http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6086374.stm


Last Updated: Thursday, 26 October 2006, 10:13 GMT 11:13 UK


E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Australian cleric in dress furore



The cleric says his comments were taken out of context

Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said women who did not wear a hijab (head dress) were like "uncovered meat".

But he has now apologised for any offence caused by his comments, The Australian newspaper reports.

Leading Muslim women condemned the comments and PM John Howard said the remarks were "appalling".

"The idea that women are to blame for rapes is preposterous," Mr Howard told reporters.

In a statement released on Thursday, Sheikh Hilali said he had been quoting another, unnamed, source and did not mean his words to condone rape.

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," the statement published in The Australian said.

SHEIKH TAJ EL-DIN AL-HILALI

Born in Egypt
Aged 64
Imam in Sydney
Appointed mufti of Australia in 1989


"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose.

"Whether a man endorses or not a particular form of dress, any form of harassment of women is unacceptable."

A spokesman for Sheikh Hilali earlier said the quote had been taken out of context and referred not to sexual assault, but to sexual infidelity.

The sermon was targeted against men and women who engaged in extra-marital sex and did so through alluring types of clothes, he said.

Ban threat

The leader of Australia's largest Islamic organisation has threatened to ban the cleric from teaching at Lakemba Mosque in Western Sydney.

Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which owns the mosque, said he condemned Sheikh Hilali's words.

"The board [of the LMA] has unlimited powers in respect of his teachings in the mosque. We can do anything that's required to prevent him from teaching in our mosque. If you haven't got the backing of Australia's largest and most established Islamic organisation then you are out on a limb," he is quoted as saying in The Australian.


If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred



Sheikh Hilali



Controversial Mufti


But Mr Zreika said the LMA had yet to fully review the contents of the sermon and Sheik Hilali should be offered the benefit of the doubt until any offence had been proved.

The cleric's latest comments came in a sermon delivered to some 500 worshippers in Sydney last month during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.

The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added.

Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault.

"Then you get a judge without mercy... and gives you 65 years," he added.

Sheikh Hilali's critics have previously accused him of praising suicide bombers and claiming the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 were "God's work against oppressors".

High-profile case

The BBC's Nick Bryant in Sydney says the cleric's latest comments are seen as particularly insensitive because Sydney was the scene six years ago of a series of gang rapes committed by a group of Lebanese Australians, who received long prison sentences.

Finance Minister Peter Costello called on Muslims to condemn the speech.

"If you have a significant religious leader like this preaching to a flock in a situation where we've had gang rapes, in a way that seems to make it justifiable, then people that listen to that kind of comment can get the wrong idea," he said.


*****************


Australia does seem to have problems when the most senior muslim cleric there thinks Oz women are slabs of meat ready to be raped.


What do you guys think?

Do you agree with his views?

Do you think oz women should wear the viel to fit into muslim society in oz?


Should we in the west continue to let the minority dictate to the majority, the cuckoo in the nest seems to want to takeover the nest.

Should australia be a islamic state, thus getting over these problems?

The cleric's latest comments came in a sermon delivered to some 500 worshippers in Sydney last month during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.


A spokesman for Sheikh Hilali earlier said the quote had been taken out of context and referred not to sexual assault, but to sexual infidelity.
So: did he really mean that uncovered women deserve to be raped, or was he saying that it makes them more likely to be unfaithful. Clearly he's wrong either way, but what makes you assume it was the former, Vincent?

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked."



I would have thought the above makes it crystal clear what he meant, if you feel he meant something else, you seem to be living on the same planet he is, & its not earth.

I think it's ambiguous. As for what planet I live on - that's just silly.

Dear Vincent

Thank you for posting this new thread, i was actually going to post it too, but you seem to have been a bt quicker.

On a positve note It is encouraging that the leader of the Islamic orgainisation has critised this sheik for his comments and threatened to ban him from preaching in the mosque at Sydney, thats hope he follows through with this and actions the threat.

These sort of comments give muslims an extremely bad name and perhaps this sheik shoudl go back to Egypt if he wants to talk such crap..

It is funny how he denied it, but do we take his denials at face value, i dont know..

#####################

take care
zak

I think it's ambiguous. As for what planet I live on - that's just silly.


" it's ambiguous"

What is your definition of ambiguous?

He has apologised for saying it, john howard has called it appalling, the only one in doubt here is you.

Is it ambiguous to you that the earth is round too?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4482&&edition=2&ttl=20061026140413

Is cleric's apology enough?



Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:49 GMT 13:49 UK
Wow! This Mufti is a genius.
All women have to do is to wear a veil and they will not be raped.
Can he bring these uncanny powers of intelligence to bear and solve the problems of Iraq etc?
Nimrod, Exeter Devon
Recommended by 1 person




Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:27 GMT 13:27 UK
The way I read what he says means that Muslim men have no self control and can't keep it in their pants. If that's the case then the fault is not with the "uncovered meat" but with the cat that ate it. Is that why muslim women have to cover up? Because Muslim men have no self control??
Completely Confused
Recommended by 8 people



Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:15 GMT 13:15 UK
I couldn't even bring myself to read this article after I got past the first couple of lines.
How can women attract sexual assualt?
Only those who commit a sexual assault are responsible for the assault.
When will people learn this?
Julie, Chelmsford
Recommended by 16 people



Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:12 GMT 13:12 UK
As an Australian father of three daughters I am deeply disturbed by these comments. I am rightly prohibited by law in criticising this mans race or religion yet he is free to judge my daughters simply by the way they dress. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at his comment that females should be kept prisoners inside their fathers home. If he wants that, that’s fine, go some country where its acceptable because it isn’t welcome here and neither is he
john stevenson, cairns
Recommended by 16 people



Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:09 GMT 13:09 UK
Is this when we should all take to the streets around the world in protest at his comments like the muslims would do. Or do we behave like grown ups and appreciate everyone is entitled to their opinion.
madge knox, glasgow
Recommended by 13 people
Sign in to recommend comments




Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:07 GMT 13:07 UK
As an Australian I am appalled to think someone like this is allowed to exist in my country.
This horrible example of a lead should be imprisoned for inciting rape and violence against woman or at the very least give a swift kick out of the country!
Kris, London
Recommended by 11 people



Added: Thursday, 26 October, 2006, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UK
As a non-Muslim teacher working in an Islamic School I can confirm that many Muslim men see women as pure meat. I work at the school to help the poor refugee students who come to Australia in a traumatised state. This is what motivates me and nothing else! I have put up with sexist and religious comments from management and peers - but for how long.....Mmmmm not sure? So many Islamic staff at my school take the words of these so-called clerics as gospel. This can only lead to trouble.
Sue, Perth, Australia
Recommended by 13 people





************


"Is this when we should all take to the streets around the world in protest at his comments like the muslims would do. Or do we behave like grown ups and appreciate everyone is entitled to their opinion."



I quite like this one maybe we should attack there embassies worldwide? nahhhhhhhhh lets just be adults & not kids & just disagree with him without murdering people worldwide.

ambiguous, adj.: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal.

Nowhere in that article does the cleric state that women not covering themselves up are inviting rape. He has stated that he doesn't condone rape. His spokesman has said that the comments weren't about rape. John Howard isn't the cleric and therefore isn't privy to his private thoughts on the matter. Neither are you. Neither am I.

Therefore the only conclusion we can come to about what was implied and what wasn't is: none.

Hope this clears things up for you.

ambiguous, adj.: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal.

Nowhere in that article does the cleric state that women not covering themselves up are inviting rape. He has stated that he doesn't condone rape. His spokesman has said that the comments weren't about rape. John Howard isn't the cleric and therefore isn't privy to his private thoughts on the matter. Neither are you. Neither am I.

Therefore the only conclusion we can come to about what was implied and what wasn't is: none.

Hope this clears things up for you.




"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.

The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say."




Oh i see he was talking about cats & uncovered meat not Oz women then?

I beg your pardon it seems we all owe a apology to him, so then why is he apologising to australians if we misunderstood him on cat talk?

You do make me laugh red army, you still did not answer my question is it ambigous to you that the earth is round?

It is not the Mullah's sole fault this is pure Islam, to blame the victim in rape.

ambiguous, adj.: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal.

Nowhere in that article does the cleric state that women not covering themselves up are inviting rape. He has stated that he doesn't condone rape. His spokesman has said that the comments weren't about rape. John Howard isn't the cleric and therefore isn't privy to his private thoughts on the matter. Neither are you. Neither am I.

Therefore the only conclusion we can come to about what was implied and what wasn't is: none.

Hope this clears things up for you.




Ive decided your right he was talking about cats, not humans.

si i've told the wife its alright to sunbathe nude on the beach in phuket tomorrow in thailand, she wont be raped by muslims, however i told my female cat if she wants to join us on the beach she has to wear a burka & veil or else she might be raped by other male cats.

Red army you make so much sense.

hey hey, now his comments were taken out of context.....

Just like the pope's....

so what i propose is that all who don't like his comments to start burning down your nearest mosque, shoot a couple of clerics and start street riots as a form of civilised protest....

....after all, the precedent for such action has just been set.....

In his sermon, the Sheik alluded to the rapes of four women by a gang of Lebanese men led by Bilal Skaf, suggesting women who "sway suggestively" and wear make-up were like "uncovered meat" and partly to blame for rape.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20651879-2,00.html)

As a woman in Australia, I have to admit I was disgusted. To say that a woman invited or somehow provoked a rape by the way she may dress is not only an insult to women, but an insult to men as well who find the rape of women to be an act of cowards and bastards.

He is lucky he lives in a free country where he would not be jailed for making such insane comments. At the present time, he is facing the wrath of the Australian public, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. I think personally we should praise the Muslim women and men who have stepped forward and condemned this man for what he has said. Especially the women. Many Islamic councils in this country have expressed their outrage over his comments and they are demanding he resign.

There were other comments made in regards to his sermon which alluded to his saying women who dressed scantily were somehow possessed by Satan and who tried to lure men through their dress and actions were to blame. I have yet to hear an exact interpretation of his sermon, but the gist of it has hit the media and the country like a battering ram.

My hope is that people will take his comments for what they are... demented ramblings from what is obviously an uneducated boor who does not deserve any further media attention and who should be treated like the moron that he is. The Muslims I know and spoke to since this broke out are horrified. Sadly, as one of them has pointed out, it's the witless peons like the Mufti who bring give them all a bad name and I think they seriously wish he'd either leave the country and be stripped of his position.

The sad fact of the matter is, the Mufti's sermon is not an uncommong line of thought in regards to violence against women.

Meanwhile a Victorian study has found that almost two in five people think that men who rape do so because they can't control their urges.

The Violence Against Women Community Attitudes Project also found one in four people believe domestic violence is OK as long as the perpetrator genuinely regrets it afterwards.

The study was undertaken by VicHealth, and its chief executive Dr Rob Moodie says it shows negative attitudes that cause harm to women are still prevalent in the community.

"The vast majority don't condone violence against women but there is still a distressingly high number who will excuse it and who believe some of the myths around it, particularly among men born overseas," said Dr Moodie.

The study also found 23 per cent said yelling abuse at a partner was not serious while 17 per cent said repeated criticism of a partner was also not serious.

Almost one in four Victorians believe that women make up complaints of rape while 15 per cent said women say no to sex when they really mean yes.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20651879-2,00.html)


Yes he should be condemned and stripped of his position for saying what he's said. But we as a society need to start educating everyone as well. Judges in the past have blamed a woman's dress or behavious as being a cause to their being raped when handing down their rulings in rape cases. It is a shame that the Mufti's words are not original. They've been said and thought of before by many others.


Where a matter does proceed to trial, evaluations of trial transcripts consistently show that many complainants are: accused of lying or making false reports; asked questions about behaving in a sexually provocative way; asked about alcohol intake on the day of the offence and asked about the way they were dressed at the time of the offence (NSW Department for Women 1996; Young 1998). Recent research has suggested that similar questions are asked of children alleging intrafamilial sexual abuse (Taylor 2004). A Victorian study that asked barristers, judges and magistrates for their opinions found that almost all of them believed that "rape complainants have a significantly different experience as witnesses than victims of other forms of personal violence" (Heenan and McKelvie 1997: 244).
Link (http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/i4.html)

Women, as victims of rape, should never be asked if they were somehow dressed or provocatively. Women, and also children, have to face such questions in rape or sexual assault trials. I think before we lay the blame on one man for his words, we should also address how society deals with and looks at rape in general. Because women are often accused of having 'brought it on themselves' because they dressed or acted a certain way. And such notions should never ever enter into the equation.

Yes the Mufti was disgustingly wrong in what he said. But we also need to look at our society in general because it is quite a common thought and one that has in the past and will in the future prevent women from coming forward to report a rape, because the Australian criminal justice system does allow her to be questioned as to how she may have acted or dressed which may somehow be used as a defence or justification for her having been raped. So when the community raises up in outrage as to how the Mufti can say what he said, they should also keep in mind that when a woman comes forward to report a rape, she's also questioned about her own behaviour and whether she may have attracted it. We need to start educating everyone in society, not just the moronic Mufti, that no victim can ever be blamed for being raped. What she/he has done or worn will never somehow be a justification for being raped.

Bells? There is no proof that he was inviting or condoning rape. The general tone of his comments makes them unjustifiable and unwelcome, whatever the context. But there is no proof that he was inviting or condoning rape. I think I read somewhere that you're a lawyer, is this true?

Bells? There is no proof that he was inviting or condoning rape. The general tone of his comments makes them unjustifiable and unwelcome, whatever the context.
Many, including the majority in the Muslim community disagree with you Red.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.

"The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (head scarf), no problem would have occurred."
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20651879-2,00.html)


There is no defence for what he has said. Likening women to slabs of meat and then saying if left uncovered and devoured by cats, the cat is not to blame, but the meat, and then going on to say that had she been in her home and covered, nothing would have occured. You don't see that as saying the woman has somehow contributed to her rape? Ermm ok.

Yes he may say that to rape is bad and should not be condoned, however when coupled by saying that women were somehow contributing to their rape by dressing a certain way or behaving a certain way, he's blaming the woman instead of laying the blame exactly where it ought to be layed.. on the rapist.


But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his writings, he says: "If I receive a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would (word unclear) and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman to be arrested and jailed for life."

Why Rafihi? He says because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. 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 put it on a plate and placed it outside in the yard, then you have a fight with the neighbour because is cats ate the mean? Then (word unclear)? Right or not?

If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover and then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?

The uncovered meat is the problem. If it was covered the cat wouldn't have... it would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

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

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman: `You are half a (word unclear). You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh you are my best weapon.`
Link (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20650643-5001021,00.html)

It's these words that caused the uproar that they have in Australia Red.. be it amongst Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If you wish to not apply it in the context it was made, that is your decision. Personally, I think he should be stripped of his position as Mufti, and made to perform community service helping women who have been victims of sexual assaults and violence in general. He might end up learning something. The same should also apply to any person who makes such comments. He, and others who've made similar comments in the past, should then be made to help educate the public as to why every woman should be respected and that there is never any justification for rape.

I think I read somewhere that you're a lawyer, is this true?
Yes and? What exactly does this have to do with this issue? It is a common practice by participants in the criminal justice system in Australia to ask women who are reporting a rape such questions as "what were you wearing at the time".. "why were you in that particular area".. "were you drinking prior to the attack".. "why did you go to his house".. etc. Rape victims end up feeling as though they are somehow to blame when they are not. The Mufti's comments are not the first to be made in regards to women and they sadly won't be the last.

For example, in the last few months, there have been a series of sexual assaults on women using walking and bicycle tracks in the surrounding areas where I live. Now while the police were investigating and attempting to identify the attackers, they set out to tell women to take precautions against being attacked. They had advised women to not jog alone down the tracks, they'd handed out whistles to women using these tracks, etc. However what many failed to notice was that the onus was shifted to the woman to prevent an attack on herself. Instead of placing the focus on the attacker and how he should respect women and not rape them, it was up to the women who used these public spaces to shield themselves from the attacker.

As I've stated before, the Mufti's comments should never be accepted in any society. And that is something that the whole community and our society as a whole needs to learn, because as it stands at present, when a woman comes forward to report a rape, she is asked about what she is wearing, whether she'd been drinking, where she was at the particular time and what she was doing at the time of the attack on her, as though trying to determine her role in her own attack. It is the person who rapes who has the problem and who is the problem. Not the victim.

The Mufti's comments, while disgusting, has opened a can of worms that has always been quickly shut when a judge in a rape case, as an example, comments on the woman's contribution to her own rape due to her dress or actions. What he has said is not a solely Muslim comment. It is a comment made by many in society when a woman is raped. And such comments made by anyone should never be tolerated or accepted.

There is no proof that he was inviting or condoning rape.

That's true. However, he was implying that women who dress "provocatively" are at least partially at fault if they are raped.

The fact that this comment was made by a Muslim is largely irrelevant to the story. The fact is, you wouldn't have to look very hard to find Christian priests who would share the same view.

For that matter, I don't think you'd have to look very hard to find some men on this forum who hold the same view.

The fact that this comment was made by a Muslim is largely irrelevant to the story. The fact is, you wouldn't have to look very hard to find Christian priests who would share the same view.

For that matter, I don't think you'd have to look very hard to find some men on this forum who hold the same view.
You're right. It is a prevalent view in society that a woman who's dressed provocatively or behaves a certain way and is raped has somehow invited the rape or have contributed to their being raped. And this is not just in Australia. I remembered this story on a report from Amnesti International - UK from last year:

The poll, 'Sexual Assault Research', published today (21 November) as part of Amnesty International's 'Stop Violence Against Women' campaign, shows that similar "blame culture" attitudes exist over clothing, drinking, perceived promiscuity, personal safety and whether a woman has clearly said "no" to the man. For instance, more than a quarter (26%) of those asked said that they thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, and more than one in five (22%) held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners.

Around one in 12 people (8%) believed that a woman was totally responsible for being raped if she'd had many sexual partners. Similarly, more than a quarter of people (30%) said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk, and more than a third (37%) held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say "no" to the man.

Changes in the law relating to consent mean that an alleged rapist must show that they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the other person had consented to sex. In this respect the poll exposes a gap between the law and public attitudes. Amnesty International UK Kate Allen said: "This poll shows that a disturbingly large proportion of the public blame women themselves for being raped. "It is shocking that so many people will lay the blame for being raped at the feet of women themselves and the government must launch a new drive to counteract this sexist 'blame culture'."
Link (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16621)

It's not just the Mufti. It is a view held by many.

Bells, i too am from that area you are talking about, but by having the police tell you precautions you can take to minimize the risk of assualt while they hunt the perps doesn't in any way put the onus onto the women.

the cops had no idea who was doing it, they couldn't even agree as to whether it was one person or an organised thing, so what do you want them to say?

They weren't laying blame, they were giving advice on how to protect yourself while you jogged as they didn't know who was doing it, i think there is a big difference there.

Hmmm... let's see...

Poll of sciforums members on rape (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59162)

Bells, i too am from that area you are talking about, but by having the police tell you precautions you can take to minimize the risk of assualt while they hunt the perps doesn't in any way put the onus onto the women.

the cops had no idea who was doing it, they couldn't even agree as to whether it was one person or an organised thing, so what do you want them to say?

They weren't laying blame, they were giving advice on how to protect yourself while you jogged as they didn't know who was doing it, i think there is a big difference there.
You still fail to see the point. Women should be safe to walk, jog, bike where ever they so wish at any time of the day or night. By telling women to take the "precautions" they preached about on a daily basis in the media, it did place the focus on the woman instead of the perpetrator. Instead of saying outright men should not attack, rape or assault women, they tell women to be careful.

It is not the Mullah's sole fault this is pure Islam, to blame the victim in rape.

Hi Hue_Hare,

no its not

~~~~~~~~~~
Take care
zak

HELLO pEOPLE

THIS CLERIC HAS been banned for three months from preaching

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6090136.stm

perhaps this is a bit of weak ban, however the guy did apologise so maybe he will reflect and not come out with this nonsense again.

i would hope that if he comes out with similar nonsense when his ban is lifted the repucussions on him will be greater.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

take care
zak

[gratuitous image removed]

this douchebag is supposedly the highest Muslim authority in Oz. What does that say about Muslims in Oz?

my only concern is that he fucked up the analogy. he could have added that make up is like bar-b-q sauce... making the cats craaaaazzyyyyy

I think it's ambiguous. As for what planet I live on - that's just silly.

Excuse me.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked."

He compares women to uncovered meat, and assigns fault to that meat; ergo, it is their fault they're being raped.

Geoff

That's true. However, he was implying that women who dress "provocatively" are at least partially at fault if they are raped.

Actually, no. He assigned all blame to the women:

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?"

The cats, we are meant to understand, are just being cats. It is the meat that is behaving obstinately.

The fact that this comment was made by a Muslim is largely irrelevant to the story.

It is? Do non-muslim women wear veils? Did an Anglican so opine, that women should wear veils to avoid being raped? Did this utter clod specify that women should wear veils, in the very proclamation that he described them as "meat", he also say:

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

The hijab. Now which religion endorses such a device? Bless me, but I can scarcely remember.

To contine: and was this dolt, then, not referring, say, to an earlier court case involving gang rape in Australia, the perpetrators of which were coreligionists of his, and also thought that uncovered women were sluts?

Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

Hmm. Now that's evocative of something, wouldn't you say?

But of course. No islamic connection at all, James.

The fact is, you wouldn't have to look very hard to find Christian priests who would share the same view.

Really? Trot them out, then. Bring your proofs, if ye are truthful. Show us these priests, that we may revile them.

I think, James, indeed I would have to look quite hard, and doubly so to find one that would openly proclaim such an opinion to the newspapers, that could then be cited in defense of such acts in the future. And are such proclamations not greeted with lawsuits, when made by others?

And what would have been the reaction of the proles to such a proclamation in Pakistan?

I wonder.

Well, perhaps not. I wonder what clearer picture would need to be presented, so that the blind might see, and the deaf hear.

Geoff

Bells? There is no proof that he was inviting or condoning rape. The general tone of his comments makes them unjustifiable and unwelcome, whatever the context. But there is no proof that he was inviting or condoning rape.

Good lord: can you read? Really? The meat and cats and blame thing was just lost on you, then?

Geoff

Good lord: can you read? Really? The meat and cats and blame thing was just lost on you, then?

Geoff

yeah he seems to be a bit dense on the matter, maybe if it was in brail he could understand the meaning.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6090136.stm


Sheikh Hilali sparked more controversy on Friday when, asked by reporters if he would resign, he responded: "After we clean the world of the White House first."


*************


Now i can understand what this guy is about he is a terroist, & preaching terroism to thousands of muslims in OZ, clean the world of the white house, the white house represents america, its democracy, he wants to destroy america, its not bush its america he wants to destroy.

Fuck me, i thought the uk had problems with there loony clerics & imans, but it seems OZ has bigger problems as the leader of muslims in OZ is calling for the destruction of the white house & america.

Correct me if i am wrong, but is not religon about peace, yet how is it nearly every muslim cleric & iman is preaching hatred, religon is not about teaching the masses about the evils in the whitehouse or about telling the masses its ok to rape the locals if she is not wearing a burka, as she is a slut under islamic law, uncovered meat.

I respect buddhists, hindu, christians & catholics, but how can you respect a religon that despises the west, & the freedoms of women to dress as they choose to dress, & fuck who ever they like to fuck without muslims wanting them killed in the name of honour killings because they disrespect there families, WOMEN HAVE 100% THE RIGHTS OF MEN IN EVERY FUCKING WAY, & if they cant respect that then kill yourselfs you chauvinistic bastards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6086374.stm


Last Updated: Thursday, 26 October 2006, 10:13 GMT 11:13 UK


E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Australian cleric in dress furore



The cleric says his comments were taken out of context

Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said women who did not wear a hijab (head dress) were like "uncovered meat".

But he has now apologised for any offence caused by his comments, The Australian newspaper reports.

Leading Muslim women condemned the comments and PM John Howard said the remarks were "appalling".

"The idea that women are to blame for rapes is preposterous," Mr Howard told reporters.

In a statement released on Thursday, Sheikh Hilali said he had been quoting another, unnamed, source and did not mean his words to condone rape.

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," the statement published in The Australian said.

SHEIKH TAJ EL-DIN AL-HILALI

Born in Egypt
Aged 64
Imam in Sydney
Appointed mufti of Australia in 1989


"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose.

"Whether a man endorses or not a particular form of dress, any form of harassment of women is unacceptable."

A spokesman for Sheikh Hilali earlier said the quote had been taken out of context and referred not to sexual assault, but to sexual infidelity.

The sermon was targeted against men and women who engaged in extra-marital sex and did so through alluring types of clothes, he said.

Ban threat

The leader of Australia's largest Islamic organisation has threatened to ban the cleric from teaching at Lakemba Mosque in Western Sydney.

Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which owns the mosque, said he condemned Sheikh Hilali's words.

"The board [of the LMA] has unlimited powers in respect of his teachings in the mosque. We can do anything that's required to prevent him from teaching in our mosque. If you haven't got the backing of Australia's largest and most established Islamic organisation then you are out on a limb," he is quoted as saying in The Australian.


If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred



Sheikh Hilali



Controversial Mufti


But Mr Zreika said the LMA had yet to fully review the contents of the sermon and Sheik Hilali should be offered the benefit of the doubt until any offence had been proved.

The cleric's latest comments came in a sermon delivered to some 500 worshippers in Sydney last month during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.

The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added.

Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault.

"Then you get a judge without mercy... and gives you 65 years," he added.

Sheikh Hilali's critics have previously accused him of praising suicide bombers and claiming the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 were "God's work against oppressors".

High-profile case

The BBC's Nick Bryant in Sydney says the cleric's latest comments are seen as particularly insensitive because Sydney was the scene six years ago of a series of gang rapes committed by a group of Lebanese Australians, who received long prison sentences.

Finance Minister Peter Costello called on Muslims to condemn the speech.

"If you have a significant religious leader like this preaching to a flock in a situation where we've had gang rapes, in a way that seems to make it justifiable, then people that listen to that kind of comment can get the wrong idea," he said.


*****************


Australia does seem to have problems when the most senior muslim cleric there thinks Oz women are slabs of meat ready to be raped.


What do you guys think?

Do you agree with his views?

Do you think oz women should wear the viel to fit into muslim society in oz?


Should we in the west continue to let the minority dictate to the majority, the cuckoo in the nest seems to want to takeover the nest.

Should australia be a islamic state, thus getting over these problems?


I think he is a sad and onely man & probably jersk off to the Sears catalogue anyhow. :bugeye:

The fact that this comment was made by a Muslim is largely irrelevant to the story.

It is? Do non-muslim women wear veils? Did an Anglican so opine, that women should wear veils to avoid being raped? Did this utter clod specify that women should wear veils, in the very proclamation that he described them as "meat", he also say: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
The fact that he is a Muslim obviously affects the precise nature of the remarks he made, but not the fact he made them. The response to the story should be the same regardless of the commenter's religion, as long as his views do not reflect a tenet of that belief.

The fact that he is a Muslim obviously affects the precise nature of the remarks he made, but not the fact he made them. The response to the story should be the same regardless of the commenter's religion, as long as his views do not reflect a tenet of that belief.

I also concur.

"The fact that he is a Muslim obviously affects the precise nature of the remarks he made, but not the fact he made them. The response to the story should be the same regardless of the commenter's religion, as long as his views do not reflect a tenet of that belief."

Precisely - and they do reflect a tenet of that belief, as I alluded to above. Ergo, his remarks reflect his religion.

Geoff

Good lord: can you read? Really? The meat and cats and blame thing was just lost on you, then?

Geoff
He apologised through his spokesman. I'm sure if he meant it he woudn't have apologised through his spokesman, would he?

(pause)

OK, I admit it. I'm just playing devil's advocate because it's clear to me that in vincent's threads there is always a clear anti-muslim agenda. I mean, he's a bigot, isn't he? An extremist making a big thing out of the actions of extremists.

Unlike you, Geoff.

Edit: Actually, I need to qualify that. At no point has he come out and said that directly he condones rape - only that meat left out in the open will be eaten by cats. I think the interpretation of metaphors is a tricky business, especially in a context like this. According to his spokesman, the sermon was about sexual infidelity. Can you say for sure that his remarks were about rape, and not about promiscuity? No, you can't - you just assume so, in accordance with your prejudices. The remarks later in the article about being 'jailed for 65 years' were far more suspect and inflammatory to my mind. Much harder to misinterpret. I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned them yet.

"The fact that he is a Muslim obviously affects the precise nature of the remarks he made, but not the fact he made them. The response to the story should be the same regardless of the commenter's religion, as long as his views do not reflect a tenet of that belief."

Precisely - and they do reflect a tenet of that belief, as I alluded to above. Ergo, his remarks reflect his religion.

Geoff

Just a question Geoff, do you drive a VW? :m:

Precisely - and they do reflect a tenet of that belief, as I alluded to above. Ergo, his remarks reflect his religion.Since when was "rape is the woman's fault if she is uncovered" a tenet of Islam? The closest reference I can find is
Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their cloaks over them [when they go out]. That is more proper, so that they may be distinguished [from slave women] and not be harassed.
However, this hardly constitutes blaming immodest women for rape, but merely says they should distinguish themselves from slaves, who would, I imagine, have fewer rights under the law.

Unlike you, Geoff.

Awww :)

Edit: Actually, I need to qualify that. At no point has he come out and said that directly he condones rape - only that meat left out in the open will be eaten by cats. I think the interpretation of metaphors is a tricky business, especially in a context like this. According to his spokesman, the sermon was about sexual infidelity. Can you say for sure that his remarks were about rape, and not about promiscuity? No, you can't - you just assume so, in accordance with your prejudices. The remarks later in the article about being 'jailed for 65 years' were far more suspect and inflammatory to my mind. Much harder to misinterpret. I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned them yet.

Oh come on. I read the context of his sermon - yes, including the 65 years - and it was pretty clear to me what he was talking about. I could hardly stand off and opine that he really meant people should buy freezers, or that people should blame their brisket for being mauled by the family pet. Maybe they should beat it up, or something.

The meat, of course, not the cat.

Just a question Geoff, do you drive a VW? :m:

Yes. I drive it over people. On the backs of the proles.

Look, if a VW drives over the backs of people, is it not their fault? If they were inside their homes, watching Ellen, wearing their "Kiss the cook" aprons, there would be no problem. Instead, they were out, flaunting their 'point value' and wobbling suggestively. Then you get a judge who drives a Stratus and he gives you 65 years.

I should mention that your avatar is also wobbly and suggestive. I am not saying someone should drive a VW over it, but if the avatar was in it's home site, with it's bum covered, nothing would happen.

This is fard on all believers.

No metaphors were mangled in the creation of this post.

:m:

Since when was "rape is the woman's fault if she is uncovered" a tenet of Islam? The closest reference I can find is

You might try Q 4: 15 where it talks about the requirement for four witnesses to try and prove a case of rape, which is a stipulation often applied under sharia. Sura 4 in general sets out quite different sets of laws regarding legal value for men and women, which is frequently reflected in practice. Your citation is more specific to the issue of covering, but is the implied intention in brackets [] considered canonical? The practice of islam is that women cover their heads. As for blaming immodest women for rape, I refer you to the words of he who created the controversy. Should we ignore the practice, as exists throughout the ummah?

Geoff

You might try Q 4: 15 where it talks about the requirement for four witnesses to try and prove a case of rape, which is a stipulation often applied under sharia.
And this highlights the main problem with theocracies, regardless of specific theo.
Your citation is more specific to the issue of covering, but is the implied intention in brackets [] considered canonical?
The quote is from Wikipedia, draw your own conclusion.
The practice of islam is that women cover their heads. As for blaming immodest women for rape, I refer you to the words of he who created the controversy. Should we ignore the practice, as exists throughout the ummah?The practice is of course despicable, but it remains that to blame women for rape is not a belief of or specific to Islam. The controversist is not the first person to make such a statement, nor unfortunately will he be the last.

Geoff P:

In the Ethics forums, I am currently running a poll which suggests that at least several people on this forum believe that if a women dresses in a "provocative" manner, it's essentially her fault if she is raped. Check it out.

As I said, you don't have to look far at all to find this attitude.

As I said, you don't have to look far at all to find this attitude.

Of course the problem is people believing it. I hate fat bellies sticking out, at most this should be illegal.

Then let us say it is a characteristic of ridiculous conservatism, and further define islam as being ridiculously conservative.

James: which people, and with which belief set?

In any event, fortunately this imam is merely an isolated, radical outsider with no support from official sources who would, in all islamic jurisprudence, virulently decry his -

What's that you say? There's an update? The who backed his statement? The MCB??

Ghost, are you following this? Surely the MCB wouldn't support this 'looney' - would they?

Briton backs imam in 'uncovered meat' row
From Bernard Lagan in Sydney

ONE of Britain’s most senior Muslims has defended as “a great scholar” the Australian imam who likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat that draws predators.

Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.

Standing in the streets. Just standing around, like? Doing nothing? Wow. That does indeed sound like "uncovered meat". Clearly, they deserve what they get for daring to exercise the equality that women struggled hundred of years to get, the sluts - not so? Where is Gloria Steinem these days, anyway?

Although the Australian cleric did not use the word prostitute, [it's ok, we gotcha - Geoff] but appeared to be attacking women wearing revealing clothes, Dr Sajid said that the sermon had been taken out of context. Referring to the thrust of the Sheikh’s argument, he said: “So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?” Dr Sajid, who is on a speaking tour, met the controversial Sheikh at his Sydney mosque yesterday.

...

After meeting him yesterday, Dr Sajid said: “As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.” Dr Sajid added that he believed that the inflammatory excerpts from a speech, given last month, had been quoted out of context. “I respect his views. His intentions are noble in order to make morality and modesty part of our overall society,” the British cleric said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2425971,00.html

And how, precisely, were they taken out of context? Is is necessity that fascists consider us foolish, or does it merely amuse them? And must we then fool ourselves? Is that necessary, too, for a pluralistic society?

And so, to close out the thread and end the discussion, let's see what else dear Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly has been up to.

And - whoop! - there it is:

Muslim cleric linked with terror groups

By Jim Dickens and Glenn Milne
October 29, 2006 12:00am

ASIO warned authorities 20 years ago that Sheik Taj al-Din Al-hilaly could inflame communal violence in Australia.

Court judgments show ASIO initially believed the controversial mufti posed a risk to the community because of his alleged propensity to cause or promote violence.

Shortly after his arrival in Australia as the new imam of Lakemba Mosque in 1982, Sheik Hilaly was also linked with a shadowy terrorist group, Soldiers of God, which is thought to have been involved in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981.

A group of the same name, also known as Ansar al Islam, is among those listed by the Federal Government as a banned terrorist organisation.

Western governments believe Ansar al Islam has close ideological and operational links with al-Qaeda.

Sheik Hilaly was also alleged to have endorsed suicide bombing, verbally attacked women and preached a highly political message of extremism.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20661909-2,00.html

So much for the "out of context" approach. One dolt did in fact attempt it, post-fact, and thereby shooting himself in the foot:

No one can sack me, says Sheik Hilaly

October 28, 2006 10:11am

THE NSW Opposition has denounced Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly's claim to quit only when the world is "clean of the White House" and has called on him to leave the country.

...

After delivering the short speech to 5000 worshippers amid shouts of "Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!", Sheik Hilaly shrugged off the widespread condemnation - including from large sections of the Muslim community - and said when asked by reporters he would only resign when the world is "clean of the White House" a salvo aimed squarely at US President George W. Bush.

...

Mr Zreika, a 31-year-old western Sydney lawyer, said the controversy had "really set us back a number of years. At the moment we are suffering tragically". However he conceded that some LMA board members agreed with the Sheik Hilaly. Asked if the LMA shared his views, he said: "Some directors, yes they do, and so do some of the members of the association".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20651879-2,00.html

Well, that support is merely confined, as the article intimates, to "a few old men", right? Just a few old, bigoted council members. (And will the demographic "old Arab men" be regarded, say, in the same literary light as "old white men" at any venue in the future?) But 5000 supporters is a pretty good turnout for a fringe extremist representing a tiny minority of old clods.

Hilali Message Lost in Translation

...

JEDDAH, 28 October 2006 — Australian Muslims yesterday rallied behind the country’s mufti who said women who did not wear a veil were “uncovered meat” and attract unnecessary attention. According to news agencies, the country’s Muslims have pledged that the imam would keep his job as their spiritual leader.

Ah well; all's well that ends well. But maybe his remarks were just misinterpreted?

“The example was in Arabic and in the Orient such examples definitely do not seem as outlandish as they do in the West. The Western media need to understand that its perception and understanding of speech is not the status quo. Certain actions and ways of saying things in the West can equally be misunderstood in an Eastern context. The difference is people in the East never make an issue out of such things,” Iqbal added.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=87323&d=28&m=10&y=2006

Iqbal then said: "I mean, seriously, if the bitches can't cover up, they should shut up. Seriously. Am I right? Tell me I'm right here? Gimme five - down low! - too slow!"

Ok, the last part was made up, but seriously: people in the ummah don't make an issue of it. Now why does one suppose that is? Can it really honestly be proposed that it was out of context? This is ridiculous. However such examples seem in 'Arabia', they are quite out of line in the West, and that is where the doofus is speaking.

And don't - if we are to accept the nitwit's perspective for a moment - riots count as 'making an issue'?

An antidote to this vileness is found here:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20651834-2,00.html

Unfortunately, Hilaly tries to get himself compared to Mel Gibson here:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20651835-2,00.html

Note this paragraph:

The spiritual head of Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southwest attracted criticism in 2000 for allegedly blaming "Australian society" for the infamous Sydney gang rapes.

Debate ended.

You might try Q 4: 15 where it talks about the requirement for four witnesses to try and prove a case of rape, which is a stipulation often applied under sharia. Sura 4 in general sets out quite different sets of laws regarding legal value for men and women, which is frequently reflected in practice. Your citation is more specific to the issue of covering, but is the implied intention in brackets [] considered canonical? The practice of islam is that women cover their heads. As for blaming immodest women for rape, I refer you to the words of he who created the controversy. Should we ignore the practice, as exists throughout the ummah?

Geoff

Shit man, are you always this deep or did the shrooms kick in? Just kidding, great reply.

Cheers! :confused:

Shit man, are you always this deep or did the shrooms kick in? Just kidding, great reply.

Cheers! :confused:

Shrooms.

Thanks, mate.

:m:

What's that you say? There's an update? The who backed his statement? The MCB??Geoff, you're grossly overgeneralising. These are the personal views of a single member of the MCB (initially I thought MCC, and was a little confused), and as far as I can tell, from the article, the views were not intended as an official statement of MCB policy or belief.

I'm merely saying that good to know that the MCB has a staff on board with a...'range of views'.

But why exactly would his support be important if he weren't a member of the MCB? What then are his titular associations that makes his contribution so important, important enough to be worthy of comment in the support of the above facist git?

"5000 supporters of the Sheik...and a dimwit from Britain...who the hell is this guy?...rallied today to support him."

Geoff

I also state for the record that I am in love with Dave's avatar, but not in a cowboy way.

This is fard on all believers.

Geoff

I also state for the record that I am in love with Dave's avatar, but not in a cowboy way.Geoff
Would you like to rape her?

Only if she were uncovered. Look, I'd like not to, but if I didn't get her the cats would. Surely you understand?

Obstinate sweater meat. Bane of our society, really.

I also state for the record that I am in love with Dave's avatar, but not in a cowboy way.

This is fard on all believers.

Geoff

Thanks. I was too. I met her in Ibiza, she was a dancer at a local club. Her name is Valeria and she is from Brazil (no shit?). I lost contact with her as her e-mail went dead. I only spent 5 days / nights with her while I was there on my 2nd stop of my E.U. backpacking trip a few yrs ago..... oh do I regret not getting her full contact info... or at least fitting her with a global tracking device.

Cheers.
ps. do i got some stories about that week. :)

Did he use the word 'rape' at all?

Firefly - is that your honest impression of the story? That he didn't use the word 'rape', so it's all right to allude indirectly to the gang rape of Australia women by muslims? The legal sentence comment had no depth for you?

Please, refrain from obstructing the discussion. It really isn't needed.

Geoff

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6086374.stm

A number of leading Muslim women have already spoken out against the sermon, describing it as repulsive and offensive.

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said the comments could be an incitement to crime.

"Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man... their leader in court," she told Australian media.

She added that the cleric should be deported for inciting rape.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree that he should be deported - better still, shot and then deported back in a wooden overcoat.

Deportation is a good idea, preferably to a country that follows his kind of laws.

Deportation is a good idea, preferably to a country that follows his kind of laws.

Why? So he can help continue that kind of social ideal? Why would you want that anywhere in the world?

Baron Max

Why? So he can help continue that kind of social ideal? Why would you want that anywhere in the world?

Baron Max

Anyone who wants a certain kind of legal system should move to where it is rather than try to change where they are. There are lots of choices available all over the world to satisfy even the most particular.

I'd dump the jerk somewhere on the South pole

You might try Q 4: 15 where it talks about the requirement for four witnesses to try and prove a case of rape, which is a stipulation often applied under sharia. Sura 4 in general sets out quite different sets of laws regarding legal value for men and women, which is frequently reflected in practice. Your citation is more specific to the issue of covering, but is the implied intention in brackets [] considered canonical? The practice of islam is that women cover their heads. As for blaming immodest women for rape, I refer you to the words of he who created the controversy. Should we ignore the practice, as exists throughout the ummah?

Geoff

Dear geoff

Quran 4:15 states

15. If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;...

too define lewdness is

a. Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful.
b. Obscene; indecent.

What has rape got to do with any of this...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

And I'd probably take Zak there with him.

Hi Stu,

what with that Ozzy shiek guy??

~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Hi all,

this Ozzy sheik guy really should think about what he is saying, to come out with such statements as he has done is actually insulting to every muslim man and probably every non muslim man on earth as he is saying that we can not control ourselves if a woman is not covered up... just becuase he may be a deprived knumbskull does not mean we all are.. I just wish someother of these so called islamic scholars would slaughter him in kind...

Alternatively it is all to do with the thawb, maybe saudi blokes have trouble hiding their boners in front of girls who are not covered...

Either way these sheiks are saying that muslim guys have no control and with that i find it insulting and these rae people who need to think before they preach...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

depravity in it's most base form.

The sheiks who come out with this nonsense are the most insulting beings to man....

Perhaps a fatwa should be issued against these depraved knumbskulls whop say such insulting rubbish.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/509

scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane

so it is not that the retard said that a man has as much intelligence and sexual self control as a dumb street animal (which is something he might think, and might be right, about his own ummahmen which led him to believe this in the first place)
it has in fact been proven by Muslim science that a woman's hair causes men have a reaction like a cat might have to catnip, or a 21-year-old to a tripple shot of Viagra.

i think his comments do tell about the weakness of you-know-who if the sight of a woman's hair is all it takes.
and these people are walking around in our cities. shit.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/509


so it is not that the retard said that a man has as much intelligence and sexual self control as a dumb street animal (which is something he might think, and might be right, about his own ummahmen which led him to believe this in the first place)
it has in fact been proven by Muslim science that a woman's hair causes men have a reaction like a cat might have to catnip, or a 21-year-old to a tripple shot of Viagra.

i think his comments do tell about the weakness of you-know-who if the sight of a woman's hair is all it takes.
and these people are walking around in our cities. shit.

Well taken.


:D

The sheiks who come out with this nonsense are the most insulting beings to man....

Perhaps a fatwa should be issued against these depraved knumbskulls whop say such insulting rubbish.


A fatwa would be most appropiate - scum like him are destroying Islam.

On second thoughts - all militant muslims are destroying Islam. Just take into consideration of the western view of it today.

Its on the news , radio, newspapers - I am personally sick of hearing all about it. Perhaps a media blackout on all Islamic events would make a refreshing change, and after all it is the militant Islamics who feed on this publicity. Little do they realise that this publicity is creating a worldwide hatred towards the religion and its about time this vicious circle was broken - no more media on Islamic events thank you.

A fatwa would be most appropiate - scum like him are destroying Islam.

today on campus i saw a poster. it had a 10 year old Muslim girl with a hijab, all innocent looking with sparkles in her eyes. above her head was a caption "I Am Not a Terrorist!"

WE KNOW!!!

it's the bearded men with the kalashnikovs that are scary. ergo Islam-o-phobia

A fatwa would be most appropiate - scum like him are destroying Islam.

On second thoughts - all militant muslims are destroying Islam. Just take into consideration of the western view of it today.
.
Good Morning Stu

You are completely right these sorts of people are the biiggest insult and threat to islam more so than any carton or anything the Pope says...Whenever i am talking with fellow muslims i always try to express this opion about these soprt of people. Muslims have to get a grip of reality and stop these idiots from making us all look like barabaric pre-historic idiots.



Its on the news , radio, newspapers - I am personally sick of hearing all about it. Perhaps a media blackout on all Islamic events would make a refreshing change, and after all it is the militant Islamics who feed on this publicity. Little do they realise that this publicity is creating a worldwide hatred towards the religion and its about time this vicious circle was broken - no more media on Islamic events thank you.


Me and you both..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take care
zak

Muslims have to get a grip of reality and stop these idiots from making us all look like barabaric pre-historic idiots.

Hear ye! Hear ye!

And if shit like that keeps up, Zak, day after day, week after week, can you blame others for turning against Muslims and the Muslim faith?

Baron Max

Hey baron

no i do not blame others i blame the despots who put shame on my religion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Hey baron, no i do not blame others i blame the despots who put shame on my religion.

Well, I'm glad to hear it, Zak. Now where do the other 1.5 gazillion Muslims stand on the issue? And that's really what we're talking about, isn't it? If more Muslims came forward in condemnation of such bullshit within the Muslim faith, perhaps, just perhaps, your religion wouldn't appear so violent and hateful.

Baron Max

I would hope the vast majority would feel the same way as i do however this can never be proved one way or the other...

~~~~~~~~
As always
Zak

I would hope the vast majority would feel the same way as i do however this can never be proved one way or the other...


If they do, then sure wish they'd say so. But they seem to let the radical imams and muhlahs speak for them ....and that's a major mistake! Those people do more to harm you and your family than all the white guys in the world!

Baron Max

Hi baron

you are correct....

By the way my sisters white and so is my mum!

Baron please answer this question kindly but do you honestly think that muslims dont speak out against this sort of thing just cos you dont hear it..
we do go back to the topic of newsworthyness here though....

How do we know that muslims dont speak out against it???

If i may suggest that the west could help here by cutting off finance and support to Arab countries like Saudi arabia etc...where a lot of this extrmism stems from.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

How do we know that muslims dont speak out against it???

'Cause I don't hear it!

If i may suggest that the west could help here by cutting off finance and support to Arab countries like Saudi arabia etc...where a lot of this extrmism stems from.

Don't start, Zak!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't start blaming it on the west. That's exactly, precisely where you start acting and talking like a fuckin' radical, extremist terrorist!!! Don't start, Zak .....you know fuckin' well that what you're doing is wrong is going to get you and Muslims into more trouble.

Baron Max

Don't start, Zak!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't start blaming it on the west. That's exactly, precisely where you start acting and talking like a fuckin' radical, extremist terrorist!!! Don't start, Zak .....you know fuckin' well that what you're doing is wrong is going to get you and Muslims into more trouble.

Baron Max


Cutting off funding is the best way to give a major blow to terrorist activities.

'Cause I don't hear it!

Good Morning Baron

I listen to talksport radio quite a bit, and eventhough quite a few shows are deciated to sport as in the name of the radio station, they do have quite a few current affairs programs etc....

they have a presenter in the mornings called Joh Guant who actually writes for the Sun newspaper which is considered a right wing paper in the UK.. On his show he has phone ins and when this issue comes up there are quite a few muslims who denounce terrorism etc..
usually Guant has some guy like Chowdray (who is some knob who thinks the 7/7 bombings wre justified) coming on and talking nonsense, the reaction he gets from teh muslims is far worse than that of the non muslim callers..

However we do need to find new channels to communicate aare message, and on top of this make are message louder, but in a dignified manner where we do not lose the moral high ground.



Don't start, Zak!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't start blaming it on the west. That's exactly, precisely where you start acting and talking like a fuckin' radical, extremist terrorist!!! Don't start, Zak .....you know fuckin' well that what you're doing is wrong is going to get you and Muslims into more trouble.

Baron Max

Asking for help, not blaming is not acting like a radical baron, Islamic terrorism is primarily the problem for the muslims to sort out, however it effects us all, so asking for help from as many people/ institutions as possible is better than no help at all.

As i have mentioned before Islamic terrorism is the fault of the muslims for not getting their house in order etc... but asking for heklp is not laying blame either...

Muslims should educate each other on the evils of terrorism and how killing and causeing evil acts does not do anyone any good, we should voice our opion s louder and eliminate radicals preaching in mosques and islamic schools etc... We shoudl also look more closely at islmic chairties and stop the radicals exploiting them, either by disbanding the chairty or somehow cutting the links form the chairty to the radical orgainisation.

is it totally uinfair to ask non-muslims to help either?. if it is not unfair baron, how can non muslims people/institutions help??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take care
zak

As i have mentioned before Islamic terrorism is the fault of the muslims for not getting their house in order etc... but asking for heklp is not laying blame either...

Asking for help is one thing, but suggesting that part of the cause of terrorism is the relationship between the Suadi government and the USA is a totally different issue! That you would even suggest it is basically saying that the terrorists should dictate any action by the USA (or other governments).

Think about that, Zak ....that's exactly what you're saying! That you want or expect that a few radical terrorists should have veto power over the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth. Yeah, that's asking for help alright, ....you're asking for help for the terrorists!!!!!

No terrorist group or any other radical, violent group should be permitted to dictate foreign policy to any nation! That, my friend, IS terrorism! If we do that, it's nothing but surrendering to the terrorists!

Baron Max

Baron:

No terrorist group or any other radical, violent group should be permitted to dictate foreign policy to any nation! That, my friend, IS terrorism! If we do that, it's nothing but surrendering to the terrorists!

I agree. The United States should not be permitted to dictate foreign policy to any nation!

gOOD MORNING Baron,

i HOPE ALL IS WELL with you
I was not blaming anyone apart from these so called muslims, these terrorists i beleive are funded from Saudi Arabia, But as saudi Arabia is such an opaque country we will never truely know i suppose.. what is true though is that 15 of the 9-11 bombers were alledgedly from Saudi Arabia... ok but if you think that my idea for help is a load of crap and would actually help the terrorists then that is your opinion, i dont think it is abusrd and many non-muslims have expressed the same thing.

What help do you suggest non-muslims should give to help eradicate this problem then.. perhaps you think no help can/should be given if so please state. Please could you also tell me what the western powers are doing at the moment to stop terorism
With thanks

zAK

Baron: I agree. The United States should not be permitted to dictate foreign policy to any nation!

Good! Then we both agree ...is that a first?

However, just so you know, I think any nation should try to further it's own interests wherever possible, don't you? Think of it as nothing more than self-preservation or self-interest. That's not a bad thing, ya' know?

Baron Max

My dear Baron,

hummmmmm, do you know what you just said to mountainhare!!??!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~
As always
zak

What help do you suggest non-muslims should give to help eradicate this problem then..

Zak, Muslim terrorist are able to act and to kill ONLY because other Muslims permit it, support them or even help them!

Think of it, Zak, do you think that a radical, extremist, violent group like the Muslim terrorists could exist and operate in the USA? What do you think the Americans would do if such a group began to blow up innocent, unsuspecting men, women and children in the USA? How long do you think they could survive in the USA?

They'd be caught and/or killed within a few weeks, maybe less!

Why is that, Zak? Well, it's because we, Americans, simply will not allow such violent bullshit to exist! Yet the Muslim terrroists exist in numerous Muslim and Arab nations ...and seem to exist easily and safely. Why, Zak?

I'll tell you why! It's because the other Muslims, the citizens who live right in the same area/city, permit it to happen, permit those violent bastards to live right in their own neighborhoods!

Until Muslims decide to eradicate the extremists, the violent terrorists, then the terrorists will have a safe environment from which to operate. It's all up to the Muslims of the world, not others, and certainly not non-Muslims.

Wake up, Zak, only you and your Muslim friends and believers can stop Muslim terrorists. Do you want to stop them? Do your friends want to stop them? Well, ......?

The west is doing about all it can ...by stopping the international flow of money to those organizations. Look at the Hamas group ...without funding, they're not going to be able to operate for long. They're already having major problems. But other nations are helping, too, even some Muslim nations.

Baron Max

My dear Baron, hummmmmm, do you know what you just said to mountainhare!!??!!!

Yes, but from your post, I'd say that you don't understand what I said in reply. Read it again, Zak, read it carefully.

Baron Max

Baron:

Why is that, Zak? Well, it's because we, Americans, simply will not allow such violent bullshit to exist!

Yeah, it's not like America has ever supported or funded violent, murderous, corrupt regimes in other countries...

Baron

just so we can have a recap of what has been said

I said this

Hi baron



If i may suggest that the west could help here by cutting off finance and support to Arab countries like Saudi arabia etc...where a lot of this extrmism stems from.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak
you said this





Don't start, Zak!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't start blaming it on the west. That's exactly, precisely where you start acting and talking like a fuckin' radical, extremist terrorist!!! Don't start, Zak .....you know fuckin' well that what you're doing is wrong is going to get you and Muslims into more trouble.

Baron Max
I followed this up by stating the following

Good Morning Baron


Asking for help, not blaming is not acting like a radical baron, Islamic terrorism is primarily the problem for the muslims to sort out, however it effects us all, so asking for help from as many people/ institutions as possible is better than no help at all.

As i have mentioned before Islamic terrorism is the fault of the muslims for not getting their house in order etc... but asking for heklp is not laying blame either...

Muslims should educate each other on the evils of terrorism and how killing and causeing evil acts does not do anyone any good, we should voice our opion s louder and eliminate radicals preaching in mosques and islamic schools etc... We shoudl also look more closely at islmic chairties and stop the radicals exploiting them, either by disbanding the chairty or somehow cutting the links form the chairty to the radical orgainisation.

is it totally uinfair to ask non-muslims to help either?. if it is not unfair baron, how can non muslims people/institutions help??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take care
zak

you then say this

Asking for help is one thing, but suggesting that part of the cause of terrorism is the relationship between the Suadi government and the USA is a totally different issue! That you would even suggest it is basically saying that the terrorists should dictate any action by the USA (or other governments).

Think about that, Zak ....that's exactly what you're saying! That you want or expect that a few radical terrorists should have veto power over the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth. Yeah, that's asking for help alright, ....you're asking for help for the terrorists!!!!!

No terrorist group or any other radical, violent group should be permitted to dictate foreign policy to any nation! That, my friend, IS terrorism! If we do that, it's nothing but surrendering to the terrorists!

Baron Max


you go on to mention this

Zak, Muslim terrorist are able to act and to kill ONLY because other Muslims permit it, support them or even help them!

Think of it, Zak, do you think that a radical, extremist, violent group like the Muslim terrorists could exist and operate in the USA? What do you think the Americans would do if such a group began to blow up innocent, unsuspecting men, women and children in the USA? How long do you think they could survive in the USA?

They'd be caught and/or killed within a few weeks, maybe less!

Why is that, Zak? Well, it's because we, Americans, simply will not allow such violent bullshit to exist! Yet the Muslim terrroists exist in numerous Muslim and Arab nations ...and seem to exist easily and safely. Why, Zak?

I'll tell you why! It's because the other Muslims, the citizens who live right in the same area/city, permit it to happen, permit those violent bastards to live right in their own neighborhoods!

Until Muslims decide to eradicate the extremists, the violent terrorists, then the terrorists will have a safe environment from which to operate. It's all up to the Muslims of the world, not others, and certainly not non-Muslims.

Wake up, Zak, only you and your Muslim friends and believers can stop Muslim terrorists. Do you want to stop them? Do your friends want to stop them? Well, ......?

The west is doing about all it can ...by stopping the international flow of money to those organizations. Look at the Hamas group ...without funding, they're not going to be able to operate for long. They're already having major problems. But other nations are helping, too, even some Muslim nations.

Baron Max

Please look at both of the quotes in red from me and you taking into account at least 15 of the 9-11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia according to the US government.

perhaps to make it clearer to you i should have said cutting off support whether financial to governements who support terrorism and allow it to exist like saudi arabia (imo)

please dont link hamas to any of this, this group was created in the 80's out of the muslim brotherhood of egypt, israel backed them in the 80's to create another threat to arafats Plo/fatah Movement, anyway hamas has done as much damage to the USA as ETa of spain have so lets not go there at the moment...

I think you are actually twisting my words here baron, so i would politely ask you not too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
atke care zak

Please look at both of the quotes in red from me and you taking into account at least 15 of the 9-11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia according to the US government.

That doesn't mean that the Saudi government had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks! Just because someone was born in some nation, doesn't make that nation responsible for all of their actions. What kind of garbage are you talking about?

perhaps to make it clearer to you i should have said cutting off support whether financial to governements who support terrorism and allow it to exist like saudi arabia (imo)

So ...a few radical, violent extremist should dictate who and how the USA is to support it's friends? That's exactly what you're saying, Zak ...that if a terrorist happens to be born in Saudi Arabia, then the USA should automatically condemn the Saudi government and turn our backs on that nation. Ie., the terrorists dictate what the USA does?! Bullshit!

I think you are actually twisting my words here baron, so i would politely ask you not too.

Nope, I don't think so, Zak. As I read it, you're suggesting that a few Saudi terrorists should dictate the foreign policy of the USA. Not only is that suggestion stupid and irresponsible, but it's actually supporting the terrorist!!!

Baron Max

Dear Baron

thank you for your response and the time taken to copmpose it.

once i have digested everything you have said i will reply with my thoughts..

Just a quick thought though baron, as you know Saudi Arabia is a dicatatorship and its institutions and security forces have virtually total control over all of saudi life.... In other words they can clamp down on things hard or turn a blind eye too, but they know what is going on....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

...Saudi Arabia is a dicatatorship and its institutions and security forces have virtually total control over all of saudi life.... In other words they can clamp down on things hard or turn a blind eye too, but they know what is going on....

There have been terrorist acts in Saudi, too. If they have such all-seeing control, then that couldn't have happened, right?

Zak, in even the tightest, most harsh dictatorship, no one can see everything that's going on. I.e., there are numerous revolts throughout history that prove what you're saying is wrong.

But that doesn't matter anyway, Zak. Can you imagine the problems that would occur if nations began to do whatever the terrrorist demanded? If the terrorists don't want the USA to be friends with Saudis, then we should just stop??? Is that how you'd treat your own friends?

Baron Max

Baron:

If the terrorists don't want the USA to be friends with Saudis, then we should just stop??? Is that how you'd treat your own friends?

That's how you treated your South Vietnamese 'friends'...

Dear baron, Good Morning

I am sorry but i am still trying to respond to you comments above, but i am having some difficulties.. I do see your point that these terrorist knumbskulls should not dictate Us policy, however they kind of have anyway as the primary foriegn policy of the US is the war on terror, which came about immediately after 9-11 which was a terrorist act and a crime against humanity. so they basically have already dictated US policy, as the US has troops tied up in Iraq and afghanistan, which are bogging down resources but not defeating the terrorists.. these divckhead terrorists want the US to fight battle in Afghanistan and Iraq as they know it will motivate the population of the countries against the US, and thus more recruits.. Iraq could be such a force for good, potentially a very powerful country now just look at the mess their in .. the bloody teorrists have got the Us fighting in Iraq with the population of Iraq fighting amongst themselves....

I am not saying that Saudi is not of value to the US in strategic terms etc,,, but the Saudi Royal family has about 2000 (could be 5000)members all with dodgey links to various chairties linked to various terrorist cells/orgainisations..

You are right the Saudis dont like bin laden, in fact they are shit scared of him and that is the reason why they did not want him extradited from Afghanistan in the late 90's and effectively paid the taleban to keep him there. they are scared primary of an islamic reviolution bearing in mind what happened to the shah,i am not saying that it would be a shiite revolution though but a sunni Islamic revolution.

As far as the Us is concerned yes they would prefer the house of saud in charge of Arabia as the alternative, which is an islamic sunni state run by clerics would be far worse in their opinion so they are perhaps stuck in a difficult situation, kind of like picking the best of 2 evils in their case...

I really dont know what else to suggest at the moment as the whabiist have such control over Saudi arabia at the moment, we will have to think of a third way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

anyway take care
baron and thanks for reading Zak

Baron: That's how you treated your South Vietnamese 'friends'...

Yeah, I know we did .....and I'm damned ashamed of it, too!

You, on the other hand, seem quite happy about it. Makes me wonder how you treat your own friends and family.

Baron Max

so they basically have already dictated US policy, ...

Well, if you see it that way, Zak, then....?

I really dont know what else to suggest at the moment ....

Well, perhaps another way is for all western nations to just lie down and surrender to the Muslim terrorist? ...beg for forgiveness of the Muslim terrorists? ...all western people to force their people to take up Islam as our religious faith?

Baron Max

Well, if you see it that way, Zak, then....?



Hi Baron
Thank you for your comments

I dont get what you mean here please expand if you would.



Well, perhaps another way is for all western nations to just lie down and surrender to the Muslim terrorist? ...beg for forgiveness of the Muslim terrorists? ...all western people to force their people to take up Islam as our religious faith?

Baron Max


Baron why do you waste your time typing this mumbo jumbo when we both dont want this to happen and is not a a plausable solution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Baron why do you waste your time typing this mumbo jumbo when we both dont want this to happen and is not a a plausable solution.

Didn't say anything about wanting it, Zak, but it's not mumbo-jumbo. In my opinion, as soon as the next president is elected, the USA will pull out of Iraq. You can call it anything that you want, but it's basically surrendering to the Muslim terrorists.

We did it in Vietnam, we'll do it again in Iraq and in Afghanistan. You can call it "strategic withdrawal" or whatever you want, but in reality, it's nothing but surrendering to the violent extremists. That's not mumbo-jumbo, Zak.

Baron Max

dear Baron,

Thank you for your comments
Were we not talking about Saudi arabia not iraq or Afghanistan... What the hell did Iraq have to do with Alqueda under Saddam God Only knows.....

~~~~~~~~~

Take care
zak

Were we not talking about Saudi arabia ...

Same thing, Zak, we'll withdraw our friendship to Saudi, which is nothing but surrendering to the dictates of the Muslim terrorists. It's all the same, Zak.

When the next president is elected, we'll abandon any of our friends in the same way if the terrrorists demand it. I suspect that we'll also abandon our longtime friendship with Israel, too.

Baron Max

Good Morning Baron

Thank you for your comments.

tghe hous eof Saud are the most corrupt fuckers in the arab world, they help fund terrorism though the various chairty and madrass's around the world. The royal family of Saudi arabia, love to enforce extereme islamic laws but they drink wine, gamble and have women on tap.. but to make things worse the hypocrite bastards force their whabbism on the population of Saudi Arabia,

The House of Saud have craeted a cult they can not control and are even still part of too an extent.... However if the house of saud was to fall then God knows who wikll be in charge of Saudi arabia...

I am afriad this is the problem, america is forced into holding a relationship with these idiots through fear of the consequences...

thats pretty shit if you ask me...

~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

tghe hous eof Saud are the most corrupt fuckers in the arab world, they help fund terrorism though the various chairty and madrass's around the world.

Do you have any valid evidence of that assertion, Zak? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

As far as I know, many nations of the west have been shutting down the normal, legal methods of terrorist funding and we're still working at it. A case in point is the funding for Hamas ...they now are having such a difficult time with money that they can't even pay their own people! But we're working on it, Zak, just don't expect miracles, okay?

I am afriad this is the problem, america is forced into holding a relationship with these idiots through fear of the consequences...

What would you have us do, Zak? What do you suggest?

If there's only one restaurant in town, then if you want to eat in a restaurant, you have go to that one! Ain't no choices sometimes.

Baron Max

Do you have any valid evidence of that assertion, Zak? Just saying it doesn't make it true.


hI BARON

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS
what sort of evidence are you looking for, perhaps you should look at this link

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668

I could find some more if you would like as i know you need to have more than just one link. i will get on to this in due course


As far as I know, many nations of the west have been shutting down the normal, legal methods of terrorist funding and we're still working at it. A case in point is the funding for Hamas ...they now are having such a difficult time with money that they can't even pay their own people! But we're working on it, Zak, just don't expect miracles, okay?

What would you have us do, Zak? What do you suggest?

If there's only one restaurant in town, then if you want to eat in a restaurant, you have go to that one! Ain't no choices sometimes.

Baron Max

Now with regards to Hamas, what is actually happening is that money is being withheld to the PA becuase hamas is the majority elected party.. Hamas themselves are fine, however the PA is not in a good situation.. I would think that Hamas workers are still getting paid similar to how they were getting paid before Hamas became the ruling body.. Hamas does not rely on money from the EU etc.. but the PA does!

Perhaps sometimes you have to think to yourself, that eventhough i want to go to a resturant that one aint worth going too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

what sort of evidence are you looking for, perhaps you should look at this link...

Which shows that we know about it and are working on it. Please don't expect miracles, Zak! And remember, we need Suadi oil, so....? Should we just shut down all the funding and ruin our own economy?? C'mon, Zak, even you know better than that.

Baron Max