Muslim leader: It's the woman's fault who is raped. She's "uncovered meat"

update


au.news.yahoo.com...

au.news.yahoo.com...


In Disgust
uncovered meat

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is one thing to express your displeasure with the price of a given commodity, but quite another to rail about it to a mob outside the merchant's home.

True enough.

However, one person complaining or railing against something does not automatically mean that John Q. Public will immediately, automatically, take action. I could stand outside the local gas station and tell them that they are, in fact, being price gouged... I could walk around with a big sandwich board, talk to each customer, even post signs -- that does not mean that any person would actually listen to my words and take them to heart.

It is reasonably akin to the man who wears a sandwich that proclamates the end of the world, implores people to repent, and so forth. I am sure he is convinced of its truth, and is very well meaning. His words, however, do not automatically incite action.

A reasonable person, given the context provided by such phenomenon as honor killings, could reasonably expect that the Mufti's message would provoke an immediate increase in the risk of such misguided zeal resulting in violence.

I consider myself a moderately reasonable and logical creature. I do not expect that people will hear his message and automatically, unthinkingly, act. I sincerely hope that they are more reasonable than (apparently) expected... that they hear his words, nod because of social context, but ultimately do not enact them.

More immediately, if there'd been a real man anywhere in the congregation, a reasonable person could have expected a much more immediate outbreak of violence, in the form of the mufti getting his clock cleaned by someone who valued his wife as more than property.

In current times, I hope you realize how entirely impossible such an action would be. (Aside from the fact that the idea of a 'real man' is entirely subjective and has changed over time and per culture...)

In such a line of logic, if there's been a real citizen anywhere in the US, that person would have taken a stand against all the atrocities being committed at the hands of our elected puppets. Reason would expect this, as well as our forefathers.

However, it's not happening because of the current social context; it is frowned upon to question the motives and general integrity of one's country, (although face-to-face and in the non-identity world of the internet, these conversations happen all the time). If a person takes a stand, they are more likely to be boo'd off stage, or plainly assassinated, rather than incite any semblance of change. Meanwhile, most of the citizens know that the actions being taken are wrong and immoral... yet, for all intents and purposes, we do nothing.

Reasonably, I expect that the people may have silently nodded at the mufti's words, a passive agreement to the inherent evil. I do not reasonably expect that they would have openly applauded or boo'd.

Such is the society that we humans have built for ourselves.
Jesus had it right: Blessed are the destitute -- because they are not passively complicit in the evils of society.

Gee that must make most Australians today immoderate and illogical.

Originally posted by resistancia
And I have a right to my opinion.

And while I may disagree with your opinion, I will fight for your right to say it.


Signed,
Once and always 'uncovered meat' who shall wait for the actions which infringe upon personal rights before giving a passionate and blood-inciting reaction.

(I shall not live in fear and declare myself a waiting-to-be-raped-victim because one man speaks up for rape; there are plenty who do, and this one happened to get the spotlight. Besides that, I'm a potential victim of rape very day of my life -- one man's words do not automatically enrage nor scare me.)

Originally posted by resistancia
Gee that must make most Australians today immoderate and illogical.

How so? By what (particular) reason?

In other words, what did I say that would lead you to that conclusion?

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Diseria]

Diseria,

There is way more to this story than I can post here. (An earlier post of mine in this very thread touches on this).

This guy has been making sexist inflammatory remarks about ALL women for a while now and he always says that he was taken out of context or misinterpreted.

Look up the Bilal Skaf and the gang rape he was involved in - he got 55 years for that and this Mufti guy supports what he and his friends did.

I am sorry but he is a misogynistic, arrogant and highly influential man who the young Muslim men listen to intently. And it is the young Muslim men that we are having a problem with in Australia. The old guys say stuff that is demeaning to females at the mosque and the the young guys hang on their every word. And yes, they are the radicals so they are in a minority.

I have Muslim friends and work colleagues and they agree that he has damaged the credibilty of Islam with his comments.




In pace Always
resi


I AM BUT MEAT

Originally posted by Diseria
...one man's words do not automatically enrage nor scare me.)

Perhaps not. But something made this highly respected and visible Muslim leader believe he could say what he said with little, if any consequences. What is it, do you think, that exists in his character that gave him permission to make these rediculous comments? If you take the time to read the Qur'an and Hadith you'd notice that Islam, if taken literally, percieves women as property who voices have significantly less worth that that of their men.

I'm happy (and somewhat relieved) that there are those in the Muslim community in AU who are apparently speaking out and critisizing this cleric. Maybe there is hope!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Perhaps not. But something made this highly respected and visible Muslim leader believe he could say what he said with little, if any consequences. What is it, do you think, that exists in his character that gave him permission to make these rediculous comments? If you take the time to read the Qur'an and Hadith you'd notice that Islam, if taken literally, percieves women as property who voices have significantly less worth that that of their men.

Likewise, if taken literally, the Bible says that Jesus was resurrected and that he also walked on water, not to mention healed lepers by his very touch.. However, I'm fairly certain that we (now) realize that they are stories...

Indeed, I shall be studying Islamic religion later this semester in a philosophy class. And, considering everything that's been happening, I'm glad to be doing so. When I get there, I shall be more than happy to share whatever I've learned.

Until then, I can only go by what little is popularly known...

Originally posted by resistancia
Look up the Bilal Skaf and the gang rape he was involved in - he got 55 years for that and this Mufti guy supports what he and his friends did.

I can't find anything that says the Mufti supports the actions of Skaf and his ilk.

And it is the young Muslim men that we are having a problem with in Australia.

What about the boys currently being investigated in Werribee? They are mostly Italian/Australian Catholics.
Link

What about the current rash of rapes on the north side of Brisbane?

The attacker is described as being caucasian, with a fair complexion, solid build, 185cm, with blonde hair. He was wearing a green short-sleeved T-shirt and jeans.

Link
Link

Skaf and his depraved friends should not be defined by their religion. Their statements to the court that their religion was a major contributing factor to their crimes was a poor attempt at a cop-out. They were too gutless to admit the crimes were a product of their own sick actions.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum If you take the time to read the Qur'an and Hadith you'd notice that Islam, if taken literally...

The Christian Bible also has some rather horrible things to say.

Remember "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)?

Or these?

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18)

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."(1 Corinthians 11:5)

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. "(1 Timothy 2:11-12)



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Diseria
However, one person complaining or railing against something does not automatically mean that John Q. Public will immediately, automatically, take action.

I agree, but we aren't talking about one guy railing to all the John Q. Public's on the street from behind a sandwhich board. We're talking about a spiritual authority speaking to 500 followers who have gathered for instruction, and preaching a doctrine upon which honor killings are based.

Suppose that you were the pastor of a church, and you got up in the pulpit and you told your congregation that the gas companies' gouging is killing the church at the collection plate, taking what's rightfully God's, and quoted verses from the Old Testament relating to the war for the Promised Land, implicitly giving religious instruction that it was proper to carry out a violent campaign against the owners of gas stations?

It is reasonably akin to the man who wears a sandwich that proclamates the end of the world, implores people to repent, and so forth.

That same man would find his butt in jail the split second he stopped saying repent and started making any implicit or explicit threat or instruction of violence. Try it. Go out on the street with a sandwhich board and go tell everyone who's got it coming and who its OK to kill.

I sincerely hope that they are more reasonable than (apparently) expected

My point exactly. The expectation is the legal test. Given trends in Islam, a reasonable person would not necessarily expect the congregation to hear this and, to the man, continue to carry on peacefully. The odds are that if the situation arises, some of those people would kill a woman based on that sermon.
You went wrong with "automatically, unthinkingly". The law does not require speech to display hypnotic power or mind control ability to qualify as disturbing the peace.

In current times, I hope you realize how entirely impossible such an action would be.

How is the mufti getting his clock cleaned not possible in current times? Is the current Mufti a black-belt?

(Aside from the fact that the idea of a 'real man' is entirely subjective and has changed over time and per culture...)

Granted. If it didn't vary with culture we wouldn't be having this discussion. In civilized nations the expectation of a man is that he will respect women. In Islam on the other hand, the expectation is that he will do what the Mufti says, even if the mufti says to abandon and/or murder his sister for getting raped. Forgive me if I'm minimally concerned with objectivity when it comes to the question of whether or not basic human rights can be quieted in deference to cultural differences.

Some things simply aren't negotiable. Rule on this earth is and always has been predicated on force in one form or another. Human interaction in general is essentially a fragile and often broken ceasefire in the midst of a global conflict between some 6 billion participants, because we all want stuff and we all get it at one another's expense now and then, be it a parking spot, a dollar, or an oil field. In this case we're dealing with a coalition (the individual believers in Islam) that wants women to be objects for their enjoyment, opposed by a coalition which believes in certain inalienable human rights (the individual members of western civilization). Western civilization isn't going to back off of its demands. If Islam won't either, there's going to be a clash. This clash has already manifested on an international level, and it can also manifest on the personal level either in the form of individuals or law enforcement imposing our terms on people like the Mufti in whatever way is appropriate to the situation.

In such a line of logic, if there's been a real citizen anywhere in the US, that person would have taken a stand against all the atrocities being committed at the hands of our elected puppets.

Setting aside for a moment the ever so slight nuance between murdering a fifteen year old rape victim and fighting a war against people whose goal is to spread such barbarism world wide, you're still on pretty thin ice thanks to your blatant selective amnesia. 59,026,111 people took a stand against George W Bush in 2004.

There is a definate contrast here. No vote is taken on the Islamic policy of killing 15 year old rape victims. For want of a political/diplomatic sollution, we are left with pure force. America on the other hand sorts out its internal moral debates through political force.

The heart of my response however goes back to the basis of all rule in force. Your response assumes that I suggest moral absolutes. I understand how you would take it this way because I do not generally go into extreme depth on philosophy whenever I assert my opinion. I do not pose moral absolutes. Morals are subjective and arbitrary, and matter only as personal motivation for the application of force. The rule in the west is that you can't kill people for having sex, especially for being raped. That's a rule because we arbitrarily decided it and backed it up with muscle. It applies to the war in Iraq only when muscle is brought to bear in Iraq. My personal policy is infact against certain aspects of the war in Iraq, though not all of them across the board, and I will be flexing my political muscle on this issue yet again next month, but I acknowledge that my opinion there is arbitrary and won't be worth spit until my side wins.

However, it's not happening because of the current social context; it is frowned upon to question the motives and general integrity of one's country

Selective amnesia again, but you're correct that that side's thoughts are not having an impact. This goes to show that in the end its all about force.

Meanwhile, most of the citizens know that the actions being taken are wrong and immoral... yet, for all intents and purposes, we do nothing.

Though I don't particularly object to this statement because I see morals as arbitrary and basically irrelevant I will note something about your tactics. You have kept away from specifics so as not to be engaged on anything such as Abu Ghraib or Gitmo: you are keeping the issue vage and large so that Iraq as a whole is the subject. Unpopular wars make great cudgels when you're defending a fringe position, particularly defending the moral courage of men who are cool with the Mufti defending the rape and murder of their daughters. Clever tactic, seriously, but a little dirty. At the end of the day we are still talking about whether or not Western civilization is going to stand for people defending rapists and implicitly advocating "honor killings", and not the war in Iraq.

If you'd like, you and I can get technical in a million different ways and address moral relativism, just war theory, state of nature, theories of government, centuries of world history, and god knows what else in the process of testing general principles against other examples. At the end of the day though, the subject is the statements made by the mufti, and as I've said, it's not negotiable, and the West isn't going to change its position just because we're not perfect. We have decided that certain things aren't to be done and when they are done or when there is conspiracy to do them, we apply punishments.

Reasonably, I expect that the people may have silently nodded at the mufti's words, a passive agreement to the inherent evil. I do not reasonably expect that they would have openly applauded or boo'd.

Such is the society that we humans have built for ourselves.
Jesus had it right: Blessed are the destitute -- because they are not passively complicit in the evils of society.

Beelzebubba,

yes I should be corrected. The Werribee incident is a great example of how young men exercise power over females. And yes they are boys from various western religious backgrounds I expect. They are just as guilty as the Muslim youths, being non Muslim does not make them any better. They are all animals regardless of religious background.


I am sympathetic and sad because I understand the way that the average Aussie Muslim will be treated over this incident.


resi
uncovered meat

desira,

I misunderstood your post...I am sorry.

Lots of misunderstandings lately...apologies.



resi

BTW....I am NOT a christian so do not quote the Bible to me.

Do not quote any religious texts to me...I am not interested in religion.

I am interested in the misogynistic views of men (any men) and this time it just happens to be a Muslim man.

I call it as I see it.


resistancia

[edit on 26-10-2006 by resistancia]

This muft should be arrested, tried and put in JAIL.
2 chrisitan pastors were given prison time FOR LESS.
So either THIS DOG OF A LEADER is jailed, or they should RELEASE THE 2 DANNYS
FROM JAIL IMMEDIATELY.

EQUALITY FOR ALL....NOT JUST SOME.

flighty

jimball.com.au...


Thanks for this link you posted yesterday. I have sent it to many people


In Pace
resi

uncovered meat

Originally posted by resistancia
BTW....I am NOT a christian so do not quote the Bible to me.
Do not quote any religious texts to me...I am not interested in religion.

I was not quoting the Bible to you. It was in reference to a post by another member.

Another misunderstanding perhaps?

Yes beelzebuba I understand your quotes were meant for freedom for sum.

I am just seeking to get the message across that I am not a religious person, reason being I am the victim of a catholic education and upbringing...



In Pace
resi

Another quote from this stupid MUSLIM LEADER in Australia....
Sheik Al-Hilaly

"More dangerous yet are the sex education classes in the schools. In the West, the society is divided, generally speaking, into different parts in accordance with how interesting they are. First comes caring for dogs and cats. In second place is the woman, and in third place is the child, and in fourth place is the male. Australia is one of the Western societies, and it has recently enacted laws enacted allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. The church officially registers them... These are the dangers of freedom and permissiveness...."

His comments make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. its like he has autism or is illiterate.
Not only is the man totally ineloquent, he can hardly speak english and his attempts at comparisons have got him into a lot of trouble many times.
The man should be replaced IMMEDIATELY and he should spend a few weeks in the can to ponder his attitude and see the light.

And making up total tosh to make out that AUSTRALIA was discovered by MUSLIMS
.Give us a break . The man is a total insult to Australians. Here is some rubbish that us poor Aussie have to put up with hearing from this DELUDED freak.

The Muslims Discovered Australia

Sheikh Al-Hilali also claims that Afghan Muslims preceded Captain Cook in his discovery of Australia11) "Australia is an old-new continent. The Europeans issued a false birth certificate for it when the British seafarer Captain James Cook reached it. However, Australia already had the most ancient race of men on the face of the earth - the Aborigine people... They continue to live their primitive lives to this very day.

"But when you become acquainted with their traditions among their tribes, you find that they have customs such as circumcision, marriage ceremonies, respect for tribal elders, and burial of the dead - all customs that show that they were connected to ancient Islamic culture before the Europeans set foot in Australia.

"That is, Islam had roots deep in the Australian soil and read the Qur'an and called to prayer before the bells of the churches rang in Australia. The best evidence of this is the hundreds of mosques in the center of Australia built by the Afghans. Some of them were destroyed, and others were turned into Australian archeological museums, and still others remained unharmed, and they bear a history that proves that Islam has roots and ancient connections to Australia.

"But because they did not have the proper conditions to continue to exist, such as schools, propagation of the religion, and connection to the Islamic world, the first generation of our Afghan ancestors dissolved...

What a TOSSER.

Originally posted by half_minded
I am getting sick and tired of this dumb media that loves to focus on nutcases like these and fuel hatred.

Wait a minute. You cannot dismiss these words as the rantings of a "nutcase". I understood that the person saying all this was considered the leader of all Australian muslims. And as such, his words would be expected to carry much weight with the muslim community there.

I am getting sick and tired of people that will lower themselves to this extent in an attempt to defend their own - who in this case are indefensible.

How about admitting the truth - that instead of it just being a case of a nutcase ranting, it's an example of how it's the muslim leaders that are helping create the world-wide problem.


[edit on 10/27/2006 by centurion1211]