Meet the New Keysar Trad

Paul Sheehan's article in the SMH provoked a furious response From Mohamad Abdalla, the Head of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit.

Paul Sheehan said on Monday there are ''more than 100 verses in the Koran that call Muslims to violence against the Unbelievers''.
Relying on the dubious website Thereligionofpeace.com, he concludes that ''the Koran groans under the weight of its own contradictions, with entreaties to kindness co-existing with exhortations to merciless war''. It is questionable whether such an opinion is a result of a direct insight into Islam - or based merely on an old prejudice against Islam: that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant of others.

Wherever could someone get that idea? Then the old "out of context" argument.

Critics of Islam often quote out of context the Koran's more aggressive passages, arguing these could easily inspire and endorse terrorism.

This reminds me of the time we were told there was a difference between "rape" and, you know, "rape rape". It's all in the context, see?

They ignore that the Jewish and Christian scriptures can be just as aggressive, taken out of their historical context.

If by historical context he means hundreds of years ago, perhaps. Pretty sure no London or Sydney Rabbis are calling for the murder of non-Jews. Nor can I recall the last time the Church of England beheaded someone. Context people...

For example, the Old Testament says: ''Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves'' (Numbers 31:17-18).

Get back to me when Fred Nile is stoning rape victims to death.

Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists use them regularly against Palestinians.

Ahh "Zionists". Apparently they are "regularly" citing the Bible when they behead and suicide bomb Palestinians. No, wait.
I'm pretty sure no eighteen year old Israeli Defence Force conscript chases terrorists because of something he read in the Bible. I'd say it's more to do with the fact he's being shot and or on the receiving end of rocket-fire.

The display of violence and killing of innocent people are indicative of a radical, and indeed extremist, mindset that is fundamentally opposite to the teachings of Islam.

Except for those bits where it wasn't. Mohammed wasn't a "turn the other cheek" sort of prophet.

A more objective and scholarly reading of the causes of terrorism would inform us of a host of causal factors, including radical ideology; empathy and association with radicals, socio-economic factors, personal experiences, criminal activity, racism and Islamophobia.

Perhaps a less scholarly reading is in order. Socio-economic factors don't explain why wealthy Saudis smash planes into skyscrapers or why Yasser Arafat was worth billions. Poor bugger.

All of these factors play a role, one way or another, in the process of extremism and terrorism. The matter is thus complex, and it is culpably simplistic to attribute it to a single cause.

Fair enough. How about we blame on Islam and the weather then.

  Maybe I'm stupid, but could Mohamad Abdalla please explain to me the "proper textual and historical context" of a Muslim standing in broad daylight, his hands and a machete dripping with blood, reciting verses from the Koran? Perhaps I'm stupid and missed some subtle nuance.
The head of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit cites examples of Christianity and (because he couldn't help himself) Jewish violence from hundreds of years ago as a way of whitewashing Islamist violence today. I would suggest they turn some of their research towards a calendar and note what century this is.