D wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 12:09am:

Your asking me how I call myself Australian? I am a proud Australian. It's my right in this country to speak out against things I disagree with. That's democracy for you.

It IS acceptable in this country to cheat on your partner, while it may be considered morally wrong to some people it is not a criminal offence as polygeny is. Thus it is obvious by that, that it's considered acceptable.

Secondly, you're right to an extent regarding parental rights of children born from mistresses. However you still haven't covered the rights of a wife (the right to be clothes, accommodated, fed, looked after, protected etc). They still don't have that right from the man that's cheating on his wife, thus they are simply objects and possessions as he has no obligations he must fulfil to her and can toss her away at any time. Whereas if she was married to him, that wouldn't be the case, he'd have those obligations.

MW wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 12:23am:

I checked the pages and still can't find what you're referring to. Did I quote your answer in my responses? Can you post it again?

Regards,

Adz

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 12:17am:


And to females living a live of sadness without being married. I would much rather live un-married than having to be raped by a husband any time he chooses ( In Australia both partners are free to say no to sex at any time).

If this as you say leads to cheating or in Islam's case... marrying another young female who will give in to him; is a reflection that the character of the person cheating or marrying multiple wives is sorely lacking.

A relationship is about love, compassion and sharing life with each other. Sex is irrelevant, it is simply a biological urge, should we all go to the toilet where ever or when ever we feel the need as it also a biological urge; as is eating. We grow up and learn this thing called self-control; apparently lacking in Muslim communities as they have to cover up any female that has menstrated or they will go crazy with desire in the middle of their prays and rape her.

Quote:
Why do you assume all women need a husband? Is it possible that if women in the Islamic community took part in both public and private sectors they would not be 'alone'? Maybe the population differential has naturally happened that way for this reason even?

soo... should each man only have 1.25 wives each then?  That would make the wife ratio about equal for everyone, however if each man has four wives each that just swings the balance the other way.

D wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 12:33am:


Well first of all, we all didn't do a democratic election. The title of Mufti of Australia and New Zealand is not voted on by all Muslims, it is elected by AFIC. Sheikh Hilali has done many great things in Australia. I do however think it's inappropriate to have a Mufti in this country that doesn't speak English properly. Simply because of translational issues that we keep seeing.

Secondly, Sheikh Taj Hilali DIDN'T say women who don't dress in more clothing deserved to be raped. If you read his sermon you'd realise he's referring to the dangers of fornication. NOT rape.

The video you provided aswell is really quite biased too. Hilaly stated in the video that Bilal Skaf not only deserved 65 years in prison, but also deserved the death penalty. His qualm was with the fact that other rapists rarely ever get 65 years in prison and he thinks they all should get it.

In the video he says that Muslims were in Australia before the British. That isn't actually unheard of. Don't you think it's a bit farfetched to assume that having neighbours right next door who were Muslim that Muslims didn't actually come here at all before the English who were a great deal farther away from Australia? In fact in the book 1421 it hypothesises that Muslims from China did come to Australia before the British did and also mapped alot of the coast line.

Next in the video he says Anglo Australians came as convicts while most Muslims came here free. That isn't entirely untrue, our history is that of Australia being a convict colony. Although he forgets to mention that a portion of Muslims did come as refugees.

He also says about non-Muslim's being dishonest, there he isn't referring to every Australian, but he is referring to politics here.

In the video you posted it also says that Muslims have more right to Australia than non Muslims. That's not what he said, he said that Muslims love Australia more than non Muslims and the way he said it was in the context of being in competition, a game with each other to show how much we can prove it. This is not uncommon in Islam as we also compete with our good deeds. For him to even say that it means he's holding Australians at the point of brothers and sisters as he'd do with Muslims.

I really thought it'd be obvious that anything with Andrew Bolt in it would be biased. That guy is a bigot.

Next, I understand your comments about women having the right to careers and if you see my previous posts you'll see that I agree with that. But I'd like to challenge your point on NZ's Prime Minister actually being female. I mean.. Have you seen their Prime Minister or heard it speak? I think it's pretty hard to tell and without conclusive scientific testing we're only speculating. 

Also, you mentioned about women not having to get married. I actually agreed with that in a previous post. But I believe all women have the right to.

Back to the point on getting married early, would you say it's ok for a girl to marry at 14 with her parents permission? 

D wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

You see that's the difference.

We give women more rights that way, because we believe it's a womans right to be taken care of should they wish. We believe they shouldn't have to work if they don't want to as they do in the West. If they want to work, that's fine. But at the end of the day, their money is their own and if they are married their husband still has to provide for them and can't ask for her money.

Muhammad pbuh was definitely not a rich man at the time of marrying Aisha. The wealth that his first wife owned was used up during the period when Muslims were exiled to the outskirts of the city and the price of food and water was jacked up for them to huge huge rates. Khadijah a.s used her wealth in that period before Muhammad pbuh went to Medina and before she died. He did not marry any other women during that period because he was so in love with her, more than anyone could imagine. She was with him from the beginning of his revelation and the first person to accept Islam. She believed him when no one else did.

Sheik of Hate, Hilali the deceitful, is not only an embarrassment to Islam, he is an embarrassment to evolution.

A good little saying which can applied to many religions, is one worth putting here for your consideration.

If every muslim, who labelled another muslim, as not a true muslim, disappeared, there would be no muslims left.

This also works if you wish to transpose christian in for muslim.

For way too long, Hilali was seen as the senior, and most authoritative muslim spokesman in Australia.
He was in fact a very immoral man who was happy to lie and deceive people, to suit his own ends, all the time promoting his hatred of the west.
That anyone who wishes to consider themselves as Australian, could follow his foul teachings is abhorrent.

That the much touted, but notoriously hard to find, reasonable and moderate muslims, did not vehemently speak out against this man, must make us question just how moderate, and how reasonable, the claimed, 'Decent', but elusive, majority of muslims really are.

MW wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 4:35am:


That is the problem again. Do you actually know what he said in that sermon?

He was explaining about the dangers of fornication. He said that in the Qur'an, when referring to stealing God begins with 'oh believing men' because the obligation to provide for one's family is on the male. Thus when it comes to stealing, a male is more likely to steal than a female is.

Next he said, that in the Qur'an, when referring to fornication it says 'oh believing women' to begin with. That is because in that, a woman has the ability to seduce men more than a man has of a woman, and if they have sex with each other then the blame lays more with the woman because she could have avoided that scenario very easily by not seducing the male.

The example he gave was of a cat going for uncovered meat, because it's the instincts of a cat to eat meat and it's obviously more logical, men are more visual creatures and are more likely to be attracted to a woman if she is acting in a seductive way than if she isn't. If you disagree, then perhaps you can tell me why most of todays advertising for men is done by sexualising women and objectifying them and has been proven to be far more successful than those without? ie. Sex sells

At no time did he mention that if a woman is not dressing like a Muslim they deserve to be raped. It was advice to Muslim women.

However let's look at some Christian leadership and see their view on the issue, Reverend Mrs. Olubisi Meduoye from the Concerned Womens Ministry in Uganda stated the following in http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/womanofthesun/2007/july/24/womano... :

“We encourage them (women) to dress decently as you will be addressed the way you are dressed. Some of them get raped because of the way they dress."

Now let's look at what happened when the Amber Lounge recently tried to encourage women attending to wear bikinis by promising them free alcohol, it was reported at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20955357-2,00.html#.

In the article it states:

Rape crisis counsellors and alcohol experts slammed the bikini party, claiming that it reduced women to sexual objects and exposed them to the risk of extreme intoxication and sexual assault.

and also:

Centre Against Sexual Assault manager Helen Makregiorgos - who had condemned the proposal for reducing women to sexual objects - said the decision (not to go ahead with it) was fantastic.


Sheikh Taj Hilali was very clear when he made this sermon, it was addressing the issue of fornication and directed at the women in the Muslim community. Why expect him to apologize for something which he clearly didn't say? He apologized that they misinterpreted it and were offended? He was directing this towards the Muslim community in a sermon, He didn't add further explanation in this circumstance because there was an assumed knowledge of the intended audience ie the Muslims in the Mosque. If he had made the speech to wider the Australian community he would put it across with further explanations so that the rest of Australia could understand it.


Lastly, Australia was founded as a convict colony. That is what he was referring to. That isn't untrue at all.