<< RUPERT ON BLOGS ~ MAIN ~ EXSPLOIDED >>
SLEEVELESSNESS CONDEMNED
“Every minute in the world a woman is raped,” notes Sheikh Feiz Muhammad. We’ve heard similar disturbing statistics in the past; even if such claims are difficult to prove, they always give one pause. Besides which, even a single rape is excessive.
But where are my manners? I’ve interrupted the Sheikh! Please, sir, continue:
“… and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world. Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
The Sheikh was speaking at Bankstown Town Hall, in Sydney, last month. He received frequent applause, as The Age’s Pamela Bone reports.
UPDATE. Some happier Sheikh news:
In Iraq, Sheikh Hareth al-Dhari, president of the Association of Muslim Scholars, has issues what looks like reasonably unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. Unlike in the past, in addition to condemning what the Association sees as terrorism coming from the Coalition and Iraqi security forces as well as political groups, Sheikh al-Dhari also condemned “the terrorism of the intelligence of the numerous countries that have an interest in dividing Iraq and keeping it weak”.
Unbelievable!
Reminds me of the Anita Cobby rape and murder when a relatives of one of the attackers justified the actions of the attackers by saying “Well what was she doing walking through there on her own at that time of night on her own”.Posted by Hank Reardon on 2005 04 14 at 04:32 AM • permalinkThe fact that Pamela responds to this speech with thoughtful introspection and a bewildering series of “but-on-the-other-hands” rather than brisk condemnation says a lot about her and her moral vacuity.
Mind you, anything Pamela writes says too much about her and her moral vacuity.
Posted by blandwagon on 2005 04 14 at 04:39 AM • permalinkThe good Sheikh was probably only referring to the base instincts of his own flock.
Pamela Bone reports.
i’m sure there’s a joke in here somewhere…
Posted by benson swears a lot on 2005 04 14 at 04:54 AM • permalinkWhat I find fascinating is the implication the men are somehow less capable of self-control than a Rottweiler with a steak being dangled in front of it. This doesn’t say a hell of a lot for their mental faculties. Perhaps the good sheikh should re-evaluate that whole “Women are inferior to men” thing, since he obviously doesn’t think much of the latter except as walking bundles of base impulses.
Bunch of w**s stuck in centuries-old thought.
Well, Shakey, I hope you are sexually and painfully abused and when you reach the sanctuary of your home, your mother and sisters cut out your tongue and gouge out your eyes in order to protect their honour, you total waste of space.
This lovely country of ours has got to wake up soon. Really soon! In fact, the world must. Multiculturalism is great - I love the languages of the world and all the terrific food, music and ideas that so many incoming people and their children have given us. But we cannot allow the proliferation of insane ideas such as those of this man. We must not let them take root here or we, too, may allow the circumstances whereby a grinning monkey like Bashir can be jailed for a couple of years for his part in the murder of more than 200 people. Let’s wake up. Quickly!
Cheers!
You bet
The article, entitled
Religious extremists an insult to our values
Can hardly been seen as support for this sheikh. The article is actually a damning criticism of him, and fundamentalism generally. I think that it is well written.
As much as Mr Blair rejoices in depicting the Muslim world as a pack of rabid dogs hell bent on destroying civilization, the truth is that a huge MAJORITY would find comments by the sheikh highly offensive.
The Sheikh’s comments no more reflect current modern Muslim values, then for example, priests raping little boys reflects Christian values.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 05:28 AM • permalinkMeanwhile in W.A. the Islamic Council of W.A. via Abdul Jalil Ahmad wishes to introduce a Sharia Divorce Court ( story courtesy of The West Australian newspaper last week). Mr Ahmad claims that children of civil divorcee muslim women in Australia are viewed as illegitimate in the Islamic community.........
You Bet,
Multiculturalism is nothing more than a vehicle for leftist social engineering.
As you point out, immigrant communities who retain aspects of their culture which are compatible with western civilization (the host culture) can be a good thing, but this is not the essence of multiculturalism.
Most government policies have predefined outcomes by which you can judge its success or failure. Multiculturalism has been the policy of successive governments but has never been defined in terms of actual policy outcomes. It’s just a vague feel good catchphrase used by the left to justify their pet causes, such as constitutional vandalism and banning nativity plays.
Actually, the article is in fact slanted against the Sheik, and very well so. From the article:
The third conclusion is that Feiz Muhammad and Ahamed are simply wrong. There is no evidence that women in societies where they are forced to cover are less subject to violence, sexual or otherwise. There may be less reporting of rape (when the word of four honest Muslim men is required to prove the rape and if it is not proved the woman is then liable to be punished for adultery, it is rather less likely to be reported); but there is overwhelming evidence across the Muslim world of violence against women, in the form of honour killings, stonings, or beatings for minor infringements of religious codes.
On the other hand, her support of multiculturism is (IMHO) naive. But her second conclusion ("...laws against religious vilification are a mistake") is spot on.
This “Sheikh Feiz Muhammad” is much a bigot and fool as any Neo-Nazi in the USA. I am hoping that this so-called sheikh is as much in the minority in the Arab world as the Neo-Nazis are in America.
A dumb question from a Yank: if Australia has laws against religious vilification, what do you have for a man that (at the very least) provides morale support for all rapists, current and pending? One could make an argument that any rapes committed in Australia after his speech could be traced back to his incitement of violence against women.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 14 at 06:05 AM • permalink"As much as Mr Blair rejoices in depicting the Muslim world as a pack of rabid dogs hell bent on destroying civilization ... “
Not so, Mushtaq, as you’d be aware. It’s undeniable, however, that a section of the Muslim world is hell bent on destroying civilisation. We know this from statements such as “We are hell bent on destroying civilisation”, or similar.
Mr. Blair, I do acknowledge your support over recent incidents, and greatly appreciate it.
It is undeniable that there are groups of Muslims whose actions are an affront to all people of conscience.
The overwhelming majority become tired and frustrated with constant generalizations.
A bit of balance would be nice.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 06:44 AM • permalinkYou all write as if you already have forgotten how things are in for example Norway. Mark Steyn:
“... So Muslim immigrants to Norway should be made aware that things are a little different in Scandinavia? Not at all! Rather, the professor insisted, “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapesâ€? because their manner of dress would be regarded by Muslim men as inappropriate. “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.â€? Or to modify Queen Victoria’s wedding-night advice to her daughter: lie back and think of Yemen.”
real jeffs the piece is ambivalent (the article, not Ms Bones, but then again...)
For instance, she says There is no evidence that women in societies where they are forced to cover are less subject to violence, sexual or otherwise. There may be less reporting of rape ....
Ms Bones does not feel any reason to condemn the claim that ‘Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself yet Ms Bones seeks to find reason for those actions.
Why cant she condemn rape as a grievous assault? Just like all the other crims?
A bit of balance would be nice.
Here’s how this blogging thing works, mushtaq.
On Tim’s blog, Tim gets to decide what Tim will post and what Tim won’t post.
You may comment, and perhaps make suggestions, but Tim is under no geas to do what you say.
If you think he’s ignoring part of the debate, then start your own blog.
Otherwise, you can stick it.
Don’t like it?
Tough SHIT.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 07:10 AM • permalinkThe overwhelming majority become tired and frustrated with constant generalizations.
As opposed to, say, all Americans being generalized with one or more of the following terms?
Cheap, selfish, imperialistic, materialistic, unilateral, militaristic, overweight, undereducated, zealously religious, stupid, immoral, prudish, bigoted, greedy, anti-environmental, ....
Not that any of these are wrong, but they are not generalizations of America. They are accurate for specific groups within America. Yet I’ve seen much of this from many news sources, as well as personal opinions, from around the world, applied as generalizations.
I don’t much like it, as I know my fellow countrymen are, on the whole, better than that. This in spite of the fact that you could apply some of these tags to some of the people that I know back home.
As a citizen of a nation that has been reviled around the world, including our very own, home grown self-haters, I offer you this advice: Grow a thicker skin. Mine has been getting thicker by the day.
Much of the non-Arab world grows weary of the minority within the Arab world who practice and/or preach violence to advance their “religous” beliefs, especially when that violence is spread under the guise of “multiculturism”. This criticism is only going to get louder, Mushtaq, and it won’t go away until the problem is resolved. And even then, you’ll live with the ghost for years.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 14 at 07:10 AM • permalinkThat was uncalled for, rog2.
As much as Mr Blair rejoices in depicting the Muslim world as a pack of rabid dogs hell bent on destroying civilization, the truth is that a huge MAJORITY would find comments by the sheikh highly offensive.
The Sheikh’s comments no more reflect current modern Muslim values, then for example, priests raping little boys reflects Christian values.
Then where’s the public outcry by Muslims? Plenty of Christians publicly condemned the clergy paedophilia scandals, and the church’s reputation with its own members was never lower than after those scandals. If Muslims don’t want to be seen as implicitly endorsing nutcases like Feiz Muhammad, there needs to be some pushback. So far, precious little of that can be seen, unfortunately, especially among Muslims in Western nations. (And people have been waiting since 9/11, so maybe it’s about time?)
You may think that Tim “rejoices in depicting the Muslim world as a pack of rabid dogs” - as has been pointed out repeatedly, now by Tim himself, you’re simply reading that into his posts yourself. (You may want to lay off of the ultra-defensive “criticism of individual Muslims is an attack on Islam itself” mindset a bit. It’s not helping.)
Anyway, I tend to see it a bit differently...Tim and others are highlighting these irresponsible statements and thereby doing two things: Removing the potential for feigned ignorance by Muslims ("We had no idea some of our leaders were talking like that"), and giving them a jump-off point for public condemnation of those statements. So far, there haven’t been many takers. You may think it’s self-evident that the large majority of Muslims disagrees with people like Feiz Muhammad; sadly, it’s not at all so self-evident to the rest of us.
I think we are getting a little too precious about race.
Its like, if a muslim rapes its (sort of) OK because its part of their culture, sanctioned by the Imam, and we cant be seen to be racist can we?
Dont criticise the muslims, they might get nasty, they have that reputation ye know.
The Sheik(s), they need to be told in strong clear language that it is not OK for the male to rape and be free of responsibility of his actions.
I mean, where the fuck do these muslims gain their righteousness, through violent subjugation?
rog2—point taken. In that regards, yes, Bone is way off base. But she does not quibble that the Muslims preaching rape is the fault of the women who dress thus-and-so are wrong: “...there is overwhelming evidence across the Muslim world of violence against women...”.
Overall, though, she points the finger away from the women towards the Arab culture. She could have done much better, but, hey, it’s good to see this much in the MSM.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 14 at 07:17 AM • permalinkI’d agree with mushtaq on the need for balance. (Sorry, Quentin George. I guess we are too democratic for you.)
Some Aussie readers may recall equally appalling comments from judges during sexual assault trials. Some would suggest that a handful of footballers have done much the same at one time or another. However, I agree that a bloke in a position of authority shouldn’t get away with this kind of crap.
You Bet and Adam B, you should consider multiculturalism through a different lens for a while.
In most advanced capitalist countries it is the business lobby that demands immigration in the interests of a flexible labour market. The contemporary idea of urban multiculturalism grew out of modern migration flows, not out of a communist conspiracy to water-down western civilization. The social histories of Australia and the US, for example, demonstrate this point.
It wasn’t always the case. Somewhere along the line the elite class decided that social cohesion might be better for the bottom line than patriotism on the grounds of arbitrary national borders. Or they possibly anticipated that inter-ethnic bickering would provide a useful diversion when the economy was bad - history is full of examples of this.
Either way, a divided pool of surplus labour was deemed a good thing for business. Still is. Australia’s current immigration policy reflects this. I think your leftist social engineering theory is incorrect.
Rog2, whatever you are on I think it might be time to slow down a bit.
Mr. Blair. I know you didn’t do it on my behalf, however, It is nice to see the update
regarding Sheikh Hareth al-Dhari.Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 07:28 AM • permalinkPW, what are you talking about?
You are being deliberately obtuse, right? Otherwise I’d pity you for your lack of reading comprehension.
Quentin:
Here’s how this blogging thing works, mushtaq.
On Tim’s blog, Tim gets to decide what Tim will post and what Tim won’t post.
nwab:
I’d agree with mushtaq on the need for balance. (Sorry, Quentin George. I guess we are too democratic for you.)
PW:
(What is it with lefties thinking it’s “democratic� to dictate to other people what to do with their property?)
HTH. Go get your own blog if this one is too unbalanced for your tastes.
I can’t see why one blog can’t be inclusive of all tastes.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 07:35 AM • permalinkrog2, I was talking about the origins of multiculturalism. A couple of readers suggested that multiculturalism was a result of lefty social engineering. I offered an alternate view that it was indeed the interests of business that had created the environment for urban multiculturalism as we experience it today.
Please, try to keep up.
Don’t you think it would be interesting if Mr. Blair invited a guest lefty once a week to write a column?
The Left/Right divide is a tedious concept. Left blogs feature left authors and left readers. Likewise with the right blogs. What’s the point? Surely it’s just preaching to the converted.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 07:45 AM • permalinkI offered an alternate view that it was indeed the interests of business that had created the environment for urban multiculturalism as we experience it today.
I agree that the modern version of mass immigration can be laid at the feet of business interests. Trying to hold them chiefly responsible for the cult of multiculturalism that the Left decided to institute is a bit rich though. Unintended consequences of earlier business demands, sure. Creators of the entire environment that led to multiculturalism, bzzt wrong.
nwab, no one here muttered that “multiculturism” is a communist conspiracy. That’s silly, anyway.
IMHO, multiculturism is social engineering, with the intent to break down the inevitable cultural barriers we see between human societies. Since, as a rule, the left part of the political spectrum prefers a homogeneous society, while the right stands for individualism, I accept multiculturism as leftie social engineering. More to the point, social engineering within the right wing tends to be driven by economic, not social, paradigms changes.
Sadly, multiculturism has been hijacked as a means to direct behavior, working on gullible people who believe that they are guilty and responsible for the decisions made by their ancestors of several generations in the past. When, in fact, it is time for both parties to stop bickering and moveon.org.
That’s why I view multiculturism as “one cultures’ tolerance of other cultures intolerance”. With no better demonstration of this hijacking than the rants and raves of Sheikh Go-Ahead-And-Rape rating no more than a column in a local paper. I recall Pat Buchanan getting more coverage for his non-rape comments on Iraq.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 14 at 07:49 AM • permalinkAnyway, I tend to see it a bit differently...Tim and others are highlighting these irresponsible statements and thereby doing two things: Removing the potential for feigned ignorance by Muslims ("We had no idea some of our leaders were talking like that"), and giving them a jump-off point for public condemnation of those statements. So far, there haven’t been many takers. You may think it’s self-evident that the large majority of Muslims disagrees with people like Feiz Muhammad; sadly, it’s not at all so self-evident to the rest of us.
I’ll just point out that Mushtaq’s condemnation of it was couched in a whine about Tim posting this in the first place.
In all but the rarest of cases, that’s the only way I hear about Muslim condemnation of rhetoric like this: “we’re all against this, so why do you pay attention to it?” Sorry, but if the Muslim community really found it appalling, then it wouldn’t keep happening all over the fricking world.
Much like the discovery of pro-jihadi literature in American mosques. If the local community disapproved, it wouldn’t be there.
Don’t you think it would be interesting if Mr. Blair invited a guest lefty once a week to write a column?
No, it wouldn’t be interesting at all. If I want to hear the left’s “opinions” I just have to turn on the television.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 04 14 at 07:54 AM • permalinkPW, when exactly did the left institute multiculturalism?
Over the last thirty years or so. Haven’t you been paying attention?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 04 14 at 07:57 AM • permalinkMushtaq, I see where you are coming from, but the point PW makes is germane.
Each major religion has its internal problems, issues, and scandals. Where a religion separates itself from the state, (render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but render unto God what is God’s - there are no equivalent words in the Korans I have read) these tend to be addressed in the open, under criminal law to which members of religious orders, for example, are also subject.
But this is not so in much of the Muslim world, as I understand it, where there should be no separation of the religious from the power of the state, at least according to the Islamofascist extremists. I have lived in Malaysia for an extended time, and I know that it does not have to be this way, too.
SO, in a human rights hellhole like Theocratic fascist Iran, a religious leader can legally insist that a 16 year old girl be hanged from a mobile crane for offending him (and some religious doctrine), based on this merger of religious and secular power.
There was nobody to stop him. It was murder, in any civilised nation. It was an act of evil, tempered by no mercy at all. Yet, according to Muslim doctrine, this evil man will go to heaven!
The Christian world evolved past this point in 1648, with the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the cataclysm we know as the Thirty Year’s War. This was the last ‘world war’ within the Christian world. It tore us apart - but we learned much. We have learned the lesson that you MUST separate Church and state to run a successful civilisation.
The Muslim world denies that this is so, becasue it falsely believes that the Koran was actually written by God. Yet, it is provable that it was not, it was written by men, and for most of its history, the Muslim world knew this to be so.
The Christian world, and those Asian nations that have copied this lesson in to their own societal system are now centuries ahead of the Muslim world in EVERYTHING, but especially in moral progress (human rights, rejection of slavery etc), all of the sciences and even in day-to-day development of basic technologies.
The Islamofascist extremists want to return the Muslim world to what is, to us, pre-industrial barbarism. Much (but certainly not all) of the Muslim world is already only at the point of pre-Thirty Years War primitivism, with a veneer of imported modern technology at best. (Malay - that is Indonesian and Malaysian - Islam is far, far ahead of this in all respects).
SO if the Muslim Arab and Muslim Negro, Persian and Indic worlds want some respect,they have to move past 1648 and have an Enlightenment.
If they do not, the gap between them and the Christian, Hindu, Confucian and Buddhist worlds will continue to widen, as it has been for centuries.
They have already defeated themselves and consigned themselves to the pre-industrial world.
And THAT is why the non-extremists should be trying to defeat their own Muslim barbarians, taking responsibility for the primitive nature of their societies, and trying to develop past the primitive stage they remain locked in to.
But if they do not, it is not our problem. We have already done it, and moved on, and the pre-1648 Muslim world is zero threat to our civilisation. Oh, they can harm us, and kill our people, perhaps destroy a city or two at worst. But if a city or two were destroyed, there remains to us the option that nobody ever mentions.
Not merely defeating, occupying and colonising the Arab Muslim world, hell, our military women could do that in a couple of weeks with one hand tied behind their backs, but annihilating it. There is no possibility that the Muslim Arab world will ever be able to do the same to us.
The point about our military women is not meant to be an insult. It is merely true. No Arab army is capable of doing more than staging a nice parade, all are militarily worthless, as their laughable record since 1948 has proven. Their sole victory has been to win a surprise attack against a string of isolated Israeli bunkers. Even then it took years of planning, tactical surprise, and a combat power overmatch of 20:1 to do it. Then, they lost the war to an enemy they outnumbered 10:1.
It is fascinating that the USA has chosen to enter teh ehart of the Arab world and inject it with western concepts like ‘democracy’.
Note one thing well. The USA and the Christian West could do this because the entire Arab world is a contemptible military opponent. We are so overwhelmingly superior in every way that the gap is larger than between the Zulus and the British Empire of 1878.
Why is that, I wonder?
MarkL
CanberraOffer all the BS explanations you like like , apology boy. Blame big business, the Catholic church, any damn thing you like except to recognise that the “multi-culturalism” engineered by a socialist oriented and thankfully short lived Labor government has been a divisive and abject failure.
They did it to garner votes, and cared not one whit for the consequences.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 04 14 at 07:58 AM • permalinkRob, it’s funny that the left seems to consider the media as a weapon of the right, while you see it as the domain of the left. I wonder who is right.
Rupert Murdoch doesn’t strike me as a socialist. Nor does Silvio Berlusconi. Where are all the lefty media owners?
(Then again, I’m a NWS shareholder, so I know Murdoch isn’t much of a democrat either.)
Pedro, if multiculturalism is all the doing of a Labor government, how do you explain events in the UK at the same time?
And Keating and Hawke are hardly lefties. They were all about floating the dollar, ending the Accord, and deregulating industry. Did you have your eyes closed?
Better scram - Phil Adams is speaking with Arthur Schlesinger. Adios.
Listen, Adam B, you bloody moron,
I’m not talking about some “vague feel good catchphrase” - I’m talking about the lovely Indian neighbours and friends that I have and have had over time, about any number of Italians and Greeks that I have worked with who have been guests in my home and who have made me welcome in theirs, about Poms and Irish and Scots and Frogs and Germans and Swedes and Danish that I have worked with and lived near. And Latvians and Poles and Hungarians and Maoris and so many, many more. As a young man, I had absorbing conversations with people like “me” in the Soviet Union and all kinds of places - Israel, what was then Persia, Honkers, you name it - But! I have never encountered anyone anywhere yet who needed to kill me because I wasn’t of his particular religious persuasion. Or who felt the women around me deserved rape because they were attractive or had an alcoholic drink or who went down to the beach without being covered from head to toe.
It’s your kind that is endangering the wonderful place that I call “home” because of your pathetic, misplaced views - “leftist “? What crap, what absolute crap!
It’s not a left or right thing - it’s what’s all around us, it’s people living together. And I believe we have a group among us who cannot accept anyone else’s idea of life and living at all and feel they must predominate and rid the world of any opinion contrary to their own. And we should watch the bastards like hawks!
Lovely to hear from you
You bet
Over the last thirty years or so.
Rob, we’ve had conservative governments for most of that time. Unions have declined, the Accord has ended, public enterprises have been privatised… And you can hardly say that our media has been monopolised by socialists.
Where is the left that you seem so obsessed with?
Mark L, Thank you for your post.
You do however make the same mistake (in my opinion) that many in the west make. That being that west is the epitome of civilisation, and all cultures should aspire to achieve this greatness.
Though I am Australian born, and love this country, I think that it is the hight of arrogance to assume my lifestyle is superior to.
As a Muslim, I don’t have to be out on the street demonstrating against fanatics. The biggest body blow I can give them is to be a good person, and teach my children that love and tolerance is the key to peace.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 08:14 AM • permalinkYou Bet,
Beautifully put. Thank you.
It’s not about left/right, it’s about waving to your neighbour, and your children playing with other kids down the street.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 08:19 AM • permalinkIslam is fundamentally and fatally flawed from a Christian perspective, and Christianity is equally so from an Islamic perspective.
The common ground (monotheism) is blown away by the mutually exclusive Prophet v. Son of God lines of argument and faith.
People will continue to judge each by their achievements, and their relative positions today on matters of import.
It does appear to many of us that Muslims are stuck in an “old testament” mode of societal learning and faith.
It also appears that even in a modern western context the Muslim spokesmen such as CAIR in the USA have difficulty practising what Mushtaq (no doubt) would want them to, namely a peaceful and tolerant coexistence with their American Brothers.
Nothing I have read before or since 9/11 convinces me that there is a will to coexist. There is continuing evidence of too many lunatics, and too few good muslims who are ready to stop them.Don’t you think it would be interesting if Mr. Blair invited a guest lefty once a week to write a column?
Oh, for fucks sake mushtaq, nwab, assorted others who don’t understand....
If I wanted to read a group blog, I would go and fucking read a group blog.
If you want a blog that has “guest lefties” then go and find one of the hundreds of group blogs around. Don’t come hear and say, “You should do this, because I said so!”
What a wank.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 08:21 AM • permalinkRupert Murdoch doesn’t strike me as a socialist. Nor does Silvio Berlusconi. Where are all the lefty media owners?
WOW! Two (relative) conservatives who own media outlets! IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! That proves it!
Never mind the overwhelming majority of the press, who oddly agree with your assessment that the mere existence of Murdoch is proof that the media’s “conservative”.
Where is the left that you seem so obsessed with?
Well, gawrsh, nwab, if you can’t see it, I guess it don’t exist!
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 04 14 at 08:22 AM • permalinkWhere is the left that you seem so obsessed with?
In the last election, 80% of journalists said they would vote for the ALP or the Greens.
No, no leftists at all in the media, are there nwab? It’s just an illusion…
Bad righties! Making things up again!
Ignore the elephant behind the curtains!
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 08:26 AM • permalink(Fuck is it just me, or is nwab the reincarnation of Mork? He has the same pointless contrarian nature, and I seem to recall Mork trying the “There is no leftist media!” whinge some time back)
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 08:27 AM • permalink(Sorry, Quentin George. I guess we are too democratic for you.)
Are you an idiot nwab?
WHAT THE FUCK DOES DEMOCRACY HAVE TO DO WITH SOMEONE’S FUCKING PRIVATE WEBLOG?!?!
I can’t believe you wrote that.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 08:30 AM • permalinkAs a Muslim, I don’t have to be out on the street demonstrating against fanatics.
Maybe not, but you could at least refrain from being pissed when people point out the fanatics.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 04 14 at 08:30 AM • permalinkThe biggest body blow I can give them is to be a good person, and teach my children that love and tolerance is the key to peace.
Well, that’s nice, but it doesn’t do anything about the nutcases that are already out there.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 08:31 AM • permalinkMushtar, you are too clever by far, you need your own blog
I am mushtar, I teach my children that love and tolerance is the key to peace.
And my Imam teaches me that the woman is to blame for rape.
Tell that to your girls Mushtar, the guilty ones by birth.
A piece for the Imam is no peace for the woman Mushtar
Nwab, you are a patronising prick.
Us rednecks jist don’t know nothing.What the fuck has the “Accord” or floating the dollar got to do with anything?
Build a strawman then kill it.
SOP
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 04 14 at 08:31 AM • permalinkQuentin, I visited your site, and apparently I’m 29% asshole. Ashame no one else seems to visit you site though.
Murph, some Muslims. Some Christians too.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 08:37 AM • permalinkrog2, you are a fool. Go find your strawman somewhere else.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 14 at 08:39 AM • permalink#54 Blogstrop - I disagree that both muslim and christian religions have flaws that are are equal but opposite.
Muslim regard non muslims as infidels and are accorded different treatment, eg its OK to lie to an infidel, or steal his goods, or kill him, all in the name of Allah.
Christians regard all as equals under God, and condemn lieing stealing killing etc to all (incl non Christians)
nwab,
I was not making an anti immigration comment - I would be the first to argue the economic benefits of immigration. Nor was I attacking the understandable propensity of newly arrived immigrants to group together and retain certain elements of their home culture.
My point related to the “policy� of multiculturalism being used as an a priori argument for social changes, many of which only have peripheral relevance to recent immigrants. Here is a test. Whenever you here the term “we are a multicultural society� uttered by a politician, local councilor, MSM columnist etc, you can bet that what follows is socially utopian rubbish.
Mushtaq,
We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if Islam adapted and engaged with modern liberal democratic values as Christianity and Judaism have long managed. I don’t believe there is an inherent conflict between Islam and liberal democracy, but if Islam needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st century, so be it. If this sounds harsh, remember it is western civilisation which is at stake.
You Bet,
I wasn’t accusing you of using feel-good catchphrases. I am sorry if I touched a raw nerve.
Forget the feelgood phrases, pathetic Islam apologists.
This argument is so not about neighbourhood children playing together. You should know that. Get a grip. As if anyone would be swayed by pathetic, feeble debating techniques as saying that love and tolerance is the touchstone of Islam. Your religion, as hijacked, currently says exactly the opposite.
Either Islam is in the modern world or it isn’t.
Other religions have decided to move on - while retaining traditional values and beliefs. The Catholic Church is about to decide between a Pope from several different continents.
Now Islam needs to decide as well.
And Islam apologists need to stand up and reject - right here and now - those who would hijack their religion.
What I find fascinating is the implication the men are somehow less capable of self-control than a Rottweiler with a steak being dangled in front of it. This doesn’t say a hell of a lot for their mental faculties. Perhaps the good sheikh should re-evaluate that whole “Women are inferior to men� thing, since he obviously doesn’t think much of the latter except as walking bundles of base impulses
#6, Sonetka, I’m with you. It’s really cultural and not religious at all, but these fanatics who believe the sight of a woman’s wrist or ankle or face will drive a man to lose control of his sexual impulses shows deep disrespect not only for women, but for men as well. And that’s really the heart of it. A twisted, misogynistic, peculiarly Arab cultural attitude from the Dark Ages has tried to hijack all of Islam.
And Mushtaq, with all due respect, moderate Muslims can no longer afford to remain silent in this dangerous age. Good role models are useless if the people they’re trying to influence don’t even notice them.
Or if the good role model moderate Muslims are killed by the not-so-moderate Muslims, Rebecca. There’s a lot of that happening in the Middle East today.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 14 at 10:15 AM • permalinkWhile I am not interested in defending Islam, which I believe to be wrong and potentially even dangerous in a number of areas, I believe the verbal treatment handed out to Mushtaq has been unfair. He has maintained a reasonable tone and evidenced a moderate, gentlemanly character. I don’t agree with everything he has said, but I fail to see the need to abuse him.
As for “I don’t believe there is an inherent conflict between Islam and liberal democracy, but if Islam needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st century, so be it”, I can’t help feeling there is an inherent conflict between dragging whole ethnic groups or cultures “kicking and screaming” and liberal democracy!
What about the West’s goal of winning minds and hearts? Mushtaq is already sympathetic to the West, but the treatment he has received here can only make him less so. We have to do better than this if we are to appeal to the good natures of those Muslims who are not (yet) as sympathetic, or don’t trust us, but are open to persuasion.
It would be nice if one of these Imams decided to make even the slimmest bit of sense. If women are to blame for dressing suggestively, dear sheikh, then whose fault is it when your men rape your own burqa-clad, viruous Muslim women? Who is to blame when the male relatives of that poor woman revenge themselves for her shame by killing HER instead of her assailant?
Ye gods, quit whining about the bloody Crusades and the Inquisition and frickin’ do something about your own problems.
And, having said all that - I add that Mushtaq seems to get it. I certainly hope he’s not alone (and the number of Iraqi bloggers speaking their mind publicly, at last, bolsters my hope).
I recommend reading “The Trouble with Islam,” written by Canadian muslim Irshad Manji. There is mysogyny in both the Bible and the Koran. Obviously, not all christians and muslims are mysogynists, but when they are they can usually find something in scripture that supports them.
Interesting quotations from the Koran:
**"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior o the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obediant...As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.”**"Women are your fields. Go, then, into your fields when you please. Do good works and fear God.”
Please note that there are other verses in the Koran that contradict these passages. There is also some pretty nasty stuff in the Bible.
Cultural differences exist in the various muslim countries that allow more latitude in some than others.
The prophet Mohammad (PBUH) married a nine-year-old girl. Wife-beating is RECOMMENDED in the Koran. An Iman in Spain got in trouble for teaching the faithful how to beat their wives in such a way as to avoid getting in trouble with Spanish police. Muslim women who are raped are often punished for adultery!
Some religious nuts think women are evil, sent to tempt man into error.
Lord, please save us from the nuts.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 04 14 at 01:06 PM • permalinkSave us from the nuts and the morons.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 04 14 at 03:45 PM • permalinkMushtaq:
“Mark L, Thank you for your post. “
COMMENT: Mushtaq, you have been reasoned and courteous throughout this thread. You therefore deserve reasoned and civil discourse in response.
“You do however make the same mistake (in my opinion) that many in the west make. That being that west is the epitome of civilisation, and all cultures should aspire to achieve this greatness. “
COMMENT: I think we have a misunderstanding here which goes beyond the semantic. I do NOT believe that western civilisation is the epitome of human civilisation. It is as flawed as any human civilisation – because it has humans in it. WE are flawed, we are born that way. What the now-forgotten but hideous events of 1618-1648 (yes, it really was the Thirty Years War) showed the Christian world was that human nature was so flawed that secular and religious power had to be separated.
This has resulted in the dominant civilisation on this planet – why?
Because it is about the PROCESS, not about the value of this or that civilisation. Any civilisation which adapts this PROCESS to itself (as have the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese [only in Taiwan and Singapore], and Indians) experiences explosive growth in living standards, wealth and power. This flows through to its culture, as people spend parts of their wealth on this, too.
Why?
Because the process permits that society to fully access the intellectual capacity of its people, and permits the individual to retain a large proportion of any wealth he generates by nearly eliminating corruption, and ensuring good governance. That is it, that is the secret. Nothing more or less.
The reason the Arab world remains mired in poverty while literally pumping money out of the ground is therefore simple to work out. Take Saudi Arabia, a typical Arab totalitarian state. Say that it has 20,000,000 functioning intellects (http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/19.htm). About a third, say, are too young, or too old, to contribute to their civilisation. Down to, say, 12,000,000. Half are female, but they are not allowed to use their intellects. Down to 6,000,000. But this incredibly rich state educates it people poorly, and builds in societal barriers to scientific thought. Let us rate this handicap at 50%. Down to 3,000,000. Now, about half of the further education in Saudi is (you guessed it) religious, which does not actually produce a damn thing. So the guesstimate for the real intellectual capital of Saudi Arabia might be about 1,500,000 people (all men). Actually, it is smaller than that, because these chaps have to spend a lot of their time and effort to stay on top of the civilisation they power, and we can probably assume that at least a third of them are doing this, so call Saudi’s intellectual power base about 1,000,000, by guesstimate.
Now, what about Singapore? Nil natural resources except location. Population 3,300,000 who live there, 700,000 who live offshore. Let us take the figure of 4,000,000. Let us say that again, a third are too young/old to rate. This leaves 2,700,000 Sings. There are ZERO artificial constraints on them. None. Corruption is close to non-existent. It is a civilisation which has adapted to itself the lessons of the West. Let us assume that for whatever reason, HALF of the remaining people do not rate as intellectual capital despite the incredible efforts of that state to ensure that EVERY CITIZEN (irrespective or race, colour or creed) is able to do so. Note that this is not a constraint I have used for Saudi. This is still 1,300,000 Sings.
SO tiny, resource-poor Singapore has a greater intellectual capital than resource rich Saudi, with five times the population. I actually suspect that the intellectual capital os Saudi is overblown by a factor of 10 in this rough model, too.
If this is BS, then a comparison of life, economic indicators, etc etc between Singapore and Saudi will show it to be BS. It does not. Singapore has full employment, Saudi has 30% unemployment (women do not count there, so it might be up to 70-80%). Saudi’s rulers steal most of the money pumped from the ground. Lee Kwan Yew and Goh Chok Tong are many things, but thieves is not one of them – there is little need where they can build successful businesses for their clans instead.
This model says NOTHING about the superiority of this civilisation over that one. It is about the PROCESS.
TBC
“Though I am Australian born, and love this country, I think that it is the hight of arrogance to assume my lifestyle is superior to. “
COMMENT: See above point. Lifestyle is not relevant. Processes for successful civilisations are the point.
“As a Muslim, I don’t have to be out on the street demonstrating against fanatics. The biggest body blow I can give them is to be a good person, and teach my children that love and tolerance is the key to peace�
COMMENT: Good, that is correct, and a damned fine start, and will allow you and yours to successfully participate in THIS civilisation. That is admirable. But again, it does little concerning the process of how a civilisation functions, except to abide by them. Here, that is enough. Reading the Koran, and examining the conquest-history of Islam shows that the religion itself is ruthlessly expansionist, and mandates all possible extremes of violence. The Christian world knows this. Our greatest Cathedral, the Hagia Sofia is still a mosque. Our second-greatest city, Constantinople, is still no longer called that. The Christian civilisations of Syria, Egypt, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Balkans, and North Africa remain dead, and under Muslim control. The Hindu and Buddhist worlds know this too, and remember the dead civilisations they lost to Islamic conquest.
We know that we have been at war with Islam for well over 1000 years, because Islam keeps on attacking us. The last time we tried a strike at the Muslim heartland, to regain some of the conquered Christian civilisations, was the crusades. We have forced them out of Iberia and central Europe. The Hindu’s have forced them back from central India. But Islam has now poisoned itself, and cannot compete with us. Luckily, we have outgrown the need to retake what was once ours. But we DO want to inject Islam with a vaccine to domesticate it, so it will no longer attack us as it has for over a millennia.
That is what this is about. The vaccine is called ‘democracy and human rights’. Turkey shows that it can work (and benefit many individual Muslims, too).
A hypothetical question, will you permit your daughters (should you have any), a university education, free participation in this civilisation as an equal member to any man, and their choice of husband, even if he is not a Muslim? I will certainly permit this of my daughters, even if their choice of husband is not a Christian.
Another hypothetical: if a daughter of yours were attacked and raped, would you blame her for it? If a daughter of mine were so attacked, I would not blame her, and I would do my level best to find her attacker, and end him. The best outcome would be an anonymous grave for him, but I would accept a very long time in jail. But I would not blame my hypothetical daughter; her I would help and support.What I am asking with these two pointed questions is really if you will participate fully in the process that has made our civilisation wealthy, powerful, and peaceful.
MarkL
CanberraA one way ticket to the Baxter Hotel is the best thing for Mr Sheikhy
Posted by Astonished on 2005 04 15 at 12:35 AM • permalinkAs opposed to, say, all Americans being generalized with one or more of the following terms?
Cheap, selfish, imperialistic, materialistic, unilateral, militaristic, overweight, undereducated, zealously religious, stupid, immoral, prudish, bigoted, greedy, anti-environmental,
The_Real_JeffS, didn’t you get the leftie memo on multiculturalism? All cultures are equal except for American culture.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 04 15 at 12:38 AM • permalinkI will address your questions.
A hypothetical question, will you permit your daughters (should you have any), a university education, free participation in this civilisation as an equal member to any man, and their choice of husband, even if he is not a Muslim? I will certainly permit this of my daughters, even if their choice of husband is not a Christian.
Absolutely. My wife is a chemical engineer, and I would be proud if my four year old daughter achieved this level of expertise. Additionally, I would be happy as long as she is happy, safe and healthy. If she married an “aussie”, like any father, I would want to make sure that he was of good character, and treated her with the respect she deserves. It’s her choice.
Another hypothetical: if a daughter of yours were attacked and raped, would you blame her for it? If a daughter of mine were so attacked, I would not blame her, and I would do my level best to find her attacker, and end him. The best outcome would be an anonymous grave for him, but I would accept a very long time in jail. But I would not blame my hypothetical daughter; her I would help and support.
If my daughter was attacked as you describe, I would like to say that I would want to bring the offender before the courts and allow the justice system to do its thing.
Looking deep inside myself, I must admit I would probably hunt him down and kill him.
And no, I would not blame her. Sheikh Feiz Muhammad speaks for himself, not for me and millions of moderates around the world.
Thank you for showing an interest in my opinion.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 04 15 at 01:41 AM • permalinkHAH! Yeah, I got that memo. It defined multiculturism as “One culture’s tolerance of other cultures intolerance”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 15 at 01:42 AM • permalinkMarkL
I was going to say that!
Dont worry about Mushtaq and his teenage mates, they are all pale white blow ins from Canberras No1 porn site low dog dot com
mushtaq - I skipped a whole lot of the posts above, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating what someone’s said before on this thread.
I accept that most Muslims would not agree with the sheikh. I also accept that a (very) small number of Christians would. HOWEVER I think the sheikh’s position would be considerably more common in the Muslim world than in the Christian world. How can I say this? Well, I believe it’s one logical extrapolation of the concept of Purdah - covering up so that women can avoid the lustful gaze of men. It’s her responsibility to cover up; if she doesn’t, then all bets are off. Pretty much exactly what the sheikh was asserting.
The above is the reality of Islam. Also, your example of catholic priests raping schoolboys is not analogous to the sheikh’s ranting. When was the last time you heard a priest preaching the virtues of child sex abuse from the pulpit? Or blaming children for abuse suffered because they wear provocative shorts, or look cute, or whatever compels these sick fucks to rape children?
Mushtaq, I absolutely accept that you’re a man who is a Muslim and who does not share the sheikh’s views. However, the sheikh speaks for a significant minority within your religion. As a society (Christian or otherwise), we need to decide how do deal with a religion that harbours large numbers of folk whose beliefs are so opposed to those that currently hold our society together.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 04 15 at 02:54 AM • permalink"As a society (Christian or otherwise), we need to decide how do deal with a religion that harbours large numbers of folk whose beliefs are so opposed to those that currently hold our society together.”
We already have the means to achieve this if we dared - it’s called the Department of Immigration.
Posted by Steve Edwards on 2005 04 15 at 10:59 AM • permalinkSteve, I have a strong feeling that you’re right.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 04 15 at 04:01 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
It’s just a matter of time until some leftist defends the shiek as raping women not dressed as a potato sack is a cultural practice in his homeland. Where I’m from, we have the cultural practice to dragging rapists to the nearest tree and hanging them by the neck until dead. I believe Australia has a similar cultural practice involving handcuffs of high-tensile steel, burning wreckage, and a hacksaw…