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.....

Defending the Pope

Photo Copyright © L'Osservatore Romano - Tutti i diritti riservati - All Rights Reserved

A month or so ago, I found myself in the curious position, as an Anglican, of defending the Pope.

A Turkish correspondant was incensed by reports in her newspaper that the Pope had insulted Islam. Since the news had not yet broken in my media it took a number of ventures into Google before I began to grasp what was happening. And it took considerable effort to persuade her that, as far as I could tell, the Pope had made a rather complicated statement which had been immediately misreported. I predicted crowds in the streets, and burning flags, and was almost right.

Over the next two nights I struggled to pacify other correspondants on the same subject.

Perhaps it shouldn’t matter to me. The Office of the Pope is large enough to handle the flak - to control the spin, you would think. And I could say that as I’m Church of England, the Pope doesn’t speak for me. On reflection, however, I’d rather he spoke for me than, for example, George Bush, if only on the grounds that the Vatican isn’t likely to start a war any time soon, and hence the Pope is less hazardous to my security.

The trouble is that once again the hornet’s nest is stirred up, and security again becomes fragile in certain regions of the world. The words have been spoken, and can’t be retracted. It’s clear to most intelligent non-muslims that there was a context to the Pope´s remarks, but that they were not a direct attack on Islam.

The trouble is too that there are some very thin-skinned people out there, and many of them seem only too keen to feel offended at the least excuse.

The West as a whole frequently has to sit back and take a great deal of abuse from the other side, without flinching. True there are random acts of violence, which to those affected seem major, but so far we in the West have not taken to the streets by the thousand to scream and wail, burning effigies and flags by way of protest - perhaps we should.

But in the meantime what of the Pope?

Well the poor old guy had to apologise.

Several times.

He was even under pressure to apologise for his previous apologies – demands coming from people who really had no idea what he said in the first place.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Pope´s first words when he began to reply to the criticism should have been: “Listen, I wasn’t talking to you......”?
<><>