johnson initiated a dialog aimed at bringing Christians and Muslims together.'

Dr Johnson is an accomplished and distinguished gentleman of the type who I imagine brings much prestige to Christianity in particular and religion in general.

It is humbly hoped that Dr Johnson will also consider extending an invitation to this interfaith initiative to any willing Baha'is who are in the area also.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Baha'i faith, it is a religion which considers the world religions to be inspired by God.

Regarding Christianity the Baha'i writings state;

"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed...
... The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá'u'lláh (founder of the Baha'i faith) as the "Spirit of God," is proclaimed as the One Who "appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost," and is even extolled as the "Essence of the Spirit." His mother is described as "that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance," and the station of her Son eulogized as a "station which hath been exalted above the imaginings  of all that dwell on earth," whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused "the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth." "Know thou," Bahá'u'lláh has moreover testified, "that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive and resplendent Spirit. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened and the soul of the sinner sanctified.... He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him."

Indeed, the essential prerequisites of admittance into the Bahá'í fold of Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and the followers of other ancient faiths, as well as of agnostics and even atheists, is the wholehearted and unqualified acceptance by them all of the divine origin of both Islam and Christianity 2

Kind regards,
Daniel De Mol

1 http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/stories/2008/08/01/ben_johnson_christianity_islam.html
2 Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 109