With his regular programmes on radio and television, newspaper columns and commentary, Waleed Aly has become Australia's favourite Muslim celebrity. He is intelligent, articulate and provides incisive analysis of political and social issues. Given this, it might have been expected that he could have applied the same quality of analysis in his book, People Like Us: How Arrogance is Dividing Islam and the West, however this is not the case.

The book, written at a time when Aly was a representative of the Islamic Council of Victoria, is very much from an Islamic fundamentalist perspective. While reviews of the book have tended to focus on the various inconsistencies in the arguments he presents, they have not tackled several substantive issues. These are that he fails to provide any justification whatsoever for the beliefs that he holds, and omits critical aspects of Islamic history that are inconvenient to his arguments. In short, he provides a case study in how blind faith can cause a brilliant mind to studiously avoid any issue that might challenge that faith.

The approach he adopts is symptomatic of a wider issue that surrounds religion and its place in society. This is that the truth claims of religions, which are actually known to be false, are rarely questioned. There is a tacit agreement between the religious that the founding myths of other religions not be questioned, lest it should undermine their own. Increasingly, in the pursuit of inter-faith dialogue, and for fear of offending cultural sensibilities, the veracity of religions is left unquestioned. This has proceeded to the extent that society's implicit default assumption now is that all religions are true. This is a profound absurdity that undermines rational cognitions, at great cost to society.

Certain parts of academia have assisted in bringing about this malaise by promulgating the absurd notion that all truth is relative and even that there is no such thing as truth. This fraudulent notion has assisted many a learned career perhaps, and while religions may not be party to this particular deception, it has allowed the dysfunctional notion that each religion can rationally persist with its own independent version of truth to gain respectability. In fact truth does exist, it may be elusive, but only reason and evidence can find it. Reality is real and no individual or society can operate without this assumption.

Religions are widely presumed to be benign, but in fact they have been, and still are in many instances, immensely damaging to human progress, welfare and human rights, especially the rights of women and children. In so far as the truth claims of religions remain unchallenged, this blight on humanity will daunt us indefinitely. As statements of the history of the universe and as accounts of the origin and nature of humans, religions are false. Even if gods were to exist, it would still be the case that religions are false. It religions were true, they would not be religions.

Religions would not survive without their cultivation in the minds of children and without the socialisation which leads to them fulfilling emotional needs in the minds of adults. In order to sustain belief, believers necessarily turn a blind eye to contradictions. It is impossible that believers do not know of certain contradictions, if not between doctrines and facts, at least between religions themselves. Hence the blindness of faith must be to a certain extent wilful blindness.

It is interesting to consider where the principle of honesty figures in this wilful denial of contradictions. As an outcome of the financial irregularities that have occurred in recent years in the United States, the beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes are required to pay back to victims all the money received over the last six years to victims. However for those who were "wilfully blind" to the iniquities of such schemes, this six-year time limit does not apply, and they are legally required to pay back all the money they ever received. Hence being "wilfully blind" can have both legal and moral consequences.

While religious believers who are wilfully blind may be guilty of at least intellectual dishonesty, they may not be morally culpable to the extent that they are unaware of the harm that their beliefs cause. Indeed most believers, even Islamic terrorists, are convinced that their actions are morally right and justified. As Humanists however, to the extent that we are aware that religions are both false and harmful, we are duty-bound, I think, to raise these questions of veracity and harm, even in the context of inter-faith dialogue.

This was certainly my approach in crafting my own response to Waleed Aly's book. In particular, I have commented on the word "arrogance" and defended the reasonable use of the word "delusion". Aly suggests that non-Muslims are arrogant in the "egocentric" presumption that their views are universal. He is oblivious to the irony that in claiming that Islam represents the "Absolute Truth", he is thereby doing the same thing that he criticises in others. Is it not arrogant to presume, without any justification, that your own culturally induced views are superior to those of others? By contrast, I would argue that facts are not arrogant, and neither is the diligent pursuit of truth based on them.

A social phenomenon whereby intelligent people steadfastly hold to false beliefs, despite contrary facts being readily available, is the very definition of the word delusion. In describing the nature of religious belief, sustained by wilful blindness to contradictions, it is quite reasonable and appropriate to use the word delusion. In fact it is impossible to understand the nature of many religious arguments without appreciating that they originate from a somewhat delusional state of mind. This is certainly the case with many of the Islamic apologist arguments that Waleed Aly presents. In fact this is perhaps the kindest description as the alternative would be wilful deception.

There are certain facts of Islamic history that, given Aly's knowledge of the subject, it would be reasonable to assume he would be acquainted with. Yet they are absent from his account. Chief amongst these is the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was a military leader and that aspects of the Quran derive from his military campaigns. Given Aly's standing as a public figure, I did feel it was necessary to respond to his arguments in some detail, as I have done in my book.

Many of the criticisms that can be applied to Islam can of course be applied to other religions. Many of those who would criticise other religions refrain from comment on Islam due to the cultural sensitivities, or perhaps due to fear of intimidation, which unfortunately is a real concern in some countries. It is, however, a reasonable empirical conclusion to reach, that due to its wide geographical distribution, the extent of its penetration into societies where it is dominant, and the harm it causes in terms of social deprivation, human rights abuses and violence, Islam does indeed warrant particular criticism.

I have argued that a knowledge of the military history of Islam and the strategy of insurgency as first applied by the Prophet Muhammad, is essential in understanding the nature of Islamic terrorism today. I have argued that rather than engaging in military operations, such as is occurring in Afghanistan today, the appropriate response is to seek to engage Muslims in debate.

Al Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula produced an on-line magazine called Inspire, which was a high quality English language production, but did seek to use the Quran to inspire Muslims to commit egregious acts of terrorism. Its producer, Anwar Al Awlaki, a US citizen, was killed with others in Yemen by US unmanned aircraft. I do not believe this is an appropriate form of debate. I have used a picture derived from the magazine on the cover of my book.

In past correspondence with Waleed Aly, I have sought to engage in discussion with him to try to persuade him adopt a rationalist approach. He would be a great recruit to the Humanist cause if ever that could be achieved. I hope that my book would help to persuade him in this direction, however remote the possibility. Recently, in my role as an economist, I was called to the ABC studios to an interview on Radio National about the mining tax. By coincidence, the interviewer was Waleed Aly. There was no time to engage in discussion with him, but I did leave a copy of my book for him. I would hope to hear a response from him, but I do not expect to.