Mufti of Australia: Women are weapons of Satan used to control men

Sesshoumaru

Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has triggered international outrage for describing women who dress immodestly as "uncovered meat" who are inviting a sexual attack.

Sheik Taj al Hilali made the comments in a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in which he criticised women who "sway suggestively", wear make-up and no hijab or Islamic headscarf, The Austrialian reported.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?
*snip*

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2422621,00.html

I don't know whether this is just sad, outrageous or hilarious. Maybe a bit of all three. I just wonder where they get opinions like this? Is it in the Quran? Is it cultural? both? Its certainly a problem anyway. Makes you wonder what goes on in mosques that isn't reported.

sonic juice

they need to get with the times.

Schuhart

It was reported the Pope said Islam was evil, only to find out that actually wasn’t what he said. Without a full transcript of what was said on this occassion, its hardly safe to read too much into it.

I don’t know, obviously, if this guy documents or records his sermons. If he does, let’s see the full translated text. Otherwise, if there’s a desire to discuss the position of women in Islam, I suggest doing it on the basis of a full text containing the point at issue.

Sesshoumaru

Well unfortunately I can only find this edited transcript of his speech. But it makes for great reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not 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 leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

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

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

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

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

"That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.

"Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You're my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you're my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you're the best of my weapons.

"The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

They do have his full unedited sermon available as an mp3. But we might need an arabic speaker to help us put his words in context.

http://media.theaustralian.news.com.au/lesson1.mp3

Wibbs

Good luck with pulling the context outa that one.

Sesshoumaru

Wibbs wrote:

Good luck with pulling the context outa that one.

I didn't want to say anything, but yea my thoughts exactly

Sgt. Sensible

I thought all the BNP types got mass banned.

Anyway nothing new there. Blame that Eve slag what corrupted Adam.

Zombrex

Sounds like your standard Judo/Christian/Islam beliefs, women are really evil, men are weak and sinful, sex is evil, give yourself to Jesus/Alliah/Moses (who do the jews give themselves to?), blah blah blah ...

Reason #89831923198 on why religion is stupid.

I like the bit about women possessing the "weapon of seduction" ... clearly he has never been to Copper Face Jacks the night Tipp are playing at Croke park :eek:

Sgt. Sensible

If you went to a few christian churches anywhere in the world, you'd hear variations on the same sort of rubbish. This is just the next episode in the mission to demonise muslims, and shore up what's left of support for TWAT. I would say that this smells like a planted story, but things like that never happen in the free world.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

I like the bit about women possessing the "weapon of seduction" ... clearly he has never been to Copper Face Jacks the night Tipp are playing at Croke park :eek:

Muhahahhahaha. The horror the horror. I love the smell of stale perfume in the morning. Smells like.... shame

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

If you went to a few christian churches anywhere in the world, you'd hear variations on the same sort of rubbish.

Less so now, especially here, but yea you're not wrong. I think the difference here is how "old time religion" it sounds to our ears. The line about if she was locked up safely veiled in her boudoir was a beaut(does anyone even have boudoirs anymore?). The idea that it's the woman's fault is a bit mad in this day and age. They're suuuuch a temptation you know.:rolleyes: Takes responsability from the men nicely though.

This is just the next episode in the mission to demonise muslims, and shore up what's left of support for TWAT. I would say that this smells like a planted story, but things like that never happen in the free world.

It's got a bit of background to it. Apparently there were some gang rapes by local Muslim youths in the area which has got a lot of hackles up. His reference to "a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs). Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years" is all about that. Idiot really and he's got his own Muslim fellows kicking up stink about this speech and others. You couldn't plant a muppet like that if you tried.

Schuhart

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Well unfortunately I can only find this edited transcript of his speech.

In fairness, I hope he’s backing the right faith because he’d need a miracle after that. He’s ****ed, unless they left out a bit from the start along the lines ‘You would not believe the kind of ****e some people talk about women. I’ll give you some examples that I heard recently on the Joe Duffy show. This gobber rang up and said …’.

Wicknight wrote:

I like the bit about women possessing the "weapon of seduction" ... clearly he has never been to Copper Face Jacks the night Tipp are playing at Croke park :eek:

Reality rears its ugly head.

fly_agaric

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

Cats don't have big brains and opposable thumbs but rapists do.:(
Although I suppose becoming a hermit can reduce your change of being a victim of any crime.

Anyway, what a lovely vision this man has. The high-point of God's creation (well, we like to think so:)) as "meat" or hungry and horny "cats" pawing at the meat.:( Charming.

Sam Vimes

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

If you went to a few christian churches anywhere in the world, you'd hear variations on the same sort of rubbish. This is just the next episode in the mission to demonise muslims, and shore up what's left of support for TWAT. I would say that this smells like a planted story, but things like that never happen in the free world.

how do you mean? a muslim said this. is he trying to demonise himself?

bug

My tolerance of this sort of of baffling moronic sh** is at an all time low.

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

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

How on earth does a man like this get into any sort of position of guidance, when he clearly doesn't have the intellect to use metaphors correctly.

what sort of fool makes this comparison...
one who doesnt even understand the relationships between men and women.
This really shouldnt be given any media coverage at all.
It doesnt merit it.

Yes his position should be taken away from him, because he is obviously an idiot.

Wibbs

Well it seems he's not going to lose his position according to some of his peers in his own mosque, because apparently he was taken "out of context" and was "misinterpreted". He was only trying to defend womens honour according to his apology. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1774712.htm
Give me an ever lovin' break. The fact that he and his co eejits can even attempt to justify this shows the level of idiocy in that particular parish.

The one bright light in this is that Muslims(especially women) all over the place are calling this eejit for what he is. Hope that gets the press too(though it seems it has). http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1774182.htm

Sgt. Sensible

Commander Vimes wrote:

how do you mean? a muslim said this. is he trying to demonise himself?

He's saying what's said all the time in christian churches, in the editorials of right wing papers like the Daily Mail and on net forums. Imho It's only a story because a muslim said it, and muslims are increasingly being portrayed negatively and this serves to sanitise TWAT and widen cultural and racial divisions.

He should just say he's sick of political correctness. That's the usual get out clause for idiots who come out with this sort of stuff.

Why wasn't there much of a hullaballoo about Putin's rape joke? He is more representative of the Russian people than that guy is of muslims.

Wibbs

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He's saying what's said all the time in christian churches,

Jaysus boy what churches have you been going to? Though Jezebel was probably trotted out a fair bit in the past.i

n the editorials of right wing papers like the Daily Mail

I don't read it. Maybe I should? Entertainment value at least.

and on net forums.

Well that's hardly a shock.

Imho It's only a story because a muslim said it, and muslims are increasingly being portrayed negatively and this serves to sanitise TWAT and widen cultural and racial divisions.

It's a conspiracy I tells ya. Maybe, the focus is on Islam at the moment that's for sure. That said you would think that idiot would be aware of that.

He should just say he's sick of political correctness. That's the usual get out clause for idiots who come out with this sort of stuff.

Why wasn't there much of a hullaballoo about Putin's rape joke?

There was a fair flap, but not as much. It seems to get the hackles up more if a religious leader says that kind of thing. Can you imagine the furore if a bishop came out with that? Are you seriously telling me it wouldn't be reported?

He is more representative of the Russian people than that guy is of muslims.

Really, so Russian's think rape is funny or are they OK to slag at the moment.

Lemming

The cynic in me suspects he made that speech deliberately to try and goad those of the christian faith in a rather poor attempt at "emulating" the Pope. I say "poor" because he (if the above transcript is correct) makes several very explicit references to local events. The Pope did not.

Of course, the references to local events could suggest that he's trying to dress it up as a "pope-speech" whilst actually meaning it. In which case he's a hypocritical coward with all the much-vaunted-morality of a blade of grass bending in the wind.

fly_agaric

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He's saying what's said all the time in christian churches, in the editorials of right wing papers like the Daily Mail and on net forums.

What churches? Fundamentalist US Christian ones? (the Root of all Evil on this Earth as any right-thinking person knows)
Would you give us an example of a Daily Mail Editorial that said anything close to that? As for the internet - that's weak, you can find any crazy opinion you want on any topic under the sun on the internet.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

widen cultural and racial divisions.

But of course, the bloke who actually said the stuff bears no responsibility for that does he?
It's those nasty "neocons"+plotters of the War on Terror/"fascists"/racists/the CIA/Whatevercrackpottheoryyorhavingyourself spreading the bad news.
But when the Pope says something insulting to muslims in some talk he gives - according to "right-on" types (such as yourself, going on your postings) he is an idiot deliberately widening those cultural and racial divisions.
The media (the "right-on" bits who were especially delighted by the whole thing) had no responsibility. The muslim agitators who whipped up alot of anger over it had no responsibility.

Lemming wrote:

a rather poor attempt at "emulating" the Pope.

Yeah. The quote about rape victims deserving to spend their lives in jail for corrupting men is a bit of a give away!

Sam Vimes

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He's saying what's said all the time in christian churches, in the editorials of right wing papers like the Daily Mail and on net forums. Imho It's only a story because a muslim said it, and muslims are increasingly being portrayed negatively and this serves to sanitise TWAT and widen cultural and racial divisions.

that's not true imho. it was news because he was a public figure who said it. i'd be fairly confident that if the pope compared women to a piece of meat and said its their fault they get raped, it'd be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. but then he wouldn't say that whether he believes it or not because he knows better.

honestly, imagine the pope said it. do you honestly think the news agencies would ignore it? sure only a few weeks ago he made world news for something far less offensive

i read in the paper the other day that rush limbaugh, an american right wing dj, said michael j fox was pretending to shake in an ad supporting stem cell research. he's a non-muslim and when he said something incredibly stupid, it also made the world news. maybe if people such as this guy didn't say things that could be "taken out of context" (i.e. not taken out of context), they wouldn't make world news and you could stop saying "oh i know this public figure compared women to an uncovered piece of meat but its only being reported because he's a muslim". rubbish

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Why wasn't there much of a hullaballoo about Putin's rape joke? He is more representative of the Russian people than that guy is of muslims.

you say there wasn't as much hullabaloo, which i suppose is right, but then it is on bbc news. also, his was a joke and he didn't say that its entirely the woman's own fault if she gets raped

maybe there wasn't as much news coverage. what's your point? a muslim leader said something incredibly offensive and the news reported it. there's no racism there. they didn't make something up to villify muslims, they simply reported what he said.


back to my original point, is he trying to demonise himself? you say the media are trying to demoise him by reporting this, but he did say it. are you saying that if we took what muslim leaders said in private and broadcast it, they would be demonised?

fly_agaric

Commander Vimes wrote:

i read in the paper the other day that rush limbaugh, an american right wing dj, said michael j fox was pretending to shake in an ad supporting stem cell research.

I seem to remember some fuss when US Christian fundie figureheads were saying that the US was "smited" (??;)) by God on Sep. 11 2001 because of the evil of Gays and "Liberals". The US was "asking for it" apparently.

Schuhart

Commander Vimes wrote:

his was a joke and he didn't say that its entirely the woman's own fault if she gets raped

I think this is a valid point. Putin was caught making a joke. He wasn't announcing a new policy on sexual assualt. The Mufti, on the other hand, was offering moral guidance to his flock.

Commander Vimes wrote:

are you saying that if we took what muslim leaders said in private and broadcast it, they would be demonised?

If this was a sermon to his congregation, then presumably it was a public statement which would make your point even clearer. Are we expected to ignore public statments made by this man just because he's a Muslim?

It's right to maintain a sense of balance. For example, some Australian women Muslims have been quoted in reaction saying that they don't regard the Hijab as a protection against rape and that's not why they wear it. That should not be lost sight of.

But there's no point in denying the simple fact that this is what the man said. I know that Islam doesn't really have an ordained clergy, so I take it this 'Mufti of Australia' is some kind of honour title. The point remains these are the views of someone who managed to rise to a position of respect within his faith. Assuming the translation to be accurate, his 'I was just defending women' defence is simply a lie. Let's deal with these realities and where they lead us, the same way as we would deal with the reality of priests being convicted of abusing children.

Wibbs

Now it seems he has been suspended for 3 months. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6090136.stm

Looks like maybe the protests from other Muslims have brought some sense to this.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Now it seems he has been suspended for 3 months. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6090136.stm

Looks like maybe the protests from other Muslims have brought some sense to this.

For those hoping that Islam goes through a bit of an updated culture shift in the next few years these comments are actually ironically helpful, because they disgust not only non-Muslim westerns but Muslims themselves.

This is the same thing that the Catholic church went through in Ireland. Eventually the normal every day Catholics had had enought of the crap, and started saying "that can't be right"

This lead to an increase in secular nature of the state and laws, and with a weaking of the leaders of the church. the church then updated itself to remain relivent.

Hopefully, and I've no reason to believe it won't, Islam will go through the same, particulary in the west

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Hopefully, and I've no reason to believe it won't, Islam will go through the same, particulary in the west

Hopefully it will. The only sticking point I often come back to is that the separation between church and state is far more written in the fundamentals of Islam than of the various forms of Christianity. It is a far more encompassing faith from the personal to the public, in law and in government. There exists canon law, but that would be based of christian thinking, not on the direct instructions of jesus. Compared to islam where most Muslims would believe the Sharia etc was written down by God through Mohammed directly. When you have a hadeeth that says that most of the inhabitants of hell are women it's difficult to think differently. I think there's some hope of what you say in the west though(outside the middle east anyway).

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

This is the same thing that the Catholic church went through in Ireland. Eventually the normal every day Catholics had had enought of the crap, and started saying "that can't be right"

This lead to an increase in secular nature of the state and laws, and with a weaking of the leaders of the church. the church then updated itself to remain relivent.

Didnt that partially happen because of Ireland'e economic revolution which brought it to a more progressive, less servile headspace. Additionally, as the EU became stronger, the Church had to separate from the State, no?

With Islam, these forces arent at work. It wants to stay where it is, it doesnt have progressive instincts, it doesnt want to move along with the west.

Women dont seem to be too beloved in certain part of the world, they are to be feared and reviled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_re_eu/un_women_violence

RedPlanet

It was a stupid thing to say. Which is not the first time a person in some religious position said something offensive.
He has since apologized.

Sheikh Hilali has since apologised for his comments, which he said had been misinterpreted and taken out of context.
"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," he said in a statement published in The Australian.
"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose," he added.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Didnt that partially happen because of Ireland'e economic revolution which brought it to a more progressive, less servile headspace.

Which economic revolution? If you mean the Celtic Tiger I would say now, because reforms were taking place since the 70s.

metrovelvet wrote:

Additionally, as the EU became stronger, the Church had to separate from the State, no?

Did it? I'm not sure EU membership had much to do with Irish peoples reactions to the Catholic Church. The EU did not force secularisation upon the Irish people.

metrovelvet wrote:

Women dont seem to be too beloved in certain part of the world, they are to be feared and reviled.

My understand was that this is about Austrialia?

Wibbs

RedPlanet wrote:

It was a stupid thing to say.

Agreed.

Which is not the first time a person in some religious position said something offensive

And I fear it won't be the last. The issue I have is where does this thinking spring from in a religious scholar, who has come up through the ranks as it were to the position of a grand mufti? Surely his scholarly credentials in his chosen field are pretty good? This kind of attitude and opinion doesn't spring from a vacuum.

He has since apologized.

He had little choice given the outcry from all sides, though his excuses were a bit dubious given the content of the original speech. The get out of jail free card of saying it was "out of context" is a bit of a hollow excuse.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Hopefully it will. The only sticking point I often come back to is that the separation between church and state is far more written in the fundamentals of Islam than of the various forms of Christianity. It is a far more encompassing faith from the personal to the public, in law and in government. There exists canon law, but that would be based of christian thinking, not on the direct instructions of jesus. Compared to islam where most Muslims would believe the Sharia etc was written down by God through Mohammed directly. When you have a hadeeth that says that most of the inhabitants of hell are women it's difficult to think differently. I think there's some hope of what you say in the west though(outside the middle east anyway).

But my point is not that the Church allowed secularisation, through a reevaluation of the laws of the faith, because it didn't.

The people did it without the Church, and the Church was eventually forced to re-evaluate or lose influence completely.

It is a case where the people become the religion, not the other way around. Religion after all is just the people that make it up.

Nothing actually happens to a Muslim who decides that a secular state is better than an Islamic one, God doesn't spite him anymore than God spites a Catholic for having sex outside of marriage. Millions of Irish do that everyday, despite it being a serious sin, yet still call themselves Catholic.

If the average Catholic person from today when back to the 50s they would not be considered a "Catholic" by the general population. We have the same probably trying to imagine a "Muslim" who doesn't follow Islam the way the modern world, and Muslims themselves, view a "Muslim"

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

The get out of jail free card of saying it was "out of context" is a bit of a hollow excuse.

Yes but it seems to be the standard "religious-fu*k-up" excuse .. isn't that what the Pope said a few months ago.

Context, its a wonderful thing. "Your ma is a whore" ... don't get upset, you took that out of context

metrovelvet

It strikes me that secularisation comes with money.

Is this about Australia? I thought this was about a Muslim cleric saying irresponsible and dangerous things about women and an instinct to punish women.

The EU brought Ireland out of its insular mentality and into a broader world perspective. No one is talking about forcing. Its simply cultural evolution. And out of curiosity where did the "separation of Church and State" impetus come from in Ireland?

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but it seems to be the standard "religious-fu*k-up" excuse .. isn't that what the Pope said a few months ago.

Yep there does seem to be a pattern alright. In fairness to el Papa, it could be more easily argued that he was taken out of context. This guy would need one hell of a context to pull that guff out of.

Context, its a wonderful thing. "Your ma is a whore" ... don't get upset, you took that out of context

What!!!? You.... Right, outside. NOW

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote:

It strikes me that secularisation comes with money.

and education. Maybe that's why so many religious consider money the root of all evil. Self protection at work maybe.;)

Is this about Australia? I thought this was about a Muslim cleric saying irresponsible and dangerous things about women and an instinct to punish women.

True, but I suppose it certainly has more weight to it that he says this in the context of a western secular nation. If some loolaa came out with this from a cave in Afghanistan it would have less impact methinks.

And out of curiosity where did the "separation of Church and State" impetus come from in Ireland?

I know wicknight and I differ somewhat in this*, but there does exist this idea of separation in christianity when compared to islam. Now the church may and did resist it for obvious reasons, but there appears to be more of a mechanism for christians to go along with the idea of secularisation regardless of the churches say so and still feel themselves to be christians as even a cursory reading of the texts suggests, nay states such a separation.

Now there does exist some muslim thought that is up for secularisation and separation of church and state, but there are far more vocal groupings that refer back to the religious texts that directly call for unity in law religion and politics for Muslims. Change is possible and I don't doubt it may happen, however it may be more difficult by comparison, so the catholic Ireland comparison has some parallels and is helpful it's not the same in many ways.


*Though I hope he's right about the outcome.

robindch

> [metrovelvet] It strikes me that secularisation comes with money.
> [Wibbs] and education. Maybe that's why so many religious consider money
> the root of all evil. Self protection at work maybe.

...and why so many religious institutions control schools. They can indoctrinate impressionable kids while controlling access to critical resources and modes of thought. Self-protection again!

RedPlanet

Wibbs wrote:

Agreed. And I fear it won't be the last. The issue I have is where does this thinking spring from in a religious scholar, who has come up through the ranks as it were to the position of a grand mufti? Surely his scholarly credentials in his chosen field are pretty good? This kind of attitude and opinion doesn't spring from a vacuum.

Probably comes from the same headspace offensive comments from Bishops, Cardinals and Popes do.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote:

True, but I suppose it certainly has more weight to it that he says this in the context of a western secular nation. If some loolaa came out with this from a cave in Afghanistan it would have less impact methinks.

Sure, a bit like when crack pot bible belters come out with crap about women being evil temptresses spawned from satan. It has very little significance because no one pays it attention.

Wibbs wrote:

I know Wicknight and I differ somewhat in this*, but there does exist this idea of separation in christianity when compared to islam. Now the church may and did resist it for obvious reasons, but there appears to be more of a mechanism for christians to go along with the idea of secularisation regardless of the churches say so and still feel themselves to be christians as even a cursory reading of the texts suggests, nay states such a separation.

I would say that is true, and no doubtedly a product of prostentism which is hisrotically linked to democracy, the freedom to practise one's religion, which necessitates a severence in law from the state and religion. Catholicism, which is historically monarchical doesnt really have inherintaly such an ethos. Perhaps also why in the west, Christians are more adaptable to secularism, is that our version of secularism, preserves to some extent Judeo/Christian heritage, ie Christmas and the Judeo Christian sabbaths [why we have Saturday and Sunday off from work, for example.]

The fact is that Islam already has a record of being not so nice to the female gender, and that you have this cleric in effect relegating women to pieces of meat and pinning how a woman is dressed as asking to be raped, is in effect promoting/excusing the violation of women who dont cover up, which in effect are non-islamic women, and in Australia, Im guessing there are quite a few of those.

Sgt. Sensible

Commander Vimes wrote:

that's not true imho. it was news because he was a public figure who said it. i'd be fairly confident that if the pope compared women to a piece of meat and said its their fault they get raped, it'd be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. but then he wouldn't say that whether he believes it or not because he knows better.

honestly, imagine the pope said it. do you honestly think the news agencies would ignore it? sure only a few weeks ago he made world news for something far less offensive

He's not the pope. He's a very naughty boy. A nobody. A minor authority figure at best. He merely said what many idiots in the west also think. Women ask for it.

you say there wasn't as much hullabaloo, which i suppose is right, but then it is on bbc news. also, his was a joke and he didn't say that its entirely the woman's own fault if she gets raped

If a muslim leader had been reported as saying the same thing as Putin, it would be a different story.

maybe there wasn't as much news coverage. what's your point? a muslim leader said something incredibly offensive and the news reported it. there's no racism there. they didn't make something up to villify muslims, they simply reported what he said.


back to my original point, is he trying to demonise himself? you say the media are trying to demoise him by reporting this, but he did say it. are you saying that if we took what muslim leaders said in private and broadcast it, they would be demonised?

I'll say it one more time. Imo, non stories like this are picked up and serve to demonise muslims in general. How hard is that to understand?

Schuhart

Wibbs wrote:

This guy would need one hell of a context to pull that guff out of.

In fairness, we have the full text of the Pope’s statement and it is clear that his remark was actually taken out of context.

If the Mufti had said something like ‘there’s people out there who say things like if you don’t keep your meat in the fridge, the cat’s going to get it’ then he might be able to say he was misquoted, and he was simply describing a view he despises. But that does not seem to be the case.

Wibbs wrote:

Change is possible and I don't doubt it may happen, however it may be more difficult by comparison, so the catholic Ireland comparison has some parallels and is helpful it's not the same in many ways.

Is it fair to say that the mindset of Catholic Ireland helps to put a perspective on how people like the Mufti think, but the institutional structure is very different and, as you say, containing features that make reform particularly difficult – such as the Quran being seen as the absolute literal word of God.

metrovelvet wrote:

I would say that is true, and no doubtedly a product of prostentism which is hisrotically linked to democracy, the freedom to practise one's religion, which necessitates a severence in law from the state and religion. Catholicism, which is historically monarchical doesnt really have inherintaly such an ethos.

While I know I’m guilty of it myself, I think we have to be careful about the ‘this load of old religious nonsense is far, far better than that load of old religious nonsense’. In Ireland, the monarchy (when we had one) was not linked to the Church, and a few years after we became an independent Republic the people happily voted in a Constitution giving a symbolic status to Catholicism.

On the other side of the coin, last night I was watching a recording of a lecture by a Catholic scientist debunking Intelligent Design, and giving an account of the legal challenges to efforts by Protestant fundamentalists to get their religious views written into science classes. (I actually found the video good as simply an example of what freedom of thought is about. Just a pity so much energy has to be expended saving the principle that it’s a good thing to face reality.)

RedPlanet wrote:

Probably comes from the same headspace offensive comments from Bishops, Cardinals and Popes do.

Indeed it probably does, if about fifty years out of date. In fact, I’d be very interested to hear the Mufti’s view on that quote from the Emperor Manual II “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new”.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I'll say it one more time. Imo, non stories like this are picked up and serve to demonise muslims in general. How hard is that to understand?

Its clear that’s what you are saying. What’s less clear is if you’ve reflected on the comments made in response to that.

In the words of Alf Stewart " Flamin' Mongrel "

Sam Vimes

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He's not the pope. He's a very naughty boy. A nobody. A minor authority figure at best. He merely said what many idiots in the west also think. Women ask for it.

i know he's not the pope but he is still the equivalent of a priest. i can guarantee you that if there was a priest saying women deserve to be raped, it'd make the news and he'd be made apologise. what is the problem here? he said something wrong and it was reported. no one is trying to demonise anyone. they are simply restating something that the man believes.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

If a muslim leader had been reported as saying the same thing as Putin, it would be a different story.

no, i don't think it would. if it was clearly a joke, nobody except a few right wing nut cases would mind

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I'll say it one more time. Imo, non stories like this are picked up and serve to demonise muslims in general. How hard is that to understand?

i understand you, i'm saying you're wrong.

you want to believe that the media is out to demonise muslims. they're not. they want to report the news. a figure of religious power saying that women deserve to be raped is news, hence they reported it


here's an idea, if they don't want islam being villified, maybe they shouldn't say things that make them look like villains

Schuhart

Commander Vimes wrote:

i know he's not the pope but he is still the equivalent of a priest.

In terms of what exactly this guy’s status is, the ever helpful wikipedia gives some guidance.

The title of Grand Mufti (Arabic: مفتي عام‎) refers to the highest official of religious law in a Sunni Muslim country. The Grand Mufti issues legal opinions and edicts, fatwa, on interpretations of Islamic law for private clients or to assist judges in deciding cases. The collected opinions of the Grand Mufti serve as a valuable source of information on the practical application of Islamic law as opposed to its abstract formulation. The Grand Mufti's fataawa (plural of "fatwa") are not binding precedents in areas of civil laws regulating marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In criminal courts, the Grand Mufti's recommendations are generally not binding either.
In the Ottoman Empire the Grand Mufti was a state official, and the Grand Mufti of Constantinople was the highest of these. The British retained the institution in some Muslim areas under their control and accorded the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem the highest political stature.
In countries such as Australia where the office of Grand Mufti receives no official seal of government imprimatur, clerics can be elected to the position by one segment of the Islamic community in that country and yet not be recognised by other Muslim communities in that country.

lostexpectation

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He's saying what's said all the time in christian churches, in the editorials of right wing papers like the Daily Mail and on net forums. Imho It's only a story because a muslim said it, and muslims are increasingly being portrayed negatively and this serves to sanitise TWAT and widen cultural and racial divisions.

He should just say he's sick of political correctness. That's the usual get out clause for idiots who come out with this sort of stuff.

Why wasn't there much of a hullaballoo about Putin's rape joke? He is more representative of the Russian people than that guy is of muslims.

thats exactly what I think, he's a idiot its a terrible thing to say, but I've heard it before from many a position

Schuhart

Look at his picture. Red cape, silly hat and beard. He was asking for it, going around looking like that.

Wibbs

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He's not the pope. He's a very naughty boy. A nobody. A minor authority figure at best.

As Schuart has pointed out he's not. He's one of the highest Islamic authorities in Australia, if not the highest. If he can't get this stuff straight as to what he preaches based on his studies, who can?

He merely said what many idiots in the west also think. Women ask for it.

There are idiots everywhere, mostly it's down to education. One would expect better from the highest religious authority in the land. A bit different from a random vox pop on the the street by(mostly) people not in an educated position on such matters.

I'll say it one more time. Imo, non stories like this are picked up and serve to demonise muslims in general. How hard is that to understand?

Not very, just hard to justify such a view in most cases.

In any case The_Dazzler puts it well:D

In the words of Alf Stewart " Flamin' Mongrel "

DublinEvents

All that poor scholar suggested was that women should be more modest in their attire and not go around attracting men to themselves and people here seem to be up in arms. Just think about it objectively. It does solve problems. Most of you who are opposed to women being modest are also the ones who want to bang a new girl every week/month. I guess it's in your interests to become women's allies to give them more freedom, eh? Freedom to do as they wish so you sad people can enjoy your weekly/monthly meat.

Sorry if I sound harsh but I strongly believe in a man and woman staying together in holy matrimony for the rest of their lives. If they have problems, they shouldn't have married in the first place. If there WAS love between them in the beginning, then they should try their best to sort out their differences. When all else fails, there's always divorce. We are supposed to be civilized creatures and civility brings with it more responsibility. Sleeping together without marriage is just plain uncivilized. That's what animals do. We humans should not fall to their level because we have the ability to think and reason.

Wibbs

DublinEvents wrote:

All that poor scholar suggested was that women should be more modest in their attire and not go around attracting men to themselves and people here seem to be up in arms.

Well he went a bit farther than that. Even Muslims from his own area were a bit taken aback. The background to the story involved a gang rape of some women by local scumbags(claiming to be muslims) who got sent to prison for their troubles. He appeared to be going some way towards condoning their actions by saying the women being uncovered brought this on themselves.

Just think about it objectively. It does solve problems.

Certainly if women are kept behind closed doors or covered up from head to foot, I'm sure the incidence of rape would be less. Hardly an argument. Hey go the whole hog and restrict them completely. I'm sure locking them indoors at all times would stop rape entirely. More to the point if you locked all the men up then rapes would equally disappear. You seem to be putting the blame on women and not letting the men who do this responsible for having some self control.

Most of you who are opposed to women being modest are also the ones who want to bang a new girl every week/month.

What? Are you serious? I think I can speak for most when I say that I have respect for women regardless of their attire. If you don't then the issue does not lay with the woman.

I guess it's in your interests to become women's allies to give them more freedom, eh? Freedom to do as they wish so you sad people can enjoy your weekly/monthly meat.

What are you talking about? You do realise that referring to women as meat just because they're not covered up is precisely the reason people were up in arms about this muppet, sorry Mufti. If you can't see that then there's a bigger gulf in thinking at work here. Oh and BTW, maybe the women enjoy their "meat" too. :rolleyes:

We are supposed to be civilized creatures and civility brings with it more responsibility.

Exactly. It does bring responsibility. The responsibility to not act like an animal just because you see a woman's hair or legs. In fact if seeing a fully naked woman brings up ideas of rape or lack of respect for her then the problem isn't hers. Note this is an extreme example. Then again there are many cultures around the world where both men and women are dressed in very little, yet the sight of a breast doesn't have the men trying to rape them. What's that tell you? If a woman can't walk down the street in a skirt without being thought of as "meat", then the problem lies squarely at the feet of men and the culture behind them who thinks of her as "meat". Not a lot of respect goin on there.

Sleeping together without marriage is just plain uncivilized.

Depends on your definition of civilised behaviour is. I would suggest it's far less civilised to judge people on what they do behind closed doors.

That's what animals do.

Some do, some don't. Quite a few are far more monogamous than many humans. In any case we are animals.

We humans should not fall to their level because we have the ability to think and reason.

Again surely the same reason can be brought to bear when you consider a woman wearing a short skirt. Reason should tell you she doesn't want to be raped just for doing so.

DublinEvents

Wibbs, I'm talking from a religious point of view. You don't see Jesus's mother baring her skin in Passion of the Christ, do you? Or even the younger woman with her doing that? Their attire in the movie is the one God wants all women to adopt. God wants modesty from women. Not because He does not want us to have fun. But because this is a test. It's a challenge to have a beautiful body and still resist the temptation to show it to the world and be praised for it. Religion is the guiding principle for a successful life in this world. Sure, the restrictions might sound boring and counter to having fun but there's plenty of fun to be had even in religion. What you need to ask yourself is, do I want to have all the fun in this life and seal my fate by increasing my chances of being thrown in Hell? Or do I abide by God's religion and avoid everything that He has forbidden so that I may deserve His mercy on the Day of Judgement? It's all down to what you think about religion. If you are gonna support women's right to bare their flesh, I hope you don't regret it when you find yourself with those women...in Hell. And don't think that's a reason to rejoice because you will be too busy getting tortured to have fun with those women. I'm dead serious.

Wibbs

DublinEvents wrote:

Wibbs, I'm talking from a religious point of view.

and apparently avoiding the problem with such a view that may lead to the idea that "uncovered meat" is open to abuse.

You don't see Jesus's mother baring her skin in Passion of the Christ, do you? Or even the younger woman with her doing that? Their attire in the movie is the one God wants all women to adopt.

So God wants women to dress like 1st century Jewish women? Mel Gibson's wardrobe dept. will be well chuffed at the honour

God wants modesty from women.

I'm sure your God and your interpretation of same God does.

It's a challenge to have a beautiful body and still resist the temptation to show it to the world and be praised for it.

The same beautiful body that you and the "poor" mufti referred to as "meat". In any case surely resisting the temptation to molest women however dressed is equally valid? Ah I forgot it's the women's fault for getting mens blood up to such a degree.

Religion is the guiding principle for a successful life in this world.

If you're religious.

What you need to ask yourself is, do I want to have all the fun in this life and seal my fate by increasing my chances of being thrown in Hell?

Again if you believe in hell.

Or do I abide by God's religion and avoid everything that He has forbidden so that I may deserve His mercy on the Day of Judgement?

Again the arrogance. "God's religion" indeed. What about other religions that have no such restrictions on women's dress?

If you are gonna support women's right to bare their flesh, I hope you don't regret it when you find yourself with those women...in Hell.

Heeeere comes the brimstone.

And don't think that's a reason to rejoice because you will be too busy getting tortured to have fun with those women.

As opposed to your faith where as a man I'll expect to have hot and cold running virgins for eternity. Must be great for the wives altogether. What do they get in heaven?

I'm dead serious.

Yea I get that.

Sand

All this talk of gods commandments and hellfire for sinners and unbelievers is good for laughs - makes me think of all the cults and religions that have existed - they cant *all* be right.

Even if *any* of them are right youre going to have so many religious fanatics really pissed off when they realise they flagellated themselves every day for 70 years to beat the impurity out of their body, denied themselves material comforts, wandered public streets with "repent sinners" signs and it turns out it was all rubbish. I dont believe in an afterlife, but Id love to be around to see the look on their faces.

End of the day, DublinEvents can have whatever views he likes on womens clothing - can even wear them if he wants. So long as hes not going round forcing others to comply with his views, who cares? Godless immoral decadent consumerist secular liberalism has its benefits for those with strong religious views - people with differing but equally strong religious views arent allowed to burn them at the stake for starters.

As opposed to your faith where as a man I'll expect to have hot and cold running virgins for eternity.

Ive heard the 72 virgins thing is a possible bad translation, and instead you get 72 grapes/raisins in heaven. Another potential candid camera moment.