Sheikh Hilali treats women like meat

October 28, 2006 10:33 AM

Sheikh Hilali, the mufti of Australia, has raised more than a few eyebrows when he declared that rape-victims are to blame for tempting men: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park and the cats come and eat it -- whose fault is it? The cats or the uncovered meat?" Needless to say, the mufti doesn't think the cats are to blame. Australians (including their PM) are not amused and call for the mufti to step down. Even many Islamic women think it's the mufti, and not the meat, that stinks. Others argue that at least the mufti (quickly christened the "rape cleric" by some news outlets) will force Muslims to fess up and take a stand on whether they really think that women are Satan's agents who incite rape with immodest dress. The Sheikh himself found it wisest to go on a "self-imposed holiday" to join the Hajj in Mecca, possibly to pray for attire with larger surface area, and left with the disingenuous remark that he might step down if someone could "prove" what his *real* intentions were when he made his controversial comments.
posted by sour cream (112 comments total)

Such %^#@ is pretty much why we westerners aren't really christian any more.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:45 AM on October 28, 2006

How can women both be the inanimate meat and the person who carries her to the picnic table and leaves her their uncovered? Just curious how the analogy works.
posted by salvia at 10:52 AM on October 28, 2006

their = there / need coffee
posted by salvia at 10:52 AM on October 28, 2006

I read a statement from some official in an Australian Islamic association which said that 99.999% of muslims don't agree with Sheikh Hilali's comments. This is patently false. He's 100% fit to be the Mufti of Australia. His words are in accord with the Koran and the Hadith. The problem is Islam itself.

jeffburdges is exactly right; this nonsense appeared in Christianity too, only it was seven hundred years ago. Christians in the west obviously just cherry-pick their scripture, take some of it literally, some of it allegorically. The religion has been tempered, modernized, and lost its sword. Islam has undergone no such transformation and as a result, (as Sam Harris points out in The End of Faith) muslims all over the world, if they are 'good' muslims, have more in common with Sheikh Hilali and Osama bin Laden than they do with moderate expatriates who claim that such militancy is not integral to their faith.
posted by inoculatedcities at 11:02 AM on October 28, 2006

So he's saying that men, including, one supposes, good Islamic men, are inherently rapists and just acting according to their nature. And that furthermore this nature can be thwarted by by modest dress which causes men to cease acting according to this nature, because of course they have no clue that there's a woman under there.

Fascinating stuff.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:08 AM on October 28, 2006 [3 favorites]

Well, it's the meat's fault of course, walking itself around with its slutty, yet savory smells and juicey, yet oh so whorish, meat. I mean really, IT PUTS ON HERBS, before it goes out and they all just gather at the supermarket, waiting for you.

It's Satan I tell you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:09 AM on October 28, 2006

Oh, and by the same token, prison rape is caused by the shameless wearing of immodest prison garb.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:12 AM on October 28, 2006

Is this meat hilal then?
posted by srboisvert at 11:18 AM on October 28, 2006

From the Scotsman:

A transcript of the remarks showed he quoted a scholar, al-Rafihi, as saying that he would imprison a woman for life if she were raped.

"Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it," Sheikh Hilali told worshippers in Arabic, citing the scholar's writing.

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
posted by FeldBum at 11:21 AM on October 28, 2006

It's worth noting that in the last link of the post, he's pictured with his daughter, who is wearing makeup -- one of the things he says women do to 'tempt' men. Either that or she has a peculiar form of anaemia that turns her eyelids blue.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:23 AM on October 28, 2006

I'm confused. Does this make vegetarians gay?
posted by scottreynen at 11:26 AM on October 28, 2006 [4 favorites]

When I first read about this, I was for some reason reminded of Camille Paglia's "all men are rapists" screeds in the 90's. Though I'm not sure that she would favor the chador as an appropriate counter measure.
posted by psmealey at 11:26 AM on October 28, 2006

There's no such thing as "The Mufti of Australia." This guy might be a prominent cleric, but calling him "the Mufti of Australia" makes it seem like he's speaking for all of Islam, like a pope or a bishop. He's not. This whole "all good Muslims must speak out against the bad Muslims" is a little bit tiring. I'm Catholic (by birth, not by choice) and I certainly don't feel like I need to "condemn" the stupid hateful crap evangelicals say. Moderate Muslims have no obligation to condemn what the crazies say either, although it probably would be wise PR for them to do so.
posted by footnote at 11:30 AM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't know why they don't just follow the Western lead and use the simple rules for women to avoid trouble!

Then I'm sure all their problems will disappear.
posted by yeloson at 11:31 AM on October 28, 2006

The implication of this is even more insulting to men then to women. As many commentors have said, it implies that men can't help jumping on any woman they see.

Though, having spent a little time in Middle East when I was a spry younger lady, I have to say the street harreassment women get (even if they're wearing baggy, long clothes and a headscarf) makes anything in the West pale in comparison. It makes you realize that a sexually repressed society where men aren't getting any can turn men into beasts (though I think guys on the street there are more threatening catcallers than rapists).
posted by juliarothbort at 11:32 AM on October 28, 2006

So in a traditional Muslim household, it is perfectly legal for the husband to beat his meat?
posted by sourwookie at 11:36 AM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

If you show the cat a smaller, weaker animal it will kill it. So I guess he's OK with US foreign policy.
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:40 AM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Brandon Blatcher, that was funny. "IT PUTS ON HERBS!"
posted by salvia at 11:53 AM on October 28, 2006

footnote: There's no such thing as "The Mufti of Australia."

I think the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils might disagree with that. According to Wikipedia, they appointed him Mufti of Australia in 1988, although he appears to believe himself deserving higher honors and therefore presents himself as the Grand Mufti of Australia and New Zealand.

Interestingly, Wikipedia also states that he is a Jew-hater, who believes the Jews control the world by secret movements, such as communism, libertinism, Free Masons, Baha’ism and the Rotary clubs [sic]; he believes that "September 11 is God's work against oppressors"; and, no surprise there, he is also a holocaust denier.

All in all opinions that are pretty mainstream in most parts of the Islamic world -- except perhaps the bit about the Rotary clubs, which seems to be a bit over the top even for a raging mufti.

footnote: This guy might be a prominent cleric, but calling him "the Mufti of Australia" makes it seem like he's speaking for all of Islam, like a pope or a bishop.

Well, he has been appointed spiritual leader by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, which is considered Australia's most important Islamic organisation. So yes, he is in fact something like a bishop or cardinal in your religion.
posted by sour cream at 11:55 AM on October 28, 2006

So I guess he's OK with US foreign policy.

As a matter of fact, when said dickwad muft was getting into a car the other day and was asked when he would resign, he said:

"After we clean the world of the White House first"
posted by peacay at 11:59 AM on October 28, 2006

sour cream writes "All in all opinions that are pretty mainstream in most parts of the Islamic world -- except perhaps the bit about the Rotary clubs, which seems to be a bit over the top even for a raging mufti."

The degree to which outlandish conspiracy theory is accepted as day-to-day fact in the Arabic-speaking mainstream is truly frightening. The Rotary Club bit is surprisingly widespread. It apparently comes from a holocaust denial pamphlet written by a Canadian-German neonazi UFO conspiracy theorist in 1980.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:21 PM on October 28, 2006

psmealey: When I first read about this, I was for some reason reminded of Camille Paglia's "all men are rapists" screeds in the 90's.

I assume you're refering to Andrea Dworkin here?
posted by stinkycheese at 12:23 PM on October 28, 2006

What I meant to say is that he doesn't have control over the doctrine of all of Islam in Australia, the same way a pope would. I'm not sure what the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils is, but I don't think it serves as guardian of the doctrine. Everything I've ever read about Islam has stressed its horizontal structure when it comes to authoritative interpretations of the religion. Wikipedia's article on fatwas explains a bit more.

Calling someone "The Mufti of Country X" might have more meaning in an Islamic theocracy that follows Sharia, where the Mufti of Country X's interpretations of Islam become, literally, the law of the land.
posted by footnote at 12:24 PM on October 28, 2006

The problem is Islam itself.

Welcome, Michelle Malkin, but don't you have a column to write?

The Koran merely dictates "modest dress". How that is interpreted ... varies. The Taliban thought it meant a burqa. The Saudis believe it means an abaya. Most other places, women get by with a headscarf. So obviously the problem is not "Islam itself".

For example, this Arab News article quotes three Islamic scholars who disagree with Hilali's statement -- or at least the way it was presented.

So yes, he is in fact something like a bishop or cardinal in your religion.

Not really. Bishops and cardinals represent policy voices, but Hilali is speaking for himself. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils really isn't the same thing as a church hierarchy in Christianity. It's vaguely more like, say, the World Council of Churches.

The organisation should be the leading voice of the Australian Muslim community but it has been racked by controversy and dissent. Many Muslims, especially those born in Australia, do not consider it represents them. -- after an election swept out the old leadership in May

Even the mosque where he preaches has been torn by what to do about the furor. After the board tabled any discussion for the moment, they heard from "irate" members of the mosque.

Although he has been defended by numerous Muslims, he has also made clear that his remarks were addressed solely to Muslims.

So please stop with this bullshit about Islam per se being the problem.
posted by dhartung at 12:24 PM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Even many Islamic women think it's the mufti, and not the meat, that stinks.

Even?
posted by mkultra at 12:35 PM on October 28, 2006

Observations on the differences between Western and Arab philosophy and way of life

From someone who lived there for a while.
posted by bkudria at 12:37 PM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Such %^#@ is pretty much why we westerners aren't really christian any more.

I'm not exactly sure what part of Christianity says it's OK to rape slutty women, although a lot of people think that regardless of religion. Islam is big on the idea that people need to dress conservatively in order to keep people from being aroused, whereas Christianity the onus is placed solely on the looker.

Also, how does this "force" Muslims to state their position on this subject? Do all Christians have to now state their position on assassinating Hugo Chavez or whether or not Ariel Sharon's stroke was punishment from god for 'dividing' Israel?
posted by delmoi at 12:40 PM on October 28, 2006

This story has spawned a number of tremendous sexual euphemisms in our household: "What do you wanna do tonight? I was thinking maybe you could put out some uncovered meat...for the cats." "I see your cats sniffing around, do you think they might want some uncovered meat?"
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 12:43 PM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

this nonsense appeared in Christianity too

Where? Just curious. I just remember the "any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed a sin" part in the book of Matthew, with the idea that he should then [bizarre--] prevent that by cutting out his right eye instead of letting his whole self go to hell. Burden to prevent rape falls on the guy there.
posted by salvia at 12:48 PM on October 28, 2006

Bkudria, you are aware that all Muslims aren't Arab, right? And that link pretty offensive.
posted by footnote at 12:51 PM on October 28, 2006

Footnote, the only thing offensive about that link is the content of some of the comments. Browne describes his observations about the Arab world, and does so without prejudice. It's fair commentary.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:07 PM on October 28, 2006

bkurdia, that link was patently ridiculous. For someone who's actually spent time in the Arab world, it reads like Borat's observations on America, only slightly more ridiculous.
posted by cell divide at 1:08 PM on October 28, 2006

The Koran merely dictates "modest dress".

Really? Because the translation I read seemed to say much more than that. For example:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof; [37] hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. [38] And let them not display [more of] their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ Sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom they rightfully possess, or such male attendants as are beyond all sexual desire, [39] or children that are as yet unaware of women’s nakedness; and let them not swing their legs [in walking] so as to draw attention to their hidden charms [40] And [always], O you believers - all of you - turn unto God in repentance, so that you might attain to a happy state! [41]

- Al-Nour (The Light)
posted by scottreynen at 1:10 PM on October 28, 2006

Although he has been defended by numerous Muslims, he has also made clear that his remarks were addressed solely to Muslims.

So if Falwell only tells Christians to kill Arabs, it's okay?
posted by Krrrlson at 1:11 PM on October 28, 2006

footnote: I am aware, yes, and I did find the link a little offensive.

solid-one-love: Agreed. It's a commentary on observations.

cell divide: By posting it, I didn't mean that I agreed with it. Not having lived in the Arab world, I wanted a second opinion. Thanks.

With that said, is there any merit to his points?
posted by bkudria at 1:19 PM on October 28, 2006

I'm pretty sure that Mohommad was okay with raping women (captives, slave girls, etc.) as long as you practice 'azl (coitus interruptus). So basically, the point is moot because it doesn't matter whose "fault" the rape is, since it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[atheist]
posted by aliasless at 1:23 PM on October 28, 2006

There is an interesting historical development of what is and is not to be worn, and how this has changed over time at
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

What was not required became required, then relaxed, and now,often, accepted to assert one's acceptance of Islam (in many places).
posted by Postroad at 1:24 PM on October 28, 2006

quickly christened the "rape cleric" by some news outlets

"Christened?"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:29 PM on October 28, 2006

Many of you pointing out the Christian scriptural errors in jeffburdges' comment (at the very top) and the Koranic errors in inoculatedcities' comment (#4) fail to understand that rigid adherence to "the Book" (whichever one) has little to do with religious practice in ANY religion. To say that Jesus never said much of anything about celibacy doesn't imply that priestly celibacy is anti-Catholic. Leviticus doesn't say not to eat cheeseburgers (nor does it say anything about mixing cows milk and beef - just goats) but don't offer one to your local Hasid.

I'm sure there's lots and lots of lovey-dovey stuff in the Koran, but all that Western audiences see and hear about Islam is from misogynistic, violent, medieval idiots. Hence our sense that Islam is a religion of misogyny, violence and stupidity. Seems like this Mufti's comments follow that line to a T, stating quite baldly that Muslim men are violent animals who can't be trusted to control their actions like civilized human beings.
posted by johngumbo at 1:31 PM on October 28, 2006

The Abrahamic God apparently hates women in drag and hot pants.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God

I Corinthians 11:3-10 - Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head ... the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free [22]. He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying,"It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."
posted by meehawl at 1:35 PM on October 28, 2006

bkurdia, there is definitely merit to his points in the sense that Saudi Arabia is a deeply bizarre and often fucked-up place. However judging the Arab world's 300m residents based on interactions with Saudis working in the middle to lower levels of the petroleum sector, or unskilled government workers (who are basically welfare recipients with nominal jobs) is patently ridiculous. He can no more speak on "arabs" as a Saudi who hangs out in rural Utah for a year can speak on "Americans". Combine that with his obvious xenophobic leanings (grossed out by 'shopkeepers who lay hands you') and you've got something that is perhaps an accurate represntation of one person's experience, and all the internal biases etc. that that brings, but nothing that can be considered insightful or useful for the rest of us.

Literally, imagine a xenophobic, culturally ignorant Saudi visiting East St. Louis and rural Utah, and writing a blog post on how "Americans REALLY are".
posted by cell divide at 1:37 PM on October 28, 2006

So please stop with this bullshit about Islam per se being the problem.
posted by dhartung at 12:24 PM PST

Notice how the 3rd rail here is not being touched. That of the issue of interest.

The West runs on Interest Payments. Practice of Islam puts a big kink in the way the west's money system is run.

Grab that 3rd rail to deal with the interest issue and you might get people in the west to look at how the money they use works.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:42 PM on October 28, 2006

I have known many orthodox women (Jewish) and though they often dress etc in a manner not exactly hip or sexual, they do not follow the ancient notions sited by the rabbi, who is referring to what was, not to what is...
It is clear that the Old and New Testaments are filled with bad stuff but that ought not be then used to justify what might be going on elsewhere. After all, we can cite the constituion as an example of freedom and liberty and then note that women could not vote and slavery was accepable.
posted by Postroad at 1:47 PM on October 28, 2006

cell divide: on the surface, his observations seem like they might have some validity. If you have a counter opinion, please educate us?
posted by Malor at 1:48 PM on October 28, 2006

Islam is big on the idea that people need to dress conservatively in order to keep people from being aroused, whereas Christianity the onus is placed solely on the looker.

Perhaps we've had different experiences with Christianity, but I cannot count the number of times Christian men (ministers, priests, and plenty of laymen) have expressed the idea that women are to blame for rape because of they look like sluts.

In fact, before the sexual revolution and feminist movements, this kind of thought was mainstream. There's a reason rape victims didn't press charges.

Ratzi may be clever enough to not express it publicly, but it wouldn't shock me in the least to find he shared these views.
posted by cytherea at 1:48 PM on October 28, 2006

I haven't read the Koran, but I have read a good chunk of the Bible, mostly Old Testament stuff.

I came away convinced that there is so much in there, so many different stories, that what you see when you read the Bible is yourself looking back. You can use it to justify almost anything.

It would not surprise me in the least if the Koran were very similar.
posted by Malor at 1:50 PM on October 28, 2006

Also, does this mean that at night, all meat is grey?
posted by cytherea at 1:52 PM on October 28, 2006

Before we get too far debating "Islam: Good or Bad?" (that'll get us somewhere), let's take a quick intermission for this related thread (start here).
posted by salvia at 1:58 PM on October 28, 2006

his observations seem like they might have some validity. If you have a counter opinion, please educate us?
posted by Malor at 1:48 PM PST

"Israelis, who are often difficult to like but impossible not to respect. "

Impossible? Just the use of the word 'impossible' makes me wonder.

If he was over there - was it the 'middle class' or poor who paid his way, or the rich? If one were to dig about long enough you could find similar statements being made about the attendees of Harvard, Yale or any of the other privilaged classes in "The West".

Many of his complaints smack of the way the well off behave.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:00 PM on October 28, 2006

My boss was recently the victim of a media beat-up, where everything the media reported about him was patently a lie or an exaggeration, so I've become quite a great deal more skeptical of everything the media says. I always was skeptical, mind you, but this recent experience has made me downright cynical.

I can't help feel that there is some element of a beat-up going on here, too. I wasn't at any of these speeches or conferences Hilali gave, so all I have is the media's word to go on. The media whose sole puprose it is to make money and gain influence. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying he didn't say any of this at all. I'm just saying that nowadays, when I see the media form a pack and go in for the kill, I'm a bit more suspicious of what they're telling me than I usually am.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:06 PM on October 28, 2006

My boss was recently the victim of a media beat-up, where everything the media reported about him was patently a lie or an exaggeration, so I've become quite a great deal more skeptical of everything the media says. I always was skeptical,

Sorry to hear that such is how you found such out.

A cartoon to help others figure it out
posted by rough ashlar at 2:23 PM on October 28, 2006

As others have pointed out, this kind of thinking was considered common wisdom until very recently (and still is in many "Christian" places). Beginning in the 1970s, Western feminists fought protracted legal battles in order to try and change laws relating to sexual assault, the way sexual assualt charges were prosecuted, and the recieved attitudes which allowed and reinforced such things as the grilling, on the stand, or rape victims as to whether they had enjoyed the experience, their sexual histories, and so on. (Case in point: when the so-called Yorkshire Ripper, during his string of serial killings in England, murdered a woman who was not a prostitute, she was referred to in the press as his "first innocent victim." This was during the 1980s, no?)

It still surprises me sometimes how quickly those battles have been forgotten, as the social territory has shifted. The fact is that thirty or forty years ago a Christian cleric saying such a thing would have raised eyebrows for its vulgarity, but the sentiment wouldn't have been disagreed with, certainly not the point that anyone would be talking about kicking him out of his position or leaving his parish.
posted by jokeefe at 2:24 PM on October 28, 2006

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

Unless, you know, the rapist was her husband, or her father, or her brother. As is the more common scenario, actually, than a stranger jumping out of a dark alley.
posted by jokeefe at 2:29 PM on October 28, 2006

Wow, what a flipping nutter. I suppose one could say that women invite rape by existing but that would be almost as insane as this idiot.
posted by fenriq at 2:30 PM on October 28, 2006

Saying that Christianity has somehow "outgrown" this is missing the point almost perfectly, I think.

The type of Islam that is frightening in this way is fundamentalist Islam.

The type of Christianity that is scariest is fundamentalist Christianity.

Notice a pattern there?

(Hint: the latter is less than 100 years old. Give it time.)
posted by j-dub at 2:41 PM on October 28, 2006

So if Falwell only tells Christians to kill Arabs, it's okay?

no, the President does that, silly -- he's the one in charge of killing the Arabs. no need to bother Reverend Falwell, who is also too busy celebrating the Western separation of church and state collecting federal money for "faith-based" initiatives.

frankly, what some nobody in Australia may or may not think about rape is less interesting than to observe how the usual MeFi suspects, now starved for action after those fat, juicy post 9/11 months, hungrily attack the by now rare thread that allows them to bash Islam. like cats on rotten meat, really.

unsurprisingly, the same gentleman (hyperbole, I know) seem to be consistently absent from the "there are no WMDs", "torture is now A-OK" threads, et cetera. but then, they may be busy in their litterrrbox.

no, wait, MeFi is their litterbox, I forgot.

*opens the windows*
posted by matteo at 2:47 PM on October 28, 2006

and since we're discussing the superiority of the Western man over the savage Muslim pro-rape mufti, let's hear it from Sheikh Clayton Williams, Republican candidate for the Texas governorship in 1990, not exactly a mufti: his opinion on rape was "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

he lost -- very narrowly -- to Ann Richards. then, we all know who beat Richards four year later, I guess.

glass houses, stones, etc
posted by matteo at 2:54 PM on October 28, 2006

Quoting the Qu'ran

And speak unto the believing women, that they restrain their eyes, and preserve their modesty, and discover not their ornaments, except what necessarily appeareth thereof; and let them throw their veils over their bosoms, and not show their ornaments

This is the word of God it cannot be interpreted and must be taken literally, as changing it would be the same as saying God didn't make the text perfect, which would imply imperfection within God, which is impossible.

The words are clear , and it speaks about preserving MODESTY which is not showing too much ORNAMENTS ; an ornament isnt' a body part ,otherwise God would have said "breast" or some other part. It is probably jewels or dress , as it probably was considered immoral to show too much wealth, because that would have suggested envy and elicit violence in others.

Also consider that the wording is LET them throw, which is clearly -allowing- them to do something , not forbidding them to do something.

---------------

That of course if you believe there is a God. If you don't or you don't know, you may consider Sheikh Hilali as yet another fool that thinks he is authorized to change the word of God as if he was a God (and I bet he feels he is godlike) ..similarly catholic/youtastefopriest would have received a similar treatement from me.

So instead of challeging him, which would just wasting time blaming a fool for being a fool (hardly news) the very concepts he express must be resisted and their absurdity exposed routinely, ad nauseam if necessary.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park…and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it? The cats or the uncovered meat?"

Clearly, a woman isn't meat, otherwise she would be called "meat" and Allah would have called her "meat"..so who is right, a priest or Allah ? This alone is enough to destroy his analogy and expose the guy as an eretic, but let's go further

Males aren't cats and can decide what to do and even if they feel compelled to go after a woman, they can also decide not to indulge in desires, whetever the woman is trying to provoke a reaction or not ; clearly it is NOT a good idea to provoke a man as not every man can resist a provocation all the times, but the man should know better then just do whatever any woman may like them to do ; otherwise he is more like a kid, dependant for his own well-being to mommy and daddy.
posted by elpapacito at 3:02 PM on October 28, 2006

The danger in any philosophy in which the blame for violence rests on the provoker and not the provokee, is that anyone can kick your ass for making such inane theories, and have it be your fault.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:25 PM on October 28, 2006

jokeefe: Unless, you know, the rapist was her husband, or her father, or her brother. As is the more common scenario, actually, than a stranger jumping out of a dark alley.

Actually, the Sheik's remarks are believed to be squarely aimed at justifying the acts of a bunch of Lebanese Australian men who gang-raped a number of (non-Muslim) Australian girls in 2000 (one was raped by 14 men over a time of six hours). You can read more about it here and here.

At the time, there was a controversy in Australia regarding the question whether race (or cultural background, if you prefer) had anything to do with these incidents. It seems that Sheik Hilali has clearly answered this question and the answer is yes. In a nutshell, the boys wouldn't have touched these girls if they had been Muslim. Being non-Muslim, white Australians, they are fair game, because they are sluts -- just look at the way they dress.
These girls made the unfortunate mistake of hitching a ride with Lebanese Australian men who apparently subscribe to Mr. Hilali's ideas about cats and meat.
posted by sour cream at 3:32 PM on October 28, 2006

I think it's fairly common for a lot of strict Muslim men to be into little boys , so....are the young boys guilty of the same "meat" ctimes?
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:38 PM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

"meat" CRIMES " that is.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:39 PM on October 28, 2006

"Case in point: when the so-called Yorkshire Ripper, during his string of serial killings in England, murdered a woman who was not a prostitute, she was referred to in the press as his "first innocent victim." This was during the 1980s, no?"

1975-1980.
posted by Auz at 3:46 PM on October 28, 2006

"In Soviet Russia Central Asia, pussy eats you!"
posted by rob511 at 3:46 PM on October 28, 2006

The words are clear , and it speaks about preserving MODESTY which is not showing too much ORNAMENTS ; an ornament isnt' a body part ,otherwise God would have said "breast" or some other part.

I doubt he would have used "breast" since that's an English word. 'Ornaments' may be used differently in other languages, to words that might mean "breast". For example, "Al Quaida" can mean everything from "The Foundation" to "The Database" in Arabic. In another quoted passage, someone said women should not show their "charms" which is probably the same word.
posted by delmoi at 4:18 PM on October 28, 2006

jeffburdges is exactly right; this nonsense appeared in Christianity too, only it was seven hundred years ago.

er, are you kidding me? this sexist bullshit and that attitude in particular is totally commonplace, in both religious and secular culture. to suggest that mainstream attitudes in the liberal west are "over" racism and sexism is inispid and stupid. the comment above is so wrong, its not even excusable.

anyway, the old maxim holds here: people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. this is nothing to do with islam and everything to do with the fact that sexism is a general problem the world over. the sheik deserves to get shit for his comments, but dont stop there.
posted by mano at 4:30 PM on October 28, 2006

Except rape isn't about sex.
posted by bwg at 4:33 PM on October 28, 2006

IT PUTS ON HERBS ...

It put the herbs upon its skin or else it gets the hose again.
posted by bwg at 4:34 PM on October 28, 2006

For example, "Al Quaida" can mean everything from "The Foundation" to "The Database" in Arabic.
posted by delmoi at 4:18 PM PST

One thing the world will never agree on - how to spell al-Qaida (in Iraq), which by the way means "the base" and also is jihad slang for "the toilet",
posted by rough ashlar at 4:35 PM on October 28, 2006

I doubt he would have used "breast" since that's an English word.

Oy oy ! Sorry if pasted a translation of Qu'ran, not everybody know arabic like you, you know. (*cough* asshat *cough*)

In another quoted passage, someone said women should not show their "charms" which is probably the same word.

So it's a whole lotta confusion, open to any interpretation. Not surprisingly if the bible/quran/younameit isn't the word of God, but it is just a code of law ; it could have been formed so that is was abstract, general enough to be interpreted.

Mhhhh who could be arrogant enough to think he is always right and VERY hard to challenge without a sea of problems ? A judge maybe...or maybe a Scholar.

What if the "doctors of theology" aren't but people supposed to do interpretation of law in a context of application of law ? That would make sense, considering they bend laws often regardless to the law original intention and letter. Then they decided it was a lot better to become God, rewrite the law or apply it as they deem fit for their own convenience.

Or maybe, they insert the scarecrow God as somebody else did with the scarecrow Osama, to give more weight, more immediacy, more sensation of fear from something above, uncontrollable, evil. I guess I am just repeating ad infinitum was has been already well understood.
posted by elpapacito at 4:39 PM on October 28, 2006

I see this whole story as an Islam-bashing beat-up.

Yes, the sentiment "women should dress decently or men will be inflamed and not responsible for their actions" is pretty offensive to a lot of people, but it's not confined to Islam, is it? It's a conservative view common to lots of religions.

I'd be willing to bet cash that some Orthodox or Catholic or Baptist cleric has said essentially the same thing somewhere in Sydney in the last year or so, but as Orthodox/Catholic/Baptist clerics aren't the current boogeyman, nobody would even think of mentioning it, let alone prompt all this editorialising. Boil it down, and you get "conservative thinker thinks conservatively".

The only reason it's a story is because there have been a couple of high-profile rape cases in which the rapists were arabic.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:55 PM on October 28, 2006

mano writes "this sexist bullshit and that attitude in particular is totally commonplace, in both religious and secular culture. to suggest that mainstream attitudes in the liberal west are 'over' racism and sexism is inispid and stupid."

I don't think anyone reasonable would claim that "western" cultures are completely free of sexism, but as jokeefe eloquently points out above, there has been a sea-change in attitudes towards gender in the past half-century, brought about by a combination of activism by second-wave feminists and more general social transformation. To deny these changes is to be rather willfully ignorant of recent cultural history.

This is especially true in regards to the attitude that this thread is about. Placing blame on rape victims has gone, in the past fifty years, from being a commonplace attitude to a shameful taboo (powerful enough to keep a popular Republican from being elected governer of Texas). No doubt there are those who still would place some blame on the victim of a rape, but that attitude is far outside the mainstream. This change in attitudes has been coupled (as the second-wave feminists would have predicted) with a precipitous decrease in the incidence of rape.

mano writes "anyway, the old maxim holds here: people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. "

The old maxim has always been absurd; wicked, even. We should point out and fight injustice wherever we see it. Politics are local, and change begins at home, but the fact that my carpet needs to be vacuumed shouldn't keep me from helping my neighbor put out the fire consuming his house.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:57 PM on October 28, 2006

Even many Islamic women think it's the mufti, and not the meat, that stinks

Even? I spend a good deal of time among Muslim women who'd be happy to kick this eejit's arse.
posted by jamesonandwater at 5:21 PM on October 28, 2006

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
posted by SPrintF at 5:24 PM on October 28, 2006

Not this shit again.

Some stupid cleric makes an insensitive remark - fine. He's an ass. But what really makes me sick is the paper "The Australian". In a day and age where North Korea has nukes, Australia is on its way to become involved in a deadly civil war and is facing the toughest drought in recorded history, what does this abominable rag put on the entire front page for three freaking consecutive days?

The ramblings of some cranky old man, of course.

Because this is what they think Australians really need to know more about.

This one-sided obsession borders on racism and is likely to incite more acts like the Cronulla riots.
posted by spazzm at 5:48 PM on October 28, 2006

If he was over there - was it the 'middle class' or poor who paid his way, or the rich?

He was there as an employee, to teach English. Rich people don't do that.
posted by delmoi at 5:51 PM on October 28, 2006

Oy oy ! Sorry if pasted a translation of Qu'ran, not everybody know arabic like you, you know. (*cough* asshat *cough*)

WTF? I'm you're saying the word translated as "Ornament" can't mean "Breast" because breasts aren't called ornaments in English. It's a stupid argument.

My point is, you're making an argument based on a translation, and that just can't be done.

Suppose someone started a religion in Mexico and had as one commandment as follows "Do not kick a man's eggs". Suppose most people interpreted that to mean, "Don't kick a man in his testicles." Now you would say eggs aren't really like testicles at all, so that can't be what it means. But what about an English phrase "Don't kick a man's nuts" would you say the same thing, that testicles are nothing like nuts? What if eggs in Spanish had the same scatological meaning as nuts in English? Actually it does. Eggs means testicles in Spanish slang.

Maybe "ornaments" can mean "Breasts" in Arabic? I don't know, but most people say that Arabic law says women should keep their breasts covered.

Your argument about scholars or whatever, I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
posted by delmoi at 6:02 PM on October 28, 2006

bkudria, from the perspective of someone who has grown up with Semites, Arabs and other genetic Abrahamic lineages, let me join the chorus of voices that suggest your link's author is a complete and total bonehead. "Due to their nomadic heritage...". Jesus onna stick, the Bedouins are a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of Arabs. There are members of my family that have been on the same land since they paid taxes to Caesar. They wouldn't know any more about camels than you do. Gods, I'm so tired of this Laurence of Arabia mental picture that people like the author seems to have.

"Shopkeepers lay their hands on..." Oh, get over yourself you xenophobic idiot. The Semites are no more touchy than anyone else. (Except possibly the Germans....who seem to be very non-touchy. And the Brits, they get weirded out too. And the Nordic. Ok, fine, Arabs are about like Americans with the touching thing. A closer field of personal space, but their certainly not running up and stroking your thighs for no good reason.)

"Their self esteem is different...ours is based on a job and a wife...theirs is only based on a scary religion I don't know anything about." Really, I hope I don't even need to debunk those 6 paragraphs of utter bullshit.

Gah, you know the rest of it is just such utter lies, misinformation and absolute bullshit that it depresses me beyond all belief that anyone could read it and think even one single bit of it is true.

Good lord, we're never ever going to get past the cultural walls if people believe deliberate liars as truthtellers.


As to the Sheikh, he has long been controversial. He is, in fact, very much like Falwell. Those who think he's bonkers can't understand why he has followers, and his followers can't understand why everyone else thinks he's batshit insane.

Is his sentiment patently offensive to anyone with Western values...gosh, I hope so. Is it offensive to those who share the Sheikh's faith? I don't know. If, as has been suggested, this was in response to the gang rapes in Sydney, then it's a despicable use of the pulpit...by my standards, but perhaps not by theirs.

Which raises an interesting question: How do we integrate cultures with such radical differences? Can they be integrated, or is it necessary for some cultural identity and beliefs to be shed before a culture can move forward as a unified whole. I'm not talking about Utopian societies, but a culture where "live and let live" actually has a chance of survival.
posted by dejah420 at 6:24 PM on October 28, 2006

Which raises an interesting question: How do we integrate cultures with such radical differences?

Why would we want to integrate a culture like this with ours? If we mix cultures, we become more like them and they become more like us. Do we really want to be more like a culture where the cultural leaders believe things like this?
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:54 PM on October 28, 2006

Likewise with your last comment, delmoi. I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
posted by nonmerci at 7:03 PM on October 28, 2006

To oppose Sheikh Hilali is to hate Islam. You've got to embrace multiculturalism or you're some kind of creep. Everything is relative, after all. He speaks for all those millions of Muslims of both sexes who agree with him, and millions of Muslims of both sexes can't be wrong: fundamentalist Islam is a valid lifestyle choice for individuals, like Coke vs. Pepsi (but not like Gay vs. Straight because God makes people Gay). So stop imposing your secular Western values on the rest of the world: if this guy says it's perfectly okay to rape women right and left you're wrong to say he's wrong. You don't want to be like Jerry Falwell, do you?
posted by davy at 7:33 PM on October 28, 2006

The ramblings of some cranky old man, of course.

teachings, not ramblings. That is the difference, and the issue.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:39 PM on October 28, 2006

Furthermore, that's good reason to convert to Islam because it's okay if Muslim men commit rape, as long as you only rape women who ask for it by going out in whorish "Western" dress -- instead of modestly like this.
So three cheers for Islam, the religion that liberates men!
posted by davy at 7:50 PM on October 28, 2006

Likewise with your last comment, delmoi. I have no idea what you're even trying to say. --nonmerci

I was responding to elpapacito who wrote this:

<sub>...So it's a whole lotta confusion, open to any interpretation. Not surprisingly if the bible/quran/younameit isn't the word of God, but it is just a code of law ; it could have been formed so that is was abstract, general enough to be interpreted.

Mhhhh who could be arrogant enough to think he is always right and VERY hard to challenge without a sea of problems ? A judge maybe...or maybe a Scholar.

What if the "doctors of theology" aren't but people supposed to do interpretation of law in a context of application of law ? That would make sense, considering they bend laws often regardless to the law original intention and letter. Then they decided it was a lot better to become God, rewrite the law or apply it as they deem fit for their own convenience...</sub>

Can you understand what he was saying there? I think it's something about how people writing the Koran would only use specific language, or maybe he's saying that they would intentionally use 'flexible' language that is open to interpretation. Or maybe he's saying something else entirely, I'm really not sure.

I realize my comment about eggs, nuts and testicles was confusingly worded, but I was trying to come up with a metaphor elpapacito might understand. I probably should have just ignored his comment. Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 8:15 PM on October 28, 2006

And here I thought Australian mufti generally consisted of a khaki vest, a big knife, and a deep tan.
posted by oats at 8:19 PM on October 28, 2006

I've now had the chance to read that "Observations On Arabs" link and yes, the author is a patronising idiot.

He's mapping his experiences in one workplace in one country to every arab everywhere. Coincidentally I've taught English in an Arabic-Muslim country too and my experience was radically different.

I remember giving a pep talk to my students before a crucial exam, “You are all going to pass the exam, right?” “Inshallah teacher.” “No, no!” I shouted, “No inshallah. Study!”

<bangs head on desk in frustration>

"Inshallah", despite its literal meaning, is just what you say for "hopefully"* -- when you say "goodbye" do you literally mean "god be with ye"? But he's taken that simple thing and turned it into "Arabs are lazy and fatalistic" -- and insulted the whole class to their faces without seeming to know he's done it.

Who was it who said "travel narrows the mind"?

_{* English-language pedants: yeah yeah, but you know what I mean.}
posted by AmbroseChapel at 8:41 PM on October 28, 2006

This one-sided obsession borders on racism and is likely to incite more acts like the Cronulla riots.

Interestingly, I'd bet most of the Anglo nutters who incited and took part in the Cronulla riots probably privately agree with the mufti's comments on women. As others have pointed out - I've heard essentially equivalent, if not as colourful language, from conservative Christian ministers within the last decade. This is a very common opinion still held in many backwards parts of society, and the media's feigned shock and anger is unbecoming.
posted by Jimbob at 10:18 PM on October 28, 2006

We're in the 21st century, and most people who live outside that patch of Asia bordered by Mumbai to the West and Tokyo to the East seem to obsess about living and justifying their lives according to books that were written at best some 1300 years ago. Oy vey.
posted by clevershark at 11:41 PM on October 28, 2006

Interestingly, I'd bet most of the Anglo nutters who incited and took part in the Cronulla riots probably privately agree with the mufti's comments on women. As others have pointed out - I've heard essentially equivalent, if not as colourful language, from conservative Christian ministers within the last decade. This is a very common opinion still held in many backwards parts of society, and the media's feigned shock and anger is unbecoming.

Don't disagree with your points Jimbob, however as someone who lived at Cronulla for >10 yrs up to 2004, I can tell you that to have a large bunch of Middle Eastern dickheads regularly turn up at Wanda/South Cronulla beach and threaten you, your wife, your daughter etc. can fire up even quietest of those in the Insular Peninsular. I don't really consider myself to be an Anglo nutter, and I don't condone their actions, but I can understand the frustration of the locals, particulalry when you start to read the emerging report on the lack of policing in that area.
posted by fullysic at 12:41 AM on October 29, 2006

Well fullysic I grew up in Cronulla and have lived here the greater part of my life. I am a local.

I can tell you that to have a large bunch of Middle Eastern dickheads regularly turn up at Wanda/South Cronulla beach and threaten you, your wife, your daughter etc. can fire up even quietest of those in the Insular Peninsular.

See, I take issue with the generalisation, the choice of language, the rationalization and the undercurrent of racism in that remark. You may well say that this is your experience but it doesn't justify slurring about 200 million or however many people - 'middle eastern' - whether or not you were just innocently trying to communicate your understanding of the situation. [reminds me of those people who forward 'aboriginal' jokes in emails and turn around and say they were not meaning to be racist]

There are a large number of people of many cultures who flock to Cronulla over summer -- whether Vietnamese or Lebanese or some other ethnic group -- and have great fun with their families and provide local businesses with trade. The vast majority never, ever cause problems or are involved in any distasteful social behaviour.

While I agree that there are dickheads that turn up in the shire from time to time, there are also sufficient dickheads that live here that would just as likely threaten your wife or your child given enough crank or beer.

Yeah, we could do with better policing on the friday and saturday nights when hoons turn up and during the days on summer weekends and sure, some Police with Lebanese ancestry might help bridge the gulf of fear and misunderstanding. But local people also have to practice some tolerance and openmindedness (which I think the overwhelming majority do) and restrain from slurring a whole section of the world or a single nation just because of some shit behaviour exhibited by a minority. Just like the whole of the Islamic community and religion oughtn't to be slandered just because of one atavistic fuck-knuckle mufti's outrageous views.
posted by peacay at 1:35 AM on October 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

See, I take issue with your overt political correctness Peacay. I apologise for not being able to exactly identify every culprit's exact ethnicity, however never did I/we experience the same level of abuse, particularly directed at women, from any other group of people. There are plenty of local dickheads as you attest, but the direction of the abuse is rarely so fierce & pointed at the females in the group as it is from those who appear to this dumb Skippy to be 'of Middle Eastern descent'.
And, whilst I abhor Howard as much as the next person, their behaviour, possibly (or not) encouraged & condoned by imbeciles such as Hilali, is *ahem* un-Australian...
posted by fullysic at 1:45 AM on October 29, 2006

It's a stupid argument.
Believe what you want, but calling an argument stupid isn't much of a refutation, is it ? That's kindergarten behavior, probably you just are irritated.

What if eggs in Spanish had the same scatological meaning as nuts in English? Actually it does. Eggs means testicles in Spanish slang.

Sure and somewhere else they still represent a natural product of birds. Yet remember what we are talkin about is GOD WORDs...the text is important. One can't take God word and give it any meaning you or the contemporary group or subset of group agrees on. One can't read whatever one pleases into the words of a deity, as that would be bending the laws of God to fit ones desires.

So if a word in arabic (translated in english "ornaments") have more then a meaning, to which meaning was God referring to ? That's the only one important, the one we prefer isn't.

I don't know, but most people say that Arabic law says women should keep their breasts covered.

I don't know of any "Arabic Law" , you probably are referring to some Arabic Customs a.k.a. Arabic Mores ? Let' say that these mores are formalized into a State enforced law that says "woman must wear veil at all times except when in their own or relatives or husband house" ; you could argue
that this law doesn't tell on which body part the veil must be weared and you would be correct. Others could argue that it is IMPLICT in law that woman must wear veil the way it is traditionally done, but where is this in the text of the law ? Nowhere in the law there is a reference to "tradition".

Now if God's word is LAW and it is, in the sense that one MUST obey it or face god wrath or damnation or some pain, it is clear that it can't be open to interpretation, no one can't second guess what God meant to say, because God is perfect : from the perfection of God descends the perfection of his words, immune to ambiguity.

Interpretation of God words implies possibile ambiguity in God's choice of words, which would imply God isn't able to communicaty his will without the possibility of ambiguity, which would negate the perfection of God.

Therefore, if God said

And speak unto the believing women, that they restrain their eyes, and preserve their modesty, and discover not their ornaments, except what necessarily appeareth thereof; and let them throw their veils over their bosoms, and not show their ornaments

we could the the arabic text, have somebody explain its meaning and maybe discover, as you could argue, that "ornaments" is also used as slang for "breast" or whatnot...but that is interpretation of God word, as an ornament could as well be a necklace.
posted by elpapacito at 4:39 AM on October 29, 2006

fullysic, we would likely be in agreement over a drink or 11. If I respond with a sensitive hair trigger it's only because I fear the damage that can be done when generalisations are tossed out as though all 'middle eastern' people who visit Cronulla are misogynistic swine.

We've only to look at the washup after 9-11 with unwarranted harassment and arrest of people just for the way they look to realize that we need to be cautious, we do indeed need to use what you call PC language so that some godawful cavalcade of public backlash against a whole community of people doesn't occur.

The vocal backlash should be aimed instead at the braindamaged twat of a mufti for whom this thread was started. People who harass or break the law should be arrested. We have to engage in dialogue with ethnic community leaders and hold festivals and open days and have representatives from religious and cultural entities visit schools and the like. Integration and understanding only comes from engagement and sharing.

I've known tons of anglo guys who have harassed women in one way or another but the vast majority do not. So it is that the overwhelming majority of middle eastern guys don't behave in a fucked manner. Some do and there are sometimes identifiable reasons (cockmufti's outburst being one) which need to be addressed.
posted by peacay at 4:55 AM on October 29, 2006

But elpapacito, talking about "GOD WORDs" is funny because here on Metafilter when I pointed out that something was in the Torah a Jewish guy argued that real Jews don't hold the Torah to be definitive; when I said something similar about the Qu'ran a Muslim guy told me that you can't just go by what's written there, you need Religious Scholars to tell you what Allah really meant. Apparently fundamentalist Christians are the only Abrahamic fanatics who hold that their Scripture alone is sufficient, that, e.g., when the Bible says "God hates fags" it really means what it plainly says. So your generalization only fits Christians: Jews and Muslims get to twist God's Word any way they feel like.
posted by davy at 8:40 AM on October 29, 2006

We're in the 21st century, and most people who live outside that patch of America bordered by Monterey County to the West and RPT to the East seem to obsess about living and justifying their lives according to books that were written at best some 1800 years ago. Oy vey.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:22 AM on October 29, 2006

mr_roboto

a sea change in attitude in the west? a comforting thought, i guess. maybe we can pat ourselves on the back and then turn on the tv.... oops.

yes, there have been changes in how women are treated in western culture, but these have NOT been liberatory changes. they have not addressed sexism, they have changed how it is expressed.

women are objectified in a burka and they are objectified in a bikini, and no its not an identical situation, but the "which objectification is worse" debate completely misses the point.
posted by mano at 11:14 AM on October 29, 2006

We're in the 21st century, and most people who live outside that patch of America bordered by Monterey County to the West and RPT to the East seem to obsess about living and justifying their lives according to books that were written at best some 1800 years ago. Oy vey.

Your thoughts are so original HM! Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?
posted by clevershark at 11:49 AM on October 29, 2006

"women are objectified in a burka and they are objectified in a bikini"

And some women look so much better in a bikini that they make a living at it, while some should be required to wear a burqa or at least oh god please something less "revealing."

As for me, my body is okay (if slightly pudgy around the middle), but I wish it were okay for me to emulate the Unknown Comic (and so would any bystander aware of the option).
posted by davy at 11:51 AM on October 29, 2006

here on Metafilter when I pointed out that something was in the Torah a Jewish guy argued that real Jews don't hold the Torah to be definitive; when I said something similar about the Qu'ran a Muslim guy told me that you can't just go by what's written there, you need Religious Scholars to tell you what Allah really meant

davy, those claims may or may not be true, but "some guy on the internet told me" isn't really the strongest support for an argument.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:43 PM on October 29, 2006

Ah, but those guys on the Internet were a Jew and a Muslim speaking of their Holy Books, whereas I'm just a lowly Scripture-readin' atheist (in translation yet). Surely any random Jew or Muslim is more qualified to talk about what pleases Almighty God than I am, right?
posted by davy at 4:06 PM on October 29, 2006

Jews and Muslims get to twist God's Word any way they feel like.

Maybe some of them feel they can, but that is evidently playing God. If Scholar X says "nay" and Scholar Y says "nay, but maybe" and they both offer even just slightly different interpretations, I may as well start offering my interpretation, and everybody else can.

Clearly some will say scholars are the only one allowed to do interpretation..allowed by how exactly ? By themselves, of course, as they try to impose their twisted views to faithful people, Which is playing God, for God gave scriptures exactly to end equivocation, ambiguity. What is the point of giving scriptures if they are not to be followed, but interpreted ? That's hardly radicalism, that is really believing in these text to be word of God.

Surely any random Jew or Muslim is more qualified to talk about what pleases Almighty God than I am, right?

Nah you just need to read the scriptures, that's all. Yet as you claim to be an atheist, I would be a little more worried about disproving the existence of God, an exercise you should try. While you are at it, you must disprove I am not God , as well.
posted by elpapacito at 4:30 PM on October 29, 2006

Ah, but those guys on the Internet were claimed to be a Jew and a Muslim speaking of their Holy Books, whereas I'm just a lowly Scripture-readin' atheist (in translation yet). Surely even if any random Jew or Muslim is more qualified to talk about what pleases Almighty God than I am, that still does not necessarily make them qualified enough to speak with any authority, and especially not to speak on behalf of every single school of thought that loosely falls under the name of the umbrella religion to which they claim to belong, right?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:42 PM on October 29, 2006

A little but of related newsfilter for y'all: An ambulance has been called to Hilali's office, just short of the meeting where Muslim clerics will decide his future.
posted by cholly at 7:14 PM on October 29, 2006

Yet as you claim to be an atheist, I would be a little more worried about disproving the existence of God

Why? I no longer believe in the tooth fairy, and, while I can't "disprove" its existence, I'm certainly not 'agnostic' about this question.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:58 PM on October 29, 2006

Teach the debate, Heywood.
posted by dreamsign at 12:24 AM on October 30, 2006

Your thoughts are so original HM! Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?

Ironic!
posted by dydecker at 4:13 AM on October 30, 2006

An ambulance has been called to Hilali's office,

Apparently he has had a mild heart attack.
This is clearly God's way of showing how displeased he is with Hilali. Maybe this will keep Hilali permanently from spouting more inanities.
Inshallah.
posted by sour cream at 4:47 AM on October 30, 2006

Delmoi,

He's trying to argue with them on their own terms. Don't expect it to make sense or follow a normal logical pattern.
posted by JKevinKing at 6:22 AM on October 30, 2006

As an aside, I'd really love to see someone pass a gun control law where only women can posses or trnsport guns.

fyi, It has been shown that burqas don't reduce a woman chances of being raped.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:19 PM on October 30, 2006

I see that the final appeal in the Pitcairn Rape Trial has delivered a resounding guilty verdict on all those accused. Apparently rape of children and teenagers has been endemic there for at least two generations. Given the complete adherence of the Pitcairn population to Seventh Day Adventism and the certainty expressed by many in this conversation regarding the powerful stimulatory effects of organised religion on men's libido, I can only conclude that the blame for yet more rape lies squarely upon Seventh Day Adventism.

This logic is of course flawed. It was a new pastor in 2000 who first brought to light the ongoing abuse. Why previous pastors did not choose to intervene remains a mystery to me...
posted by meehawl at 2:08 PM on October 30, 2006

What this man who leads one mosque in a Sydney suburb has said is deplorable and virulently misogynistic. His community should sack him, not least because his thoughts are not Koranically sound. In fact, he does not invoke any religious text in supporting his misogynistic and old-fashioned point-of-view. However, why should he be threatened with deportation? If a white Australian said the same, would he be sent back to a prison in the UK? What ever happened to the 'Western' protection of free speech, no matter how unpleasant or unpopular? There is a complete imbalance on reporting on Islam, fueled by naked (and, frankly, tolerated and acceptable) racism and jingoism that is today targeted at Islam throughout the Christian-white world. There are plenty of religious clerics in the US who have said the most reprehensible and outrageous misogynistic and homophobic things: against women who have abortions, against women who dress immodestly, blaming 'the gays' for 9/11 ... the list could go on. If publicized, there is usually an uproar and then nothing happens. Those people occasionally resign from their positions but don't do much else. Non-Christians in these countries don't get hysterical and insist that the Christian 'moderates' come out and condemn the statement as soon as the statement is publicized. Everyone waits to see what happens. The same should apply here. Instead, here Australian Muslims are judged before they can react and held to a high standard. When the lebs are beaten to a pulp at Cronulla, there are questions of whether they 'deserved' it, even in the most mainstream Aussie press ... how is that any different from what this man is saying, except that the target is a gendered, not racial? All communities are more likely to condemn their own if they can do so autonomously. But if there is immediate finger-pointing and an insistence that a community prove its worth or its progressive nature, the community is less likely to do so.

Moreover this cretin is spewing anti-women garbage that is very sadly and regrettably shared in many parts of the world among meatheads and chauvinists. This is an issue of conservatism, not of one 'cultural relativism' because this form of conservatism is found in all cultures except in those cultures which were viewed by the Christian world as primitive because their women didn't cover up and wore grass skirts, and had to be 'civilized'. Parents, even in Hollywood movies, often don't want their daughters dressed too slutty. Why not? They don't worry about what their sons are wearing. Why the double standard? F*cking sexists! Why is there no equivalent in English for slut, to refer to men!? All Anglos must be women-haters and think all women are whores!

The Western world has decided to forget its own prejudices and acts as though it has never been homophobic (and that it is totally pro-gay today) or anti-women. The same people who love Islam-bashing when a cleric reveals his bigotry and conservatism are chomping at the bit to defend the Pope when he displays his prejudice, as though the Pope through history--or even today--is an icon of freedom and progressiveness, or that the Papacy heralded the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

The whole issue of immigrants (in Europe, Muslims and in the US, latinos) integrating is a red herring and an excuse to indulge in racist stereotyping. Some will 'integrate'; others will not. All can be a productive part of society--just as the Hassidic Jews who work in the diamond district in Manhattan, though visually, religiously and culturally very different and out of place, have a thriving business which provides a valuable service to New Yorkers (one small example). Also, if there is such pressure for people to integrate if they're newcomers, what about old-timers who want to leave the traditional fold? Do they have to leave the country? What if a born and bred Aussie acts 'un-Australian' on Cronulla beach, but breaks no law. What then?
posted by Azaadistani at 2:47 PM on October 30, 2006

Follow-up to something I posted upthread:

I'd be willing to bet cash that some Orthodox or Catholic or Baptist cleric has said essentially the same thing somewhere in Sydney in the last year or so

A Baptist Pastor has done just exactly that, although not in Sydney. He was inspired by the Sheik to explore the topic, "Is there a link between provocative dress and sexual assault?"
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:40 PM on November 12, 2006