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.