Political Crossfire Forums

[Somebloke]

Enlightened Despot wrote: I am going to end the Angelus argumentation with this

But Muslim community leaders rounded on Sheik Hilali for his comments, insisting that he no longer deserved his title as Australia's mufti.

It's there read it all by clicking on the link.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1932071,00.html

I remember- pretty much the entire Muslim and non-Muslim community snapped at him when he said that. He very, very quickly apologised for his comments- I remember his next sermon, where he told the audience directly, "Rape is never justified". Personally the man strikes me as a moral chameleon, changing his views depending on the way the wind blows.

Naturally, the way that the rest of the community rebuked his comments has been ignored by rabid right-winger types who find the idea of Muslims as not being a monolithic entity of suicide bombers somewhat confusing.

[Somebloke]

Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.

[Margo]

Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

[Angelicus]

Somebloke wrote: Enlightened Despot wrote: I am going to end the Angelus argumentation with this

But Muslim community leaders rounded on Sheik Hilali for his comments, insisting that he no longer deserved his title as Australia's mufti.

It's there read it all by clicking on the link.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1932071,00.html

I remember- pretty much the entire Muslim and non-Muslim community snapped at him when he said that. He very, very quickly apologised for his comments- I remember his next sermon, where he told the audience directly, "Rape is never justified". Personally the man strikes me as a moral chameleon, changing his views depending on the way the wind blows.

Naturally, the way that the rest of the community rebuked his comments has been ignored by rabid right-winger types who find the idea of Muslims as not being a monolithic entity of suicide bombers somewhat confusing.

I didn't ignore that many in the community were outraged.

However that said, it shouldnt be up too "rabid right winger types" like angelicus and margo too be the only one's that are outraged by this guys comments either.

It should be the Muslim moderate community that is.

[00timh]

Angelicus wrote: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1932715.ece

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the back yard 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 added: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [Islamic headscarf], no problem would have occurred."

According to this, this imam says that if a woman chooses not to wear the hijab and dares go out in public, then she deserves to be raped.

Not only should he "apologize" he should step down from his position as a spiritual leader, and be kicked out of Islam too. I understand what you are saying. A comment such as this is despicable for our society. It is a belief of some of the mid east though. It is just a reminder of how much more freedom and equality we have then most people in the middle east do. Sometimes we all take our freedom for granted.

[Somebloke]

Angelicus wrote: Somebloke wrote: Enlightened Despot wrote: I am going to end the Angelus argumentation with this

But Muslim community leaders rounded on Sheik Hilali for his comments, insisting that he no longer deserved his title as Australia's mufti.

It's there read it all by clicking on the link.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1932071,00.html

I remember- pretty much the entire Muslim and non-Muslim community snapped at him when he said that. He very, very quickly apologised for his comments- I remember his next sermon, where he told the audience directly, "Rape is never justified". Personally the man strikes me as a moral chameleon, changing his views depending on the way the wind blows.

Naturally, the way that the rest of the community rebuked his comments has been ignored by rabid right-winger types who find the idea of Muslims as not being a monolithic entity of suicide bombers somewhat confusing.

I didn't ignore that many in the community were outraged.

However that said, it shouldnt be up too "rabid right winger types" like angelicus and margo too be the only one's that are outraged by this guys comments either.

It should be the Muslim moderate community that is.

They were. They said they were right after his comments became public. There was intense lobbying to remove him- in the end, he collapsed from stress.

[Somebloke]

Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

[Lucky Luke]

00timh wrote: Angelicus wrote: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1932715.ece

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the back yard 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 added: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [Islamic headscarf], no problem would have occurred."

According to this, this imam says that if a woman chooses not to wear the hijab and dares go out in public, then she deserves to be raped.

Not only should he "apologize" he should step down from his position as a spiritual leader, and be kicked out of Islam too.

I understand what you are saying. A comment such as this is despicable for our society. It is a belief of some of the mid east though. It is just a reminder of how much more freedom and equality we have then most people in the middle east do. Sometimes we all take our freedom for granted.

What freedom would that be 00timh that Australia or Egypt hasn't got?

:-D
:-D

[Margo]

Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

[Lumina]

wyldejackyl wrote: Dark Party wrote:

What you're talking about isn't reality. People like you are fond of pointing to the McDonald's case where a woman was burned by the coffee, sued and won.

People like you say: "Coffee is hot! How can she sue! Ridiculous! The courts have gone crazy!"

But that's because you don't understand the whole story.

McDonald's kept its coffee usually hot (several degrees higher than average coffee temperatures) because it would keep longer and they wouldn't have to make more coffee -- thus saving money.

McDonald's was fully aware that the coffee was too hot because hundreds of customers had been burned. But the company refused to lower the temperature because it was cheaper to pay-off the injured people rather than change corporate policy.

Finally, a woman -- an old woman -- spilled the coffee on her lap and recieved third-degree burns that required several operations on her private area (including plastic surgery). She was hospitalized for weeks and in pain for months.

So McDonald's got whacked with a multi-million dollar pay-out (later reduced to several hundred thousand dollars)

Here's more info on the case: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

You guys like to point to specific case -- which goes against the grain -- and make it seem like our system is in chaos and no one takes responsibility for anything.

But it's a crock.

Perhaps this could have all been prevented, on the other hand, by the dumb bizzo putting the coffee in the cup holder and NOT in her lap to begin with? That's like claiming a saw is too sharp when you cut your finger off. Don't blame the people that make the saw..blame YOURSELF for putting your finger in the way! It s*cks that she got her woohoo burned by scalding hot coffee, but the fact is, coffee is hot. Any idiot knows that. It hurts no matter how hot it is..thus..handle with care.

I see nothing wrong with McDonald's saving money by putting hot coffee into cups, so long as it doesn't impact the taste. What people do with it once they leave the drive-up window is ENTIRELY their problem. It's not like the cup exploded all over her on its own.

In that case, you need, with all due respect, to research this infamous case. If you do, then you will learn that some of those scalded with second and even third-degree burns were folks who had that coffee dumped on them by the take-out window.

I find this McDonald's case so egregiously an example of folks believing half-truths. All you need to do is Google "MdDonald's hot coffee" to learn the facts. There are many, including that McDonald's execs testified that they were aware of the dangers of their ultra-hot coffee (50 degrees higher, at least, than any other competitor's). They also testified, despite over 700 personal-injury claims, that they had no intention of reducing the heat.

Oh, and then there's the fact that some of those injured suffered third-degree burns that required surgical reconstruction of their genitals.

Read up.

[Somebloke]

Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

[Margo]

Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

Why?

[Angelicus]

Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

Could that possibly be because they lie to you the infidel as the Quran tells them too.

Naw that couldn't be it, Political Correctness wouldn't allow it. :roll:

[Lucky Luke]

Angelicus wrote:

Could that possibly be because they lie to you the infidel as the Quran tells them too.

Naw that couldn't be it, Political Correctness wouldn't allow it. :roll:

The Vatican seems more involved in lying about acts of rape and in protecting the rapists than any Muslim cleric is.
Are you too PC to accept the truth Angelicus, or is your hatred for anything Muslim too deep to see this?

The quran certainly does not say that women should wear veils, just like the bible does not say that women should wear headscarves and yet many Christian women did for centuries and still do in some places.
:-D
:-D

[Somebloke]

Angelicus wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

Could that possibly be because they lie to you the infidel as the Quran tells them too.

Naw that couldn't be it, Political Correctness wouldn't allow it. :roll:

And of course the way the millions of them go about their daily business and pay their taxes and obey the law without any real problems....cunning, that. I mean, unless they're like most people who just work for a living and raise children...

Of course, half-terrified conservatives who have never talked to a Muslim in their lives wouldn't allow that.

There are three million Muslims living in the US alone- a third of a million in Australia. And the number of terrorist attacks attempted, successful or not, performed by American and Australian muslims comes to....let's see...it's a number that wouldn't require a thick person to take off their shoes and socks to count to....divide it by population...umm...wow, they're being really slack.

Please, tell me you aren't one of those types that breaks into a sweat everytime you see a woman with a headress "maybe there's a bomb in that there handbasket!"

I get it that there is a real threat from extremists in the Islamic faith. And personally I think the Sheik should retire- misguided or not, that sort of viewpoint has no place in Australian society. But seriously, if you honestly believe that even a modest percentage of Muslims are terrorists, then you're about of clued up to the average Muslim on the street as a rock.

[Hank Rearden]

Lucky Luke wrote: Angelicus wrote: Moot wrote: Kamel wrote: ilovebushnotdick wrote: i repeat: did you actually hear what poop been a dick say? Yeah, the pope says Islam brought nothing but evil or something, so the muslims go out, riot, burn sh!t and kill a nun. Purely rational and justified imo....

So what's the difference between that and the Fundalmentalist in the US saying that Gays are sinful because it says so in the Bible and then some punks in Wyoming think its okay to go out and beat up a young gay man and tie him to a fence post leaving him to die? Then to top it off, an even more extreme Fundamentalist group protest at his funeral?

Everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens his mouth another Gay gets attacked in the good ol USof A.

I think all extremist religions should be squelched into oblivion. This is the 21st century, not 300 AD for crying out loud.

Since you bring it up, lets use that as an example Moot.

When Mr. Shepard was killed what happened?

We as a society/community hunted down who did it, and put them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. We punished and said as a community that those who act out that way are wrong, and won't be tolerated in our society.

We didn't make justifications or excuses for what they did.

We overall didn't say, as this cleric has done, "well he was gay so he deserved it".

The difference clear enough for you now?

What this cleric said did not cause women to be raped or rapists to not be punished Angelicus. Furthermore you are still missing the part where he unreservedly apologised Angelicus. And more importantly the Muslim faith and the Muslim people did not support what the cleric said nor did they cover up any crimes committed because of what he said, in fact no crimes have been committed as far as we know between the time he said it and the time he unreservedly apologised.
Now to find a religion that practice rape cover up, lies and protection of the rapists see Rome Angelicus.
:-D
:-D

Quote: The paper also reported that Sheik Hilali alluded in his sermon to the gang rapes in Sydney of six years ago, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the attacks on four women, for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy [rahma] and he gives you 65 years... but the problem all began with who?"

From this statement it pretty clear that this cleric is condemning the long jail term the rapists received at the hands of the court, and is instead blaming the victims for their manner of dress. I'd interpret that to him saying that rape is OK if it's against those that don't follow his version of the Islamic faith. Heck, if you can't keep those silly Westerners in line with suicide bombing, might as well start raping the women.

While he is just one guy, he is the leading Islamic cleric in Australia. If the mainstream members of the Islamic religion in the country do not agree with him (and I believe that this is the case) he needs to join the ranks of the unemployed.

[Margo]

Somebloke wrote: Angelicus wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

Could that possibly be because they lie to you the infidel as the Quran tells them too.

Naw that couldn't be it, Political Correctness wouldn't allow it. :roll:

And of course the way the millions of them go about their daily business and pay their taxes and obey the law without any real problems....cunning, that. I mean, unless they're like most people who just work for a living and raise children...

Of course, half-terrified conservatives who have never talked to a Muslim in their lives wouldn't allow that.

There are three million Muslims living in the US alone- a third of a million in Australia. And the number of terrorist attacks attempted, successful or not, performed by American and Australian muslims comes to....let's see...it's a number that wouldn't require a thick person to take off their shoes and socks to count to....divide it by population...umm...wow, they're being really slack.

Please, tell me you aren't one of those types that breaks into a sweat everytime you see a woman with a headress "maybe there's a bomb in that there handbasket!"

I get it that there is a real threat from extremists in the Islamic faith. And personally I think the Sheik should retire- misguided or not, that sort of viewpoint has no place in Australian society. But seriously, if you honestly believe that even a modest percentage of Muslims are terrorists, then you're about of clued up to the average Muslim on the street as a rock.

Time to do a little math Aussie. By all accounts (and feel free to check it) there are 1 billion Muslims in the world. It is estimated that 10%-15% are extremist radicals. That means we're talking at least 100 million people who want to destroy an ideology, namely yours and mine. The US has a population of 300 million so imagine 1/3 trying to kill the other 2/3rds. And the other point to consider is that these 100 million or so people who support radical extremism and terrorism are spread all throughout the world so we're never sure where exactly they are and what they are plotting. That's reality. What I would like to see is Muslims who do not share these radical beliefs stand up and do something about it, say something about it...anything. But it's not happening. Why?

[Lucky Luke]

Hank Rearden wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Angelicus wrote: Moot wrote: Kamel wrote: ilovebushnotdick wrote: i repeat: did you actually hear what poop been a dick say? Yeah, the pope says Islam brought nothing but evil or something, so the muslims go out, riot, burn sh!t and kill a nun. Purely rational and justified imo....

So what's the difference between that and the Fundalmentalist in the US saying that Gays are sinful because it says so in the Bible and then some punks in Wyoming think its okay to go out and beat up a young gay man and tie him to a fence post leaving him to die? Then to top it off, an even more extreme Fundamentalist group protest at his funeral?

Everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens his mouth another Gay gets attacked in the good ol USof A.

I think all extremist religions should be squelched into oblivion. This is the 21st century, not 300 AD for crying out loud.

Since you bring it up, lets use that as an example Moot.

When Mr. Shepard was killed what happened?

We as a society/community hunted down who did it, and put them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. We punished and said as a community that those who act out that way are wrong, and won't be tolerated in our society.

We didn't make justifications or excuses for what they did.

We overall didn't say, as this cleric has done, "well he was gay so he deserved it".

The difference clear enough for you now?

What this cleric said did not cause women to be raped or rapists to not be punished Angelicus. Furthermore you are still missing the part where he unreservedly apologised Angelicus. And more importantly the Muslim faith and the Muslim people did not support what the cleric said nor did they cover up any crimes committed because of what he said, in fact no crimes have been committed as far as we know between the time he said it and the time he unreservedly apologised.
Now to find a religion that practice rape cover up, lies and protection of the rapists see Rome Angelicus.
:-D
:-D

Quote: The paper also reported that Sheik Hilali alluded in his sermon to the gang rapes in Sydney of six years ago, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the attacks on four women, for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy [rahma] and he gives you 65 years... but the problem all began with who?"

From this statement it pretty clear that this cleric is condemning the long jail term the rapists received at the hands of the court, and is instead blaming the victims for their manner of dress. I'd interpret that to him saying that rape is OK if it's against those that don't follow his version of the Islamic faith. Heck, if you can't keep those silly Westerners in line with suicide bombing, might as well start raping the women.

While he is just one guy, he is the leading Islamic cleric in Australia. If the mainstream members of the Islamic religion in the country do not agree with him (and I believe that this is the case) he needs to join the ranks of the unemployed.

What about the apology Hank Rearden? Where did it go? Why are you ignoring it?

:-D
:-D

[Somebloke]

Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Angelicus wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

Could that possibly be because they lie to you the infidel as the Quran tells them too.

Naw that couldn't be it, Political Correctness wouldn't allow it. :roll:

And of course the way the millions of them go about their daily business and pay their taxes and obey the law without any real problems....cunning, that. I mean, unless they're like most people who just work for a living and raise children...

Of course, half-terrified conservatives who have never talked to a Muslim in their lives wouldn't allow that.

There are three million Muslims living in the US alone- a third of a million in Australia. And the number of terrorist attacks attempted, successful or not, performed by American and Australian muslims comes to....let's see...it's a number that wouldn't require a thick person to take off their shoes and socks to count to....divide it by population...umm...wow, they're being really slack.

Please, tell me you aren't one of those types that breaks into a sweat everytime you see a woman with a headress "maybe there's a bomb in that there handbasket!"

I get it that there is a real threat from extremists in the Islamic faith. And personally I think the Sheik should retire- misguided or not, that sort of viewpoint has no place in Australian society. But seriously, if you honestly believe that even a modest percentage of Muslims are terrorists, then you're about of clued up to the average Muslim on the street as a rock.

Time to do a little math Aussie. By all accounts (and feel free to check it) there are 1 billion Muslims in the world. It is estimated that 10%-15% are extremist radicals. That means we're talking at least 100 million people who want to destroy an ideology, namely yours and mine. The US has a population of 300 million so imagine 1/3 trying to kill the other 2/3rds. And the other point to consider is that these 100 million or so people who support radical extremism and terrorism are spread all throughout the world so we're never sure where exactly they are and what they are plotting. That's reality. What I would like to see is Muslims who do not share these radical beliefs stand up and do something about it, say something about it...anything. But it's not happening. Why?

Sigh.

They...are...standing....up. You're just ignoring them. Read the link at the top of this page. The Australian, a conservative newspaper, often prints editorials from moderate muslims denouncing terrorist attacks, and then- I always find this funny- prints rants by people like Janet Albretchson (think of a less skeletal, less rabid Anne Coulter) wondering why they aren't denouncing the terrorist attacks. It's very sad.

For that matter, 10-15% of three million people in US is still a lot of suicide bombers, yet here we are back to finger counting home-grown attacks...gosh, maybe your figure might just be out?

[Margo]

Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Angelicus wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Margo wrote: Somebloke wrote: Case of point, Margo and Angelicus.


moi?? :shock:

That was your rather extensive comment around page 2 concerning sniveling liberal types surrendering moral ground to evil islamic hoards etc etc etc...right?

Must review...

And what exactly was wrong with my extensive comment?

Anyone with even minor exposure to Muslims living in Western nations can see that it is, for the most part, total hash.

Could that possibly be because they lie to you the infidel as the Quran tells them too.

Naw that couldn't be it, Political Correctness wouldn't allow it. :roll:

And of course the way the millions of them go about their daily business and pay their taxes and obey the law without any real problems....cunning, that. I mean, unless they're like most people who just work for a living and raise children...

Of course, half-terrified conservatives who have never talked to a Muslim in their lives wouldn't allow that.

There are three million Muslims living in the US alone- a third of a million in Australia. And the number of terrorist attacks attempted, successful or not, performed by American and Australian muslims comes to....let's see...it's a number that wouldn't require a thick person to take off their shoes and socks to count to....divide it by population...umm...wow, they're being really slack.

Please, tell me you aren't one of those types that breaks into a sweat everytime you see a woman with a headress "maybe there's a bomb in that there handbasket!"

I get it that there is a real threat from extremists in the Islamic faith. And personally I think the Sheik should retire- misguided or not, that sort of viewpoint has no place in Australian society. But seriously, if you honestly believe that even a modest percentage of Muslims are terrorists, then you're about of clued up to the average Muslim on the street as a rock.

Time to do a little math Aussie. By all accounts (and feel free to check it) there are 1 billion Muslims in the world. It is estimated that 10%-15% are extremist radicals. That means we're talking at least 100 million people who want to destroy an ideology, namely yours and mine. The US has a population of 300 million so imagine 1/3 trying to kill the other 2/3rds. And the other point to consider is that these 100 million or so people who support radical extremism and terrorism are spread all throughout the world so we're never sure where exactly they are and what they are plotting. That's reality. What I would like to see is Muslims who do not share these radical beliefs stand up and do something about it, say something about it...anything. But it's not happening. Why?

Sigh.

They...are...standing....up. You're just ignoring them. Read the link at the top of this page. The Australian, a conservative newspaper, often prints editorials from moderate muslims denouncing terrorist attacks, and then- I always find this funny- prints rants by people like Janet Albretchson (think of a less skeletal, less rabid Anne Coulter) wondering why they aren't denouncing the terrorist attacks. It's very sad.

For that matter, 10-15% of three million people in US is still a lot of suicide bombers, yet here we are back to finger counting home-grown attacks...gosh, maybe your figure might just be out?

Guess what? I don't read Aussie papers, why would I? I'm in the States and here in the States we don't see much covereage at all of Muslims denouncing the radical element. I'm not ignoring them, I just don't see or hear any, they aren't making news here.