spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And he apologised and the muslims of Australia complained bitterly about his remarks. Which proves nothing either way. Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which owns the mosque, said he condemned Sheikh Hilali's words. "The board [of the LMA] has unlimited powers in respect of his teachings in the mosque. We can do anything that's required to prevent him from teaching in our mosque. If you haven't got the backing of Australia's largest and most established Islamic organisation then you are out on a limb," he is quoted as saying in The Australian. A number of leading Muslim women have already spoken out against the sermon, describing it as repulsive and offensive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6086374.stm Meanwhile: A recent Amnesty International survey found 30 per cent of the public felt a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk. There are idiots all over the place. bassman repeatedly dredges up onlu muslim idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And that is the crux of the matter, British culture is not entwined with Christianity whereas the cultures of the Pakistani/Asian communities are entwined with Islam which has very strong/strict views on the conduct of women/girls. Im not sure of your point here, are you saying the inability of men to groom and sexually abuse Muslim girls is a bad thing? What should also be under investigation is a society that so undervalues it's young women that they are vulnerable and discarded in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 an mp that spoke the truth, he must be packing it all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And he apologised and the muslims of Australia complained bitterly about his remarks. Which proves nothing either way. Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which owns the mosque, said he condemned Sheikh Hilali's words. "The board [of the LMA] has unlimited powers in respect of his teachings in the mosque. We can do anything that's required to prevent him from teaching in our mosque. If you haven't got the backing of Australia's largest and most established Islamic organisation then you are out on a limb," he is quoted as saying in The Australian. A number of leading Muslim women have already spoken out against the sermon, describing it as repulsive and offensive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6086374.stm Meanwhile: A recent Amnesty International survey found 30 per cent of the public felt a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk. There are idiots all over the place. bassman repeatedly dredges up onlu muslim idiots. You know he was Australia's most senior Islamic Cleric, right? Claiming his words are not representative of Islam is akin to claiming the words of the Archbishop of York or Archbishop of Canterbury are not representative of Christianity, or perhaps that Lord Sacks (the UK's current Chief Rabbi) doesn't speak for Judaism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Claiming his words are not representative of Islam is akin to claiming the words of the Archbishop of York or Archbishop of Canterbury are not representative of Christianity, or perhaps that Lord Sacks doesn't speak for Jews. I claimed nothing of the kind, Australian muslims did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You know he was Australia's most senior Islamic Cleric, right? Claiming his words are not representative of Islam is akin to claiming the words of the Archbishop of York or Archbishop of Canterbury are not representative of Christianity, or perhaps that Lord Sacks doesn't speak for Jews. yet again nail on head, well done that man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 yet again nail on head, well done that man! If his words were representative of Islam, how come he was suspended by the mosque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I only make the point because during the trial it was established that they were not practising Muslims, so calling them such would be like describing every criminal who had ever been Christened as a Christian rather than the ethnic group they were members of which is a more accurate depiction of who they are, after all not Muslims are Asians either. How did they find out they were not practising muslims, maybe the church tried to diassociate themselves from such people? It's what I would do in such a circumstance and besides are people only muslims if they go to church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If his words were representative of Islam, how come he was suspended by the mosque? Damage limitation. And it was only a three month suspension from preaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Im not sure of your point here, are you saying the inability of men to groom and sexually abuse Muslim girls is a bad thing? What should also be under investigation is a society that so undervalues it's young women that they are vulnerable and discarded in the first place. So it's these girls fault and their families fault that they were attacked because they were 'vulnerable and discarded'? And what does vulnerable and discarded mean? White girls might be more rebellious but this is often because they don't have as much to fear at home as Muslims girls do, they know they're not going to get beaten, attacked forced into an arranged marriage if their parents find out they've been consorting with men. If making women wonder around in burkhas, not allowed out without male relatives, not allowed to drive, forced into marriage, not allowed to work is your idea of protected and cherished I would rather be vulnerable and discarded thank you very much. You say "are you saying the inability of men to groom and sexually abuse Muslim girls is a bad thing" well yes, if that inability comes about because of threats and fear and curtailing of Muslim girls freedom that is a bad thing. You shouldn't have to prevent crimes like this by curtailing the freedom of victims and it's only acceptable to suggest that when it's a crime against women. If asian men were being racially attacked in Oldham would it be acceptable to say that it doesn't matter because they went out at night? No it wouldn't be. In the first instance when the men approach these girls it's in the street, they're doing nothing wrong and parents shouldn't have to worry about their daughters being vulnerable to this and lock them up to stop it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.