Religious leader condemns RAPE

[Rafa]

nice one.
yeah, shakira hussien comment in particular made me a bit queasy...

JENNY BROCKIE: Shakira, a final comment from you, what do you think needs to happen now?

SHAKIRA HUSSEIN: I think what needs to happen is people need to recognise, Muslims and noon Muslims that Muslim women are being done over twice. They being done over because they are the object of the kind of vilification that's been directed at the community as a whole and I'm sorry, Keysar Trad but they are also being done over because too many Muslim men are using racism as an excuse for not dealing with appropriately, because there is a media beat up, then that's an excuse for just going away and saying the poor man, he's being vilified, character assassination, let's just let it all pass.

a few minute before that, she said to brownyn bishop...

SHAKIRA HUSSEIN: I just wanted to tell Bronwyn that if the aim of her statements is to have fewer Muslim girls wearing hijab then she's going about it the wrong way. The only time in my life in Australia that I ever wanted to put one on was after her speech last week. I want to not wear it because I'm annoyed with al-Hilali but then I hear Bronwyn and I want to put it on. Every day I get dressed I have to work out who I'm most angry with.

Just as an aside, I think Jenny Brockie is one useless compere, she lets her preconcieved ideas and obvious partialism, interfere with robust debate and ends up turning the most debates more into a political circus!

 

[arlee123]

Anyone know the actual cultural reason for Arabic women to cover up their modesty? (It's an Arabian thing, not Islamic)

cause its desert in arab area.....too hot...too much sunlight..to need that to protect the skin...i think

 

[Julia]

cause its desert in arab area.....too hot...too much sunlight..to need that to protect the skin...i think

I've never heard that given by any Muslim as a reason for wearing the hijab.
Most of the reasons I've heard centre around the concept of "modesty".
But then a while ago I was amused to hear a couple of Muslim women discussing the topic on Radio National and they agreed that it was simply convenient as they didn't have to think about what their hair looked like or what clothes to wear. Also, that it didn't matter if they put on too much weight as no one would notice.

I imagine the reasons for wearing veils or whatever are as numerous as the wearers.

Julia

 

[2020hindsight]

.. it was simply convenient as they didn't have to think about what their hair looked like ... I imagine the reasons for wearing veils or whatever are as numerous as the wearers.

Maybe the answer is that EVERYONE should wear them!! - then us blokes wouldn't have to shave every morning.

Gee but times have changed since I was a teenager - Only veils I ever heard about came in groups of seven, and there was dancing involved.

(and - even though the dance originated in the middle east , rape was never even considered , it was called CIVILIZED entertainment)

 

[new girl]

groups of seven

x 10?


PS: shaving once a day is a small price to pay for you boys to enjoy the final product of waxing, nails, hair, make up and the pain that comes with high heels!.

 

[2020hindsight]

x 10?.

lol - you back on those 70 virgins again? lol you crazy ,

 

[new girl]

lol - you back on those 70 virgins again? lol you crazy ,

You have no idea how crazy!!!

(besides it was your funniest post ever).

 

[Happy]

From ABC, November 27, 2006

Thousands rally against change in Pakistan rape laws

Thousands of supporters of hardline Islamic parties have staged a rally in Pakistan to protest against the passage of a Bill that amends the country's Islamic rape laws.
Pakistani Parliament this month voted that rape and adultery cases should no longer be heard under the country's harsh religious laws.
The Islamic hardliners boycotted the proceedings.
Around 8,000 people participated in the rally called by the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six fundamentalist parties.
MMA activists carrying banners and placards chanted slogans against President Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan's "war on terror" ally the United States.
"We'll intensify our protests to mobilise the people to stand against the induction of anti-Islamic laws," a central MMA leader, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, told the rally.
He claimed that secular parties were trying to change the country's Islamic identity.
"Secular parties have sided with military dictator General Musharraf to change the Islamic identity of Pakistan, which we would not allow," he said.
Slamming the Parliament, another leader, Liaquat Baloch, said MMA lawmakers would resign from their seats next month.
"This Bill has been passed by General Musharraf to appease his masters in Washington," he said.
The Parliament overwhelmingly approved the Women Protection Bill to overhaul widely criticised religious legislation known as Hudood Laws.
The laws have run parallel to Pakistan's British-influenced penal code.
The late military dictator, General Zia ul Haq, introduced the Hudood Laws 27 years ago as part of a sweeping Islamisation of Pakistan that coincided with the country's role in the anti-Soviet "jihad" in Afghanistan.
The Hudood laws say that women must produce four Muslim male witnesses as evidence of rape - an almost impossible burden of evidence - or potentially face adultery charges themselves.
The maximum sentence for adultery by a man or a woman under the laws is death by stoning, although that has never been enforced and those convicted of the crime get jail or a fine instead.
Human rights groups, who have long campaigned for a change in the law, hailed the Bill as a step forward for Pakistani women.
- AFP

This could explain some of the antics we see in parts of our multicultural fabric.

Customs and beliefs are deeply ingrained and can be seen as partial explanation of comments made even by clerics.

 

[insider]

YEP THE SHEIK IS AT IT AGAIN... INSULTING THE VERY SAME COUNTRY THAT PROVIDES HIM WITH A FIRST WORLD LIVING...

HERE IS THE HYPER LINK
ARTICLE

 

[2020hindsight]

and conversely .. Islamic association apologises over Al Hilali comments..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1825372.htm

The founder of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia (IFAA) has apologised for comments made by the Sydney cleric, Sheikh Taj el-Din Al Hilali, in a television interview.

Sheikh Al Hilali was embroiled in controversy in October, after reports that in a sermon he had compared scantily clad women to uncovered meat.

During an interview on satellite television this week the mufti reportedly said Muslim gang rapists received overly heavy sentences because of their religion and people who paid to come to Australia had more of a right to be here than descendents of those who came in shackles.

IFAA spokesman Keysar Trad says says he apologises for the comments if they have caused offence, but says the Sheikh has been misinterpreted.

"I do understand that some people taking these comments without looking at the full video would take offence to them," he said.

"As an Australian Muslim... I do feel like apologising to these people and also appealing to them to understand the context, it would seem he was trying to explain away that controversy and put it behind him and there were a couple of slip-ups."

Must admit, I didn't enoy watching him being championed and chaired aloft by worshippers after the last round of "slipups". Man doesn't deserve to be in a position of representing others. imho. just one "slipup" after another, one insult after another, one apology after another, etc etc (it has got to the point where even the apologies are insults !! - insults to our intelligence!)

PS on the aboriginal thread, the question of unrepresentative proportion of blacks in custody came up. Well after the Cronulla "riots", there was likewise an unrepresentative proportion of white boys jailed compared to the moslem boys. This Mufti is a serious antagonistic influence.

 

[Bobby]

YEP THE SHEIK IS AT IT AGAIN... INSULTING THE VERY SAME COUNTRY THAT PROVIDES HIM WITH A FIRST WORLD LIVING...

HERE IS THE HYPER LINK
ARTICLE

We must think alike Insider, I'm sick of this & huge numbers of Aussies are as well.

Cheers
Bob.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

and conversely .. Islamic association apologises over Al Hilali comments..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1825372.htm

Must admit, I didn't enoy watching him being championed and chaired aloft by worshippers after the last round of "slipups". Man doesn't deserve to be in a position of representing others. imho. just one "slipup" after another, one insult after another, one apology after another, etc etc (it has got to the point where even the apologies are insults !! - insults to our intelligence!)

PS on the aboriginal thread, the question of unrepresentative proportion of blacks in custody came up. Well after the Cronulla "riots", there was likewise an unrepresentative proportion of white boys jailed compared to the moslem boys. This Mufti is a serious antagonistic influence.

With idiots in power and positions of influence running the country alined with the PC brigade what else could we expect?

The part in RED has made me RED for a while now.

 

[Happy]

ABC , Last Update: Thursday, January 11, 2007. 7:14pm (AEDT)

ISLAMIC ASSOCIATION APOLOGISES OVER AL HILALI COMMENTS

The founder of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia (IFAA) has apologised for comments made by the Sydney cleric, Sheikh Taj el-Din Al Hilali, in a television interview.
Sheikh Al Hilali was embroiled in controversy in October, after reports that in a sermon he had compared scantily clad women to uncovered meat.
During an interview on satellite television this week the mufti reportedly said Muslim gang rapists received overly heavy sentences because of their religion and people who paid to come to Australia had more of a right to be here than descendents of those who came in shackles.
IFAA spokesman Keysar Trad says says he apologises for the comments if they have caused offence, but says the Sheikh has been misinterpreted.
"I do understand that some people taking these comments without looking at the full video would take offence to them," he said.
"As an Australian Muslim... I do feel like apologising to these people and also appealing to them to understand the context, it would seem he was trying to explain away that controversy and put it behind him and there were a couple of slip-ups."
Mr Trad says the Sheikh's comments were not intended to be malicious.
"The question was put to him, before making that comment, is that if you're under the spotlight so much why live there, why not come back and live in the country of your birth, and he said we have every right to live there basically we're not shackled to be there, we don't choose to be there, we paid our own way, implying that he loves Australia and loves being in Australia," he said.

Excuse after excuse after excuse, until we get used to it.


Australian Government’s response -

ABC , Last Update: Friday, January 12, 2007. 7:14am (AEDT)

SHEIK'S COMMENTS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY, DOWNER SAYS

The Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, says Australians are no longer taking comments by Muslim cleric Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilali seriously.
The Sydney Sheik has reportedly told Egyptian television that people who paid to come to Australia have more of a right to be here than those who arrived in shackles.
He is also reported to have said that Muslim gang rapists receive heavy sentences because of their religion.
A supporter of the cleric has apologised for any offence caused, but says the Sheik's remarks have been taken out of context.
Mr Downer says the Sheik's outbursts are increasingly being ridiculed by Australians.
"I don't think people are really taking him terribly seriously any more, this sort of nonsense about convicts and so on," he said.
"Look I'm a South Australian and South Australia was never a convict colony so ... [I am] very relaxed about what people say about convicts."

Probably one method to believe that problem doesn’t exist.

But to me and probably other scared citizens, we are up against determined group of people who eventually hope to take control of this land and have only religion, their religion and only rule, their rule.

Pretending that this is not brewing is probably bit naive, probably associated with 3-year term of the government.

In 3 years time it might not be their worry, so why worry?

 

[Happy]

From ABC, January 12, 2007


SHEIK'S COMMENTS SPUR CALLS TO IMMIGRATION DEPT



Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone says her office has received a large number of calls from people who are outraged by comments reportedly made by Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilali.

The Sheik reportedly told Egyptian television people who paid to come to Australia have a greater right to be in the country than Anglo-Saxons who arrived in shackles.

He is also reported to have said the Australian law guarantees freedoms to the point of insanity.
Senator Vanstone says Sheik Al Hilali has used these same freedoms on countless occasions to attack Australia's heritage, society and values.

She has also reminded the Sheik that if he does not like Australia, he does not have to come back.

It is funny that we are at his mercy if he comes back or not.

How about revoke citizenship and make him reapply and see how his character qualifies for re-entry visa.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?g=6534511E-7C51-4509-9770-1C2637659C9C&f=39&fg=copy channel 9 interviewing Kaysar Trad.
Who apologises and claims that the Mufti would also apologise (yeah right).
I have a lot of time for Kaysar Trad - but the sooner he sacks his boss the better

PS ignore the ads - and click on the relevant thumbnail "Sheik Alhilali strikes again".

 

[IGO4IT]

I've never heard that given by any Muslim as a reason for wearing the hijab.
Most of the reasons I've heard centre around the concept of "modesty".
But then a while ago I was amused to hear a couple of Muslim women discussing the topic on Radio National and they agreed that it was simply convenient as they didn't have to think about what their hair looked like or what clothes to wear. Also, that it didn't matter if they put on too much weight as no one would notice.

I imagine the reasons for wearing veils or whatever are as numerous as the wearers.

Julia

Nice one covering their hair to not worry about fixinig it

its basic people, every reliegon has its rules....or....symbolic rules, In Islam, God...had his rules to tell people what to do if they want to be believers.

Hijab is both a psychological & practical commitment from a woman that she would be able to cover a big part of her beauty in an effort or a try to prevent others from being attracted to her based on her looks!! & ....as many will say ..... to not let the "men monsters" who are mentally sick or capable or doing bizzare doings like rape, sexual harrasement or whatever.... from getting close to her as her sexappeal will be "less" than others, practically, minimising her chances of being on the spotlight or a radar of any sex maniac considering the traditional theory that sex maniacs usually have to be attracted physically to their victim & that in general some people while they're drunk for example could get very excited & do crazy things if woman is really wearing revealing clothing!

Now, before you go crazy at me, I'll give you a good example, govt give rules to drivers not to speed more than 110km/hour on highways, knowing in fact that having a rule ONLY will not stop anyone from speeding, so they make it a law, a protective law, NOT NECESSERILY that if you speed you'll die, & NOT NECESSERILY that it will be your fault on the road to have an accident, it could be a drunk driver or unlicensed boof who hits you!!! some individuals may realise how dangerous speeding is & install a speed limiter on their cars to make it NOT exceed 110km/hour as they're scared of having an accident.

if we could consider having a hijab (NOT COVERING THE FACE just the hair), is same as putting a speed limiter in trying to avoid an accident. of course we can't compare human beings to cars but the idea here is that some good drivers can do 200km/hour without having an accident & others can do 50km/hour while having an accident, the reliegon gave the hijab as a "precautionary step" that if ladies would like to protect themselves from maniacs & lunatics & mentally ill people then they follow god's law & wear it, then if they wear Hijab it should "minimise" thier chances of getting attacked by those maniacs & mentally ill people, considering the theory that most likely they would get attacked based on the level of how sexy they are in the chance that they are ever to be targeted by any mentally ill or sex maniac.

Practically, it's like putting a seat belt while driving, you could have your seatbelt & still die in an accident but chances of getting hurt are LESS if you have a seatbelt on than if you don't have it on.

Of course as all God's instructions or rules are, they all come with "you have to" & that you'll be a better person if you follow my instructions & that you'll get good points & you'll get to heaven if you do follow the rules. some understand the idea behind the rule & some don't & just follow & find it convinient to not being able to worry about their hair

Sheikh Taj doesn't have complete grasp on English or how can he explain Reliegon or reason behind some rules, Arabic is very complicated language & due to its "many meanings" to the same word depending the tone & body language, timing, etc....the same word could mean many things & he assumes that everyone (Inc. those that don't speak Arabic) would have the same cultural & historical backgroung as himself or as middleeasteners.

I don't agree with Sheikh Taj in many things & I think he pushed it about women being responsible for getting raped. The Australian society we're living in now is a lot more acceptable to women's revealed clothing than what it is in other places on earth. Having a precautionary measure like having a hijab may not stop a lunatic from raping a girl & having a girl with a bikini may not also give an extra reason for a person or a permit to assault that woman. The idea here is that he may be considered in some sense to be someone who advocates for using the "precautionary" measure as the Hijab but unfortunately he stuffed up & used crazy metaphors.

cheers,

 

[Julia]

Perhaps women could just go for full body armour and be done with it, huh?

Julia

 

[IGO4IT]

Perhaps women could just go for full body armour and be done with it, huh?

Julia

well, I guess its the same if you think that having a full body armour while driving instead of having a seatbelt will further minimise your chances of getting hurt in case of an accident then go for it

as I said, its a precautionary measure to protect women IF they like to take a precautionary measure & get good points by following god's rules.

Obviously you don't believe in taking that particular precautionary level & that's fine! Many people all over the world drive without seatbelts & still don't die, its your decision.........this is what releigon is all about......decisions

cheers,

 

[Prospector]

as I said, its a precautionary measure to protect women IF they like to take a precautionary measure & get good points by following god's rules.

To even compare the wearing of a seat belt to avoid injury when in a car, with wearing the hijab to avoid being raped is evil. No, that isnt even the word for it. Cant think of anything that remotely expresses my disgust that anyone could think like that.

 

[Kauri]

Seeing as we seem to be running with the driving analogies....
If you are wearing a seatbelt it does lessen your chances of serious injury if a speeding and /or a drunk driver hits you. Even if you are not wearing a seatbelt it is the drunk-speeding driver who is held responsible, and has his driving privileges and sometimes his liberty removed.
As there seems to be a group of men in our diverse society who cannot control themselves if they see a womens uncovered hair and face maybe we should help them by fitting them with seatbelts in the appropriate area.
By the way, there's nothing quite like taking responsibility for your own actions.