If Abe Ata thinks that all it takes is a few letters to the editor to show that: “It has become clear that this debate is not structured by a religious and cultural divide separating non-Muslim mainstream Australians from Australian Muslims”, there is not much substance to what he says. Very few people with opinions bother to send them off to a newspaper, just as very few people with opinions express them on OLO. Not much research material to justify his claim, then.

I believe (note) that it is very much an us versus them situation. The ‘offence’ taken by so-called moderate Muslims was not very convincing, and it was very short-lived. It wasn’t long before they had changed their minds and were making the usual excuses for Hilaly and Islam. The simple fact is: there is no chance of understanding or co-operation between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Keating ALP government should have deported Hilaly when it had the chance, and no Muslims other than those here since original settlement should have been allowed permanent residence in Australian. Future generations will sorely regret the stupid, criminal actions of politicians of all persuasions who have foisted Islam on us.

And no, for the politically correct and name-callers, I do not automatically dislike or hate individual Muslims. It is unfortunate for them that they are lumbered with Islam. It could have happened to me or anyone else in different circumstances. I just regret that it has spread to Australia as visibly as it is now, and I dread to think of how it will consume future generations of Australians, as it will.

I think the problem with Muslims that come to Australia is they have a similar attitude as Borat from Kazakhstan. He has little or no concept of the west and is sadly a reflection of the minority of the so called new “Australians” especially with regards to women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvdFc5beb38 watch from about 30sec onwards and you will see how much Sheik al Hilali and Borat have common. Sad but true.

I completely disagree with Leigh's comment. I find all attempts to justify terrorism appalling.

Now back to the topic:
For reference, I am using the following translation:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html. I don't see why we cannot further this discussion with reference to this.

The media response to the sermon was the headline WOMEN COMPARED TO RAW MEAT. This has stuck in the minds of many people as being the offence, rather than the idea within. The dumbing down of the issue has made it easy for Al Hilaly and others, to blame the process of translation.

If this was the offence, then it's a plausible explanation. In English we use the expression "sexual appetite". Would it be a surprise to find that this did not translate into another language. For example, a friend went to a chemist store in South America asking in Spanish for relief for heart-burn. The pharmacist was bent over laughing replying, “there’s nothing here for love sickness.”

The media have fallen for the emotive headline, rather than being upfront with the true offence in the speech. It is the following line: “In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.'”

Some media did exaggerate saying that Hilaly condoned or excused rape. This was untrue and provided another avenue of escape from the true offence in the speech.

The true offence is that rape and kidnap victims deserve to be jailed for life. This is not a question of translation, but of the reasons for including the quotation in the sermon and importantly whether Hilaly agreed with it partly or totally.

Thanks to the media interest in selling newspapers and advertising, and promoting division and scandal, rather than seeking the truth, we shall never get a satisfactory conclusion to this issue. It is exactly the same game as with politics.

As usual, failure to seek the truth is detrimental to society.

EasyTimes

I am sure I missed something. sacha baron cohen (Borat) is an English Jew.

Did you really think this English comedian was for real ?

I guess the Sheik was referring to Sharia Law which most Muslims understand.....and his statements were obviously reinforcing the commonly accepted (amongst Muslims) fact that women are totally guilty if raped.....I got the following from Wickepedia...
Sharia law criminalizes all extra-marital sex (zina), and makes it exceptionally difficult and dangerous to prove an allegation of rape.
A woman alleging rape is required to provide four adult male witnesses of "the act of penetration", and if the accused man is Muslim, the witnesses must be Muslims themselves. Failure to prove rape places the woman at risk of prosecution for adultery, which does not require such strong evidence.
For married Muslims, the maximum punishment for zina is death by stoning, or for unmarried couples or non-Muslims, 100 lashes. In practise, only imprisonment has ever been enforced, because the maximum punishments require four eyewitnesses as above.

Abe,

I heard the sermon and I master the Arabic language classic and colloquial.

While I can see Sheikh Tag's farming background impact his choice of words, proverbs and examples; I find his comment more offensive to be referring to males as street hungry cats waiting for a piece of meat to show.

While this example might be valid in Saudi or similar countries, the whole speech was irrelevant to the country being Australia.

The sermon being in Arabic is no excuse for his choice of words.
Having said that, its his opinion and he is entitled to it and should not be persecuted for it.

Having degrading views on women and their role in the society should take a holistic approach as many Australian women suffer job & pay inequality, wife & child support evasion, alocohol and drug related domenstic violence, etc..

Why don't we use his comments in a positive way to start an end-to-end campaign to improve women conditions in the Australian society? Right now it just appears to be a glorified character assassination campaign.