Excellent Article Irfan.

One quick question I have; why do there appear to be so few Aussie born and raised Islamic religious leaders in Australia? Whats the deal with importing them from overseas?

Surely many problems would be solved by having leaders who understand Australian life and culture, and the needs of the majority of their mosques?

cheers,

gw

It’s only natural for leaders in a male-dominated religion that women should be blamed for many of our maladies. Are we likely to get any sense out of someone whose life is lived in the cloistered structure of a mosque?

This same man also believes that many years ago an illiterate anhedonic ascended Mt Hera and sat in a cave to receive the wisdom of his lord. A reading of the Qur'an will reveal that exploitation of women was not only allowed but in some cases it was rewarded.

Is anything remotely contemporary likely to spoken by the mufti? When will the mufti ask men to be responsible for their behaviour?

From what I seen reported, Hilali's quote spoke about the relationship between women and men, yet it is only the former than has attracted media attention. While the description of women as 'meat' is deplorable the characterisation of men as 'cats' is dangerous. I suggest that Hilali's reported misanthropy is as serious as his apparent misogyny, afterall the image of 'cats' suggests than the appetites of men are instinctual, bestial and rapacious, clearly beyond any measure of self-control. Not only do attitudes to women need rethinking but the whole picture of what it means to be a man requires close examination also.

Although Hilali’s reported comments are lamentable, let us be measured and moderate in our response. I am sure that few want to see a repeat of the firestorm that recently engulfed an eminent Christian leader over his poorly chosen words. Deportation, deposition or gagging are not the solution. Might we not bring the matter of female and male identity to the fore in inter-faith and community conversations instead? Surely, it is time for Australians to put the spectacle of a modern day media ‘flogging’ behind us and find a more productive forward in our life together.

Wayne, well put. It's a sad portrayal of males suggested that they have the ethical and moral control of a cat.

Smart and fun though they are they are not generally noted for their moral and or ethical behaviour.

As a human male I choose to restrain myself from taking what is not mine even if it is left lying around uncovered and unguarded. Quite simple really. I'm even able to resist taking what might be freely given but which is likely to harm myself or others.

It's not really that difficult, most of us seem to be able to live that way with no great difficulty. When someone takes what is not theirs but which is lying around uncovered the problem is with them and nobody else.

R0bert

The problem with muslim people and muslim mindset is that they are still living in the middle ages and they are unwilling to come out of that. So in the enlightened and just society where men and women enjoy equal rights and freedom, they have become symbols of anachronism and irrelevance and become a burden of civilised societies.

Robert,
I totally agree. We do not frequent brothels because we can. We exercise restraint and personal responsibility toward our spouse. We do not circle nude bathers making lewd suggestive comments as seems the nature of some perverted men.

Angryharry.com

"Muslim Cleric Causes Uproar Over Women's Clothing Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

Of course, this uproar was caused by various women's groups who think that women should bear no responsibility for what they do.

Well, in my view, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali is correct in what he says - at least to some extent.

Indeed, only recently, I wrote the following on my Your Emails page to a woman who seemed to think that women should be able to dress as they please without needing to take into account how others might respond."

Angry Harrys quote not mine.

This is not the first time a local or visiting Imam has declared that sluts… err…women are responsible for causing men to rape them.

Why accuse the Imam for speaking the truth? After all he is just repeating the teachings of his prophet Mohammad to whom women were half as valuable as men. Only good for pleasing men and stay at homeraising a family.

Mohammad wives were not allowed to leave his house…and always stay covered in case a visitor might get excited at the sight of some meat…I mean flesh...err... skin.

Islam or should we say the prophet M. was obsessed with sex.

Instead of just rapping them, Mohammad decided it waslawful for him to marry all the women he wanted to have. Why borrow a book when you can have a library at home? His personal harem was specially blessed by Allah of course.

Even paradise according to M. is a sex club, an orgy just for MEN. Women will have to oblige, prostitute themselves to their husbands (and many other men)- like it of not - just like on earth now...this is called "submission" or Islam.

If you have to blame someone EXPOSE the source of the message – the Qur’an and its author Mohammad - NOT the Imam that teaches from it.

Even paradise according to M. is a sex club, an orgy just for MEN only. Women will have to oblige their (and other) man - like it of not - just like on earth now.

Philo: "We do not frequent brothels because we can. We exercise restraint and personal responsibility toward our spouse. We do not circle nude bathers making lewd suggestive comments as seems the nature of some perverted men." You are being ironic aren't you?

Who is "we". Come on Philo. Get real. Why are brothels so profitable? Come on Philo check out the domestic violence figures. The police in my area were called out to more than 30 in one night - I forget the exact figures but more than a quarter of those resulted in charges being laid.

The nude bathers thing was a bit weird. But how many people sit in front of their PC getting off on porn? Generally speaking Australians aren't perfect Philo. However, generally speaking we are more liberal in our attitudes towards others and behave in the the ways your quote alludes to - but fair go we do have some bad eggs in our nest too

Who wins when you fight sexism with racism?
I think it'll be a draw.

I believe that Muslims do very little to contribute anything positive to the American way of life. The beliefs are so far out that they might as well be from another planet. Someone please tell me what are muslims beliefs? It surely is not peace. I have lived in Iraq for the last 3 years and have seen very little demonstration of peace from Muslims.

A spokeswoman from the Victorian Islamic council was on the tube last night. She said something along the lines of "1 step forward, now 10 steps back"

I think that this is about the best description of the situation.

By the by, for those (such as coach) who claim that Islam has backwards attitudes towards women, I am willing to wager my house (not that I own a house...) that I could find you 5 bible passages that indicate a similar view towards women (10 if you include the Old testament).

I guess MuslimHater has never heard oif Chris Ellison or Muhammad Ali ...

This is a very irritating discussion. I am a young migrant women who happens to have physical features that are uncommon to local australians. I experience sexual attension regularily. And it is the local aussie boys who need educating! I have never been approached by a Muslim man with the request to "show us your tits". Local anglo men and boys (particularily those working cass heros everyone around here worships) are often more offensive and insulting than any migrant man I have ever encountered. Educate the anglo men before you start telling foreigners how to behave!

Hi Irfan:

Here's the full transcript of the sick sheik's speech:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html

Sheik says:

1) Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?

"Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God's creation.

Any atheists/jews/christians.. please note that we are going to hell for eternity.

2) Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.

Wow.. what a logic.

3) "But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).

"Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.

Weapon of Seduction? So, his wife, his sister, his daughter all have Weapons of Seduction..

In other words, he is referring to Sydney gang rapes... He seems to say that the Lebanese rapists noticed the Aussie girls who have lowered, raised their dresses and involved in a conversation and 'they' did a crime i.e rape.. And finally judge gave them 65 yrs jail sentence as punishment.

Note: He is referring to Aussie non-muslim women who were raped; not muslim women.

(contd

..

4) Woman compared to a kilo of meat

If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

So, women are meat and "WE" (males) have to keep them in Fridges. Fridges refer to Hijabs/Jijabs/Kababs etc..

So, the sheik instructs the Aussie non-muslim girls to be kept in "Fridges" lest Muslim male cats prey upon them.

Meow! Meow! Meow! Meow! Meow! Meow!

(contd.

I do appreciate your views Irfan but must confess that you are somewhat eclectic in the use of Muhammeds sayings about women (in this case the prostitute) There are numerous quotes in the Hadith where Muhammed has been given visions of Hell from Allah and he says: "the majority of hell dwellers are women." This coupled with him saying that the wives of muslim men are a "tilth" (play thing) and that women are mentally and spiritually deficient doesn't exactly paint a great attitude towards women. I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia (the heart land of Islam) for a number of years and found it stifling. The women are not allowed out of their houses without a male supervisor and without being totally covered. They are not allowed to drive or mingle with non-related males. Does this stop sexual attacks and perversions? NO! One only needs to visit Bahrain and Dubai on the weekend to see the copious amounts of "righteous" Saudi males in the brothels and pubs located there. This shows that the "cat" is the problem and not the "meat" - to penalise the women for the mens lack of self-control is truly punishing the inncocent.

Chris C

Your claims of finding 5 passages in the New Testament that put the blame on men raping women is either totally absurd or you show a complete ignorance of the bible.

Chris C:
Are you familiar with the words of Jesus who said that even if a man thinks about adultery in his mind then he has committed it?. He seems very much to point the finger at the man and not the woman. Furthermore, the words of Jesus and the way that the early Apostles expounded upon his words lays great emphasis upon self-control - perhaps what we need is men having more "self-control" today rather than "control"

muslim hater you give me hope. For too long we of the western world have tried to tolerate the Islamists, unfortunatly misguided politically correct do-gooders simply do not know what we are faced with. My work has also taken me to the Islamic world, and I detest the Islamic mindset more with every passing day. People in Australia, in your comfortable middle class lives, do not invite cancer into our wonderful nation!

Well he won't be sacked since he has too many ardent followers.The Sheik often preaches to audiences of 500.Instead the Sheik will go on a holiday to let things cool,but there is no remorse.The excuse given today was that it would divide the Muslim community too much if he is deposed.Apparently there are many others who think exactly like him.

Well what about the Australian Community?
"Women are weapons used by satan to control men",was one of his vile and ignorant statements.Apparently Muslim men take no responsibility for their basal urges and are free to rape and pillage if others don't dress according to their tastes.

The slow process of decay in our society has begun.Some in the Muslim community will condemn him but none will be angry enough to protest in the streets,since many agree with him.When is our Govt going to have the guts to act?He has dual citizenship,so change the constitution and send him back to Egypt from whence he came.

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/ceremonies/citizenship/pledge.htm

Pledge of Commitment to Australia
All new citizens read aloud a pledge as part of the citizenship ceremony. If the ceremony is for a group of new citizens you will all read your pledge together.

There are two pledges. The difference between them is that one pledge refers to God and the second does not. At your citizenship interview you will be asked which pledge you wish to make during your ceremony.

Australian Citizenship Pledge #1
From this time forward, under God,

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

Whose democratic beliefs I share,

Whose rights and liberties I respect,

And whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Australian Citizenship Pledge #2
From this time forward,

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

Whose democratic beliefs I share,

Whose rights and liberties I respect,

And whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Presumably Al Hilali said one of the above when he got Australian citizenship. Well, looks like he lied, doesn't it? And if you lie in order to gain a benefit, then you should lose that benefit when you are found out. He should be stripped of his Australian citizenship and deported without delay.

This isn't just a case of not agreeing with Australia's official line on something, we probably all do that from time to time, as is our [and Hilali's] right. He is encouraging men to break Australia's sexual assault laws and if any of his flock do this, then he is an accessory. What would we do if he was encouraging members of his flock to become terrorists and kill Australian women? Presumably there's a law against that. Well, if it's criminally wrong to incite to kill, isn't it also criminally wrong to incite to rape?

My feeling is that he's criminally insane and a danger to the community, including the moderate Muslim community.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200405040836.asp

wobbles, you miss the point.

When you describe opponents of Islamic teaching - as fighting sexism with racism.

Being critical of a race - is racism.
Being critical of a religion - is religion-ism if you need a word.
Freedom of speech is needed here!

Race - one has no say in. It is neutral.
Religion is finally - a choice.

Cultural one is born into it - to begin with, but ultimately it is a choice to go on in it.
Especially in Australia.

Islam keeps adherents by using fear. Fear of death. Fear of being spurned forever by the family. (Just try leaving Islam. It is one of the hardest things to do)

Religious ideas must always be open to criticism.
Racism is always wrong.

wobbles, I am afraid your logic is faulty - it has the wobbles.
It needs to be noticed, and pointed out, as i am doing.

Unfortunately these types of comments and social misconduct while not foreign in our societies have never been referenced nor supported by a religion before. Too many people have chosen to go along to get along rather than speaking out with in the communities directly. The racist card is being used to stifle opinion and to force acceptance of a religion that seeks to dominate societies where social and religious authoritarianism is unheard of. And quite frankly the average citizen is appalled that anyone would want to immigrate to such beautiful countries and impose such an ugly power structure. That as soon as enough Muslims can ban together and raise the money they send for the people necessary to implement the reason they fled their homeland in the first place. However you justify it. This behavior just does not make reasonable sense. Muslims who chose to come to democratic countries should be seeking to eliminate the oppressive nature of Islam
and migrate to a more 21st century view of the world and other cultures. Not recreating the oppression they fled.

To Vivy,

I'm proud to read your post.

But I'm also very ashamed, as an anglo-celtic, 7th generation Australian, to read these posts of the others.

Not all Australians are like these intolerant socialist ratbags. Unfortunately, most are. They are total hypocrites who preach diversity, yet they have ABSOLUTELY no respect for their own rhetoric. They are racist scum of the lowest order, in my opinion, and yet THAT is exactly what they'd accuse you and me of.

Vivy, if I met you in the street, I bet I'd have nothing but the utmost respect for you. You fight the fight. Not all Australian men think like them. Unfortunately though, most do. I apologise for them.

Of course, when I meet their trashy, scumbag tramps of girlfriends in the street, with their tramp stamp tattoos, body piercings, exposed bodies, drugged and drunk, I have nothing but pity for them.

Thank you Vivy for speaking up - respect.

Actually I think that we need this Sheik in Australia. We need him to keep saying these things as openly as he does so that we can see how corrupt and immoral HIS brand of Islam is.

I know Islamic people from various cultures who are disgusted by what this so called religious leader said. I do not blame Islam itself for those comments. I do blame the particular brand of Islam that this Mufti represents.

Irfan - thank you for the article - well stated and argued.

Getting back to my first point - the 'Mufti' should stay in his job, He should be allowed to spout any hateful thing that he wants - so long as the rest of us can hear and read what he is saying. I would prefer my enemies to be open about what they really think, feel and want to do, rather than than hiding amongst us, giving us a false sense of security.

So Mufti - thank you for pulling back the veil on the face of your beliefs. We can now look you squarely in that face and see your hatred for us, and show you our determination to not only resist you, but in maintaining good order within the law continually overcoming you and your venom with all the tools available in this secular, rights-based democracy.

I see a lot of Orwell's Big Brother in the mufti.

Part One

Last week’s Guardian in the Weekly Review section by Mark Lattimer, had the centre of his main page revealing what can only be a pictorial from a copy of a painting of the boy Jesus, surrounded by an ethereal glow with an adult male and female each side of him, also in Holy representation.

What made the pictorial even more breathtaking is that the foreground reveals the heads and shoulders of devoted looking Christian Arabs moving into the Church.

The major headline simply expresses the phrase MASS EXODUS - the accompanying italics intimating the following .........”as it is believed that half of Iraq’s Christians have now fled, why haven’t coalition forces done more to protect them?”

It could be suggested that Mark Lattimer and crew had gone to the trouble of showing the magnificient painting to try to reveal a truth that most academically trained journalists understand but not the general public.

From one who during retirement has spent years studying the philosophy of Western history, he becomes more and more shocked how much what can be revealed as true Christian history has been left out because it is not the way the Church and the accompanying Christian governments want the Christian story to be told.

Seeing that so many of our OLO appear so learned, probably much more than myself with an early small school upbringing, would like comments regarding the following suggestions?

The boy Jesus revealed in the pictorial is very much like the story of the boy Jesus revealed to us by our mothers, myself having had a mother whose own mother was Irish and her father an Australian born German.

Part Two

Therefore it was reasonably easy to believe later when studying historical philosophy that the suggestion that the boy Jesus with his so-called intellectual brightness could have been naturally gifted like the young Socrates.

As the Bible does indicate the boy Jesus as eager to mix among learned people, as well as a report that Jesus spent time in Egypt with his family, it does fit in with a suggestion from some academics, that the young Jesus could have attended the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt, particularly as history books do indicate that more than half the pupils of the Great Library, which had mostly Greek tutors, were Jews.

It is so interesting that the Sermon on the Mount without the accompanying spiritual content could have easily come from Socratic or even Platonic folklore.

One could also dare to suggest, that journalists like Lattimer desperately want to reveal in their reports that certain Christian groups are not now accepted and thus left to suffer by our Christian churches and their governments, because they have stayed too friendly with the Arabs.

Indeed, from academics there is much evidence to support the historical fact that the Arabic type Christians could be the true Christians rather than the Romanised believers. The Coptic-style Christians, as they are also called, are not accepted because they generally do not believe in the Trinity, which after all was only finally made officially spiritual by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he presided over the Council of Nicea in the late 7th Century AD, when the majority of the Holy Church by then had been strongly Romanised or Latinised.

Must apologise somewhat but do feel that Lattimer was attempting to get the true message through about the Iraqi Christians with the pictorial of the Boy Jesus. It is also felt strongly that because the article only mostly deals with the effects that the attack on Iraq has brought on Iraqi Christians, the use of the pictorial with its extra suggestive historical features must be seen as a tribute to the article editors.

Tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event,

I mentioned racism because the negative publicity seems always to be directed specifically at Lebanese Muslims. There are Muslims from other nationalities that do not attract the same degree of attention.

Many of these are socially "invisible" and do not follow the same cultural dress codes. Therefore the argument seems to be focussed on one group of Muslims and not Islam per se, although many see no distinction.

Culture is something that evolves. It's never static. Look at how our much of our lifestyle and everyday speech is absorbed from foreign television and how it has changed over the years. In many ways, the youth of today seems to adhere to a different set of values from the previous generation.

All three main faiths use fear as the basis for their existence -fear of everlasting damnation or being cast into the lake of fire and so on. If eternal life is the carrot, there must also be a stick, otherwise what's the point?
Worship me or suffer for all eternity (because I love you) is a common theme they all share.

Likewise all three monotheistic faiths infer that women are subordinate to men and Islam certainly has no monopoly in this area.

However, what also interests me about this incident is that, considering the speech was made about a month ago -
If it was so important, why wasn't it reported earlier?
Why now?
Who reported it?
Who was the target audience? Certainly not people outside that faith because they normally would never had heard it. The reaction from many Muslim women seems to suggest that is was not well received in any case.
Was the speech made in English or Arabic?
Was the reporting intended to be informative or inflammatory?

Meanwhile the Werribee DVD story seems to have faded from view. A shame really, because it demonstrated that sexual assault is not necessarily related to provocation. Meat is meat, uncovered or not.

The "misogyny that exists among Muslim religious leaders" is not limited to Muslim leaders - it comes directly from the Quran and the man Muslims consider their great example.

Time after time after time Irfan and other Muslims get out their pens and write these articles that use the same excuses:"Out of Context" "a cultural thing" "bad translation" "misunderstood" "the Crusaders did it" and so on.

Quote:Ibn 'Aun reported: ...The Messenger of Allah made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith (Muslim Book 019, Number 4292 - also in Bukhari). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321

So which is worse, some idiot Imam saying rape is OK, or Islam's prophet and his men doing it? If you continue reading the text above you see where Mohammed's men ask the profit if they should practice 'coitis interruptus.' He says 'no, just screw them and don't worry!'

Will any Muslim condemn this?

Or how do you feel about Mohammed beating his wife?

Quote: Mohammed says… "Why is it, O ‘A’isha (his 9 year old wife!) that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me... He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain……. ," Muslim 4:2127.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

And so why all this commotion about a few word by some Imam when the real problem is the hate and violence inherent to Islam against all non-Muslims, not just women? In a week, month or year there will be other incidents (or worse) and 'moderate' Muslims will be making the same excuses.

John old man kactuz

PS: Irfan, I no longer am able to post at altmuslim.com because I was suspended. I had said good things about them. I guess it is the links to Islamic texts about torture, slavery and murder.

thanks Wobbles.
It is is still crucial to distinguish.
We should not call a thing racism, when it is something else.

Race - we are born with. Neutral.
Religion - we are convinced of. Or otherwise.

As to the time delay... I am interested in what a man said in Medina and Mecca thousands of years ago, because it affects our world. If it was violent teaching then, it is violent teaching now.

Same with a Sheik

Kactuz, you are the first writer I've read who seems to have seen the Hadith, which I've never been able to find in any bookshop (and I don't read Arabic unfortunately). You may be able to tell us what, if anything, the hadith say concerning female genitial mutilation. I've tried for years to find out. Nothing in the Q'ran itself. As far as I'm concerned this is by far the worst of all the many cruelties to women in this world, and any religion which sanctifies the practice should be outlawed. I have been told that there is a hadith where the Prophet says "if you must do it, do it lightly." Is this the case ? Meanwhile, Wayne's comments were spot on - let's have an open debate about male behaviour and values, as well as female behaviour. Neither society would come off well.

This "religious leader" has been pushing an agenda ever since he came to Australia, making no attempt to be a part of this country, refusing to speak English even though he can. His agenda is not the agenda of any religion, it is the agenda of men trying to misuse what was written as well meaning religious belief. He,like many religious leaders, self proclaimed or not, should be scorned and shouted down for misusing something so many believe in. I don't,in any religion but it's a personal choice.

The Muslim religion though is no Lone Ranger in this regard. In fact, name me one religion that isn't misused for political, personal or financial motives. Don't start by quoting Catholics as that religion is by far the most abused and misused of them all.

All religions should be treated the same with those misusing it being rejected, not acclaimed. Listen to those supposed world leaders and hear them claim religious fervour when it suits. At other times they shout loudly "religion has no place in politics". It shouldn't but it does. What a tool.

RobbyH

You are right. There are people in all religions who are in it for self gain and self promotion. Judas is a good example. There are also plenty of self promoters and people using deceit in the area of science. We see this with many involved in earth worship today especially in the area of global warming. So called experts hiding behind science degrees. Just shows we are all subject to corruption. It wasn't that long ago that a scientist who claimed he had cloned humans(and believed by most) was shown to be a fraud. Thank God for Jesus who was the only uncorruptible One to ever live on earth..

Once again we have a Muslim leader stirring up trouble and no one is surprised. It is all we have come to expect these days.
We have never had so much trouble as we do now.
People say that this cancer in our midst cannot be deported.Can not laws be enacted so that anyone who lies when they take oath of citizenship will be stripped of citizenship because they took it under false pretences.And when stripped of that,surely they can be sent out of a country that holds that person and everything he represents as repulsive and unwanted.
To go on accepting this person as a citizen is to go against all our true feelings. Why should we be forced to accept the unacceptable?

I reckon the Sheik has given an entirely new perspective to that outdated but once well used phrase...'What a dish'. :-)

Humour for the poor old bloke ... he deserves it.

Flissy has made the most sensible comment I have ever read on OLO. It Demands repeating: "the words of Jesus and the way that the early Apostles expounded upon his words lays great emphasis upon self-control - perhaps what we need is men having more 'self-control' today rather than 'control'"

The only improvement i can make is that it not only be limited to men who need more self-control as is increasingly becoming evident in the times we now live in.

ALL churches, with the possible exception of the Buddhist temples, are more about imposing control over others than helping us realise self control over our own desires and attitudes. In the main it is about re-inforcing a perceived belief that men are superior to women as it is almost entirely the men who populate the hierarchy's and ministries of the Judeo, Christian and Islamic Religions.

Ultimately it is more about maintaining Religious control over their human sheep that they regularly fleece out of part of their incomes as reward for looking after 'mens' souls than it is about providing a 'moral' society for us all and salvation in the hereafter.

By subjugating our personal control over to them as intermediaries for a 'higher' power we are then freed from the burden of having to exercise control over our base desires and exercising punishment upon ourselves every time we fail to live up to our, and therefore society's, expectations of ourselves.

Animals such as cats have no such problem. If we want to kid ourselves we are morally superior to cats and animals like them fine, some of us might actually succeed. Many of us obviously fail and our churches teachings are partly at fault.

Read your New Testament and the full teachings of Jesus carefully.

Brainy....thats why there are millions of Chinese Christians in the 'house church' movement. There are many groups in Australia also, who meet with a few others and worship God and study the scriptures, grappling with daily life and our Lords teaching.
There are also many autonomous, independant fellowships which don't fit your blanket statement "All" seek to control, but your point is very well made, and can often creep in in subtle ways over time.

Now for the purpose of this post:

I TOLD YOU SO !......
Not you Brainy, but the pro multiculturalists.
I've stated many times here that the more DIFFerence is emphasized, the more vulnerable communities are to EXploitation by 'dark forces' who see advantage in the polarization.
The current culprits/dark forces appear to be the Mass Media who are having a feeding frenzy with the Hilaly outburst. They are selective and focused for the MAXimum contentiousness, and are not letting up.
Who does this advantage and what impact will it have ?
a) It advantages NEWSCORP mainly as they are the primary drivers of the story.
b) The Impact will be further polarization and further exploitation of any tidbit of 'intolerance' or 'racism' or 'religious bigotry'.
c) The likelihood of a sequel to Cronulla is now much higher.

But in all this, the conclusion is really inescapable. Difference/Diversity does NOT give us strength, it gives us turmoil.

Aah..I hear our lefty/bleeding heart/MCers reply "But all we have to do is have 'responsible media' errrr sure.. yeah..right.. but SORRY.. this is a free society with a free press and the only way to avoid this is shock horror.. CENSOR them :)

After race riots in Malaysia they introduced "The Sensitive Issues" which were not allowed to be mentioned in the press or EVEN in private discussions.
1/ Islam is the state religion
2/ Racial privilege the Malay race.
3/ The New Economic Policy which strengthened Malay privilege
4/ The New Education Policy fast tracking Malays at the expense of Chinese.

But that of course is State Control of the Press and Privacy. We would never tolerate that.

After reading the posts, some of you sound like a flock of hysterical galahs.

Sure mufti's used a poor metaphor to try to explain his position. I suppose I should get hysterical about being compared to a cat, but then feminists have said much worse than that about men.

I didn't hear many protesting when this happened. So we have bunch of hypocritical hysterical galahs or maybe hysterical hypocritical galahs.

Lebanese Muslims are not the only ethnic group in Australia that regard Australian women and men as less than ideal. Many of these groups send their sons and daughters back to the country of origin to get married.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience," said Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room

Meanwhile, Wayne's comments were spot on - let's have an open debate about male behaviour and values, as well as female behaviour. Neither society would come off well.
Posted by kang, Saturday, 28 October 2006 10:24:08 AM

Great idea! YOU first Kang!

As much as it would be great to have an open debate about the values and behaviour of both genders. It simply is not going to happen!

You would be drawn and quartered, tarred and feather, keel hauled, skinned alive, castrated and finally burned at the stake and excomunicated. Oh! and subjected to a hundered years of gender sensitivity training.

I have the fortune or misfortune to know a few lesbians and if I behaved even a fraction of the way they behaved. I'd be in goal.

I'd probably be in goal too, JamesH - but not in gaol! I know, and work with a number of women who would identify as lesbians, and I only know this because of open and genuine conversations. The fact is that there is no way of identifying them as such. And they are intelligent, interesting, generous - and accepting of a wide range of ideas. By the way, I am a practising heterosexual (if I practice long enough, I might get it right!) And please don't mix up feminists and lesbians. There are plenty of heterosexual feminists, and plenty of non-feminist lesbians.

But this is not the point. We are talking about mysogyny and religiosity. In my view, the mufti's ideas are obscene and divisive. But bear in mind that Muslims don't have a monopoly on this. Remember that the Catholic church has condemned too many women to pain and suffering by its bans on contraception. And it is setting back the fight against AIDS (which affects as women as well as men) by its refusal to support the use of condoms.

I believe that it is not the fundamentals of religious belief that create the problem but the interpretation by churches and those who profess to be religious leaders - of all shades of belief. G K Chesterton said, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting: it has been found difficult and left untried". I am not familiar with the Qu'ran, but I suspect that that comment could apply equally to Islam.

Oh, wise one, explain to me again how, 'the meat is to blame for the cats eating it'.

Vivvy, allow me the opportunity to educate YOU. See, the difference is that in OUR culture a little bit of banter is acceptable. I've lost count of the times I've had my bum pinched in nightclubs by young ladies. No harm done! But chances are if you marry an 'anglo', you will actually be a valued part of the marriage. If you marry a muslim, you will be placed somewhere between the goat and the dog in terms of respect. Big difference. Oh, and if you don't like it, I can give you directions to the airport. Whoops, did I say that?

The last "religious leader" to make an unfortunate sexist comment was...oh that's right - our Governor General at the time.

Tanveer Ahmed was quoted as stating: "The Mufti meant exactly what he said, and those views are widely held.I did my own little poll this morning,of a security guard and others who are Muslim,and all said they agreed with the Mufti,that he was absolutely right."

Exactly. Everyone seems to have forgotten the 5000 chanting followers of the 'mufti' who agree with his every word. That adds up to at least several thousand Muslim males in Sydney alone who agree with the words of this disgusting freak.

I'm sure they also agree with his comments about 'cleansing the White House' and the rabid comments about Jews.

Islam brings nothing but social problem and divisiveness, as we have seen in Sydney. The sooner it is declared a polity and banned in Western countries the better it will be. Numerous people have mentioned that the issue is 'dividing the Muslim community' - how about the Australian community, or doesn't that matter?

Perhaps the Sheik is losing his marbles. The comments he has made are what you might expect from a misguided adolescent.

To me his comments reflect a repressed view on sexuality. Aussie males might see women dressed for summer conditions and not be sexually stimulated.

People who come to Australia need to adapt to Australian views of the world, it was certainly what I was taught when my parents emigrated to Australia more than 50 years ago.

I think that if he was talking about protection for woman against rape, as the newspapers have said the he said he was, he should have used a better example.

Maybe he could have said that if a woman walked into a paddock full of bulls in Spain she would be wise not to make the decision to wear red, regardless of her right to choose any colour she likes.

Ant - "Perhaps the Sheik is losing his marbles."

From the p.o.v. of a rational person, this is a logical statement. But these beliefs are nothing new, he has been spouting this bile for the past 20 years, since the ALP pols Paul Keating and Leo McLeay 'demanded' that he be granted residency.

These pols insisted that someone who is a clear enemy of Australia and all it stands for, should remain here because they believed he could deliver the Muslim vote. I believe the word 'traitor' is not too harsh a description of Keating and McLeay.

In 1982, the Arabic newspaper El Telegraph reported a speech by Hilaly in which he said "the flesh of Australian women is as cheap as pigs' flesh". About the same time, one of the Arabic newspapers stated that all Australian women were descended from prostitutes. The behaviour of Middle Eastern thugs towards Australian women bears out these beliefs.

This poor excuse for a human being is a RELIGIOUS LEADER - ie, he speaks with authority for Islam. The majority of Muslims appear to agree with him. In one way its a good thing, the more he rants, the more Australians will wake up to the true beliefs of many Muslims whom we accepted as refugees (no way they would have been accepted otherwise!) and to the true agenda of Islam.

Irfan,

are you serious about Mohammed Ali? He was a racist, a misgyinist, and a vile immoral man.

He didn't want to worship a "blonde haired blue eyed skinny white man" in Jesus, showing he is nothing but a filthy bigot.

He even hung out with the Black Panthers for crying out loud.

You are a surprise package Irfan. You often make good comments, as with most of this article, yet sometimes appear to be the same as others. You often, here at OLO call people names who don't agree with you instead of defeating their argument. I guess we should be happy that you at least don't issue fatwas on those who disagree like cowardly Muslim leaders.

The only thing I would fault you on for this article is where you tried to make out it's just the Muslim leaders that are like Hilali, which is plainly untrue.

The head of 2ME, Arab radio, said ALL LEbanese Muslims agree with Hilali, but all other Muslims and Lebanese Christians didn't. The Muslims didn't because Islam is divided bitterly on ethnic lines, so they see it as a way mabye for "their own kind", their leader, to gain power.

Come on Irfan, show us where you stand. Organise a protest for the Muslim public to demand hilali step down.

I fear, if you don't, that Muslims will never be looked at the same way again. After all, if you guys don't want to protest to have him removed, it says most are misoginists who think white women are whores.

Show us how it doesn't say that.

I'm just getting frustrated reading at some of the comments relating to to the Hilali and having him deported. Deporting him is not the solution, it will not correct the damage he has created, and is as effective as sweeping the brocken shards of a vase under a rug (shards still stick out and will affect people). This solution is a waste of time and breath.

I do believe some corrective action does need to take place though for his comments, as he stands as a leader in his community, and should take responsibility for his actions/sayings. Afterall we wouldnt think twice in taking corrective action and wouldnt stand for one of our political leaders to make such a comment, lost in translation or not (which btw is a lame excuse)

Nnnngn. Reading these comments can be a tad frustrating...

Firstly - regardless of much you hate someone's comments, it doesn't mean you can just deport them. Deride, ridicule, argue, do what you will. Just don't censor. When did we become an nation of kneejerk neo-nationalists?

Muslimhater - your name indicates your stance. It's pretty clear you're not participating in this discussion to be enlightened.

Benjamin - you're calling for Irfan to rally against the sheik. Very well - I'm calling for christians to rally for the sacking, (shall I throw in a call for deportation?) of Pastor Danny Nalliah, who has indicated that the Christian Right should take an increased role in Australian politics.

I'd also like similar rallies organised against the pope and vocal christian pastors who condemn the islam faith as one of violence. I'm sure there are plenty. While we're at it, go for the christians who've made similar comments regarding immodestly dressed women.

Dee - the true agenda of Islam?

Islam is a split faith. Like christianity. Is the agenda of the christian offshoots such as the Exclusive Brethren or Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses the same as those of Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans or Anglicans?

Are you referring to the Shia, the Sunni, perhaps the Bahai? Is your target the extremist fundamentalists, or the 100 million odd muslims in Indonesia, many of whom actually practice a pretty damn liberal strand of Islam?

Mickijo "We have never had so much trouble as we do now."

What is this trouble? Is this a new issue, or is it an age-old one? If by trouble you mean intolerant religious bigots spouting garbage, that's always been around. If the problem is terrorism, ditto, and the casualties of war are far greater than the casualties of terrorism anyway. To this statement I say, we've simply never had as many people as we do now.

All in all, what can I say except calm down people. Reign in that hysteria before you create a situation we should really be worried about.

One has become disgusted that our democratically valuable OLO should allow so much time to be spent on what was uttered by an obviously undiplomatic Islamic cleric.

One could also include the term small-minded, but really - the small-mindedness is now mostly being shown in the majority of Posts to be read in this exercise.

Our relations with the Islamic world are bad enough these days without making them worse through blowing up rather isolated spasms of individual half-wittedness.

Possibly a worrying weakness of our OLO, is that there is no way of calling our so-called online discussions to order. There is no way an elected chairperson can operate.

To be sure rather than letting gasoline be poured on small discussive fires, maybe the main theses could be checked more?

One international hornet’s nest that has turned up lately in the Guardian newspaper, is the accusation that us Western Christians don’t care a hoot what happens to the Iraqi Christians, which are said to have comprised close to two million, but now under pressure mostly from the Shi-tes have mostly fled to Syria, some of them captured and tortured, . a female teacher having been decapitated.

There is an earlier Post in this exercise placed in by myself, which from study tries to suggest the reasons for Western neglect of the Iraqi Christians. And naturally, of course, though the Brits are also accused, the Americans will be expected to shoulder most of the blame.

Personally, however, the feeling is that the main targets should be our Western Christian churches, for surely they must all know about the present Iraqi Christian heartache.

So all you interested OLO’s, it is suggested that you accordingly adjust your usually accurate sights for a time.

you know these muslems are a worry.... they haven't come to terms with modernity's feminism yet .... what about working class rights, and stem cell research and the elephant in the room - glbt rights?

Bog Irish,

Distinctly Ditto these damn christians!

Red Neck Bible thumper G W Bush vetoing stem cell research.
Decidedly dodgy ratio of male to female general managers and CEO's in our society and the rest of western 'christian' democracies (and everywhere else).
John Howard doing all he can to sway the balance in determining wage structures for the common man over to big business and management in enterprise by union bashing and enforcing many-on-one contract negotiations.
And when was the last time you met an elephant in this country - let alone in the same room?!

Lousy bunch of Christian anti-elephant bigots!

I'ts all about self-control, not remote control, people.

You will notice that the Islamic community sat on this incident for 3 weeks before it appeared in a newspaper. No outcry. No protests - even though hundreds of Muslims were at the sermon.

That tells you all you need to know about the true mentality of Muslims. The minute it became public (non-Muslim knowledge), suddenly Muslims condemn the Imam.

I have pointed out the hate and violence in the Quran. I have listed vile events in Mohammeds life (murder, torture, slavery, rape, etc...) with links to Islamic texts. Nothing. Muslims know or should know. They say "praise be unto him" after Mohammad's name and consider him an example to follow. So if he murdered, tortured, enslaved and he is a great moral example - figure out what that means. Oh yes, Mohammed said it is was OK to lie to advance Islam.

Remember these same excuses were used, with the same condemnations by Muslim community, after a young girl was raped 25 times in 2000 by 14 Muslims. She was on a train, dressed for a job interview in her best suit, reading The Great Gatsby, but to those men she was a slut, an "Aussie pig." At the trial, one man said he did it because of his "strict Islamic morals." The girl said "I looked in his eyes. I had never seen such indifference." Six years later, nothing has changed.

It will get worse. In the coming years things will get much worse. It doesn't take a genius to see this. In fact I said it here at OLO 18 months ago. I used to thing the problem was Muslim denial or ignorance. Sadly, now I feel the problem is dishonesty and deceit. Strong words, but probably right.

John Kactuz

More Islamic awareness: "The Shareeah, which is embodied (in) the Quran and Sunnah, are the proclamations of Allah and His Messenger (...) ...it is obligatory for every Muslim to obey any command that he hears from Allah or His Messenger (...), even if the command should go against his own desires, opinion or against popular opinion."
http://www.iisca.org/articles/document.jsp?id=65

Irfan

Thank you for your article.

Hamlet, I found your response a refreshing change.

Cheers
Kay

I second Kalweb in her praise of Irfan and Hamlet.

kactuz, since the Lebanese gang-rapes in 2000, there have been thousands of Australian women raped in their own home by men they know. In fact, that is where most rapes occur. Not on the street. Not by roving packs of cowards. But by men who know their victim and supposedly care about them. And unlike the Lebanese gang rapists, they're never caught and never punished.

Thousands of Austrlian women raped every year. Are you thousands of times more worried about that ongoing and persistent and urgent problem than you are about the isolated spate of rapes six years ago for whom the attackers have been caught and punished?

Rapes are committed by people from every background. There was that poor girl in Newington who was gang-raped by Anglo boys in a home invasion. There was Lauren Huxley attacked and left for dead, it looks like, by a whitefella. There was those boys just last week from Werribee with their filthy DVD. I didn't hear any mention of their ethnicity in the media...

Skaf and all the other rapists have committed unspeakable crimes. Yet you seem more worried by the gangs of Lebanese rapists than all the thousands of others rapists around Australia. You could lock up every single one of these people you suspect, and thousands of Australian women would still be raped every year. So I think your concern is misplaced and misguided. You're only looking at the tip of the iceberg, when the problem is throughout our entire community.

Perhaps you're right Mecurius but those perpertrators you talk of are not community leaders as the sheik is meant to be

Misogyny is the direct result of following the occult literature of both the Bible and Quran. Islam and Christianity are both violence based cults and the basis of both cults is for believers to seek the vulnerable and over power and control them. When I heard the Sheiks comments I was not surprised I expect the same sentiment from all Muslims and Christians. Indeed we have heard it from anti abortionism through to anti female clergy movements and housewives as property mentality. What is sad about all this is that as a society we will allow women to be subjegated , to live their lives in fear and ourselves not moral and mature enough to admit that both Islam and Christianity are no more than superstitions and set about to educate them to respect all people as equals and not objects for Muslims and Christians to abuse and blame for any superstitious based perception of ills.

What is really interesting is that there are more blogs on this subject then it is possible to poke a stick at.

I remember at school a group of girls who would encourage other boys to bash up someone who upset them especially if that by had said something they didn't like.

Caroline Overten, Robyn Riley, it was not until I read Miranda Devine's article did I see the context in which the metaphor was used.

OK the article made me cringe.

But then clever wordsmiths can make mince meat of the metaphor.

Yeah I know women, only dress the way they feel comfortable and it has nothing to do with attracting or grabbing male attention.

"and all the prisoners cried 'fool, fool'" The fool on the hill.

I am a little bit surprised that there has been so little examination of what the Imam actually meant.

His comments have been defended with assertions that they were taken out of context and miscontrued. Surely this opens at least the possibility that the comments do not constitute the misogyny that they seem to constitute.

Perhaps the misunderstanding is even due to 'cultural differences' or different linguistic forms so we, who pride ourselves on being so culturally sensitive, should surely at least look at the cultural context.

Maybe his comments were as simply misogynistic as they appear to be but we must at least investigate what was behind the words. To date the debate has seemed to constitute people simply presuming they know what he meant and talking about what should be done about that rather than talking about what he actually meant.

I for one would welcome a statement from Hilali explaining what he was trying to say but I suspect his minders are just telling him to shut up and see if it blows over.

There's no doubt Sheik was speaking about sydney gang rapes.

Now, let's look at the girl who was raped:

18-year-old white girl, was raped 25 times by up to 14 muslim men including Skaf in 2000, was being Australian.

What was her dress?
A typical dress suited for job-interview. (may be a skirt which exposed the meat (legs) to a small extent.

What was she doing?
Sitting on a train, dressed for a job interview in her best suit, and reading The Great Gatsby.

What did the rapist(s) say during rape?
she was a slut, an "Aussie pig" as they called her later, while boasting: "I'm going to f--- you Leb style."

What did the the father of rapist(s) say?
"What do they expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night."

What did Sheik Feiz Mohammad say about that?
A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world," Sheik Feiz Mohammad told 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall last year. "Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ... strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses."

what did Sheik Hilaly say during that ramadan sermon?

"A woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us ... then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation ... then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years."

Now, people who defend the sheik please come up with some other stuff.

From todays Sydney Morning Herald Tom Zreika from the Lebanese Muslem association is reported to have said "While declining to confirm any decision to stage an umma, he indicated the process had been discussed and confirmed it was one way of resolving the sheik's position as Australia's most senior Muslim cleric. "What we want at the moment is for everybody to calm down and that includes John Howard, Morris Iemma and Kim Beazley," he said."

If the Sheik was to make those comments in a work place he would be severely reprimanded or lose his position. His comments are a slur on women generally both Muslem and women from various Western backgrounds. Implicite in his comments is the view that violence is excusable under certain circumstances. I think that generally it is considered quite immature to blame the victim rather than the perpetrator, as Hilaly has done.

To be fair to Tom Zreika, he has indicated they are investigating the possibility of removing the Sheik's title from him. However, when unfortune metaphors come from the mouth of a religious leader which condone violence, then it is fair enough that Political leaders make a stand.

Dear Mercurious.....

normal rapes are about lust and power.

The Skaf and company gang rapes were about cultural and religious assertion as well.

They stand out as racial/religious hate crimes.

There is a difference between a normal rape and such rapes.

I know your smart enough to get that, so it suprises me you seem not to.

ROB12345
The sheik spoke in Arabic, it was translated into English, the key point is not ambiguous.

"Who's fault".... 'the meats'. You cannot re-contextualize this, or de/reconstruct it in any way which takes away form the clear and unambigious meaning.

In context...he is speaking about modesty in dress. Its not rocket science. He went further.. he attributed FAULT and blame to the female if she is molested. There is no possible other way to understand his remarks.

He also insults Australian men, suggesting we are ready to rape and molest at the slightest hint of immodesty in females.

His direct connection to the gang rapes, by Muslims, is evidence that he blames the 'meat'. Even though he condemned the rapes.. (probably kicking and screaming) but he still blamed the 'meat' as did the father of Skaf and others.

IF...he was thinking just of 'unwanted attention/sexist remarks' he would not have alluded to the RAPES.

So... in the actual meaning and the understood meaning by those closest to outcomes as described in his sermon, it is unmistakable that he blames 'exposed meat' for the cat eating it not the cat.

Irfan and Fellow Human,
I believe that you blokes are fair dinkum in trying to encourage integration of muslims into the wider community, so I have a couple of questions that i hope you can answer.

I have noticed that all muslim critics and supporters of Sheik Hilali say he should not have said those things, but none have said that he is wrong in that muslims do not believe his asertions about women in western dress. This also accured when Sheik Feiz Mahammed made his comments about women. I get the feeling that all, or nearly all, muslims are taught this from a very early age.

Can you categoricly say that the comments are wrong and most muslims are NOT taught that women in western dress, os scantily dressed, are whores and sluts.

I think this is important because, from the conduct of the gang rapists, friends/family, comments by both Sheiks Hilali and Feiz Mahammed, and the reported conduct of muslim youths at Cronulla beach which caused locals to take action, all indicate that muslims generally believe that non-muslim women are whores and sluts.

I do hope you can answer this, not only for my benefit, but because it is unfair if most muslims are wrongly critisied.

Banjo you can not integrate any religion with sane community. The imperative of those who believe in God is to capture the minds of the innocent and if so fails destroy them. The belief in God is a great threat to nations; religion destroys security, morality, wisdom, common sense, rationality, harmony, cohesion, progress. The god believer is paranoid, focussed on death and hopes to become immortal. They have no room for respect for those that do not believe as they do. It has nothing to do with race or culture. Islam is destroying what should be prosperous areas of the world as Islam is a people destroyer. Similarly Christianity is destroying the U.S; the Bible belt is an underdeveloped country. Both cults of Christianity and Islam hold the superstition of the end of times, rapture , Armageddon ect, This makes them both extremely dangerous cults and is why we see terrorism and war emanating from both cults. If the Sheik was saying something not believed and followed he would have been shouted down, he wasn’t, nor are the rapturists in Hill Song, nor is the ranting of other sects. Australia has to wake up and deal with this growing horrific problem. We have the opportunity to address this problem in the Australian way, peacefully and intelligently, we are dealing with a wave of insanity. Governments should ban children from religious institutions and religious schools and provide councillors and education programs in all churches, mosques, prayer rooms. If we just let Muslims and Christians run riot we will go the way of Afghanistan, the U.S or Iran. Everybody should have a right to believe what they want and I support that but when religion and superstition becomes a threat to society or touches the lives of non-believers then it must be defused. We are sitting on a time bomb, the sheiks comments are only a glimpse in to the insanity and superstition led hysteria we are facing.

It all seems so simple to me.
Why are women encouraged to cover up ?
Modesty ? ie to avoid stirring up men.
Which men ?
Originally the moslem men in their communities of origin.
Men here do not need to have women covered up.
They can excercise self control even on the beach.
If moslem men do not have that self control, they should leave
the country and go to where they cannot see uncovered women.

Conclusion: it is a problem for moslem men, not moslem women.

Is that so hard to understand ?

Hi Banjo,

The likening of women and men to meat and cats was confirmed to me by those who attended that speech. As an average Muslim I was disappointed at the Sheikh likening male / female relationship to meat and street cats as I find it offensive and dehumanising. Never the less, the fuss in the media (all TV channels, front page newspapers, magazines, radio and talk back stations) is quiet a surprise.

In Islam it’s the man‘s responsibility to look down to avoid temptation and hence rape in most Muslim countries is punishable by death or life sentence in prison. Sheikh Tag could have done a better job by focussing on the benefits and modesty of Hijab only rather than his comparative prejudice comment.

The gang rapists mocked their friends at school and never been to mosques or prayers.
Lebanese youth at Cronulla beach is just a youth problem and not Muslim youth. There is 20+ backgrounds for Australian Muslims, why didn’t we see Egyptian Muslim, Turkish Muslim, Malaysian Muslim gangs then?

TurnRightThenLeft - "the true agenda of Islam?"

The true agenda, as many many Islamic leaders have stated, is to conquer the West for Islam. Or should that be 'reconquer', since they believe that all countries and people were originally Islamic (the idiot justification for endless jihad). Have you not read their statements about 'the crescent flag flying over Downing Street/the Whitehouse'/etc? Muslims in many Western countries are pushing to have sharia law introduced - a body of law that is in direct opposition to our own laws and beliefs.

Islamification is a process by which Muslim spiritual and political leaders (is there any difference between the two?) disseminate Islam through 'missionary' activities eg holding seminars on university campuses, opening cultural centres and sending graduate students to study at Western universities, building mosques, and infiltrating sensitive institutions.

Islam cannot conquer the West militarily, but they can do it by outnumbering and eventually outbreeding us.

Ask yourself why leaving Islam results in a death sentence. Muslims do not wish to integrate, they wish to dominate. Their behaviour worldwide proves it.

TurnRightthenLeft (you've gone so far left you have come back around to the far, far, far, right, where Hilali, and other extremist Islamists sit)

When I commented about how Irfan (who is by far the best of the lot, by the way) should organise a protest about Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, you said that there should also be protests about Christian Pastors from Melbourne, who were convicted of race-hate or something, because they QUOTED the Koran.

Before I go on, did you know that when the Pastor you mention asked the court if he could quote the passage that was so offensive, but the Muslim lawyers objected on the grounds that to quote it would be offensive to Islam! Their own book! And the judge....agreed!

Madness...

What does someone on the Christian right have to be mentioned anyway, can't a non-Muslim attack a Muslim without having the motive your implying, that the attack is only because I'm not a Muslim?

Your prejudice comes out here, that I must be attacking him because I am not Muslim, so you feel the need to mention a Christian who has said the same thing (good luck finding one)

Can't someone just attack him because he's a bigot? Why do you have to see some filthy racist motive behind it?

Such twisted logic says more about you, mate.

the fuss in the media (all TV channels, front page newspapers, magazines, radio and talk back stations) is quiet a surprise.

Nah it is not a surprise at all. The media likes to portray itself as neutral when in fact it is not!

The bread and butter of the media is take things out of context to drive an agenda.

If the media had not made the Sheiks speech a story, the vast majority of Australians would not have known any better.

Like hungry cats, journo's are ready to pounce on any little mouse who says something that they don't like.

The media behave like hidden terrorists, with hit and run tactics then sit back with smiles on their faces watching the circus unfold.

FH,
“...the fuss in the media (all TV channels, front page newspapers, magazines, radio and talk back stations) is quiet a surprise.”
“Quite a surprise!” – c’mon mate, surely you aren’t that naïve. Benedict gave us something far less innocuous; it certainly needed quite some interpretation in the discerning of abuse or insult – the media certainly grabbed it and ran with it.

I wasn’t surprised at all then by the media and are no less surprised now, surely given that al-Hilali's bold and degrading statements needed no extra interpretation or ‘contextualisation’ for his views on women or ‘lustful’ men.

Jolanda
We are not talking about bulls who follow conditioning and response in a bullfight. We are talking about civilised men who can exercise the power of reason before they act.

That some men cannot understand that a woman has the right to wear whatever she wants without the threat of sexual violence is frightening in this day and age. If a woman is wearing overtly sexual clothes and being sexually suggestive, you still have no right to touch her unless it is mutually consensual. Whatever her dsress suggests in your mind, you have no right over her body.

Ability to control our base urges is what separates us from wild animals.

Why don't some men grasp that? How would you like it if some random women came up to you and grabbed your genitals? Do you think she has the right to do that too??

Hi Relda,

Spot on.
I guess the first issue is clear: Al Hilali and his degrading comments by likening women to meat and men to hungry cats. Which is most offensive to us Muslims first before the wider community.

But all of a sudden another comment from a disliked man made him the most important person in the Australian media.
North Korean nuclear threat, Interest rates, Drought, Aussie farmers loosing a billion dollars worth of wheat to Iraq suddenly became secondary issues. The PM is commenting regularly and daily on Sheikh Tag view on women and men!

I never thought the Australian media can sink to this but then I go back few month and remember the 'free schapelle' mania.

Noos. You said: We are not talking about bulls who follow conditioning and response in a bullfight. We are talking about civilised men who can exercise the power of reason before they act".

See that is the problem, I am talking about men that have been conditioned to have a certain attitude towards woman. I am talking about men who are not very civilised and who dont respect woman and who have criminal tendencies. Unfortunately there are alot of them and they come in all shapes and sizes, natinalities and religions. You dont know which ones they are until it is too late, so we have to teach our girls to make good choices and decisions and consider the world we live in today so as to avoid becoming easy targets and so as to protect themselves from heartache and pain. After they have been raped it is too late.

Few in the West know much about Sayyid Qutb, but a read
of his "Milestones", is eye opening stuff, btw its freely
downloadable on the net.

Islam, like any religion, has all sorts of versions,
each group, much like the Xtians, claiming that their's
is the one and only real version.

In today's press there was a mention of Hilali's support
of Qutb. In that case we have a problem, for it was
Qutb's inspiration which is behind the Taliban/Al Queda
version of Islam.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20665970-28737,00.html

If Hilali supports Qutb, perhaps its time for him to move
on and go elsewhere, for in that case we have little in common.

Hilali should be stripped of citizenship and any benefits payed by the Australian tax payer and deported . With him should go the convicted gang rapists, their families and any who react in a negative manner.
We do not need these people.
Why he has been permitted to spew his poison for so long is a question those responsible should be forced to answer.
Others who have said far less than Hilali have been dragged before the court. If he is allowed to get out of this, there is no justice in this country.

To make comment on any social issue, one must be a part of the "whole" community. If one is not part of the "whole" cummunity, then one has no right to make comment!

I remember Shiek Halili once said:

"The two cheapest things in Australia are the flesh of a woman and the meat of a pig."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20658333-601,00.html

Well, that sumps up the opinion of him, Muslims who support him.

mickijo, fair go mate. If a relative of yours commits a crime, then you are not guilty by association. If Hilali is stripped of any legitimacy to preach, then that should be a warning to any other religious leaders. It is pretty apparent that Hilali has been opening his mouth lately to change feet.

Fellow_Human,

I agree with you that the 'lions of lebanon' reflect a youth problem, not a Muslim problem per se, in that Muslims of other ethnic backgrounds were not involved.

But that gangs of similar 'lions' exist throughout the Muslim diaspora worldwide (e.g. Pakistan background in UK) supports the existence of their political and cultural connection to the Hilaly brand of Islam.

Besides, various gangs of racists and rapists of a middle-eastern background need not be Muslims to have been influenced by a particular cultural ethos surrounding that religion. Insofar as you accept that Islam is/can be interpreted/practiced in different ways, then you must hold this to be true.

In fact, I think that the conceptual confusion we're all experiencing over this 'Islamic problem' is due to a failure to see how central xenophobia is to it, which I'd argue lies at its root.

The idea of "purity" verses "impurity" goes to the heart of religion and of racism alike, which are essentially moral dichotomies. Such mindsets can be passed down through generations so long as a moral boundary is maintained between the "pure" and the "impure", permitting all manner of discriminatory behaviour towards the latter.

The Western Christian tradition has had its share of bigoted preachers who have legitimised the most discriminatory practices on its basis. But Western bigots are so much in the minority today that one would be hysterical to fear them.

The 'lions of lebanon' exhibit a parallel xenophobic mindset to that held by Hilaly and his followers. In this way Islam does serve to butress/legitimise their xenophobia of "Westerners" (after all, they all met at Lakemba mosque the night of December 11). Islam's political structure is so 'spiritually' appealing to their xenophia-induced alienation.

All that's left to be done now is that we stop the immoral Kerry Nettle's and John Pilger's of the West from supporting extremist Muslims by falsely legitimising their xenophobic racism of Westerners under a shield of victimhood, i.e from mistaking its cause for its effect.

But unless other Muslims publicly do this, then we have a problem looming.

West,
Typical of your confused bigotry we have comments like this forked tongue approach: "Everybody should have a right to believe what they want and I support that but when religion and superstition becomes a threat to society or touches the lives of non-believers then it must be defused."

Response to BOAZ
So you think that inferring that by ‘creating the temptation’ the Mufti is implying that women are to blame –consider this from the thread on Nudity by a fellow named BOAZ_David, Monday, 23 October 2006 8:34:01 PM

“So the problem is not the 'offence' but the open door to perving etc.
… it just doesn't sound quite right to be flashing our breasts and bums and privates for all and sundry.”

Does that not imply that it is the flashers of breasts (presumably women) and bums who are in the wrong? Or was I taking you out of context?

It amazes me that the Conservative Christian Religious Right has complained about the effects on young men of scantily clad young women for decades and NO-ONE accuses them of sexism, no-one seeks their prosecution over the matter and no-one tries to get them deported

Some good has come out of the Sheik affair and that is the light now being shed on the political interference and favours that allowed him to stay in Australia.

So we have Mr Keating to thank and it was all about numbers for an election. Not actual numbers but possible ones.

Why do we put up with the ongoing lack of ethics of politicians?

Muslims can condemn this attitude until the cows come home and nothing will change because rape and degradation of women is part of Islam.

FH, you say "rape in most Muslim countries is punishable by death or life sentence." Silly, false statement. If you have any knowledge of Islamic societies, the burden is always upon women.I ran across this today aboutEgypt
http://www.manalaa.net/eid_a_festival_of_sexual_harrasement

Consider the issue of rape in Pakistan. I guess what you mean is that, yes, rape is punishable by death but only the victim because she doesn't have 4male witnesses.

A report on the status of woman can be found inthe UNs "Arab Human Development Report 2002" (search Internet!), by Arab experts about the discrimination/prejudice against women in the Arab (ie, Muslim) world. It addresses the widening gaps in freedom, women's empowerment and knowledge in the Middle East.

Rape? It seems to characterize Islam in a way that is unique in the world, from Mohammed until current events. Yes, Islams great man was a rapist - unless taking a woman and marrying her the night after killing her husband and father is not rape.

Do a google search for "Europe" "rape" and "Muslims". Why is it that Muslims are responsible for over half of reported rapes in Scandinavia, if they are 1 to 5% of population?

But then again, what to expect when there are things like this:
The Messenger of Allah said, It is not right that any human being should prostrate to another human being, and if it were right for a human being to prostrate to another human being I would have ordered the women to prostrate to her husband due to the greatness of this right upon her. By Him in whose Hand is my soul, if from his foot to the crown of his head there was a wound pouring forth pus, and she (the wife) came and licked that, then she would (still) not have fulfilled his right. Reported by Ahmad (3/159) and others. Its chain of narration declared good by al-Mundhiree, at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb (3/75), also occurs in S[a]heehul Jaami' (no.7250)

Kactuz

Sandmonkey has more information of the sexual harassment problem:
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/10/30/the-eid-sexual-harassment-incident/

Time after time after time these things and worse happen and Muslims give us the same excuses. There is a deep pattern here and yet Muslims refuse to ask themselves the hard questions.

They will say it is just a few men, it is cultural, others do it, it is unislamic, the prophet said this or that and bla bla bla.
There are so many evils that seem to be associated with Muslims – to name a few: honor killings, FGM - female genital mutilation, forced marriages, polygamy, slavery, wife beating, stonings, domestic abuse, beheadings, beatings, oppression of women in so many ways: dress, education, legal status, work opportunities, etc… Don’t let anybody say these are "isolated" cultural practices, because they are not. Let's not forget to mention Coptic women abducted http://www.copts.net/demands.asp
or hindu women taken for wives against their will
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2005/november/123248.htm

Yet Muslim make excuses and it is never Islam's fault.

I am sure that Irf and FH would never do these things or hurt people, but they will not take a stand and face the sorry truth about Islam, and so they, too, contribute to the hate and violence that is inherent to Islam. You cannot trust them to defend your rights or protect your lives (or women in general). They think Mohammed was a great guy, so if he did the things that Islamic traditions say he did, then that says it all. Might as well consider Jack the Ripper as an example of respecting women.

Sandmonkey is wrong, he says this national shame will be "exposed and confronted". No it won't - we will get silence or excuses. Who knows, maybe the jews made them do it.

There is no hope. Because Muslims refuse to look at the evil soul of Islam and acknowledge the despicable things in the Quran and hadiths, things will get worse and worse. Blood will flow and innocents will be hurt.

Kactuz

ROB513264

I'm saying that young males, being hormonally charged would welcome the opportunity to have a peek at naked females.

I stand by my comments that to show off our privates in public is to invite unwelcome attention.

Any girl who emphasizes her sexuality in her dress, is clearly asking for 'attention'. The issue is...'whos' ? She is not just dressing to 'feel good' because she, being human, is fully aware of the impact the display of her cleavage or breasts or bum or privates, not might, but 'will' have on passing males. So, what she is mainly doing, is seeking to attract a male of her preference rather than all males.

When she encounters a male to whom she is attracted, she may well give him the opportunity to indulge in more intimate social and physical contact.

I have a number of problems with this.

1/ A man will be attracted to her primarily for her sexual assets.
2/ Not only a particular man, but most men will be aroused at the sight.
3/ Those she rejects, may well feel unhappy, and resort to anti social abuse etc.

I prefer not to describe this as 'her fault/his fault' but as human nature.

The same logic applies to males who are 'eye turning' who use their sexuality to attract females who they wish to use on that basis only.
A male who dresses to be a (sexual)chic magnet, and who gets, uses and discards a girl as a conquest, is as bad as a girl who allures a man for the same reason in my view.

The major problem I have with male or female sexuality on public display is that it is suggestive of a flawed foundation for human relationships, and any relationship taken up on that basis is likely to fail once the honeymoon wears of and they discover 'love is blind but marraige is a real eyeopener' kind of thing.

No amount of 'good sex' can make up for a lousy personality in the totality of life.

Benjamin, Dee.

Firstly Dee - my post was to point out that while the agenda of some aspects of Islam is indeed. conquering the west, to tar all the islamic sects with that brush is far too simple.
There are a lot of pissed off islamic people being bombed right now. We're not really giving them much cause for hope, and while I can see that some elements of western interfence in the Middle East could be seen as altruistic, there's plenty there for them to be cynical about. Perhaps we should be taking a long hard look at how the western world has been interacting with the east over the years, and ask whether or not we've contributed to this problem.

Benjamin - I've no problem with organising resistance to offensive people, and I do believe the sheikh's comments were nothing short of inflammatory and stupid. I an not defending them, but I am asking for perspective. What Danny Nalliah said concerned me more, because he wasn't merely preaching to his followers, he was asking them to spread their sphere of influence. This is the same kind of politicised rhetoric we fear (and rightly) from certain elements (note this phrase - certain elements) of Islam. But it's also concerning when coming from the Christian right.

I didn't make any reference to pastors condemning the koran, though I'll admit my point there was pretty vague but more a frustration that these kinds of comments are nothing new, though they come at a time when this issue has been totally politicised.

I guess what I'm saying is put this in perspective and don't assume that the Islamic faith is the only problem here. Some elements of islam are causing problems, but around a fifth of the world's population is islamic and that being considered there isn't that much by way of violence against the west.

Since when did we care about what these nutbags said anyway?

Philo no religion has the right to affect a non-believer. If I am wrong , let god say so. Unless you can prove you are God since you are claiming that right on your say so.

Fascinating to see Boaz supporting Hilaly's logic and the wearing of the hijab. Fits right in with his assertions elsewhere about the innate sexual attractiveness of young girls. Clearly, under such a view men and women must be protected from the inflammation of their innate carnal lusts by the concealment of human bodies.

Fortunately, most of us have better control of ourselves than that unfortunate state of being, and can actually go out in public without fear of inadvertent arousal brought about by glimpses of naked human flesh.

More seriously, in my experience Western women dress at least as much for each other as they do to attract the gaze of men. Does this indicate a surreptitious hint of latent lesbianism?

Clearly, all women should wear the hijab. Men too, for that matter!

C.J. you are in error.

I do not support Hilali nor the wearing of the hijab.

My references were applicable to BOTH genders, and it has nothing to do with hijabs.

But I do support the basic idea of modesty for both genders on sound scriptural grounds. Feel free to disagree with those grounds :) but.. I'd prefer you did so on sound anthropoligical and psychological grounds than simply the desire to misrepresent or 'pounce' on me.

The amount of 'skin' we display is culturally relative, and once we settle down to given boundaries we can usually adjust our own sense of arousal and its appropriateness.

The problem comes more when people EXCEED the accepted boundaries.
-MORE cleavage, maybe a hint of nipple.. etc..
-MORE leg...
-Thongs under short skirts etc..
-Men in 'muscle shirts' showing full bisceps etc

I still rememember a Japanese chick in Singapore walking along with her boyfriend or husband in a skirt so short it showed about 20% of her bum (yep..of course I measured that).. and her panties were cut to deliberately show about 30% of her bum cheeks.(measured that too)

I should not have to spell this out for you.
You speak like someone from a planet we don't know. Its as though you have not shared the same human experience as most of us. *scratches head*.....

To make this clear, all one has to do is contrast the attitude of the youth oriented FM stations and their disgusting 'gotcha' segments aimed at humiliating people.... to something like an old episode of 'Father Knows best' :) Now that will bring a hue and cry ....

CONCLUSION.

-Modesty for all of us is a good thing.
-focus on our inner beaty of character is preferable to the outer which will fade.

"if you've got it, flaunt it" I challenge all to read Daniel Chapter 5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=5&version=31

King Belshazar 'had it'.... he flaunted it....and then.. we got the saying "The writing is on the wall" which to this day we still use.

Why is it that so many people only seem to be able to function and think at the extremes?

Surely there is common sense and moderation left!! Girls shouldn't need to show it all to get attention! It makes them bigger targets to rapists and pedophiles.

We keep trying to pretend we are all the same when clearly we are not. We are being told over and over that not all humans are good and some humans can be really bad and some are really violent, some think themselves so superior that they don’t believe that they need to respect, others are just 'you know what' holes.

We know, because we have been told by experts and them (education!!), that some men (really alot) have no respect and they see girls/woman as an item for their pleasure and/or meat. Therefore we should do what we have to do to educate and protect our girls/woman and boys/men. The law does not protect the victims; it only works to deal with the complaints by the accuser after the event. The only person that gets protected in this process is the criminal?

When making an allegation of rape they can use your dress and actions against you. Even if we can change the law, if people have discretion it wont change the attitude and prejudices that fuel their actions. So our girls need to be taught about this so that they can take that into account when they dress to go out and depending on where they are going and with whom they are with, dress accordingly taking into account that they would be wise to protect themselves. If not from the rape then at least from what will follow as getting justice is even worse than the rape – you get re-victimised over and over again

Fellow_Human,
Thankyou for the information about the youths of Lebanese descent causing the problems at Cronulla. Can I take it that this same group are,mainly, the ones we call Muslim hoons in cars and caused the mayhem in the revenge attacks, next night. I did note that you said that these youths do not practice their religion.

While I can appreciate your dissapointment with the comments of Sheik Hilali, you did not answer my question, which was.

Are most muslims taught that women in western dress, or scantily clad, are whores and sluts?

If this teaching applies only to a few groups, can you elaborate on these groups. I am far more concerned about the situation here than overseas or world wide.

You blame the victim Jolanda. Muslim countries dont have lower rape levels than Australia, infact some have higher rape levels. Muslim guest workers as house keepers in Saudi Arabia are often used as free prostitutes by the employer. HIV is as just as rampant in parts of Indonesia as it is in parts of Africa. Some of the highest rape levels in the world is in South America in Catholic areas such as Nicaragua. A woman can smear her self in dung and wear a gorilla costume a rapist will still rape her. It is the rapist that is deviant not the victim. Rape does not enter a well adjusted mans mind. The Sheik was addressing men who were driven out of their minds with superstition and so look for evil in the world to the point where they can only see through evil eyes.So the Sheik speaks evil.

Turnrightthenleft,

You obviously know how to reason and think, although I still believe you are coming at this from a fundamentally wrong position.

To comment about those on the Christian right is fair enough, however, I notice that you tend to see an attack on SOME Muslims for their support for extremism

Perhaps it's my unique ubringing, among it all in South West Sydney. My family was poor and so I grew up in housing commission areas where most of these people settled.

I was always taught to be open minded, and still am, but I believe I gained an anthropology degree during the age of 8-16, when we moved out.

All, repeat, all my friends, were either Asians or Lebanese, as all the Australians I knew were too middle-class for me and I didn't have much in common with them.

I realised though that I was, as all white Australians were, seen as an inferior by almost all of the migrants in the area (area was about 5% white Australian - grew up near Cabramatta). This wasn't just paranoia, but physical action, violence.

I remember groups of Lebanese & Asians that went "Aussie bashing" for fun, although the fact that I knew a few saved me. They're families were racist, told them never to mix with anyone but their own, and one Vietnamese friend I had for my entire childhood, who, although incredibly sly was the best of the bunch, even he was a racist who thought Australians were inferior...

...A teacher was even bashed so bad once the story was on the Nightly News.

Anyway, my point is, such attitudes weren't only common, they were by far the rule as opposed to the exception.

But you didn't have to live there to know this, you just have to see the news, see what others say. You just have to put a few things together for yourself, that, these people come from cultures where religious and ethnic minorities are treated like dirt, as we see all across the mid-east, and now, in Iraq with the sectarian violence.

I don't know if you read the HREOC report into Children in detention around the time people wanted to get the kids out, but in that there was many cases of Muslims being violent against minorities, like Mandaens.

It got so bad that the Mandaens were moved to another compound as Muslims wouldn't share cutlery, eat with, let their kids near, such dirty infidel scum.

Of course it wasn't all, but enough to have to admit there are cultural elements to their attitudes.

Just as we've seen with silence on Hilali, and that those interviewed at the mosque support him, it says a lot about how they value those outside their tribe.

Think about it, for that is the reason everywhere such cultures go in the west, even the ridiculously tolerant Netherlands, they become the crime capitals, a % of their youth commit racially motivated pack rapes, bashings, and murders.

Islamic immigration, and to an extent mass immigration from the third world, is the largest problem in the western world.

The EU recently held a two day summit to decide what to do about their Muslims.

I remember when police at Bankstown had such a problem with Lebanese youth bashing white students at the station they had to keep a permanent presence there.

Imagine catching a bus from there each day? Most don't, so they don't care.

That is human nature, but empathy should also be.

Thanks for reading.

Hello Irfan,

My eyes are opened now as a muslim woman Shakira speaks about his experiences:

Eyes opened by Islamic chauvinism

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20673860-601,00.html

" Mustafa - tried to drag her under their control in the name of Islam."

" As soon as we made contact, he said I should be living under my father's roof, or with my grandmother, or an aunt.

"I didn't realise how serious he was. I just told him that I wasn't interested."

"He (Mustafa) would berate me about that, in part because she was Jewish, but also because I was living out of home," she said.

"Eventually I told him to get lost, mind his own business. But he would come to the house, knocking on the door, to insist I come home with him, to live under our father's roof."

"where a young man, a relative, would decide how I should live, or dress, or behave."

"We should know from London that young Muslim men are feeling disenfranchised - they do not fit into their own cultures, or into Western cultures - and we should not have leaders encouraging them toward this frightening, controlling behaviour."

I am sure this is happening in almost all muslim families

There seems to be antidotes galour about the male attitude to women.
Some say it is not islamic teaching but it is so widespread that it
is hard to believe that it is not fundermental to the religion.
Some people quote the Quaran for backing that this male attitude is
affirmed as correct. I don't bother to go and read it but so what, it
does not matter if it is in that book or not.
It is there and cannot be denied.

So what do we do about it ? Not easy, but it cannot go on like this
or we will turn the country into another Beruit.
When such a small percentage of Lebanese in the country end up with
40 % of the population of one gaol you have to ask yourself if they
should be here at all.
How to encourage them to go. It might cost a lot but would enough go
if they were offered a good price for their house and $500,000 as
a going away present. When you look at the cost of keeping them in
gaol it would probably be worth it. It would be something like
$75,000,000,000. It could be worth it in the long term.
The expense would not all occur in one year.
Of course immgration from those areas and those people would have to
be stopped.

Maximus wrote: "Of course, when I meet their trashy, scumbag tramps of girlfriends in the street, with their tramp stamp tattoos, body piercings, exposed bodies, drugged and drunk, I have nothing but pity for them."

I would suggest that it is you who is the scumbag Maximus, with your' superficial jugement of others.

So, you think Vivy's point is valid? I don't. If I were a woman, I would rather a few cat calls, and wolf whistles from a couple of tradies to being gang raped by a pack a rabid dogs who call themselves Muslim.

The term 'meat market' has been in the Australian vernacular for a long time to denote certain types of bars and clubs. The idea of people as 'meat' is not necessarily rejected by this culture in certain contexts.

Hilali's sermon also said that men were more culpable than women for the 'crime of stealing' to contrast his claim that women were more culpable than men in the 'crime of adultery'. Each claim is as 'sexist' as the other, although strangely, no-one seems to give a firefly's fart when men are discriminated against. The presence however of sexism against men in the sermon should at least put a query over the claims of sexism against women because as he is 'discriminating on the basis of sex' against both sexes he is treated them both equally.

Clearly the Mufti's views come from a different cultural paradigm and perhaps a different century (and not necessarily an adjacent one) and personally I believe he is so out of touch with the modern world that he would be much better replaced but I also think that about the pope who got into similar trouble over a similar quote from a similar source. I wonder if anybody would want to see the pope deported?

The charge of sexism is logically very thin indeed. I suspect that the powers that be decided they didnt want Hilali around anymore - waited for him to say something naive and ambiguous and pounced. John Howard sent in Pru Goward, his brand new attack dog, under the cloak of Feminism which gives her impunity and super human powers and bob's your uncle - this is an ex-mufti.

With deft flick of the wrist Rob 513264 tickles the ball down to fine leg and takes a single - that takes this thread up to a hundred.

He raises his bat to the crowd, kisses the emblem on the baggy green cap and turns to face the bowler

Is that so Rob513264? Those nasty women. What is the world coming to? To think rape victims are part of a feminist conspiracy. That poor neo-prophet Sheik Hilali - his only crime to be naïve in a world so complicated that such intricate and convoluted concepts such as human rights evilly reign supreme.

Any man who thinks his daughter, mother, sister, wife, girlfriend, work colleague could do anything to deserve being raped is sick. The Sheiks views are the views of a pervert. As any real man knows only a pervert would entertain the concept of rape. Only a pervert would blame the victim of rape.

Perhaps if Hilali belongs in another century he should pack his bags and find a cave somewhere. What he said does not occur in a vacuum; Hilali would not say such sick and perverted things if it was not integral to Islamic concept. That is why all religion and all religious people must be judged on the worst crimes of the religion. To choose to be part of a religion is to embrace the worst crimes of that sect as a manifest of that sect’s concept of righteousness. We do hear about all the lace embroidery from apologists but when the theology hits the fan we see the dark truth behind the belief system as we have seen with Hilali.

Pru Goward the attack dog? Goward has not bitten anybody. Hilali has incited violence against Australians, he has called the Governments bluff and they have failed to act responsively. Next time another neo-prophet will do the same with a little more hostility, and then another slightly worst. Before we know it we have another Paris on our hands or worst we could end up with anti feminists with political power.

it is obvious

West

In response to your post on the 31st Oct.
Have you read the BBC headline this morning?

“Westerners 'are more promiscuous'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6101970.stm

"People in western countries tend to have more sexual partners than those in the developing world, a study says.
Monogamy is dominant across the world, but multiple partners are more common in rich countries, according to the study published in the Lancet.

"This was despite developing countries having higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and HIV.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine researchers gathered data from 59 countries for the study.
They said factors such as poverty and mobility had more of a role in sexually transmitted infections than promiscuity had.

"...However, those reporting multiple partners were much higher in developed countries - up to a third of under 25s in some areas - whereas only a small percentage in Africa reported the same.
And among singletons, westerners were more sexually active as well.
Two thirds of men and women without a partner in African countries reported they had had sex recently, compared to three quarters of those in developed countries.

Surprising

"The researchers said these findings were surprising, as higher rates of STIs were reported in developing countries.
But the report's author, Professor Kaye Wellings, said: "This suggests social factors such as poverty, mobility and gender equality may be a stronger factor in sexual ill-health than promiscuity."

Posted by West, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 10:26:50 PM
“ To think rape victims are part of a feminist conspiracy…Any man who thinks his daughter, mother, sister, wife, girlfriend, work colleague could do anything to deserve being raped is sick.”

You do what most hysterical feminist ravers do and exaggerate arguments to an extreme and then protest over the extremity of the position!

No-one ever said they thought that ‘rape victims were part of a feminist conspiracy’ or that any woman does anything to ‘deserve being raped’ but you cite it as if that is the position of the people to whom you are responding. Also you give no logic – you just rave – anyone can do that – have you actually read his speech? He referred to men as ‘cats’ as well. It would be just as valid to extrapolate his remarks about men to say that he thinks "men are all just animals who have no control over what they do and should be neutered like cats" as it is to extrapolate his remarks about women to the extent that you have done.

“Pru Goward the attack dog? Goward has not bitten anybody…Hilali has incited violence against Australians.”

Pru Goward has incited violence against Hilali – but like most women she uses the legal system to do her dirty work for her.

'“Pru Goward the attack dog? Goward has not bitten anybody…Hilali has incited violence against Australians.”

Pru Goward has incited violence against Hilali – but like most women she uses the legal system to do her dirty work for her.'

Rob513264, it was Hilali himself who did the dirty work. Anybody who so comprehensively supports the vile comments he made should wonder whether there is a place for them in Australia. Rob513264, I happen to be male.

Hilali has incited violence against himself.

In todays "The Age": "The imams' statement deplored the intensified campaign being waged against Sheikh Hilali, saying it had wilfully and deliberately targeted Islam and Muslims."

For once I can agree with Mr. Howard and Mr.Costello and any other politician who has weighed in against the vile comments made by Hilali. If he was making the same kind of comments when Mr. Keating was Prime Minister, then he should have been deported years ago. There appears to be a number of moderate Muslims who are very much against Hilali, also.

A further worry is that Muslims are intending on having a rally to support Hilali at the weekend. At least the Lebanese Muslim Association does not officially support the rally.

It's a very big concern that 50 clerics are providing support for Hilali. It would appear that Ian Paisley, the violent speaking Protestant Christian from Ireland looks child like in comparison to Hilali

Rob513264 I am explicitly saying that men are not cats, for Hilali to think men are like cats is only a reflection upon himself, his supporters and his ideology which in this case is Islam.

Rape does not come natural to the well adjusted male; misogyny is a hall mark of the Abrahamic cults. Adamism the belief that men are the incarnation of god and women are his live stock. The ultimate outcome of the belief in the Abrahamic god is of course rape this is not only articulated through Islamic neo-prophets such as Hilali but also in the neo-prophet pope cult of Catholicism where women in poverty are kept in subjugation through pregnancy and the protestant cult of morals where women’s punishment for being women is to serve her husband. Even within the occult belief of intelligent design believers claim women have inferior genes to men. Of course there are thousands of types of misogyny in the Abraham cults but that will do for 350 words.
You will see Christians have been very vocal in attacking homosexuality and stem cell research but save a few have been quite silent on this issue as they have also been silent in condemning child rape which is prettied into being called child sex abuse.

I too am male; it seems as if your Brotherhood against women is on the thin side here.

Sabasakin yes you are right but be careful because poverty does not necessarily equate to crime. House keeper rape in Arabia and Malaysia is conducted by those on high incomes. Naturally places where children have been exposed to war experience a cohort of rapists later on. Generally rape is a combined product of bad values, bad ideology, self obsession, a strong sense of righteousness, a fear of women, the inability to empathise with fellow humans and psychotic sexual perversion.

sabasakin,
It may be factual that educated Westerners are more promiscuous. Though I dissaprove of this consenting behaviour, at least it is mutual and nor rape. The link has little relevance to the political agenda of Muslims view of mini skirts. Rape [not consenting sex] occurrs even on burka and fully clad women.

You will recognise the political scheming Muslim community use their criminal element to exploit free Western societies rapeing and committing acts of violence in an endeavour to have shari'ah laws introduced. It is not merely about mini skirts or burkas it is about political laws that wish to outlaw free choice and demean equality for women. At least 40 incidents of female genital mutilation is occurring right here in Sydney each year have been recorded at Auburn Hospital. Such mutilation is not consentual by the victim. Objection to Western dress is Eastern political and not any other purpose.

Muslims generally believe all sexual sins are schemed by women, as indicated by the words of several contriversial Sheiks with regard to women. Only women in the Muslim communities are punished by death for sexual sins, that is why their dismay at a 65 year sentence given to males involved in pack rape [ref Hilaly's speech]. That is why honour killings of girls who have engaged in consentual sex outside marriage. These criminal elements have propagated their vile acts in Western Countries into which they have transmigrated in an endeavour to enforce shari'ah.

West,
On religious oppression I happen to agree with you, it is not a genuine Christian view.

Philo,
Although I knew that some FGM had been done here, I had no idea that the rate was as high as that. Can you supply more details or the source please and, as it is against the law, I wonder why no one has been charged. Do not medical people have to report it, like gunshot wounds?

This is an entirely unacceptable affront on the girls and to our culture.

Abyss,

Agree a great deal with your example with few comments if I may:
- I disagree with the sheikh ‘s example degrading human relations to women being ‘meat’ and men being ‘hungry cats’. Honestly I find it more offensive to me as a man. He can preach modesty without comparing.

- The sheikh ‘s comment even if I dislike it, it is still a freedom of speech. A year ago in an Orthodox church in Arncliffe I heard a priest referring to women as ‘tools of satin’ which is deeply seated in their belief. This guy is alive and well and no-one is asking him to apologise or leave the country.

- The youth problem I noticed in Australia is not exclusive to Lebanese and I believe its in essence an identity problem where they feel rejected by Lebanese and Australians. Identity problems and youth anger is a 2 way streets and many countries (such as the US, Germany). Ignoring or inflaming angry youth have a history of generating ugly results and we should think of mechanisms to deal with this youth and resolve the root cause of their problems whether real or perceived.
Australia had many examples of angry implosive young people (ie Martin Bryant).

Kaktuz,

Good to read from you after a long disappearance I thought you reverted and became sheikh Kaktuz!
I was disturbed by the article of what happened in Egypt. It was all over the local TV channels and the minister of police is still in denial.

Re Copts: all Egyptians are copts (Muslims & Christians). The issue in Egypt is absence of anti-discrimination laws and hence every part of the society have problems (women, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, gays, etc..). Why is there 60,000 Muslims in Egyptian prisons held without charge then? Be objective please.

You can quote the dodgy missionaries hadith until the cows fly. Muslims practice the Qu’ran and the hadith is taken with caution. What conflicts with the Qu’ran (ie God’ word in our belief) discredits the hadith and its source.

"Why is there 60,000 Muslims in Egyptian prisons held without charge then? Be objective please."

FH, the way I understand it, in Egypt, as in other countries, there
are degrees of religious fanatacism, going from the secular, to the
total religious nutcases. There is constant competition between
these forces, for power and influence.

Egypt is the home of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are extremists,
including their violent branches, as per the Sayyid Qutb school,
which is the philophical basis of Zawahiri, bin Laden etc. They
preach a violent overthrow of the planet, all for Allah.

Remember the bombing of tourists in Egypt? Presidents assasinated
etc?

As secular forces don't really want to see religious zealots take
over their country, thousands are thrown in jail. That seems
to be the problem with Islam, wherever Islam goes, violence and
extremism seem to follow.

Banjo,
The issue was raised in NSW parliament this week by Dr Moyes.

Quote: "Female genital mutilation is an criminal practice that is wholly unacceptable within Australia,” Dr Moyes said.
Dr Moyes questioned the State Government why not one person had been prosecuted for the crime of female genital mutilation. “Resources should be allocated to catching those responsible, and if that means changing the laws to require medical practitioners to report incidents to police, then so be it.”

“The authorities need to lift the vale of silence on this crime in order to protect the vunerable,” Dr Moyes said."

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2006/10/24/female-genital-mutilation/

Hi Fellow_Human,

(1) How can you follow a paedophile mohammed(cbuh), a person who took a 9 yr old girl as his 14 th wife and also took his adopted son's wife as his wife once he saw her naked?

(2) Why do you call paedophile mohammed(cbuh) a perfect man and a role-model for all humanity?

(3) Have you ever thought of the plight of non-muslims in islamic countries? Can you ever find a non-muslim equivalent of sheik in islamic countries?

(4) If a muslim converts to non-muslim religion, why should he die/suffer?

Please answer to the point and dont bring any comparisons.

Hi tit for tat

Hope you wouldn't mind if I attempted to answer some of your queries.

(1) How can you follow a paedophile mohammed(cbuh), a person who took a 9 yr old girl as his 14 th wife and also took his adopted son's wife as his wife once he saw her naked?

Before I begin, may I ask where you got the info of seeing his adopted son's ex naked? Can you cite the ref. please.

Anyway, the person you are talking about did not have 14 wives at any stage in his life.

He first got married at the age of 25 to a lady named Khadija and maintained a monogamous life for 25 years until her death. After Khadija's death, she got married to the "girl" (Aisha) you are talking about.

Mohammed’s adopted son was called Zaid. Before Mohammed adopted him, Zaid used to be a slave. Mohammed made Zaid free and declared him to be his adopted son. Mohammed adopted son’s ex-wife was called Zainab, who also happened to be Mohammed’s first cousin. Zainab, who was born into a highly prestigious family, got married to Zaid, but couldn’t bear the fact that her husband used to be an ex-slave. Their marriage dissolved. Mohammed’s marriage to Zainab was undertaken for an important legislative purpose, when Koranic prescriptions made the practice of legal adoption unlawful, but commended foster care instead.

I'll ask you to kindly make yourself familiar with the context in which Mohammed lived. That of a seventh century patriarchal, tribal society in which polygyny and slavery were endemic. After a twenty-five year marriage to Khadijah, except for Aisha, all his wives were divorcees or widows, many elderly. They were largely undertaken for legislative purposes, to strengthen kinship and tribal ties, and to protect widows of close companions. Hardly the stuff of Arabian nights harem fantasies, if that’s what you’re implying. Furthermore, they were all contracted before the Koranic revelation restricted polygynous marriages to four, and he did not contract any more marriages once that verse was revealed by God.

Alllllo allo alloo ...F.H. is going to CHURCH :)

F.H. should I rejoice now ? .. no offence mate.. I can understand you dropping in from time to time.. You might like to make mention of that incident in the 'opinion' section of the daily telegraph, its worth mentioning.
I notice that NewsCorp is clearly doing a 'job' in Muslims for the sake of selling advertising space and gaining ratings.
They must have had a 'spy' in the Lakemba mosque or deliberately examined the transcripts of the sermons.

It doesn't change the severity of Hilali's remarks but I don't think they are page 1 material.

Sabasakin

.. regarding Mohammed's wives and the culture of the day, basically you are saying Mohammed was nothing new, just same old same old.. he enjoyed young chicks and there are plenty of hadith to support that. The very idea of him marrying his adopted sons wife is repulsive for THAT culture and ours, hence another one of those handy 'revelations of convenience' to justify him. "So that the believers may know...that its ok to do that".. for crying out loud.. he didn't have to MARRY her to show that.. he just had to SAY so, as he did with so many other issues... on balance of probabilities he took her because he WANTed her .. same with Safiya.. whos father AND husband he had killed. That was an illegal marraige under his own law, and based on 'her beauty'.. i.e. LUST.. there is no escaping that one.
blessings

A question for Muslims posting here:

There is no doubt that Mohammed married the child Aisha when she was six years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine. Muslims seem ok with this, using 'ancient cultural norms' as an excuse for his actions.

So does that mean that if Mohammed returned to earth, Muslims would be pleased if he wished to marry their nine year old daughters? Surely they would be flattered, since Mohammed was supposedly a good and perfect man.

Philo,
Thanks for the info and the link. I will email Dr moyes asking to be told of any reply forthcoming to his question.

Far from comprehensively supporting the Mufti's position I called for him to go (above), I just dont see why Muslim Fundamentalists should be singled out from Christian Fundamentalists who, for decades at least, have proposed 'scantily-clad women' as part of the causal matrix of sexual crimes.

If someone wanted to deport all Religious Fundamentalists for the cock-n-bull attitudes they hold they might have an ally in me but to single out Muslims for proposing views held by Christians for a long time is inequitous.

I notice West did not reply to the question, 'did you actually read the sermon?' I am guessing West didnt since if they had they probably would have declared it.

So, let us, as the Queen of Hearts prescribed, 'have the execution before the trial' or actually why bother examining the evidence at all - just go straight to the execution.

The brotherhood is not thin it is non-existent.

There has never been a shortage of men who flock to take the part of women who play the victim. Huge numbers of men don the shining armour whenever a damsel in distress cries foul irrespective of whether she has a legitimate complaint or not. I call them 'Dr Phils'. In his book The Myth of Male Power, Dr Warren Farrell gives a very interesting account of the dynamic of men rushing to 'protect' women who are engaged in attacking men.

Fellow_Human,
My quettion to you was on 31-10-6, four days ago. Am I to presume that you will not answer? In case you missed it, the question was:-

" Are most muslims taught that women in western dress, or scantily clad, are whores and sluts?"

I would appreciate an answer if possible.

Obviously the more indoctrinated a person is into an Abrahamic cult the more sexist they are. If the Bible or Quran or Torah is true then rape is gods fault. And damned is that god if he thinks his lackeys will get away with rape. Dominant secular society far more intelligent, balanced, encompassing will protect its daughters. The real Lord – The Law will prevail.

Muslims are going to defend the principles they haven’t updated since stealing (and raping) Byzantium. We will hear the same thing over and over until the cult finally disappears. Like Christianity Islam is in its last stages. Those Dark Age cults are struggling to find relevance in a 21st century world. The beliefs for both superstitions are now pathetic and laughable. The only Hope for Islam and Christianity is what they are doing now – trying as hard as possible to drag the world back into the Dark Age. Id like to hear a perspective about this issue from the real spiritual survivors, the oldest religion on earth, Indigenous Australian religions and the second oldest religion in the world, Hinduism and from the oldest surviving North African-European religion, Paganism

Sorry to disappoint you West but Christianity is more alive now than at any time in history. There are more disciples of Christ, more matyrs, more people giving up their lives to serve others. Man is pretty dumb to think they can snuff out their Creator by arguing or pretending He does not exist. Its like the clay saying to the potter that you did not shape me. Kick, scream , argue does not change the simple fact that we are made in God's image!

What Creator exactly runner?

I think you are making your creator up.

If I am wrong let God say so , If I am right he will then be silent because he does not exist.

"argue does not change the simple fact that we are made in God's image! "

Sheesh, no wonder we are such a destructive species lol. Raping
pillaging, warring, wrecking the planet as fast as possible.
Just like the old god of the old testament.

Perhaps if whoever made god, made him more like bonobos then like us, it would
be a far more peaceful, happy and sustainable planet :)

Banjo,

Apologies I missed your question.

" Are most muslims taught that women in western dress, or scantily clad, are whores and sluts?"

Most females in my family wear what you call 'western dress'.
Although the answer to your question is "no", I have seen cases in the Arabic culture (Muslims and Christians) where women wearing revealing clothes are mistaken for being éasy to approach'.

Either case I don't believe reliogion got anything to do with the whole thing.

Peace,

Tit_4 ...,

To make an opinion about Islam (as I can see its a matter of interest) you need two views:

1- The anti-Islam views (which I can see your posting referring to).
2- Islam as Muslims see it, practice it and believe (available in books like Íslam for Dummies'and "Quran for idiots" in most book stores).

I can see from your postings you are stuck in the ánti' views which is fine but your questions can only be answered if you see islam as Muslims see it.
I am afraid noone can help you but you: you can make a balanced opinion or live in the Islamophobia land.

Peace,

Another thing which I have not heard anyone address is the fact that Australian Women often refer to each other as 'sluts' and 'whores' because they are judged to be dressing too provocatively. There have been so many occasions in my life where I have been taken aback by the vitriol that women spray on each other over how 'slutty' other women look.

Is it really consistent to hold that certain types of comments are or are not acceptable depending on who says it?

Fellow_Human,

Thank you for that. I thought you may have missed the question earlier as there were quite a few posts after mine. Your post gave me information I was not aware of.

So it is those persons of Arabic culture that consider western dressed women to be decadent. This could apply also to Christens of Arabic heritage/culture. I take it that muslims of Indonesian, indian, Parkistani and some others like Serbian/croatian muslims are normally NOT brought up to think that women in western dress are decadent. This is why you say it is a cultural issue rather than a religous issue.

Will you let me know if I do not have this correctly as it is important not to be critical of those that do not hold those views.

Mind you there may be other issues that I may disagree on.

But this attitude to women in Western dress is one of the main reasons that Arabic muslims have not a very good reputation.

"Is it really consistent to hold that certain types of comments are or are not acceptable depending on who says it?"

Yup Rob, it is consitent, who says something matters greatly.

A girl who passes a bitchy comment about another girl, is
most likely doing it for entirely different reasons, then
if say an Islamic preacher makes the same comment. Thats
just girl talk and bitchiness, fairly common. They are
competing with each other after all.

A preacher saying the same thing, which could encourage
young males to forget the rights of others, is a whole
different story, different perspective.

Think about it. If I, as a middle aged male, made a comment
about your say 12 year old daughter, would you treat it the
the same as if one of her female friends said it?

Clothing is a direct response to the elements. They keep us warm or dry, and change with the climate. It's religion that brought the idea of shame to the human body. All three Middle Eastern religions share this sense of shame and guilt around the human body.
A woman should be able to walk about stark naked and not fear being assaulted. She should be able to flaunt her sexuality and be proud of it. just as a well muscled man should be able to feel the natural pride in being young and healthy and virile. To educate your children that God wants you to hide his greatest gift to the perpetuation of the species is a moral and social crime. And in my opinion is one most exclaimed by those who can or could only dominate any society by using God as a weapon of restriction not liberation. The transfer of human genetics is no different than that of the animal world. Do you think a male peacock feels shame with tail feathers in full bloom. Or that the male lion would rather shave his majestic mane. That giraffes would rather be plain. Or is it that we are made in Gods image and he too is ashamed. I do not believe that shame and guilt are necessary tools. That with out them society would degrade into a perverted sexual miasma
of uncontrolled appetites

"Is it really consistent to hold that certain types of comments are or are not acceptable depending on who says it?" Yup Rob, it is consitent, who says something matters greatly.
Think about it. If I, as a middle aged male, made a comment
about your say 12 year old daughter, would you treat it the
the same as if one of her female friends said it?
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 November 2006 12:53:41 PM

It is extraordinary that you cite an example of inconsistency as an example of consistency - I thought only women used logic like that. I would find it unacceptable if anybody spoke about a 12yr old girl like that.

Aqvarivs,

I enjoy what you wrote.

Before 'sin' entered the world, Adam and Eve went about naked. They had no feeling of shame. When sin entered the world, so did a sense of shame. Adam and Eve then sought to cover up.

Morale of the story:

1. God never intended that we cover up any more than a male peacock ought to feel ashamed with pretty tail feathers in full bloom.

2. It's human that chose to cover up due to consciousness of shame, arising from a sinful nature. (Now hardly anyone question the need for clothes.)

3. From day one, it's not in God's nature that an unclothed person is a sinner. God will not strike us with lightning and fire from sky, if the whole world decided to go completely naked for two days.

4. This is completely logical and is consistent with Jesus's teaching which amounts to 'Lust equals Adultery', meaning...

5. Sin is a state of mind, not whether we wear clothes. If a fully-clothed man sees a naked woman and lusts for her, then the man has sinned. Importantly, not the woman. The woman is only a sinner if her nakedness is sinfully intended. Conversely, the woman has NOT sinned if her nakedness is NOT sinfully intended in her mind.

Islam has a completely different ethos, which is yet another clear distinction between Muslim Allah and Christian God.

Once a self-righteous Iranian Muslim told me that Islamic Iran is 'morally' superior because unlike western countries, Iran has very few rape cases (the reported ones, of course).

I could have told him Iran's in fact far worse than United States, because:

(a) Lust equals adultery. Iranian men lust no less than men anywhere else.
(b) When Muslim men rape, they blame the women. Hence they bear false witness.
(c) In Iran, there is very little a rape victim can do to seek justice.

I could also have told him, in the eyes of God he is an unashamed adulterer. He would certainly have hit the roof. Neither would his 'prophet' Muhammad accepted such an idea.

"It is extraordinary that you cite an example of inconsistency as an example of consistency "

No Rob, its only inconsistent if you make the flawed assumption that
all people see life from the same perspective, which they clearly
don't.

Any comment has to be taken in the context in which it is said
and by whom. You ignore these variables at your peril.

To all

As a victim of gang rape - I suggest that none of you know what you are talking about with regard to rape. It was in 1993 and I was 45 years if age.

I was not wearing provocative clothing and I had not been drinkng or drugging.

It was twilight (9pm) in Victoria. I was going for a walk on my holiday. It was a beautiful balmy evening.

I was dragged off the main street - pulled hehind a church and bashed to a pulp. Then they raped me. And after they raped me, they bashed me again. And then they robbed me - $20.

When they were caught, they admitted that they went out for the night to bash and rape a woman. They said that the bashing was the best part.

Rape is not about sex. It is about power and control. Sexual organs are the vehicle for power and control.

Kay

GZ Tan
I did not use the word or image of sin because sin is a decree on ones actions or thoughts relative to religious interpretation. Shame and guilt is laid at the door of ones existence prior to sin. The shame and guilt of existence. Man's eternal sin, or until the end of days. To lay that down on the head of a child and to raise that child into adulthood, using such a device for social control. It's not simple manipulation, it's a careful, measured attack on the human conscience and there is no psychic medicine to cure it's effects. ~800,000 people world wide commit suicide each year due to mental distress. Guilt and shame play a disproportional part in this. Not severe mental illness or the individuals sinful behavior in the eyes of God but, the individuals ability to reconcile the urge to celebrate life with the imposition of shame and guilt. Judaism and Christianity and Islam are not the natural belief systems of the world but, one imposed by victors of territory disputes and trade influences.

Aqvarivs,

Rightly or wrongly, guilt and shame are used as a device for social control.

Though religions have been used by victors of territory disputes and trade influences, I think the 'story' of Adam and Eve were not made up for social manipulation. I do believe that was how it was in the beginning.

In the meantime, enjoy some liberation (I think all the men look disgusting):

http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_bike_ride_2006/

Adam and Eve are the justification of misogyny and for centuries con-men were able to convince the less thoughtful that a god does exist. God is the only justification for misogyny that a society has. But as God is most certainly fake (nobody who claims god exists bases their claim on an actual knowledge of God and that god is made up) there is no true justification for misogyny. The belief in God and the hatred of women or a female lack of self esteem is all the same thing. There is no point to it from a human perspective.Yabby is right humans are far superior to god. The reason being is because God is only to the extent as a believers imagination can invent a god.

Banjo & Yabby,

Totally agree with your comments.
I lived and travelled many countries. Men's attitude to women is cultural/ behavioral problem and can't be religious.

Even within the same culture there is a spectrum: In North Africa countries, a moderately dressed woman is OK in Morroco but could be looked at differently in Cairo for example.
The same goes for Mediterranean/ Europen cities.

Yabby,

I just read your comment re Muslims and others arrested in Egypt. agree with some of your comments but would correct you on the Muslim brothers movement. The issue with this movement is not that black & white unfortunately. The movement iteself is a spectrum that ranges from charitable moderate organisations to conservatives all the way to hardliners. The Brotherhood movement scholars are the same as they vary from the moderate sheikh Ghazali to the more conservative Dr Qaradawy.
The assasination of Sadat is a different story as the responsible organisation (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), although inspired by Kotb, rejects the passivity of the Muslim brotherhood. The spiritual leader of Egypt Islamic Jihad, Dr Omar A/Rahman have developed an ultra dangerous ideology and its targeting Muslims and non-Mulsims equally.

Scrutinizing Muhammad’s example and teachings

Washington Post, Andrew Bostom, 15 October 2006

Review: THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD, Robert Spencer, Regnery, $27.95, 224 pages.
”Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch Parliamentarian and secular Muslim reformer, has courageously identified the taboo discussion which must take place to understand, and defuse, the scourge of modern jihad terrorism: "In their thinking about radical Muslim terrorism most politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other commentators have avoided the core issue of the debate, which is Muhammad's example." This taboo is all the more puzzling, and dangerously delusional, given the public pronouncements of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers…..”

At: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061014-102317-6886

Muslim fatwa; " It is not permissible to reside in a non-Muslim
country and get their citizenship except in dire necessity of life or a
considerable religious need."

Fatwa
There is no doubt that a person who accepts the naturalization of
disbelieving countries commits many religious infractions.
Among these infractions is to utter what is not permissible to believe
in or abide by, like accepting their regime which is totally different
from Islaam, and uttering an oath to be loyal and friendly with them.
This will also oblige him to serve in their army if military service is
obligatory in their country, as well as fight on their side against
their enemies even if these enemies are his brothers in religion and
creed, not to mention many more obligations which contradict Islaam.
cont...

Fatwa

Living in a non-Muslim country or migration to it is permissible only if
a person can not find Muslim country where he can earn a livelihood and
can practice his religion freely.
It is also permissible for Muslim scholars live in non-Muslim countries
for the purpose of Dawah i.e., calling non-Muslims towards Islam and
teaching the Muslim rules of Sharia if they do not feel tempted to
compromise or leave their religion.
All the mentioned details are related to the rule of Muslims living in
non-Muslim countries. But the rule for applying and accepting
citizenship of those countries is, much restricted. A Muslim is not
permitted to apply for citizenship of non-Muslim countries except in
dire need, such as not being able to practice his religion in his own
country or fear of oppression or being in danger for his life or he
threat of imprisonment or torture in his homeland and there is no
Islamic country where he can live. In such circumstances one can apply
for citizenship of a non-Muslim country. If it is obliged to take an
oath for getting citizenship, at that moment one should try to allude to
the words of oath as much as possible to escape their intended point. If
he is able to live harmlessly in the non-Muslim country without taking
the citizenship then applying for citizenship is not permissible for
him. It is forbidden for him to apply for citizenship of a non-Muslim
country if he is simply aspiring to material comforts or financial gain.
Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): {And never will Allâh grant to
the disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.}[4: 141].
No doubt, the believer who accepts the nationality of a non-Muslim
country gives non-believers an advantage over him to force him to follow
their rules and regulations.

Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 November 2006 10:32:08 PM
“Any comment has to be taken in the context in which it is said
and by whom. You ignore these variables at your peril.”

Yes, but those variables have to be justified – don’t forget this ‘taken in context’ argument is exactly the argument that Hilali uses to justify his comments.

The example that was put to me compared a child using abusive language to an adult using abusive language. This example used the validity of the difference between ‘appropriate response to an adult’ and ‘appropriate response to child’ to justify the difference between ‘appropriate response to a man’ and ‘appropriate response to a woman’ – that is not appropriate

Hi saba & Fellow Human(cultural),

This is how Mohammed wed Zainab:

Muhammad fell in love with Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, while she was the wife of Zayd bin Harithah, his own adopted son. Once, when he passed by the house of Zayd in the latter's absence, he was met by Zainab wearing clothes which exposed her beauty. Muhammad's heart was inflamed. It is reported that when his eyes fell upon her, he exclaimed, "Praise be to God who changes the hearts of men" and he repeated this expression at the time of his departure from her home. Zainab heard him say this and noticed desire in his eye. Zainab proudly reported this happening to her husband. Zayd immediately went to see the Prophet and offered to divorce his wife. Muhammad answered, "Hold to your wife and fear God." Thereafter, Zainab was no longer a docile wife and Zayd had to divorce her. Prophet Muhammad married Zainab Bint Jahsh who was his daughter-in-law. That was definitely taboo in pre-Islamic Arabia, and the Prophet of Islam lifted this taboo in order to satisfy his own lust and fulfill his own desire. They also relate that when Muhammad saw her she was half-naked, that her fine black hair was covering half of her body, and that every curve of her body was full of desire and passion. Others relate that when Muhammad opened the door of the house of Zayd the breeze played with the curtains of the room of Zainab, thus permitting Muhammad to catch a glimpse of her stretched out on her mattress in a nightgown.

Comments by Shaikh ibn Baz who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ... (2004) at Mecca:

“I advise the young ladies not to refuse a man because of his older age. Even if he be ten, twenty or thirty years older, this is not a valid excuse. THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) MARRIED AISHA WHEN HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD AND SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD. Older age is not harmful. There is no problem if the woman is older than the man and there is no problem if the man is older than the woman. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Khadijah when she was forty years old and he was twenty-five years old, before he received his first revelation. That is, she was fifteen years older than him (may Allah be pleased with her). AND AISHA WAS MARRIED WHEN SHE WAS A YOUNG LADY OF SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AND THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) CONSUMMATED THE MARRIAGE WHEN SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD AND HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD. Many of those who talk on the radio or television and speak against having disparaging ages between husband and wife are wrong. It is not permissible for them to say such things. Instead, what must be done is, the woman must look at the prospective husband and, if he be pious and appropriate, she must agree to him even if he is older than her. Similarly, the man must try to marry a woman who is pious and virtuous, even if she is older than him, especially if she is still less than mid life. In any case, age should not be taken as an excuse. It should also not be considered a shortcoming, as long as the man is pious or the woman is pious. May Allah make the affairs good for everyone!”

What a lovely cultural sermon!

Tit 4 tat,

Although you quoted a Wahhabi scholar (Bin Baz) if you refer to alazhar references re the prophet’s wives and how he married them, is a different one again.

The prophet was in a monogamous relation from the age of 25 till after the revelation.
Given the known history of Islam and persecution of Muslims, the prophet was preaching the message for the following 13 years. As Muslims we see it as follows:

- He married his wives in the last 10 years of his age (ie 53 to 63).
- Many of the marriages were with older women (widows of war) and some of his wives were the least regarded on the scale of good looks.
- Inter-marriage with two Jewish wives and one Christian (Maria, the mother of his only son Ibrahim). The Jewish marriage was post war with a Jewish tribe and caused all Muslims to release their Jewish prisoners.

Regardless, polygamy is not related to prophethood and judging historical events should be within the time and cultural constraints of the time. For us he is the last prophet and the Qu’ran is God’s word.

PS: there is a number of references on Aisha age so I am not going to dwell on these but Arabs, Jews and other tribes used to consider puberty as the age of consent. Believe what you want to believe I guess

PS: I noticed you did a ‘copy & paste’ of your comment on different topics.

Tit 4 Tat the history of a superstition is irrelevant. Misogyny is a threat to women. Nothing about Mohammed can ever justify what Hilali said and there is no justification to harm women as Hilali did by his words. There is no God to justify the perversion that Hilali demonstrated. Every word uttered in the name of a god is a claim by that person to be that god.That is the nature of the megalomania that the belief in a god is.

The insanity is the believer’s problem, not societies; the believer chooses to believe in a god despite all reason, rationality, logic and reality. It is a crime against nature to allow ones belief in a god to touch non believers. Hilali has allowed his superstition leave the confines of his scull and affect others, for this he is shameful.

Forget God, forget the Quran, forget Mohammed, they are all utterly meaningless in the real world. The reality is Hilali demonstrated his perversion and he has harmed women with his words. Clearly Hilali’s and his supporters have barbaric ideas which have no place in civilisation; he should leave and never return.