It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

godsent
What is really sad is that there are many creepy men who will use his comments as justification for their own behavior.

No one is going to become a rapist because of this, and clearly no court is going to accept this as an excuse to rape.




I didn't say that someone would "become" a rapist. Some people with certain Psychological disorders look for justification or "approval", not all. I should have been more clear.




posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Oh wait.....You don't need to denounce them because they don't do these things. At least for their god.

False. There are jewish terror organizations, and there are catholic and other christian terror organizations. Christians bomb abortion clinics and use government influence to suppress irreverent art. The Falange is a catholic terror organization in Lebanon, etc.


What is it about Islam that keeps so many (not all of course) in the dark ages.

It has nothing to do with islam, all you need to do is look at history to see that. While europe was in the dark ages, islam was in ascendancy, the arts and education were greatly advanced by them. It had nothing to do with Islam, just like europeans being ignorant barbarians had nothing to really do with christianity in and of itself, it was their idiotic interpretation of their religion that lead to problems, and the politics of their time. The same issue is what keeps the middle east in a relative 'dark ages', not 'islam' itself.

Show me some examples of Jews, Christians, and Catholics who are murdering others in the name of their religion today;

Yes, today you don't see christians and jews doing this things nearly as much as muslims because christians and jews overwhelmingly live in secular, liberal socieities, and thats not because of their religions, its in spite of it if anything. Muslims overwhelmingly do not live in liberal secular democracies. Part of that is because muslims themselves don't work for these things, and a large part of that is because the west systematically destroyed any liberal secular democracies in the middle east in favour of direct colonial rule or supporting dictators that were more ammenable to western desires.
You said that if muslims weren't doing what they are doing today, we wouldn't be having these problems, thats true. And if the westerners hadn't wrecked the middle east and constantly interfered with its internal politics, we wouldn't be having this discussion either.

If so; what translation do you think Osama bin Laden reads since clearly; by your estimation, he isn't reading from Islam's "original texts".

This is meaningless. THe Koran is a religious text, as such, it doens't have just one onjective-literal meaning. Just like people can look at the bible and say 'its all about love' and others can say 'god hates gays', some people can look at the koran and say 'we must kill these satanically inspiried non-beleivers before they can destroy us' and others see a message of peace.
The dominant reading, the popular reading, of the koran today, at least in the middle east, is clearly not that 'all muslims must kill all nonbeleivers', or else everyone in the middle east would be rising up against us. The actual numbers of people actively fighting against the western powers is, if nothing else, not a majority of the population. And, amoung those people in active opposition to the west, not all of them are religious fanatics, many are nationalists, or just plain and simple thugs who dont' care what the koran says one way or another.
I'd agree, islam, certainly in the middle east, is in a dark ages. Thats NOT the same as saying 'islam is allways and only a primitive backwards, especially brutal dark age religion'. Just like christianity fell into a dark ages and eventually came out of it, so too has islam fallen from enlightenment into a dark age, and so too can it pull itself out.

whitewave
Allah was the moon god. He was just one of 360 idols in the Kabah (Islam's holy house of god) in Mecca. Muhammed knew about this. Muhammad wanted to create his own religion and needed the backing of his powerful tribe so he picked Allah

This is entirely false. Mohammed destroyed all the idols in the kabbah, which is a temple that they beleive was originally built by adam, as in adam and eve. Mohammed rejected all[]/i] the pagan gods, and replaced them with a monotheistic one, the god of the jewish prophets. Clearly, the god of the jewish prophets was not the moon god of some tribe in the arabian desert. THe arab word for 'the lord' is simple 'al-lah', and thus god is called Allah. The pagans would've also sometimes called their gods 'al-lah', 'the lord', its ridiculous to say that that means that the muslim god is the old arab moon god. Its like saying that since christians called jesus 'the lord', that christians are actually worshipping Lord Krishna.

Even Ramadan begins and ends with the crescent moon

There are only two ways to have a calender, based on the sun, or based on the moon. The muslim calander uses the moon, because the moon varies nicely and regularly on something like a 30 day cycle. That does not mean that they worship the moon god.

In the 1950's a major temple to the moon-god was excavated at Hazor in Palestine. Two idols of the moon-god were found, proving Allah was a pre-Islamic (pagan) deity.

How do you even think that that proves anything?
Palestine isn't even in arabia, if anything that'd prove that the jews and christians worship the moon.




wildbob77
I hope that Austraila has the courage to show him the door.

They didn't have the ability to throw him out in the past, when his visa expired AND he was making idiotically fanatical statements, there's no way that they can throw him out now.


Diseria
Seeing that the Qu'ran hasn't changed since it was first published... there's gotta be something in that.

The koran, like every other old religious book, had changed since its first 'editions'. Islam didn't break off from the jewish religion, mohammed was a pagan arab, like most arabs, and then he claimed to have had a revelation from god, the bulk of his converts, in his own time at least, woudl've been other pagan arabs, with smaller numbers of jews and christians in the area.

And yet Hinduism accepts any and every religion because it's understood that no matter the name given to God, it's all really the same God, same idea, same essence.

Thats certainly not true. Hindus can be just as reactionary and imperialist as any other religion. They often completely reject other religions, saying that the other gods are gross misunderstandings of Hindu gods.

denythestatusquo
what the Mufti said was not objectionable.

Of course it was. He is saying that a woman who is raped, she deserves the blame for the act because she was scantily clad. Thats abusrd and insane.

In Muslim society the women are covered up so that publicly they cannot be sex objects and the men's natural inhibitions are not restrained as they are in Western Society.

Thats not in 'mulsim society'. The idea of covering up your women is a universal idea, and things like the burka pre-date islam, they are old tribal traditions, you cover women up because only whore's don't cover themselves, thats the thinking.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Oh my, shock horror an ignorant fool has spoken out again, what are we to do, panic, get Hysterical, oh I dont know I'm so scared, its not safe to walk the streets any more you might get hurt by this mans thoughts. Or you can act like inteligent rational human beings and deal with this in a logical manner and allow the authorities to do their work instead of acting like a lynch mob. Restistancia why not just admit that your a man hater and a racist, that is what come's through your posts.


you think you know about me
yeah right !!! You have no idea.

I'll give you a word of advice seeing as you offered it to me in a previous post...go back and read all the posts in this thread carefully. You will see that although I am very angry about what the Mufti said, I am also very sympathetic to the damage done to the Muslim community in this country. Perhaps you need a lesson in English comprehension...


Get back on track...THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ME. (More comprehenson required here)






posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
HALF MINDED...You do not know me or what I am about so stop attacking me and assuming how I feel. You are trying to make this post about how everyone else discriminates and stereotypes Muslims and are arguing with anyone that does not jump on your band wagon. That is not what it is about. I do not group all Muslims in the same category as the Mufti. He is a shame to your religion and all decent Muslims should rally to have him ousted(which it sounds like he may be). If the Pope made the same statement regarding women, he would be in a world of trouble!!! Your religion deserves a better representative than this mufti.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by magicmushroom dont confuse freedom of speech with with condoning this mans word.

No. I didn't confuse anything. When you defend someone's words you are condoning them.. otherwise you wouldn't defend them in the first place. Either you agree with him or you don't.


I completely disagree with your statement Riley.

The freedom of speech has nothing to do with defending/condoning the message spoken. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

It has everything to do with defending their right to speak a/any message.

I haven't seen a single post where someone is defending/condoning the mufti's actual words and message, or even remotely agreeing with them.

But, like the Pope and Cartoonist, everyone -- by virtue of being human -- has the right to speak freely, and to be heard freely. That, right there, is the freedom of speech.

They have the freedom to speak.
We have the freedom to agree or disagree.

It's a very important line to draw in the proverbial sand. Thus, it's very important to clear the confusion presented.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Diseria
Seeing that the Qu'ran hasn't changed since it was first published... there's gotta be something in that.

The koran, like every other old religious book, had changed since its first 'editions'. Islam didn't break off from the jewish religion, mohammed was a pagan arab, like most arabs, and then he claimed to have had a revelation from god, the bulk of his converts, in his own time at least, woudl've been other pagan arabs, with smaller numbers of jews and christians in the area.


So far as I understand, there have just recently been discoveries that show the Qu'ran was edited. However (again, so far as I understand), Muslims take the text as it is now to be the original text.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The point that I was trying to get at is that maybe we should be reading the Qu'ran in order to gain an understanding of where these extremists are coming from... Thus, with reason, we may be able to modify their logic using their own terminology.



And yet Hinduism accepts any and every religion because it's understood that no matter the name given to God, it's all really the same God, same idea, same essence.


Thats certainly not true. Hindus can be just as reactionary and imperialist as any other religion. They often completely reject other religions, saying that the other gods are gross misunderstandings of Hindu gods.


Neverminding the reactionary nature of people in general, I have not heard of Hinduism outright rejecting other religions. Granted, I'm a tyro when it comes to religious ideology; however, I've a chapter from The Hindu View of Life that explains how they (at least used to) incorporate other religion's gods into their pantheon because they understood all gods to be the same god, and each path as a way to get to god, or better yet Samadhi/Nirvana.



Here and there outbursts of sectarian fanaticism are found recorded in the literature of the Hindus, which indicate the first effects of the conflicts of the different groups brought together into one fold; but the main note of Hinduism is one of respect and good will for other creeds. (p.28)

...

Many tribes and races had mystic animals, and when the tribes entered the Hindu society the animals which followed them were made vehicles and companions of gods. One of them is mounted on the peacock, another on the swan, a third is carried by the bull, and a fourth by the goat. The enlistment of Hanuman, the monkey-general, in the service of Rama signifies the meeting-point of early nature worship and later theism. (p. 29-30)

...

The Hindu method of religions reform is essentially democratic. It allows each group to get the truth through its own tradition by means of discipline of mind and morals. Each group has its own historic tradition, and assimilation of it is the condition of its growth of spirit. (p. 31)

...

The right way to refine the crude beliefs of any group is to alter the bias of mind. For the view of God an individual stresses depends on the kind of man he is. ... The aim of the reformer should be to cure the defect and not criticize his view. ... Any change of view to be real must grow from within outwards. (p.32)
all quotes taken from The Hindu View of Life by S. Radhakrishnan
(all emphasis mine)


The point I've been trying to stress on this thread is said very well with the last quote -- we cannot expect any religious person/thought to change if we simply condemn it, and punish the person. The change, at best, will be surface... and we will never have gotten to the root!!

Hence, we need to understand it so that we may work with it in change... It's very hard to change people's way of thinking by telling them that their thoughts/beliefs are completely wrong, or better yet, threatening them.



'Do as I say, not as I do' worked when I was little, ignorant of reason and logic. Eventually, I came to realize that my father's words were hollow, and moreover, completely hypocritical. When I pointed this out to him, he sincerely apologized, realizing his mistake. From then on, he's offered me the best explanations and reasons that he has... that I can accept.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Resi, thank you! Angel



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Resistancia, You call this man ignorant and bigoted, your right but you yourself are guilty of the same, you constantly imply that all men are rapists and you refer to Muslim men freqently. The act of rape has nothing to do with religion and the fact that you constantly make reference to Muslim men, Muslim men that obviously cannot think for themselves are an indication of your racist attitude. You contradict yourself by saying you know Muslims that are ok and dont agree with this man but then go on a rant about Muslim men being rapists and will become so because of this mans words. I take issue with you because I resent being called a potential rapist. Were talking about the views of one ignorant person here and you have decide to attack all men and Muslim men in particular. I can only assume you have an agenda to pusue.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Resistancia, You call this man ignorant and bigoted...I take issue with you because I resent being called a potential rapist. Were talking about the views of one ignorant person here and you have decide to attack all men and Muslim men in particular. I can only assume you have an agenda to pusue.


Yeah he is ignorant, bigoted, dangerous, misogynistic and belongs back in the stone age.

When did I single you out as a potential rapist ? When did I say that ?

When did I say all Muslim men were rapists? When did I attack all men ?

Then you admit that you ASSUME I have an agenda to pursue...I underestimated how you clever you are!

When you asume you make an ASS out of U and ME



just keep the comic relief coming....I'm loving it




[edit on 30-10-2006 by resistancia]

[edit on 30-10-2006 by resistancia]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Let's all take a chill pill here.
Please discuss the topic and not each other.
I know this is PTS but I think the emotions of the topic are clouding the issue.


[edit on 30-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Theres no defence for this mans actions, do some research on him, used to be in the Muslim Brotherhood, They wanted to deport him back in the 1980's but the corrupt Labor party of the time forced the immigration department to keep him in Australia in a sick attempt to win the "Muslim" vote.

Even his own Daughter has this to say about him .....

The mufti's 25-year-old daughter Asma al-Hilali described her father as a "sick man"

I think that a mental institution is in fact the best place for this individual.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Resistancai, This thread is about the veiws of on man, it has nothing to do with Religion, men in general or Muslims. You charge your posts with emotion rather than rational thought or logic. This man does not repersent the view of Muslim men, the Muslim Religion or any other man, His words are his own personal bigotry and ignorance but people such as you blow the topic out of all proportion by including issue's not relevant to what this man said. You obviously lack the cranial capacity to deal with issues such as these in a rational way but seek to sensationalise the discussion.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Resistancai, This thread is about the veiws of on man, it has nothing to do with Religion, men in general or Muslims. You charge your posts with emotion rather than rational thought or logic. This man does not repersent the view of Muslim men, the Muslim Religion or any other man, His words are his own personal bigotry and ignorance but people such as you blow the topic out of all proportion by including issue's not relevant to what this man said. You obviously lack the cranial capacity to deal with issues such as these in a rational way but seek to sensationalise the discussion.


In one sense, you're right. The thread was started because of one man's words.

However, we must logically consider the influence this man's words will have. Every action has a consequence -- and those consequences, I think, very well include the religion (since that seems to be where his comment stemmed from). Thus, the religion is relevant. Likewise, we must consider his influence on the young males of the Muslim community. Are they listening to his words, how are Muslims in general reacting.. et cetera. Thus, the Muslim community is relevant.

Are they relevant as scapegoats? No. The man speaks for himself, by himself. But, his influence may very well have real consequences within the community, and obviously stem (somehow) from the religion.

Use logic to its fullest degree. I think that we must consider every possible consequence and/or influence that may or may not be relevant.. We must hypothetically work through each one and see where it leads. Is this not logical? To consider every possibility before acting?

This is not to say that we decide anything, make scapegoats out of the religion or muslim communnity, or worse yet, punish them for one man's actions. Obviously, this would be illogical.

Therefore, we must logically consider every possibility, as best we can, and then figure out what might be the best possible resolution.

To simply stand up and shake a finger at the mufti is correct, but (logically) incomplete.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Diseria, I agree with you and the logical answer to your post would be to carry out a poll on Muslim men and women to see what they think of this persons views, that would give a better insight to the influence this person may or may not have.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Theres no defence for this mans actions, do some research on him, used to be in the Muslim Brotherhood, They wanted to deport him back in the 1980's but the corrupt Labor party of the time forced the immigration department to keep him in Australia in a sick attempt to win the "Muslim" vote.

Even his own Daughter has this to say about him .....

The mufti's 25-year-old daughter Asma al-Hilali described her father as a "sick man"

I think that a mental institution is in fact the best place for this individual.


You conveniently missed out this part of the very same article you provided a link to.


* "Why don't you just leave him alone?" she told reporters. She said her father had spent more time working for women's rights than just about anything else during his term that began in the 1980s.



Sheikh Hilali's spokesman has again attempted to play down the comments, saying the mufti condemned sexual violence.

"His comments were intended to encourage modesty and abstinence until marriage. He has been a staunch supporter of women's rights throughout his life," he said.


Shows how close minded people only grasp the part of the news that can help them propogate their hate-filled ideas. You purposely missed out this part of the article, and conveniently assumed that mufti's daughter hates him or thinks he should be in a menbtal hospital. In reality, the link you provided mentions no such thing. The daughter only said what I pasted above. She never calls him a sick man.

Even the mufti's spokesman gave the actual explanation of mufti's words. But obviously, why wud u belive him. You would rather belive the media, who loves to distort words and provide a completely different interpretation to cause sensation.

Shows how much people are secretly against muslims and how their minds have been filled with propoganda. People never bother to look into the truth and assume that Islam is evil, muslims are evil, etc.

Every article mentions about numerous Islamic organizations and leaderships that have actually condemned the mufti's words. I already explained this. They have no choice. If they don't condemn and try to provide an explanation, they will be labelled sexist and terrorists. The people will make their life hell. The only solution left is to openly condemn so that the world can see that the 'moderates' are standing up for 'extremists' which is equivalent to them accepting the blame. No Choice for them. They chose the lesser of the two problematic ways out. People do not listen to reasoning or explanation anymore.

And we have people like you who post false information to mislead the public. You are probably filled with hate and trying your best to propogate this by using this issue.

Why dont all of you do some research before you start pointing fingers.

Heres some info to start with.


Following the Prime Minister’s Summit with Muslim community leaders, the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, John Cobb, today announced a Reference Group to work with the Australian Government and Muslim communities.


This reference group consists of members both from autralian government and muslim community in working towards a better integration of the Australian muslim community to build a common future with the Australians.
The Mufti, Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali, is a member of this group.

Heres the link to the article from australian government website: www.minister.immi.gov.au...

The mufti has been a controversial figure. Because he is a high religious authority (not government) everything he says is put under scrutiny. So obviously if he is misinterpreted at times, people are quick to jump to conclusions. Not to mention, he speaks in a foriegn language, Arabic. Which can easily be intrepeted to mean different things. It is the intention that matters.

Mufti already apologized publicly. Both he and his spokesperson have clarified what he actually meant by his words.

From CNN

Association president Toufic Zreika said the board was "basically satisfied with the notion that certain statements made by the mufti was misrepresented and the mufti was misinterpreted."


Link: www.cnn.com...

But since the public is already filled with muslim hatred. Any news such as this immediately gives people cause to start blaming Islam and muslims for all the bad in the world.

I respect women and feel they have the right to wear what they want. Even mufti said this. But, I feel sad when I see people immediately getting outraged over someones misinterpreted words. Its obvious the mufti was not inciting rape. Nor does he disrespect women. He may have used bad analogy to show his points. And he was misinterpreted to completely twist the words around.

I do not believe he wud insult women or incite rape because he has a large group of muslim 'students' who listen to his sermons. He also has a large finanacial support from the muslim community. He would not risk his high position and all these benefits by saying something controversial which can cause him to lose all that he has. 500 muslims who were there at his sermon can obviously understand arabic (thats why they were there), thus they probably know better what the mufti was saying. If mufti was indeed inciting rape, then atleast one of those muslims should have commited rape. So either the mufti does not incite rape, or if he does then followers dont practice everything he says, in any case, women have nothing to worry about other than actual rapists who do not belong to any religion and have no morals.

continued............

[edit on 31-10-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Its dumb how people react to someones words and comments. I even find those muslims stupid who react to cartoons and comments. Controversial comments are made in 2 cases: Either made by mistake or misinterpreted, in which case, they should be ignored or understood better. Or, they are made purposefully to fuel hatred and cause controversy aimed directly at a certain group of people, be it muslims or women.

It upto us, the sensible people, to look beyond the controversy and try to find the real answers and possible solutions.

I am not attacking anyone. I am expressing anger towards a certain group of people who constantly attack muslims in general on any such issues. This group is growing day by day and it is me, the common muslim, who has to suffer. I have to be strip searched at airports, i have to be subject to random search, i have to be subject to extra security. Its sickening.

I am viewed as a terrorist just because I have a muslim name. I have a catholic girlfriend and I have friend from all kinds of religions. Yet, when the time comes, I am singled out as a possible suspect.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Half-Minded, My wife and I was watching who do you think you are featuring the family of Julia Sawalia. At one point in the program she visits Jordan to trace her roots and meets a Bedouin family as that was how her grandparents originaly lived. Julia met this family and just before they left the father of the Bedouin family asked Julia that the film was not about Muslims being bad or terrorists and was worried that was what the film was about.

My wife and I found that was really sad that here was a simple bedouin family that were worried that someone was making a film about them being terrorists or bad Muslims. People who spread hate and ignorance just do not realise how far reaching their views are.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistancia

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Resistancia, You call this man ignorant and bigoted...I take issue with you because I resent being called a potential rapist. Were talking about the views of one ignorant person here and you have decide to attack all men and Muslim men in particular. I can only assume you have an agenda to pusue.


Yeah he is ignorant, bigoted, dangerous, misogynistic and belongs back in the stone age.

When did I single you out as a potential rapist ? When did I say that ?

When did I say all Muslim men were rapists? When did I attack all men ?

Then you admit that you ASSUME I have an agenda to pursue



just keep the comic relief coming....I'm loving it



Well you still have not answered my questions.

You need to stop being aggressive towards me and assuming that you know me
enough to make such statements.


I will repeat - THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ME



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by magicmushroom dont confuse freedom of speech with with condoning this mans word.

No. I didn't confuse anything. When you defend someone's words you are condoning them.. otherwise you wouldn't defend them in the first place. Either you agree with him or you don't.


I completely disagree with your statement Riley.

The freedom of speech has nothing to do with defending/condoning the message spoken. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

It has everything to do with defending their right to speak a/any message.

1. We have hate speach laws in our country.
2. What I said was based on my suspicion that Mushroom was defending the speach and the man rather than the right to speak. He also has this nasty habbit of calling us racist and manhaters [he just commented on another member's cranial capacity
] ..despite the fact that no-one [as far as I know] has made sweeping statements about all muslims. To me.. attacking us for voicing our offence at this speach is attacking our right to speak. Calling us names and making derogatory comments also shows us he has no respect for us.. not only as women but as human beings so it would not surprise me if he agrees with the muftis' views.

We have not been racist and people expecting us to silently accept this mufti's views and smile politely is ridiculous. There were some muslims who reacted. er. 'passionately' to the cartoons.. but we express our anger in mere text and get accused of being racist or over sensitive?! Want to talk about double standards again? We get accused over and over again for 'attacking muslims' when we are attacking the actions of select individuals who have their own 'version' of islam [even though he was elected to be Australia's mufti..
] . We KNOW it's not what most muslims believe in. To me it would be exactly the same as christians calling people racist for criticizing the KKK.
So what are we suppose to do? Grant them immunity because they are called 'muslim'? Sorry I'm not about to ignore bad behaviour just because people want to defend it by trying to shoot me and others down by calling us racists.
Unless, despite claims to the contrary.. the Mufti does represent all muslims it doesn't make sense to accuse us of judging them all of them by one guy. We don't and haven't.

I haven't seen a single post where someone is defending/condoning the mufti's actual words and message, or even remotely agreeing with them.

I have.. I've seen several posts saying he was 'mistranslated', 'misquoted' which he wasn't. Exuses abound. That is definently bias for this individual and his views.

But, like the Pope and Cartoonist, everyone -- by virtue of being human -- has the right to speak freely, and to be heard freely. That, right there, is the freedom of speech.

If you read my posts you'll notice that I said the pope should be sacked as well.. this argument has already been offered to me before and I'm asserting my human right to speak, but it doesn't seem like I'm getting heared freely.

Mushroom.. not religious is it? I guess it must be a co-incidence that since this bloke gave his views on rape other Islamic clergy have offered their views as well:

Sheikh Mohammed Omran


www.theage.com.au...
He said rapes committed by non-Muslims were treated more leniently than those committed by Muslims, referring to notorious gang-rapes in Sydney in 2000.

Four young women were separately gang-raped by a group of young Muslim men, including Bilal Skaf. Skaf received a 55-year jail sentence, later reduced.

"What I said in the sermon, I say it here and I'll say it wherever I am," Sheik Omran told ABC Radio.


The difference between these rapes is that a group of [apx] 14 men kidnapped and viciously pack raped several white women. They recieved such harsh sentences as it was aggrevated rape.. organised in an almost milatary fashion. Austraila has never seen rape cases to this extream before and the fact that some of the rapists had no remourse and were actually proud of the trauma they inflicted would not have helped their defence.. neither did it help when one of the rapists refused representation.. trying to take advantage of a loop hole in the law to cross examine his victims himself [he didn't get to thank god]. I doubt the judge would have been impressed with this kind of behaviour.

~A Mufti sanctions rape against women who don't wear hajibs [white women] he also condemns the sentences given to pack rapists who came from the same area and possibly the same mosque.

~A Muslim Sheikh then defends the Mufti's comments about rape.. and then defends the militia rapists who terrorised Sydney women with premedited violent pack rapes.

The Sheik just so happens to have been previously linked to Al Qaeda.


www.abc.net.au...
[2003]
The 7:30 Report has obtained court documents alleging telephone contact between two Australian-Muslim leaders and men in Europe described by authorities as senior Al Qaeda leaders.

The documents, including telephone intercepts, are the most detailed public evidence that allege contacts between Australians and the global terror network.

Melbourne spiritual leader Sheik Mohammed Omran, and Sydney Muslim youth leader Bilaal Khazaal, are linked by the documents with Spain's top Al Qaeda suspect, Abu Dahdah, who is accused of substantial role in the September 11 attacks.


I guess it must be just co-incidence that this man with links to terrorist oganisations has chosen to defend rapists who inflicted terror.


Now.. just in case anyone missed it.. I'll repeat myself yet again:
Criticizing individual fanatical muslims or fanatical groups [KKK, Nazis, Al Qaeda] does not equal racism [ignoring for a moment that it's not a race anyway..].



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Magic -- Indeed, a poll would be a wonderful start! If I lived in Aus., I'd be walking door to door instead of typing this post.

Instead, I'm in the US and debating the moral logistics of how I'd become a (possible) terrorist for obtaining my own copy of the Qu'ran...


I've a humble question for Half_Minded -- you are one of few Muslims that I 'know', and therefore a great resource to this thread, as well as 'everyone else' (if you will). Do you know of a reasonably good translation of the Qu'ran? I've found this, and since it's an .edu site, I'm willing to count it as a source... but, as always with translations, I'm worried about finding thee best possible translation. I know that I'd have to learn Arabic in order to get the full beauty of the text -- but, this is where your insight might come in handy.

My attempt is to understand where the mufti *could have* gotten his train of thought. Obviously, he is an extremist, and every religion seems to have one, or three. However, it's the 'literal understanding of the text' that oftentimes leads to such extreme actions, as well as the extreme reactions. And 'tis that that I'm trying to understand -- beyond the popular 'knowledge' of the Qu'ran..

(In general, I haven't gotten much response for this project. Might it be considered rude, or offensive? I'm a philosopher at heart, and while my motives are pure, I do not wish to step on toes in order to understand...)

[edit on 31-10-2006 by Diseria]

[edit on 31-10-2006 by Diseria]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join