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

Friday, October 27, 2006

The new rape excuse just like the old rape excuse


Fear, moral panic, the end of Western Civilization is about to occur – a Muslim Cleric says that it’s all women’s fault for getting raped – we need new tough terror laws and a repealing of civil liberties to deal withy this! In fact we need to demonize all Muslims now!

Cleric says uncovered women like abandoned 'meat'
SYDNEY - Women who do not cover up are similar to abandoned "meat" making them responsible for sexual attacks, a senior Islamic cleric has said.

The Mufti of Australia and New Zealand, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, has outraged female Muslim leaders with comments he made during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?" the sheik asked.

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib [Islamic headdress], no problem would have occurred."


Hmmm, that doesn’t sound very new does it folks? Men have been blaming women for getting raped since the earliest of times, those dozen or so Australian boys yesterday who videoed a sexual assault on a mentally impaired girl originally started off trying to say she had given her consent – when in doubt, blame the slut.

Is the Cleric’s comments offensive, of course they are – but there is nothing new in what he is saying, men have tried using it as an excuse for years, but we don’t point the finger and scream ‘terrorist’ do we? Let’s take another Australian example of the Bulldogs pack rape allegations in 2004….

In a police incident report, the 20-year-old woman claimed to have been thrown fully-clothed into a hotel swimming pool in the early hours of Sunday morning, stripped naked, and repeatedly raped vaginally, orally and anally. When she was later found slumped in the hotel car park she was grazed, bruised and hysterical, and had to be taken to hospital by ambulance.

The Bulldogs' management has rejected this version of events. They say that the woman had consensual group sex with eight players on the previous Wednesday, but only slept with one of them on the Saturday night in question. She had climbed naked into the pool and tried to entice players to join her around 7am on the Sunday morning, but none took her up on the offer. "They really did not want anything to do with her because they thought she was a scrag," one player told the Sydney Sun-Herald.


The Bulldogs themselves emerged as victims, with a photograph of laughing players on the way to the beach captioned: "Weight of the world on their shoulders." But several articles later alleged that league teams take part in group sex as a bonding ritual, and claimed that the "roasting" of "bun-chicks" is a relatively common occurrence.

"Some of the boys love a bun. Gangbanging is nothing new for our club or the rugby league," said one player.

Speculation has also centred on the women who hang out with players, describing them as "groupies" and making the eternal suggestion that they are always "up for it".

"Don't think she was an innocent player in all this," said another Bulldog. "After the Wednesday night she gave her number to one of the boys and said 'come around and bring the whole team around'."


So sluts who get raped by sports teams are asking for it, and it’s not really the lads fault. However, a Muslim Cleric says the same bullshit and it’s a national crises. The cultural double standards are unbelievable and as Muslim men and Christian men line up to bellow about doing it to ‘protect the honour of their women’ it is women of both cultures who are still being raped and blamed by men of all cultures.

Grow up.

42 Comments:

At 27/10/06 12:51 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right Bomber, what he's saying is nothing new, but at least it's brought the subject into the media again.

Who knows, maybe one day men will figure out that a woman has the right to wear whatever she feels comfortable in without the fear of rape. Let's face it though, it's not very likely to change.

NS

 
At 27/10/06 2:05 pm, Anonymous deano said...

Only you could turn this story into a 'Muslims are being persecuted' story.

This man is the leading Mufti in Australia...show me an example of the leading Christian cleric in any major Western country saying something similar. Show me.

 
At 27/10/06 2:43 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can rape women in war and never go to Hell, that's the Christian way! In fact you can make people your slaves too! Just make sure that BEFORE you attack you offer them to have a unconditional surrender. If they don't surrender you can do the following:

Deuteronomy 20
10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

But wait! There's more!

Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

http://www.truechristian.com/rape.html

NS

 
At 27/10/06 2:56 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Muslim woman, i find it nothing short of hilarious when i encounter 'shiekhs' who pride themselves in their patriarchal orientations. What a retard. What else can you possibly do but laugh? This guy has made similiar comments in the past, and the media has gratefully swallowed it up. What amazes me though is the media will travel to all corners of the world to find these radical shiekhs, and ignore those who actually speak with some wisdom. Of course the radical one's fit into the media's storyline: Muslims are violent, crazy, and oppress their women. This tedious approach is in dire need of new material.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 27/10/06 3:05 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
my point exactly AF - the cultural double standards are stupid - aussie league lads gang rape girl, but she was really gagging for it, because they all are, so that's laughed off - Conservative Muslim Cleric mouths off with the same sentiments and we suddenly have a terror threat on our hands. The media choose what they want to show and feed viewers the sterotypes they believe in even when those sterotypes clash making them hypocrites.

 
At 27/10/06 3:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sermons like this can be heard every Sunday in Christian churches.

Same shit. Different arsehole.

 
At 27/10/06 4:27 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All religions have their right wing looneys and I am continually perplexed that these fruit bars get any coverage! I find the report on the Bulldogs more disturbing... really disturbing!

 
At 27/10/06 4:29 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, you can't say you're surprised that rugby players behave like this!? It's part of the rugby culture from high school...

 
At 27/10/06 5:57 pm, Anonymous woppo said...

Referring to Al-Hilali as 'the cleric' might be factual, but it gives him a respectability he's long since shown he has no right to. Put simply, Al-Hilali is a two-faced slimeball, who has a long track record of advocating troglodytic behaviour to his followers, then presenting himself as an elightened cosmopolitan to the mainstream media.
I recall his participation in the late 90s on a panel discussion on the former Sydney ABC radio station 2BL, where participants played their favourite record and made warm and fuzzy comments about co-existence. Al-Hilali selected john Lennon's War is Over (If You Want It), then let it slip that his long-term goal was a Muslim majority in Australia, in order to be able to introduce sharia law.
Now I don't know what he'd been smoking, or whether he suffers from something akin to Tourettes, but his slimy attempt to play down his comments, once he realised what he'd said, was truly remarkable.
Australian muslims (and NZ - the shitbag has some clout here as well) MUST front up and rid themselves of this bigoted parasite - cunts like Al-Hilai, of any religious stripe, have no place in a modern society.
Nor do the Bulldogs, but their behaviour doesn't in any way mitigate Al-Hilali's vile incitements.

 
At 27/10/06 6:11 pm, Blogger Chris said...

Sensationalism in media is not equal to cultural double standards.

Those quotes attributed to anonymous Bulldog players came under heavy critisism in opinion pieces as well as on National television. To convey that the conclusion drawn by the media in regards to the Bulldogs alleged gang rape saga was "sluts who get raped by sports teams are asking for it" is wrong. The Bulldogs and sporting teams in general came under heavy scrutiny and were promptly grilled by the media at the mere sniff of any sexual misconduct.

I know better than to expect unbias media coverage on anything, but I still fail to see the humor in the loony 'sheikhs' rantings as AF and bomber do. Perhaps I need to grow up?

 
At 27/10/06 7:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or get a sense of humour? Taking guys like this serious will give them the impression they have credibility and something to say. When in reality, they fail in both departments.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 27/10/06 8:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me the difference with this jerk he is not just some individual nobody he is a 'leader' and, apparently, supported by other 'leaders' - a group of whom have come out in support of him today - as they have done in the past.

This morning a UK top muslim 'leader' also supported him.

He stated that Australia was lucky to have him, he also stated he is a great scholar and islam expert.

It’s this that makes him different from a bunch of drunken, NZ rugby playing pigs.

Why people like this were ever permitted to become citizens of western countries is a mystery to me. If he wants to live in an environment where women all ‘choose’ to wear hijabs good luck to him, there are numerous places for him to pick from.

This whole religious crap is a mystery to me. I live in an area where the local mafia are catholics. They are a little more discreet in their brainwashing these days but just as evil.

Wouldn’t you think in the 21st century people would have learned to think for themselves.

I reckon I have a pretty good sense of humour (Barry Humphries is a comedy genius) but I fail to see any of this as a ‘joke’.

 
At 28/10/06 8:56 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Taking guys like this serious will give them the impression they have credibility and something to say."

Well Anti-flag, seeing as this man is Mufti of Australia and New Zealand, I would say he is considered credible, and is being taken seriously.

 
At 28/10/06 9:31 am, Blogger halod1 said...

This shows the beauty of a relatively free media - we get to hear the 'Few Good Men' outbursts these dickheads inevitably come up with. I'm heartened by the comments of leading Muslim women in Oz and elsewhere condemning this guy.
All is well in the world after all.
None coming from Saudi, Iran, Iraq or Afganistan though. Maybe we only get the really important Al Jazeera coverage from the Muslim heartlands.
Some smarmy bastards will say, "They don't want, or aren't ready for democracy", or "I can totally see why they don't want or need our crap version of democracy"(If this is your stance fuck off, join them and compare the 2. Yeah, I know. You choose option 3. Good luck. Maybe I'll eat my hat and join you once you get utopia going. NZ is small enough to try stuff - why don't we do it here?) ....or free media, womens rights, a 'justice' system, market forces or corporate 'lobbying' fraud and environmental abuse.
Maybe we just need to do as MJ Fox said 'get to know them a little better'. I suspected I was wierd being able to just look at uncovered meat. Yep it sure looks good, 100% better than a burqua thanks Taj.
I'll take my chances and stay here with Bomber.
Next thing we'll all be wearing polar fleece. Yeah right. And I'm staying paranoid.

 
At 28/10/06 5:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

some of you aresholes obviously have never seen the inside of a church. what you're doing is no different than what you are perceiving is being thrown in yor face. the only real issue here is that you are not exercising any amount of reason or rationale and getting your knickers in a twist with a throw away insult as a garnish. doing something differemt by perhaps explaingin what you think is happening instead of having full-on head explosion.

 
At 29/10/06 10:27 pm, Anonymous deano said...

Interesting opinion piece on this issue by someone who is not an idiot:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/vile-sermon-does-australia-a-big-favour/2006/10/28/1161749357803.html

 
At 30/10/06 1:24 am, Anonymous deano said...

More on the Islamic attitude to rape:
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001757.php

 
At 30/10/06 1:37 am, Anonymous mike laws said...

thanks for those links deano. Here is more on the actual comments made by the Australian mufti.
Interesting to see that a survey of Australian lebanese found that most supported the mufti's comments- which makes sense, considering that it was the rapes of Lebanese (particulary the Skaf brothers) which led to the comments being made.

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/dude_looks_like_hilali/

And as neanderthal as Aussie league culture can be, no one has ever called the woman involved in the Bulldogs rape allegations 'a piece of meat' and some of the other hideous comments made by this so-called religious leader.

 
At 31/10/06 12:41 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walking down Queen st in a bikini is unlikely to get you raped.
Walking down a street in a muslim country in a bikini is likey to get you much harrassment.
Rather than blame religion, I'd attribute this to the horny bastards who have rarely seen any women in a bikini.

It is easy to sensationalise the muftis comments. Added context makes it fairly reasonable.
I wouldn't send my daughter out on the town in scant clothing. It is concievable that scant clothing will attarct unwanted attention. Its not the girls fault, but dress appropriately for the situation.

 
At 31/10/06 4:36 pm, Anonymous deano said...

You are a dick anon.

The gang rapes (which occured in Sydney, not a muslim country, and which led to the mufti's apalling comments) were done against women in normal clothing. One young woman was on her way to a job interview in a suit, sitting on the train reading a novel and minding her own business.

This mufti said that the rapes would not have occured if the woman was 1) dressed in hijab 2) at home reading the Koran.

This is not about religion at all? Bullshit.

 
At 31/10/06 8:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deano, the fact that you referred to jihadwatch and dhimmi watch as a source instantly makes you lose any credibility. Those two sites are notorious for their inaccuracies because their purpose is to demonise Islam. Using these sites as a source is equivalent to announcing "Hey guys, Saddam's got them WMD, AND Ossama is helping him hide 'em. So we HAVE to attack Iraq for the sake of security". Source:www.foxnews.com/www.cnn.com.


You want to make sweeping accusations of an entire religion- refer to specific quranic text, and i'll happily refute you with explanations. Don't go looking up islamophobic sites. Furthermore, using the actions of a crazed cleric as part of your criticism is inane and makes your argument weak. Should we apply that method to let's say Bush who claims to be Christian but who's actions have led to the destruction of an entire country? Or all communists because of Stalin's purges or Communist China for its brutal eradication of opponents? The so called followers of a religion or any belief system do not necessarily reflect the teachings. If i judged Islam by the actions of its so called adherents, i would not be Muslim.

This homogenising the actions of the entire Muslim world stems from the West's educational institutions which teach orientalist understandings of that part of the world. So instead of seeing Muslims as individuals, they've become a single entity with one personality. Guess it's easier to keep things simple, even if they're far from reality.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 31/10/06 11:11 pm, Anonymous deano said...

So are you saying that some Islamic women are not put to death in honor killings after they are raped, Anti-Flag? Because that is the thrust of the jihadiwatch article. It never says all muslims are doing it, just points out some examples where it does happen. Rape a woman, not only get away with it, but the woman's own family kills her out of shame- what kind of a sick culture can allow that to happen?

Read back through my posts on this thread...I am not really making an argument, I have just provided some examples of the attitudes of some Islamic men to rape and to women in general.

Are you familiar with the rapes in Sydney which the cleric is defending? Pretty horrific.

You can hide your head in the sand and say that there is no problem, these attitudes are only held by a fraction of a fraction of a percent of muslim men- but in your heart of hearts you know that is not true, do you?

 
At 1/11/06 12:26 am, Blogger karlos said...

Good post Anti-Flag.

Deano. No one here tried to defend the rapes in Sydney.
You are hell bent on demonising Islam and that I object to. Just because I defend Islam does not mean I condone the Mufti's comments.

Rape is not unique to a particular culture, so stop treating as such. The Bulls pack rape is a point in case.

Chritianity and Judaism both have been and are still interpreted to condone suppression of women. Judaism had / has a huge problem with wife bashing because verses in the Torah 'state' it is necessary. Many Rabbi’s also advocate wives being beaten and kept in their homes. But we'd be foolish to call all Jews wife-bashers.

There are some religious practices in the world that still perform child sacrifice.

Your sources are a poor choice. If this where you get your information regarding Islam and the ME, no wonder you post as you do.
Beware of the Israeli lobby group.

 
At 1/11/06 1:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deano, Firstly, what the hell is an 'islamic woman'? Such use of terminology doesn't make sense. Is this your way of incorporating Islam into the context of the conversation even more so? Secondly, sure i acknowledge the horrific acts of honour killings in Muslim societies. But note, they're not ISLAMIC societies, nor are they Islamic practices. How has this got anything to do with ISLAM? Absolutely nothing. These are cultural practices that were around long before the advent of Islam. Furthermore, honour killings are not limited to Muslim societies alone. There's numerous cases in India, China, Africa, Europe as well. So how does this fit into your narrative? Prove to me there is evidence in Quranic verses that support these practices. Go on.

Jihadwatch and Dhimmi watch are sites i've watched carefully. Their role is to reinforce by contributing to the continous demonisation of Muslims. Within the context of the 'war on terror'- this role has become even more significant and why they've grown to be so popular. It justifies the oppression of Muslim societies because we're taught they're barbaric, need to be civilised and so on. The whole "Look! Muslim men rape their women, and then her family kills her out of shame. They DESERVE to be oppressed, if not civilised. Let's go in there and liberate them"!

Your selective criticism astounds me. You and i both know rape does not only occur by Muslim men. Or as you put it 'Islamic men'- again, not making sense. So why use such a easily refutable argument? And the attitudes you speak of are again not limited to Muslim men. I have encountered plenty of 'western men' who have no respect for women, treat them as sexual objects. Women in the West are just as much abused, sexually and physically. Prostitution is the submission to the historical sexual role given to women is legalised in many Western countries but has harmed women by distorting men's perception of women. All the while convincing women it's empowering them. Should i blame the entire 'western culture' for this? By your logic, i should!

I don't give a toss what this cleric has to say. I'm speaking in defence of my religion, not of all Muslims. There is a difference.

And OF COURSE there are problems in Muslim societies. Problems i write about, discuss amongst fellow Muslims, and problems i plan on working to solve in the near future. No Muslim denies these problems. But they are problems of culture, not Islam. But when faced with the self-righteousness you seem to be advoating- the defence naturally comes up. It's not like the Western world is perfect after all. But intelligent people wouldn't put the blame on practices being from a single cultural idiom.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 1/11/06 5:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anti-Flag

What you say about honour killings and Islam in response to Deano's message is absolutely correct.

http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillings.html

And yes, Jihadwatch is discredited.

But when you say,

Should i blame the entire 'western culture' for this?
...
OF COURSE there are problems in Muslim societies.
...
But they are problems of culture, not Islam.


you are on less steady ground. You can indeed blame Western culture for its deficiencies, and IMO so you should. Unfortunately Islam fairs badly under the microscope here. Muslims are adherents of Islam and, by definition, Muslim societies are religious societies. Hence Islam has a huge effect on Muslim culture, a disproportionately large influence in its strongholds when compared to most other religions, and much more effect than (by comparison) Christianity has on Western culture. Because of that profound influence that it holds, you cannot just blanketly absolve Islam of blame when it comes time to discuss problems that occur in Muslim society.

I don't give a toss what this cleric has to say. I'm speaking in defence of my religion, not of all Muslims. There is a difference.

If you want to convince others of that then why haven't you denounced the cleric's comments? By remaining silent on that point and only speaking up to defend Islam it makes me doubt that you don't actually give a toss.

This cleric, no Islamic minor but the Grand Mufti of Australia (and you just can't get any higher among Sunnis), spells out his advice with an Islamic mandate from the Lord. Like it or no, that's the authority that he claims and that's the basis on which Muslims in Oz are going to value his comments, and many of those who listen will incorporate that "advice" into their lives to some degree. If the Pope said something stupid people would not hesitate to point the bone at Catholic societies. It goes with the territory you claim.

You can't escape Taj Aldin Alhilali's comments using comparisons with other religions, or with evasion such as "every society has problems". You can't belittle his comments, because his is the most authoratative Sunni voice in Australia. You can't reasonably compare his comments with misogynistic comments from a player in the Bulldogs as representing another culture either (sorry Bomber), as bad as the latter may be. You either consider him an embarassment to Islam and denounce him or you support him, but either way, accept the fact that everything he says stands for all Muslims because Muslim society is Islamic society. As long as there are supporters for his ridiculous comments it is fair game to target Islam in response.

- Nobody.

 
At 1/11/06 9:34 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody,

Christians are not held collectively responsible for successive Popes callous assistance in the spread of HIV and AIDS in some of the poorest nations on earth; in fact neither are Catholics. And yet you advocate an entirely different principle for Muslims. You ignore cultural distinctions between muslim societies and the many, many different streams of Islamic activism and practice, because it's all just Islam to you. I can only surmise that you believe that muslims are special. Every muslim is regarded as responsible for every other muslim, because "Muslim society is Islamic society" and Islam is the religion of muslims, ergo, muslims are an aggregate. Nobody, if muslims are to be held collectively responsible, mustn't they also be collectively punished?

 
At 1/11/06 11:32 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1/11/06 9:34 PM said...

Christians are not held collectively responsible for successive Popes callous assistance in the spread of HIV and AIDS in some of the poorest nations on earth; in fact neither are Catholics. And yet you advocate an entirely different principle for Muslims.

How's that again?

You ignore cultural distinctions between muslim societies and the many, many different streams of Islamic activism and practice, because it's all just Islam to you.

Tell you what, I'll go one broader and say it's all just religion to me. Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists exhibit a remarkably similar disfunction and in both cases the moderately religious like to spend their time looking the other way, when not actively making excuses for them that is. Now what was your point again?

Oh yes, you wanted to paint me with bigotry. Well gee, I guess I fell completely into that one because there aren't many hardline Christian societies to compare with the hardline Islamic ones, are there? They all seem to be too secular. So well done, if we really must compare then you've convinced me, Islam is only a third-rate religion behind even Christianity. Happy now?

Societies must be judged on the criteria they claim to hold. Religious societies have problems by their very nature. I'd like to pretend that it would be nice to have some hardline Christian societies as comparison, but... no. However I'm quite comfortable lumping different Islamic societies together for the purposes of study because the similarity of their cultural problems belie the differences that you exaggerate. I'm happy to argue that point, as you like.

Every muslim is regarded as responsible for every other muslim, because "Muslim society is Islamic society" and Islam is the religion of muslims, ergo, muslims are an aggregate.

Actually IMO "Muslim society is Islamic society" is a self-evident statement, like saying that Christians believe in Christ. I only presented it for the purpose of definition. "Muslim" = "adherent of Islam", so how could it be any other way?

if muslims are to be held collectively responsible, mustn't they also be collectively punished?

The nonsensical conclusion of that statement is only superseded by the laboured efforts you went to to found a basis for its ridiculous premise. Nice try though.

Muslims are people. Islam is the problem. Throw it away.

- Nobody.

 
At 1/11/06 11:42 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody:

I absolve Islam from the practices that have been adopted in Muslim societies which are in contradiction to its teachings. I also absolve Islam from specific interpretations that have patriarchal orientations heavily influenced by again, culture that existed before the advent of Islam. Why? Because they can be easily refutable elsewhere in Islamic teachings. Your criticism of Islam-influenced practices is referring to a distortion of teachings that have no grounding in the religion.

"Muslim society is Islamic society"? Ok, clearly your homogenous understanding of that part of the world is dripping of orientalist thinking. Muslim societies aren't premised on a single culture and entirely based on Islam.Muslim societies consist of differing cultures and religions. So we're not talking of a 'homogenous culture' that has been influenced by a single religion. That's like saying the entire West is a Christian society with a single religously based culture. Seeing as you and i reside here, we MUST be Christian too.


When in reality it consists of an array of religions, other ideologies and cultures.

Do i need to spell out the denunciation of the cleric? Reading my posts so far have denounced his understanding enough. Nor do i feel obligated to. You're acting like i have some obligation to you to reinforce my position in regards to a man i have no association with. The cleric doesn't represent me. I don't follow the authoritative leadership of the Sunni sect, nor the Shia. Nor do many Australian Muslims. Nor does he represent all Muslims. If his speech is a reflection of Islam, How ever are you going to explain the numerous Muslim groups in Australia who don't support him and called for his resignation? Is that Islam too? If not, you're not being consistent. If so, your simple understanding is in a bit of a contradictory pickle.

It's not my problem that non-Muslims look at Muslims collectively. That is your problem. But i will clarify misconceptions of Islam, and defend it when the situation calls for it.


-Anti-Flag.

 
At 2/11/06 1:04 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually IMO "Muslim society is Islamic society" is a self-evident statement, like saying that Christians believe in Christ. I only presented it for the purpose of definition. "Muslim" = "adherent of Islam", so how could it be any other way?"

Except that you appear to have presented it in the initial statement for the purpose of backing up your argument. ie "everything he says stands for all Muslims" BECAUSE "Muslim society is Islamic society" or if you prefer, because Muslims believe in Allah. The same logic can be applied to anything any Muslim says at any given time. The statement does not single him out for special treatment in this regard.

 
At 2/11/06 11:18 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anti-Flag

It's very convenient to be able to dismiss some bad practices because they are "in contradiction to the teachings of Islam" (ie. the good parts) and to dismiss other bad practices that clearly aren't in contradiction to the teachings of Islam as "badly interpreted by the patriarchs because they were influenced by ancient culture". Don't you think?

How about this: the bad practices in Western society exist because the tenets of reason are badly interpreted by patriarchal rule that has been influenced by culture from before the age of reason. Past beliefs like Judaism, Christiantity, Islam...

"Muslim society is Islamic society"?

For the third and last time I'll say it. Muslims are followers of Islam, by definition. Ergo, Muslim society is Islamic society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muslim

That statement is by no means equivalent to saying "Christian society is Western society", which it patently isn't. If you want to talk about societies which are not Muslim (or not Islamic if you prefer, but they are by definition one and the same thing: societies in which Islam is not enshrined in law and where Islamic practitioners are not given privileges of action and speach denied to other religious practitioners and the non-religious) but which contain a preponderance of Muslims then they are not Muslim societies and you will have to find another term. "Arab" or "Middle Eastern" or whatever the shoe fits.

Ok, clearly your homogenous understanding of that part of the world is dripping of orientalist thinking.

Perhaps as much as your thinking drips of Islamic doctrine?

Muslim societies aren't premised on a single culture and entirely based on Islam.

Every society is a conflict of cultures, and most cultures would prefer others to be absent. Fortunately that's hard to achieve. But when countries accommodate one religion a preferred status, you get Israels and Irans, and that's the direct fault of the religion. What else would it be?

Countries with state religion are neither moderate nor reasonable.

Do i need to spell out the denunciation of the cleric? Reading my posts so far have denounced his understanding enough.

On reflection, so you did! There it is, fourth message down. I missed it and I sincerely apologise.

If you want to convince others of that then why haven't you denounced the cleric's comments? By remaining silent on that point and only speaking up to defend Islam it makes me doubt that you don't actually give a toss.

I'm sorry, that remark of mine was completely unjustified. I do have more to say on the original topic, but since you're proclaimedly not Sunni I won't belabour you on the point any further.

Anonymous 2/11/06 1:04 AM said...

Except that you appear to have presented it in the initial statement for the purpose of backing up your argument. ie "everything he says stands for all Muslims" BECAUSE "Muslim society is Islamic society" or if you prefer, because Muslims believe in Allah. The same logic can be applied to anything any Muslim says at any given time. The statement does not single him out for special treatment in this regard.

I dealt with that in part above. As to the rest, I do believe his comments taint all Muslims just as the Pope's comments taint all Christians, even those that decry him. How could I be so unfair?! Because he is a religious authority figure within a major religious sect who claims a religious mandate on what he says. Even if you don't like what he says, his teachings spread from the same source as yours do.

It's your own fault. If there existed Islamic practitioners who were brave enough to denounce the incorrect parts of the Quran then I couldn't reasonably sweep them all into the same basket. But, just like Christians, to preserve the fable of the god's words you must dwell on struggles of interpretation, seizing the jurisdiction over the entire book for yourself, all or nothing, jumping through hoops to squeeze new knowledge into the purview of ancient lore, yet again proclaiming the wisdom while turning a blind eye to the nonsense.

- Nobody.

 
At 3/11/06 7:23 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's your own fault. If there existed Islamic practitioners who were brave enough to denounce the incorrect parts of the Quran then I couldn't reasonably sweep them all into the same basket."

How do you know nobody?
Do you speak arabic? Farsi?
How do you know that these people don't exist, and are preaching to an audience in their own tounge?
Moderate voices don't get much media time.

 
At 3/11/06 11:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3/11/06 7:23 AM said...

How do you know that these people don't exist, and are preaching to an audience in their own tounge?

Wishful thinking Anon. You aren't claiming to be one of those people yourself, I presume?

Moderate voices don't get much media time.

True. In some places moderate voices don't get any media time, nor do voices contrary to the status quo. Do you really want me to elaborate on that?

Fortunately however, many people can blog their views anonymously at least. Avoid who-are-you-to-says and how-do-you-knows and try to find evidence for your comments. In Farsi or Arabic if necessary.

- Nobody.

 
At 3/11/06 5:27 pm, Anonymous Al-Hilali said...

All meat, sorry, 'women' on this blog should exit the internet immediately and put on their burqas. NOW.

OH, my heart!

 
At 3/11/06 7:09 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"everything he says stands for all Muslims" BECAUSE "Muslim society is Islamic society"

"That statement is by no means equivalent to saying "Christian society is Western society", which it patently isn't. If you want to talk about societies which are not Muslim (or not Islamic if you prefer, but they are by definition one and the same thing: societies in which Islam is not enshrined in law and where Islamic practitioners are not given privileges of action and speach denied to other religious practitioners and the non-religious) but which contain a preponderance of Muslims then they are not Muslim societies and you will have to find another term. "Arab" or "Middle Eastern" or whatever the shoe fits."

This is the part you dealt with, non? Am I to understand that the statement of fact is true because of the clarification provided above? The man is in Australia.

 
At 4/11/06 8:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody, you're not really making any sense to me to be honest. The fact that you could so easily pidgeon hole me without actually reading my posts in this thread- unless i'm addressing you specficially- illustrates this perfectly. You realised i was Muslim and then suddenly jumped to silly assumptions. Much like your baseless assumptions about Muslim society as a whole. I don't believe you are making sense of what you're saying yourself. Of course your ultimate goal here is to disagree with a barrage of baseless criticism because you clearly have an irrational hostility towards religion- or perhaps with anyone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking.

Anonymous, don't you get it? In Nobody's world- the Cleric doesn't live in Australia. He lives in the Islamic society Nobody has constructed in his own head. ;)


-Anti-Flag.

 
At 5/11/06 10:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anti-flag,

I must admit that nobody's posts are sometimes very garbled.

His intolerance shines through quite clearly though.

 
At 5/11/06 11:04 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, well, if i went by his logic- i'd be tainting all atheists with the same brush. Therefore, that would make them all incoherent and intolerant.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 6/11/06 7:30 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, you two were busy over the weekend. I'm just blown away with the quality of your arguments. Alas, I am undone!

The last ditch effort of the religiously impaired is always to avoid argument by attempting to confuse. Usually by deliberately misunderstanding the arguments and asserting that the arguer is biased and makes no sense. Anything other than deal with the points I raise, eh? So what parts of this don't you understand?

- Nobody.

 
At 6/11/06 6:55 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So what parts of this don't you understand?'

I think people understand. It's more that they don't accept your original premise; that religion, not culture is the ultimate definition of a muslim, and that all muslims can be judged by the actions of one.

 
At 6/11/06 6:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

edit; should read

that religion, not culture is the ultimate definition of a person who is muslim.

 
At 7/11/06 12:14 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody, there appear to be several anonymous posters here, so I will distinguish myself by the initials EM.

It's true that I was only interested in the initial statement of fact: "everything he says stands for all Muslims" BECAUSE "Muslim society is Islamic society"

And its justification: "That statement is by no means equivalent to saying "Christian society is Western society", which it patently isn't. If you want to talk about societies which are not Muslim (or not Islamic if you prefer, but they are by definition one and the same thing: societies in which Islam is not enshrined in law and where Islamic practitioners are not given privileges of action and speach denied to other religious practitioners and the non-religious) but which contain a preponderance of Muslims then they are not Muslim societies and you will have to find another term. "Arab" or "Middle Eastern" or whatever the shoe fits."

The initial statement is interesting because it is a statement of fact, that is intended to prove that the Cleric's comments represent all Muslims. I don't pretend to understand what it means, but I do understand the implications of the logic that is used. That is, the same logic can be applied to any and every Muslim. For example: everything Anti Flag says stands for all Muslims, because Muslim society is Islamic society.

The clarification (which I don't pretend to understand either) is also interesting because the Cleric doen't fit with your own definition.

I'll admit that I am less interested in arguing on points of pure opinion. For example, I could hardly argue with the statement: "I do believe his comments taint all Muslims just as the Pope's comments taint all Christians", because I took it at face value. You said you believed it, and who am I to argue with that? I suppose it is theoretcally possible to engage with the broader question over whether Muslims have in fact been tainted (I assume that you meant they were tainted in the eyes of non-Muslims), but I have no information to argue either way, and you don't provide any. It is simply your belief.

And lastly, I can assure you that I have not been "deliberately misunderstanding" your posts. All misunderstandings are entirely genuine.

EM

 
At 7/11/06 8:06 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought this discussion was over. My bad.

Nobody, as it has been pointed out by others as well- the inconsistencies in your argument makes you confusing. So it's not a way of evading from the argument as you predictably asserted.

The inconsistencies have been highlighted already by my previous posts and the following:

Anonymous:

"I think people understand. It's more that they don't accept your original premise; that religion, not culture is the ultimate definition of a muslim, and that all muslims can be judged by the actions of one".

EM:

"That is, the same logic can be applied to any and every Muslim. For example: everything Anti Flag says stands for all Muslims, because Muslim society is Islamic society.

The clarification (which I don't pretend to understand either) is also interesting because the Cleric doen't fit with your own definition".

Your logic is not only confusing, but disturbing. For instance, if i swear in this post, which as a Muslim i should avoid profanity- does that demonstrably put all Muslims in a negative light? Does it mean that all Muslims swear as profusely as i do? Does this mean somewhere in Islamic teachings profanity is justified? And how does your logic apply to a Muslim like myself who has been brought up in a western society? Am i still representing an "Islamic society" even though i have not been socialised in one?

This sort of 'logic' is the reason why 'the war on terror' has become what it is- where the narrative stands: Muslims=terrorists. Imposing a single identity to over a billion people.

-Anti-Flag.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home