order to be respected, recognised and, ultimately, become subjects and actors in the shared narrative of the Nation." I pretty much agree with that, and think it's ominous for socities that choose to accomodate large numbers of muslims. the Koran is so propelled by the primary idea of the immediate supremacy of muslims over others that a significant number of muslims in any muslim community will always be hostile to non-muslims. Seeing as the Prof equated islamoskeptism (which has nothing to do with skin colour) with racism in this essay, I welcome the opportunity to take his precedent and say that the fundemental problem is, and always will be, that the Koran's completely racist (althpough it doesn't discriminate based on skin colour). I can't see a solution. It's certainly not fair to restrict our own freedom of conscience, speech and spirituality by taking on blasphemy of religious offence laws, or to show respect for things we can't hold respect for if we're true to our own sense of ethics or spiritual intuitiion (eg Mohammed, who I insult regularly because I think it's spiritualy important to do. It's for his own good). It's not to accept things like ghettoisation (which, for the benefit of the lefties-in-denial out there, the Prof acknowledges in this essay) or female genital mutilation, of the legitimation of pedaresism, child marriage, or arbitary sharia norms, just because they're 'religious'. It's not to be insulted by obscuratnism (eg saying that hostile texts are misinterpretted), apartheid-style classifications of people