Australia's big Mufti calls uncovered women uncovered meat . Outrage follows!

[Khalaf]

1.We are not focusing on the bigger picture here which I think the sheikh was trying to convey, his words were “lost in translation” , give a Muslim benefit of the doubt peeps, we don’t know his intentions aight.

 

2. Look deeper into the message (ie Ahura puhlease nooh) and the question his sermon raises: which protects the women and in large the society from immorality: Islamic system or western system? Does this culture-the West produce these vices/crimes-adultery, rape, divorce, illigite children, molestation, ect ect? Yes most men and women will and can control lust/desires, but you most be fair and recognize in a society such as the west laidback on issues of morality (sex, nudity, ect praised and paraded) there is a greater danger of falling into sin. Your thoughts on the points raised. Lets move passed men should show restraint, and take accountability no one is arguing against that ,no need to bring it up all da time! JZK.

[Naden]

Originally posted by SOO MAAL:

I cannot believe how some westernized people arguing without supporting evidence that west respects more women then Islam, or west protects human rights!!!

You're comparing a lovers' spat to a religious figure's words. What exactly is it that you're defending? The right to demean women and just who beats whom in comparing them to dogs or left over cat food. Seriously! :rolleyes:

[Khalaf]

Again ppl can we move passed his comments and answer the questions which were raised: which protects the women and in large the society from immorality: Islamic system or western system?

 

^^^^That is what the sheikh was getting at, he just wasnt smart with words and metaphors!

[LayZie G.]

Canada’s Foreign minister even rejected to apologize after he referred his female colleague in the Canadian parliament Ms. Stronach “Dog” !!!

Soomaal, how you have the nerve to compare two different issues is beyond me..

 

This news is been dead in the canadian press for sometime now, there is no comparison here, our minister may or may not have called his ex-girfriend's absence a dog missing in action when he was addressing her fellow party mate, who by the way, couldn't even confirm that he had indeed heard the minister calling her a dog...this is the same individual that was being address at the time this alleged name calling took place...

 

Days later, few pple in the back seat thought they heard the minister call out a name and all of a sudden, the minister has to apologize, but yet no one can confirm that they heard him call her a dog? What does that tell u???

 

This is a personal matter that the canadian media tried running with it for few days and didn't go anywhere because its between a man and a woman who were once intimate and a woman who betrayed this same man at the last hour, and decided to sleep in the enemy's bed by switching parties on him, and now he is our minister, and she is bitter. The story isn't legit, thats why it was dropped, therefore I suggest u drop and move on about it and start addressing real issues like who should bring Taj Aldin al-Hilali head down, someone ought to do it, I bet for a price they would cut his head and feed it to the dogs...

[Cara.]

Originally posted by Khalaf:

Again ppl can we move passed his comments and answer the questions which were raised: which protects the women and in large the society from immorality: Islamic system or western system?

 

^^^^That is what the sheikh was getting at, he just wasnt smart with words and metaphors!

We can't get past it because the issue hasn't been resolved. If the good sheikh was trying to protect women, then why does he condemn the judge who sentenced rapists to prison?

 

which protects the women and in large the society from immorality: Islamic system or western system?

Which Islamic system? Since I'm sure you will be using actual Western countries to represent secular democracies, which Islamic country will we use as an example of the ideal Islamic system? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Egypt?

[Che -Guevara]

I am in arabia..and there was no a single rape reported in my place..

Majority of rapes even here in the west are not reported. Most women just suffer in silence.

 

 

Cara...Safer in NY...eheh...lol. Have you lived in any of the five boroughs?. I don't know about If Burkas protect women or if miniskirts cause men to lose control, but I guarantee you NYC ain't any safer than Cairo. This is image of NY web page that comes to mind everytime I hear a woman being sexually assualted down in the big apple.

[Suldaanka]

The cleric's paternalistic drivel is hiding a deep hatred for women. This self-deceiving notion that he speaks on behalf of virtue or that most women can't make sensible judgment is a graft from the desert culture that is unfortunately stuck to the faith. The contempt for and fear of women is a hallmark of that culture. Any woman who's been to the Arab world knows the endless hassles, catcalls, assault and disrespect falling on covered or uncovered, young or old alike.

It seems the mufti and Michael Jackon agree that girls are dangerous beings..

[bilan]

they claim this to be the transcript of the his speech, if this is true, then the sheikh is not only blaming women on rape but also they're the reason men steal.

 

 

"BELOVED brothers and sisters, we have spent this good and blessed night kneeling and prostrating, worshipping God, Lord of the Universe, through the prayer of al-Qiam, listening to the most truthful of words. And from the Sura of Al-Ma'ida (The Table), I stand before you to discuss this legal, criminal, legislative position through a Koranic judgment issued by the Supreme Koranic Court of Justice for the crime of theft.

 

In it, God put forward man before woman. God says, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred" - an example from God, for God is ... What should it be, God is forgiving, merciful, or mighty, wise? No, it has to be mighty, wise, not forgiving, merciful. Not at all. No way. For God is mighty, wise.

 

So, we look at the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. In theft, the man was put forward before the woman. We come to the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. God says, "The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes."

 

So why is the man put forward before the woman for theft, and the woman put forward before the man. In the code of what? Adultery.

 

Dear beloved, God called the Koran the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. He called it the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. A book whose verses are wise, a book whose verses are detailed. And who is someone wise? The one who prescribes the right medicine for the right illness, we call him wise. And the one who says the right word at the right time, we call him wise. And the one who acts appropriately on issues, wise. All the verses of the wise Koran, at their beginnings and at their ends, there is a connection between the body and the end. Between the context of the verse and its beginning, and then its closing, the end of the verse.

 

"Forgiving, merciful" has a meaning. "Mighty, wise" has a meaning. "Forgiving, patient" has a meaning. "Patient, forgiving" has a meaning. "Hearing, knowledgeable" has a meaning.

 

Every verse, when it ends with the mention of one of the attributes of God, has a wisdom that is legislative, rhetoric, in the body of thatverse.

 

This verse in particular, the verse in the Sura of Al-Ma'ida, when the Koran was revealed, and it used to get revealed to the Messenger of God, there were no recording devices to tape them. And they didn't have then telephones that can take pictures and record. And at that time, there were no cassettes, and even 99 per cent of the people didn't know how to read or write. So they relied on memorising. On intuition. On their memories. One would hear the verse spoken by the Messenger of God, so he'd recite it and chant it in prayer until he memorised it. Very few knew how to write.

 

One Arab man heard this verse by the Messenger of God, and while he was in his field, his orchard, at his work - he's a working man - he was reciting the verse: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful".

 

A nomad was passing by, he was a non-Muslim. The companion of the Prophet was reciting the verse, and the nomad was passing by. He heard the verse. Immediately, naturally, and with refined eloquence, he said that it was not right. Without hearing the full verse. So that nomad asked the companion of the Messenger of God what was he saying. He answered, "I am reciting something from the Koran". But the nomad said, "Your Koran is in Arabic, but you have never had such linguistic fault. Recite it again."

 

So the companion recited, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful". He (the nomad) said, "That is not right". The man said, "You, a nomad, (inaudible). He answered, "It's not right. And I challenge you that it is not right. These words could never have been spoken by Mohammed son of Abdullah, the master eloquent. And they could never be words revealed unto him by God.."

 

He said, "Let's go to the Prophet." He then said, "Oh, Messenger of God, I have recited a verse but the nomad corrected it for me." He said, "Yes, your companion says, for God is forgiving, merciful". If God forgave and was merciful, He wouldn't command the 'cutting off'. But He is mighty, wise, which is why He commanded the cutting off. The verse should end with "For he is mighty, wise". The Prophet said to him, "The nomad has corrected your mistake with the eloquence and good style and beauty of the Arabic language."

 

Yes, the nomad is right. "For God is mighty, wise", not forgiving. "For God is forgiving, merciful", that's in another life where forgiveness and mercy is hoped for. But in a verse where there is "cutting off", and where there is a limit imposed, God is mighty and wise, so He commanded the cutting off. But if He was forgiving and merciful, He wouldn't have commanded the cutting off.

 

Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden."

 

We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all.

 

Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it.

 

Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth.

 

On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man.

That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft, because his responsibility is to be the provider. "The male thief and the female thief, cut off their ..."

 

But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years.

 

But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman 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 in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). 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, 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 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 soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of 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".

 

source

[Khalaf]

Originally posted by Cara:

We can't get past it because the issue hasn't been resolved. If the good sheikh was trying to protect women, then why does he condemn the judge who sentenced rapists to prison?

Cara I know, but what I am trying to do is get an important discussion out of this. One I don’t trust the media, I give ppl the benefit of the doubt. Two all of us have condemned those remarks. It is unjust and unIslamic to blame the one robbed for the robbery period! But lets not make the discussion about him (we said nuff), but about the more important questions I raised mainly: who is morally superior the West or Islamic Ummah?

 

 

Which Islamic system? Since I'm sure you will be using actual Western countries to represent secular democracies, which Islamic country will we use as an example of the ideal Islamic system? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Egypt?

My answer is that these countries are far from the ideals of Islam. However even with this clear truth that these countries are far from the ideals of Islam, on the issues of morality they are still superior then the West. What are your thoughts on questions I rasied now that we got that out of the way?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man.

 

Once again blaming the women for everything a man does, a man who is a thief is less likely to have any woman who supports him.

 

Could we close this case, we all know the mufti was out of line that is why he apologized! So men start taking responsibility for your actions, and lower your gaze like you are told to when it comes to non-Muslim women. They are not Muslims, for that reason they won’t dress modestly nor are they forced to dress so, and no you CAN'T RAPE THEM!

[Paragon]

Val: Yes, I thought as much. Ridiculous and illogical!

Very adamant, aren't you? I am leaving you alone lady before I end up in a zoo, being fed 'dry bread'.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khalaf:

but about the more important questions I raised mainly:

who is morally superior the West or Islamic Ummah?

Define morals first.

[NGONGE]

Looks like you’ve had quite a discussion here! Of course, by calling it a discussion I’m slightly overstretching the truth. For a start, hardly any of you seem to be in agreement as to the basis of this discussion. Is it about the Imam and his ability to speak? Is it about the reasons for rape? Is it about women’s place in society? Is it a comparison of Western and Islamic ‘cultures’? Or is it about the freedom of speech? Is it about media bias?

 

I suppose that, these days, when one discusses an issue that concerns Islam one is forced to address all these issues and more. Even worse when the problem takes place in the West and we are all, once more, faced with that ugly, dark and annoying feeling of victimisation. However, we must resist the temptation to dismiss every new problem as an attack on Islam by the West and, instead, deal with it on its own merits.

 

Our good Mullah probably meant well but his words, understanding and ability all let him down. No matter how many times one reads his words, one is still left with a bitter and infuriating feeling that this man despises women and considers them to be the source of all evil! Yet, there is a second feeling that is less powerful than the first that tells one that this mullah must also respect women! Surely he must! A learned man such as he, a leader of men, a preacher and a mufti must have enough about him to know that women are as good or bad as men. Simple logic would dictate that he should at least be aware of that tiny fact. I’m of course speculating here but these two feelings lead me to conclude that our Mullah does respect women, as long as they adhere to a set of rules and interpretations that he has (having gleaned them from the faith).

 

Still, this is not a new idea that he’s trying to peddle here. It’s something that has been preached and heard in the Muslim world for centuries. In short, it is the norm. Only, many other preachers are more articulate and fairer in their analysis. In a nutshell, it’s better for women to dress modestly, in case one happens to be walking in a dark alley and is confronted by a randy Muslim ruffian with a conscience (the shorter her skirt, the less guilty he’ll feel about defiling her). It’s a farfetched scenario, for not many women (half-naked or fully dressed) would normally walk down dark alleys but one must always plan for all eventualities I suppose.

 

On another point, rape in itself is being belittled in these exchanges! There is a huge difference between one looking at a pretty woman and finding her attractive and one that throws all laws, morals and rules behind him and decides to abuse such a woman. Not all men are the same and they don’t all find the same thing attractive. Some men are simple and would get aroused by the sight of a naked thigh, heaving cleavage or even wrinkly knees. Other men would get aroused by a walk, a voice and shape (and I’m not talking about bottoms or chests here but rather height and weight). I personally, and this might upset some of you but is not intended as such, find fully covered women highly attractive. Maybe it’s to do with growing up amongst such women and developing a different sense of appreciating beauty! But, when a gloved, fully dressed, burka-wearing woman glides past me in the street (and she happens to be tall and slim) I can’t help but drool and wonder at what lies beneath that veil. Further more, if a gust of wind stirs her jilbab a little (like the sails of a ship) I usually look for something to lean on, for at that moment, my legs usually give in. Luckily, of course, pangs of guilt assault my senses and compel me to avert my gaze (after about the tenth glance). Having said that, I’d be lying if I said that the occasional scantly clad blondie does not also stir my senses (though she too will have to be slim, tall and wearing a skirt that ruffle like the sails of a ship).

 

I’ve known men that get aroused by the sight of daring eyes! Maybe it’s best that we lock women up and never let them out of their houses lest they corrupt our fragile souls. Or, better still, maybe we should lock ourselves up!

[Khalaf]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by Khalaf:

but about the more important questions I raised mainly:

who is morally superior the West or Islamic Ummah?

Define morals first.

Mores: a set of codes-norms, values, behaviors or customs a given society-community accepts, agrees with, and promotes for its individuals to follow. Morality referes to “right and wrong”. eg Its wrong to murder, rape, steal.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I’ve known men that get aroused by the sight of

daring eyes

! Maybe it’s best that we lock women up and never let them out of their houses lest they corrupt our fragile souls. Or, better still, maybe we should lock ourselves up!

Adeer better still: we adhere to Islamic principles of modesty. That is the core message of the Imam I believe. Its unfortunate making this about “arousal” ninyahow, and looking past the more important issue: how the mores promoted by Islam and those promoted by the west affect society. Ngonge adeer one may look at a fully covered women and wonder about the mystery, but if you are honest sxb the portrait which she depicts (religious-respect) will influence your behavior towards her in a positive way, you cant deny that man. Modesty in dress and ethics does protect society (eg from zina), just compare the libral west to the Muslim countries.

[Didi Kong]

Originally posted by Libaax-Sankataabte:

Howard warned Muslims they risked a backlash from other Australians if they continued to defend al-Hilali against mainstream opinion. "If it is not resolved, then unfortunately people will run around saying 'Well, the reason they didn't get rid of him is because secretly some of them support his views,'" Howard said.

I'm not familiar with the Australian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but where I live this is in direct violation to Freedom of Association (it also extends to opinions and thoughts). With elected officials blackmailing them away from their fundamental rights in an attempt to treat them like second class citizens at every opportunity, I trust Australian Muslims realize that there are more important things to worry about than the inconsequential words of a mufti who by the way is entitled to freedom of speech like everyone else in the country. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he is wrong and misguided in his views. He should resign.