Mouthy Mufti At It Again

The title is not mine, let me explain at the start, but is the by-line to an article in the current issue of the Weekend Herald (January 13 2007) about our old friend Sheik al-Hilali of Sydney. I already blogged the Sheik's "Cat's meat" remarks here, and updated him here. (The links here will all open in new pages)

The Herald article can be seen here, but interestingly the online version is shorter than that published in print.

(Since publishing the initial blog I have found the Sydney Morning Herald has yet more on the Sheik, for example here, and a search for *Sheik* will produce even more comment.)

In my previous blogs regarding al-Hilali we saw how he first made some outrageous remarks about women, and about a notorious rape case, and then, in a Channel 9 interview, was all sweetness and light as he explained that it was all a misunderstanding, and that Australia was a fine place to live (*Love it or leave it*). Also that the press had it in for him.

Well now he's in Egypt, and on an Egyptian TV programme he's been saying some outrageous things as described in the Herald article.

While discussing the outrage concerning the *Cat's meat* sermon, he is reported to have suggested that since white Australians came to the country as shackled convicts, and Muslim immigrants paid their way there, then they - the Muslim immigrants - had more right to be there. There's a comment designed to lose friends straight away.

He also described white Australians as ".. the biggest liars", which is rather counter to his Channel 9 remarks, and suggests that the outrage over the *Cat's meat* remarks (which included Muslim outrage, remember) was *...a calculated conspiracy in order to bring the Islamic community to its knees*.

He went on to talk of anti-muslim courts, and criticised again the harsh sentence handed to a Muslim convicted of a series of rapes, including gang-rape. Again I ask what the Sharia punishment for rape is???

Now why should this matter?? What if he doesn't know when to stop, and if he talks nonsense because he doesn't know better??

Well first, I'm sure he DOES know better, since he's changed his words to suit his audience a number of times now. But more seriously, he's saying these things abroad, to an audience that will perhaps take him seriously, and which will not be so keen to check the veracity of his statements. In other words, they will take his remarks about Australia (and by extension other western nations) at face value, and draw the wrong conclusions.

What he has said (or, since some challenge the accuracy of the translation, what he is reported to have said) is simply deceitful - non-islamic - untrue.

And yet does that matter? So what if he talks nonsense?

Well yes it matters. Take another case, unrelated to al-Hilali - the Danish cartoons:

We should know the story by now - Jyllands Posten published a dozen cartoons with *Mohammed* as the theme, and the world seemed to explode.

Well actually it's a little different than that. The cartoons were indeed published, but caused little initial trouble. According to reports they got as far as Egypt without trouble. This was not good enough for a group of Danish imams, who launched a crusade (and I use that term without irony) to bring the pictures to the attention of the Muslim world. The imams went on tour, taking the cartoons with them, and whipped up anti-Danish sentiment along the way.

To make things worse, they included three extra pictures, which were not (and never were) connected in any way with the original cartoons. I have seen two of them, both faxed pictures, and I agree one is exceedingly offensive, whilst the other shows a Reuters photograph of a competitor in a French pig-squealing competition, and never pretended to be about Mohammed or Islam at all.

In other words the imams were deceitful. And they were trouble-makers.

As a result of the imams' endeavours, Danish interests were harmed, Danes were attacked, and flags were burnt. That's reprehensible in itself, but nationals of other European states were also attacked, and property damaged. Then churches were burnt, and people began dying.

A Catholic priest in Turkey was shot and killed by a boy of 15, evidently in reprisal for the cartoons, 9 died in Libya when the Italian (Italian!!!) consulate was attacked, and in Nigeria black African Christians were murdered, some being burnt alive.

Mob mentality was evident when Lebanese protestors tore up the Swiss (Swiss!!) flag outside the Danish embassy (well it IS red and white with a cross on it), and in Karachi the screaming mob burnt not only the Danish flag, but also the Israeli flag. I suppose it's a case of never letting a good irrational flag-burning go to waste, especially when it involves a *traditional enemy* that most of the mob probably couldn't locate on a map.

There is more - much more - about all this, and one of the best sites for info is Michelle Malkin's blog, although anyone likely to be offended by cartoons should NOT go there. Scroll rapidly past the pictures, if you must go there, however, and you'll find numerous links which shed much more light on the background nonsense, including the kind of crap *the West* puts up with from the Arab/Muslim media.

Now, having got the cartoons out of the way, what does this have to do with al-Hilali?? So far he has not whipped up anything like the same uproar, but the point is that anything is possible. It takes only a receptive audience and a good speaker, and we could be off again.

Al Hilali seems to have caused no trouble in Egypt, but we can only speculate what might happen if, for example, he did the same thing again in Turkey.

Sheik al-Hilali, and the Cat's Meat, an update

Sheik al-Hilali managed to outrage a large number of people in Australia and around the world a few weeks ago, following a Ramadan sermon in which, amongst other things, he likened women to plates of uncovered meat, subject to the unwanted attention of roaming cats. I wrote a blog about it (here), and so did almost everyone else who wote a blog, it seemed.

On Monday this week, our 60 Minutes TV programme showed an interview with al-Hilali, at his home in Sydney, where he was asked about some of the comments that he made, and what he meant by them.

Overall impression was of a venerable old chap in a nice house, with his wife and two charming daughters, not to mention the Aussie convert son-in-law.

It was evident that the interview was really a PR exercise, as the Sheik never really answered any of the questions, but deflected them with jokes or side remarks, and the whole thing seemed frighfully decent.

The gist of the interview was that, according to the Sheik, he is the victim of misunderstanding, and media propoganda. The media, it seems, *have it in for him*, and he never meant whatever it is he seems to have meant.

The *uncovered meat* comment was simply misunderstood, he said to the interviewer, although he didn't offer an alternative explanation for what was originally a long and carefully constructed comment which would seem very hard to misunderstand. Also overlooked was how Muslim women's groups in Australia were outraged by the remarks, and how they could have misunderstood the Sheik.

As to rape, the Sheik did say quite firmly that *The man who commits this crime should not live in society*, although other remarks during the original Ramadan sermon seemed to a) blame women for rape, and b) criticise sentences passed on the Lebanese-Australian gang-rapists.

On a question of beating wives, the Sheik joked that his wife sometimes hit him, at which the whole family fell about on the couch - it was a truly touching moment. But the Sheik also firmly stated that Islam does not allow beating of wives, which i could have sworn was not so......

The Sheik speaks little English - when asked why not, he comically replied * Too late, mate*, which is almost certainly true. He declares Australia to be the *Best moderate country in the world*, and that one should *Love Australia or leave it*, which sounds fair to me.

Final comment was along the lines of *My words as currently understood I stand behind*.

I'm somewhat cynical as regards the Sheik's comment; from reports read or recieved it seems that this Sheik, in common with some other Muslim clerics, tends to *have a bob each way*, and presents two different faces, one public, and one private, and when found out, claims to be misunderstood or persecuted.

For myself, andf especially after seeing this latest interview, I think I understand the Sheik very well indeed.....

Wallah Wallah, Cat's Meat

Before I get too many complaints, let me explain the title...

In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, visiting street traders had no motor horns or recorded jingles to play to attract customers. So they had to *Shout their wares* when they arrived in a neighbourhood, either pushing a hand cart, or with a horse and cart.

What they shouted usually related to their particular product, and did not have to make sense. For example, my parents assured me when I was young that fruiterers often shouted *Apples a pound, Pears*, which makes no sense, but at least you know it's a man selling fruit!

Before commercial petfood was available, horseflesh would be sold around the houses, and the cry of the Catsmeat Man was, I swear, *Wallah Wallah, Cat's Meat*. Why? I have no idea. But it's a distinctive cry, and fits strangely well into the following item.....

Well, lets's talk about Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali.

During a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque this year, he described women as 'weapons' used by Satan to control men, and compared them with uncovered meat. He told the worshippers "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 uncovered meat is the problem."

He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred." Further report here.

Now, I have a number of issues with this man, and I am going to take the time to go through them. Read to the end, and then stop and think. These are my own thoughts, but magnified a thousand times through the *blogosphere*.

First thing to understand is that he´s in part trying to criticise a Sydney court´s ruling over a despicable series of gang rapes perpetrated by muslim youths, and seeming to put the blame on the women (and young girls) involved. See here for details...


The Sheik in further comment criticised the 65 year sentence handed out to the ringleader, but as the link shows, this was actually 55 years, and was halved well before the sermon, although a further 10 years was subsequently added after a retrial on one of the counts.

The Sharia penalty for rape is......??

Now I don´t know if the rest of you are in the same century as me, but in my humble opinion, the fact that a woman, Muslim or not, should choose to walk uncovered in public does not entitle any man to molest her, and certainly not for 14 to gang rape her. But the cleric seems clear on this - it´s the fault of the uncovered meat, he says - the woman's to blame....

Why does this bother me, you may ask? As I suggested there are several reasons, so here goes....

First, women are NOT uncovered meat. If the cleric talks about women in general, he talks about my wife and my mother, and they are NOT to be described in that way.

Second, if the cleric mentions Muslim women, I have to defend them too. Many of my chat friends are Muslimah, and I consider his characterisation of them to be disgraceful. None of you, my sisters, deserve to be seen like that.

The cleric goes on to suggest that if the woman is at home, in her room, in hijab, there is no problem. Well yes, if we never go out, we will be safe from all molesters, except for those in the house, of course, but that´s another matter.

Many of you will know that I have an interest in Islam, and have studied for some time in various ways. I never converted, although it could be said that I came close. (More on this later on request)

This is why I take more interest than perhaps would be usual for an Anglican, in a case like this. Women, I have repeatedly been told in my studies, are equal to men. (And have been, supposedly, for 1400 years). It takes a case like this, and it´s not an isolated case, to show that it isn´t so in the minds of certain people.

Was the sheik referring to women in general in his sermon? References to hijab suggest he was talking about muslim women, but when commenting on the rape verdicts, he clearly meant non - muslim. Regardless, a woman has the right to walk the streets unmolested.

The molestor - the cat - if there is one, will be a male, and it's he that should be controlled - it's he that should be harangued in the mosque. Never forget that!!!

كيوي جون

An update has been added here