Australia's most senior Muslim cleric Oz women R uncovered meat & deserve to be raped

Hi Hue_Hare,

no its not

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[gratuitous image removed]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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

 

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.

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:

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?

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

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

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

 

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.

 

Either way they still look great!

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

 

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.

 

Well said...

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

Awww

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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:

 

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

 

And this highlights the main problem with theocracies, regardless of specific theo.

The quote is from Wikipedia, draw your own conclusion.

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.