# The uncovered meat problem in Australia.



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Australia's top muslim cleric speaks out .



> If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the 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


What are the limits of free speech?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

What a maniac.

One good thing: free speech ensures his lunatic views are heard widely, so the community (one hopes) will condemn them, rather (one hopes again) than emulate them.

It's sorta like this guy, only for real:

https://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/borat/


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> What a maniac.
> 
> One good thing: free speech ensures his lunatic views are heard widely, so the community (one hopes) will condemn them, rather (one hopes again) than emulate them.


I feel this way too. I would rather have the poison out where I can see it vs. hidden away waiting to kill. It is also very telling how others react to it. As your article noted Aus, the actions/re-actions of his community is also very telling.

The solution of course would just be to have this guy speak at Columbia. That would be quite a cunumdrum for the miscreants there, they would not be sure whether to applaud him or rush the stage and shut him down. Maybe time and space would collide and eliminate the whole mess of nuts? One could hope.

Cheers


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

I once believed that islamic outspokeness was rare , however the condemnation by that particular religion,of vertually every facet of western culture appears to be on the rise evry day in the british press there is an example of islams distaste of their adopted country.

It is the hipocrassy and holier than thou stand point that makes my blood boil.

take for example the cartoons of the prophet mohamed as a violent terrorist,
and Islam sees this as an excuse to murder a journalist working for the newspaper who printed the said cartoons.

or the pope quoting a 14th century writer who expressed the opinion that islam was a brutal and violent religion and Islam justifys it`s outrage by murdering a carmalite nun in Africa.

Islam is not a tolerant religion but they expect other religions to be tollerant of them.

even Politically Correct patiance is wearing thin.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This is a job for Oz's first people to handle. Prayers are drowned out by the ancient humming of bullroarers and clapsticks. Our sheikhead steps outside to view several dozen topless abo ladies moments before multiple spear throwers and hunting boomarangs send him back to the dreamtime.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

How is this idiotic comment by this so-called holy man any less idiotic than the evil things one hears out of the mouths of so-called Christians about homosexuals, women exercising their right to choose, Muslims, and so on? It's not like he's advocating lynching black people, as many so-called Christians in the American south once did.

Every religion has their idiots in high places. This guy is one of them, from all indications. But don't feel too superior, because it's not like he - or his religion - is remotely alone in that.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Well, this is an especially outrageous remark, given the background of the appalling "rape squad" incidents and the subsequent trials. However, as I understand the sheik's remarks they appear to be an especially artless variation on the old "she asked for it" bit; which is something that one frequently heard in the US not so long ago:

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DF103CF934A35753C1A96F948260


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Well, this is an especially outrageous remark, given the background of the appalling "rape squad" incidents and the subsequent trials. However, as I understand the sheik's remarks they appear to be an especially artless variation on the old "she asked for it" bit; which is something that one frequently heard in the US not so long ago:
> 
> https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DF103CF934A35753C1A96F948260


That is appalling. It seems that the rapist was, indeed, tried by a jury of his 'peers'.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

As for the fanatical cleric, a few days in this should do:



With a basket of rotten eggs laid nearby for the convenience of passers-by.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As I pointed out in another thread this morning already, good old _tu quoque_ is alive on well on the Interchange.

Funny how so many people can not just condemn a non-Xtian, non-white male without pointing fingers at a white Xtian male or a reference to lynching in the US South, playing up that old race card in the US for something a Muslim did in Australia? Why is that? Very odd.

Yet so many people that do this seem to come out as cultural relativists when it suits them. Even odder.

Regards


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> As I pointed out in another thread this morning already, good old _tu quoque_ is alive on well on the Interchange.
> 
> Funny how so many people can not just condemn a non-Xtian, non-white male without pointing fingers at a white Xtian male or a reference to lynching in the US South, playing up that old race card in the US for something a Muslim did in Australia? Why is that? Very odd.
> 
> ...


True, many can only blame western civilization first. I do think some people may do this as a way of saying something like: "We are not perfect but we've moved forward. We were where you are. You too can change for the better." Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As I pointed out in another thread this morning already, good old _tu quoque_ is alive on well on the Interchange.
> 
> Funny how so many people can not just condemn a non-Xtian, non-white male without pointing fingers at a white Xtian male or a reference to lynching in the US South, playing up that old race card in the US for something a Muslim did in Australia? Why is that? Very odd.
> 
> ...


Spare me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Spare me.


From what? The truth? Please peruse this forum, it is *full* of what I just stated. Please make an argument it is not vs. the above type of comment.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> From what? The truth? Please peruse this forum, it is *full* of what I just stated. Please make an argument it is not vs. the above type of comment.


I presume you are referring to my post on this thread. If so, you are misapplying the _tu quoque _fallacy. I am not arguing that we should excuse the shiek for his comments because his sentiment is shared by many Americans, and in the past was widely shared. _My_ point is that because the shiek's comments express a sentiment that is not unknown, nor even uncommon, among Americans expressions of outraged incomprehension are disingenuous - one's neighbor here in the Land of the Free may hold the selfsame belief. Identifying similar cases of false consciousness across nations and cultures and deploring them all does not violate the _tu quoque_ principle.There is a larger purpose to this, one that I addressed at some length in my post regarding Abu Ghraib - in response to a post of yours that was a classic expression of the _tu quoque_ fallacy: i.e., why should anyone care about Abu Ghraib when the bad guys are sawing the heads off live captives?

As I asked: spare me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> I presume you are referring to my post on this thread.


Your presumption would be wrong. Really Lushington, we are all not paying attention to you and only you, out of all the hundreds of posters here. If you read what I wrote, you would see I specifically referenced the comments of someone else. I know your mother said you were special....but consider she might be the only one that feels that way.

Cheers!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Hey...*

What about me. Somebody's got to like me best - LOL


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Your presumption would be wrong. Really Lushington, we are all not paying attention to you and only you, out of all the hundreds of posters here. If you read what I wrote, you would see I specifically referenced the comments of someone else. I know your mother said you were special....but consider she might be the only one that feels that way.
> 
> Cheers!


Spare me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Spare me.


In my best Monty Python silly voice, "No, spare me!"

"Contradiction is not an argument" "Yes it is..."


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> How is this idiotic comment by this so-called holy man any less idiotic than the evil things one hears out of the mouths of so-called Christians about homosexuals, women exercising their right to choose, Muslims, and so on? It's not like he's advocating lynching black people, as many so-called Christians in the American south *once did*.
> 
> Every religion has their idiots in high places. This guy is one of them, from all indications. But don't feel too superior, because it's not like he - or his religion - is remotely alone in that.


You hid it on the head, _once did_. It is never hard to find a fundamentalist group within Christianity or other western religion that will say something abhorrent to most people. They are not the norm, nor do they hold sway over the majority who practice religion here. I _wish _we could say the same about the Muslims.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*We are the knights who sayyyyy*

"Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'Spare Me' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred."

PS I thought a 'tu quoque' was Canadian for a knit hat, eh?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'Spare Me' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred."
> 
> *PS I thought a 'tu quoque' was Canadian for a knit hat, eh?*


No, it's Latin for "ekka ekka poon tang zip ding".


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No, it's Latin for "ekka ekka poon tang zip ding".


You're from the Ministry, aren't you:

Mr Pudey: Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it.

Minister: I see. May I see your silly walk?

Mr Pudey: Yes, certainly, yes.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

For all the indignation expressed here and elsewhere about the sheik's comments--and admittedly, his use of the phrase "uncovered meat" was infelicitious--you've got to admit the old boy has a point. Don't you think that huge numbers of decent, tolerant, caring parents of teenage girls have similar anxieties and express not dissimilar sentiments when their saucy daughters sashay out into the world flashing midriffs, cleavage and butt cracks!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> For all the indignation expressed here and elsewhere about the sheik's comments--and admittedly, his use of the phrase "uncovered meat" was infelicitious--you've got to admit the old boy has a point. Don't you think that huge numbers of decent, tolerant, caring parents of teenage girls have similar anxieties and express not dissimilar sentiments when their saucy daughters sashay out into the world flashing midriffs, cleavage and butt cracks!


Jan, I see what you are saying and I would certainly not be a happy camper if I had a teenager daughter headed out like that (well, I'd just be a grup and not allow it). There is no doubt being dressed like a tramp will draw unwanted attention. However, after reading the link, it would seem as if the good cleric was trying to basically excuse the good muslim boys that fell into the trap of temptation laid by the infidel women. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

Also, to make an analogy, if dressing like a tramp can be compared to provocative speech, a person that physically assaults someone making provocative speech is still charged with assault and battery. I am not using "provocative" with sexual connotations, btw, but rather as in making people angry or agitated.

Regards


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*It's time...*



mpcsb said:


> What about me. Somebody's got to like me best - LOL


But of course, we all do love U here dear...hihi...

...from paris


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I'd be interested in reading the sheik's complete speech rather than just excerpts and the "spin" that he was trying exculpate Muslim men from raping infidel women, which seems to come more from his critics than anything he said directly. His comment to the effect that if a girl stays at home in her hajib, nothing is going to happen to her would indicate that his comments may have been directed more at Muslim girls who adopted Western attire than anything else. Even he must be aware that infidel women aren't going to sit around in hajibs!

As a matter of interest, I once knew an absolutely gorgeous Dutch girl (nothing romantic between her and me, alas!) who had been a stewardess on the Iranian airline back in the days of the Shah. Curiously enough, she told me that rape was just unheard of back then in Iran. She expressed the opinion that little boys were so cosseted and doted on by all the women in their families that that undercurrent of hostility toward women that can lead to rape just didn't exist.

This wasn't to say that Iranian men couldn't be very lecherous. She mentioned that most of the European girls who worked for the airline lived in a sort of hotel compound. They would use its swimming pool wearing their bikinis and such, and Iranian men would gather outside the fence to stare at them and abuse themselves in public! In response, the European girls would literally dampen their ardor by dousing them with the firehose!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> For all the indignation expressed here and elsewhere about the sheik's comments--and admittedly, his use of the phrase "uncovered meat" was infelicitious--you've got to admit the old boy has a point. Don't you think that huge numbers of decent, tolerant, caring parents of teenage girls have similar anxieties and express not dissimilar sentiments when their saucy daughters sashay out into the world flashing midriffs, cleavage and butt cracks!


The old boy does _not _have a point. Provocative dressing should only lead to provocative comments, not to rape.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

In an ideal world, provocative attire should lead to nothing more than provocative comments...if that. In the good ol' USA you can easily lose your job for provocative comments, no matter how provocatively the recipient of said remarks may be dressed. In the real world, regrettably, provocative attire and deportment on the part of women can trigger sexual assaults. Certainly, no one wants to condone rape, but if I had a daughter, I would certainly do my best to impart this unfortunate reality to her.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

And I did impart this information to my daughters. Which gives me another thought. If anyone tried to incite people to rape my daughters I would want to give him the worst beating of his life.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLibourel,

Perhaps a woman should not be surprised if racy attire is met with unfortunate consequences in Saudi Arabia or some other backwater but this imam is in Australia and the day that Australian women have to dress according to strict Islamic norms is the day the music dies. And beer drinking. And kite flying. And probably everything else that makes life worth living.

I really wonder if Islamic fundamentalists hate women. I suspect alot of them do.

Karl


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> I really wonder if Islamic fundamentalists hate women. I suspect alot of them do. Karl


From my point of view, I dont think Islam hates women... but instead they afraid that women will control them--the men.

...from paris


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Everytime an assault to our soveriegnty or culture occurs peple speak and stand up. The Minutemen along the border for example. And everytime they are branded racists or vigilantes. Muslims have no problem getting a mob together chanting 'down,down, USA' usually followed by trampling or shooting a few of their own peers or catching a sleeve on fire burning their wive's head towel crudely painted as the flag over some perceived affront. The common man of the west has done, what? A ignorant man in Arizona murdered a Sikhe after 9/11, a few mosques have been vandalised. We are fighting an as(s)ymetric war here people. Islam needs a wakeup call from THE PEOPLE en MASS.Nothing violent, just demonstrations blocking the streets demanding we nuke the Pak/Afghan bandit country in 24 hours, a TOTAL boycott of all goods from islamic nations and silent shunning of our islamic nieghbors, themselves all to silent. Unfair, potentially racist, responding in kind? Probably, but the drone of a million protestors is a little more articulate than a drone flying over some pashtun goatherder.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Being another Australian who is very familiar with this sheik, I can assure you that his comments were not taken out of context.

Another, a leader in Melbourne, came out swinging in support of him. 

KenR it's always amusing that as soon as a Muslim does something wrong, within five minutes, someone, somewhere who got smacked on the hand by a nun at five is bashing Christianity just to keep things 'balanced.'

There is no equivalency between the two.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> I do think some people may do this as a way of saying something like: "We are not perfect but we've moved forward. We were where you are. You too can change for the better." Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.


The people who would say that woud, sadly, be misguided. You have to bear in mind that Muslim countries were, on the whole, much more tolerant and rational in the Middle Ages (back when Western countries were at their most fanatic). The state of their societies nowadays is actually the result of an evolution towards stricter religion, with its main steps in the 12th and 18th centuries.

To put it more simply: when many muslims look at our more rational and tolerant societies, they often don't see more "advanced" societies", they see "backward" societies. It reminds them of where they were centuries ago, and they think they have moved on from that...



KenR said:


> It is never hard to find a fundamentalist group within Christianity or other western religion that will say something abhorrent to most people. They are not the norm, nor do they hold sway over the majority who practice religion here.


I must say I don't share our optimism about the average opinion in Christian countries. But still, it is indeed rather obvious that the situation is much much worse in muslim countries, on that we can agree.

That being said, and now that we are clear that the situations are not symmetric, I find it is still rather interesting to point at the hypocrisy of some of the reactions coming from our own Western countries. That is not an attempt to belittle the shame on such comments.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

KenR said:


> You hid it on the head, _once did_. It is never hard to find a fundamentalist group within Christianity or other western religion that will say something abhorrent to most people. They are not the norm, nor do they hold sway over the majority who practice religion here. I _wish _we could say the same about the Muslims.


It sounds to me that you just don't know anything about Muslims, beyond the caricature of them painted by Israeli supremacists and Christian chickenhawk Crusaders in their megachurches. (By which, of course, I mean to imply nothing about civilized mainstream Jews. Or Christians such as your narrator.)

I've spent enough time in the Middle East, as well as amongst expat Muslim communities in South Africa and Mitteleuropa to know that what you seem to believe about Muslims could not be more wrong-headed: Muslims in real life are not more prone to idiotic flights of extremism than Christians, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else. Maybe, perhaps, they are even less so. However, for propaganda reasons one is much more likely to hear about the stupid Australian cleric than, say, the genocidal Christian fanatics who go around Africa's major cities preaching that people shouldn't use condoms because they don't stop the transmission of HIV-AIDS.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Quite. Nutters come in every flavour, do they not?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

SGladwell,

Oh the old canard about the Crusades! The Crusades were launched to check aggressive Islamic expansionism. Perhaps under your foolish logic Catholics and Orthodox Christians should demand back the Levant - I have no doubt a Judeo-Christian Middle East would be without most of the domestic problems the Middle East now enjoys and Muslims would undoubtedly enjoy more freedom in a such a Middle East. And if Islam is less prone to violence then why are the majority of armed conflicts in the world of an Islamic nature? 

I think preaching against condom use in Africa is stupid and irresponsible but it is alot different than what the imam in Australia said and you know it. Telling people not to use condoms you do support free speech don't you?) is a bit different than condoning violence against women.

Who else do you hate besides Israel and fundamentalist Christians? George Bush doesn't count, thats a give aming your ilk.

Karl


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> It sounds to me that you just don't know anything about Muslims, beyond the caricature of them painted by Israeli supremacists and Christian chickenhawk Crusaders in their megachurches. (By which, of course, I mean to imply nothing about civilized mainstream Jews. Or Christians such as your narrator.)
> 
> I've spent enough time in the Middle East, as well as amongst expat Muslim communities in South Africa and Mitteleuropa to know that what you seem to believe about Muslims could not be more wrong-headed: Muslims in real life are not more prone to idiotic flights of extremism than Christians, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else. Maybe, perhaps, they are even less so. However, for propaganda reasons one is much more likely to hear about the stupid Australian cleric than, say, the genocidal Christian fanatics who go around Africa's major cities preaching that people shouldn't use condoms because they don't stop the transmission of HIV-AIDS.


Sure glad you got that straight. Christains are the worst Sucide Bombers anywhere. Can't even step out the front door without one of them blowing himself up in my front lawn killing 500 innocent people. I live in terror every second. My hair is snowy white, because I can't even sleep anymore- it's not safe!!

All the other relegions are worse than Islamic. People dead everywhere. I get tired of stepping over all the dead bodies, don't you? Those Christians have killed you right? There vote is killing millions of babies, the most innocent people on earth, in the name of abortion. And the first US legal docment the Christains wrote 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. So the people of the US are living a horrible life because of the Christains. Hope the Aliens in space come and rescue you. Then you will be safe!!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> It sounds to me that you just don't know anything about Muslims, beyond the caricature of them painted by Israeli supremacists and Christian chickenhawk Crusaders in their megachurches. (By which, of course, I mean to imply nothing about civilized mainstream Jews. Or Christians such as your narrator.)
> 
> I've spent enough time in the Middle East, as well as amongst expat Muslim communities in South Africa and Mitteleuropa to know that what you seem to believe about Muslims could not be more wrong-headed: Muslims in real life are not more prone to idiotic flights of extremism than Christians, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else. Maybe, perhaps, they are even less so. However, for propaganda reasons one is much more likely to hear about the stupid Australian cleric than, say, the genocidal Christian fanatics who go around Africa's major cities preaching that people shouldn't use condoms because they don't stop the transmission of HIV-AIDS.


You could go a long way to help your credibility if just once you'd state that you believe there are a lot of Muslims, not necessarily a majority, but a lot, whose statements and behaviors are despicable without at the same time qualifying it with a "but Christians and Jews are just as bad if not worse, and your everyday Muslim is probably nicer and better looking than your everyday Christian or Jew."


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WA said:


> Sure glad you got that straight. Christains are the worst Sucide Bombers anywhere. Can't even step out the front door without one of them blowing himself up in my front lawn killing 500 innocent people. I live in terror every second. My hair is snowy white, because I can't even sleep anymore- it's not safe!!
> 
> All the other relegions are worse than Islamic. People dead everywhere. I get tired of stepping over all the dead bodies, don't you? Those Christians have killed you right? There vote is killing millions of babies, the most innocent people on earth, in the name of abortion. And the first US legal docment the Christains wrote 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. So the people of the US are living a horrible life because of the Christains. Hope the Aliens in space come and rescue you. Then you will be safe!!


WA, you're confusing the hell out of me.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I think preaching against condom use in Africa is stupid and irresponsible but it is alot different than what the imam in Australia said and you know it. Telling people not to use condoms you do support free speech don't you?) is a bit different than condoning violence against women.


It is indeed quite different. The imam is being stupid, and extremist Christians preaching against condom use in countries with 30%+ HIV infection rates are engaging in, using the most charitable possible interpretation, *attempted genocide.*

And about suicide bombing, WA, who cares? In my view, the suicide bomber is far less of a moral outrage than the indiscriminate carpet bomber. At least the suicide bomber only wreaks his or her terror once. Suicide bombing has been a factor on the weaker side in every war. Including, in some instances, on the part of Americans at the beginning of WWII.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> It is indeed quite different. The imam is being stupid, and extremist Christians preaching against condom use in countries with 30%+ HIV infection rates are engaging in, using the most charitable possible interpretation, *attempted genocide.*


I have stated many times I am not an Xtian so I feel I can give an objective defense of this tripe.

Attempted genocide? First, not all Xtians are against birth control. Second, all Xtians maintain that sexual union should only be had between man and wife. So your point might have some merit if the sub-sect of Xtians against condom use also coupled their message with a message of *have sex with as many partners as you can*. Otherwise, your statement is just bullocks.

Regards


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So your point might have some merit if the sub-sect of Xtians against condom use also coupled their message with a message of *have sex with as many partners as you can*. Otherwise, your statement is just bullocks.
> 
> Regards


Good point. It would result in over-population, which at least in the short run is pretty much anti-genocide.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> It is indeed quite different. The imam is being stupid, and extremist Christians preaching against condom use in countries with 30%+ HIV infection rates are engaging in, using the most charitable possible interpretation, *attempted genocide.*
> 
> And about suicide bombing, WA, who cares? In my view, the suicide bomber is far less of a moral outrage than the indiscriminate carpet bomber. At least the suicide bomber only wreaks his or her terror once. Suicide bombing has been a factor on the weaker side in every war. Including, in some instances, on the part of Americans at the beginning of WWII.


I think I can honestly say,I generally do my best to avoid,personallising and critisicing, any other member of this forum, and am allways willing to listen to the other persons viewpoint,I do my best to ensure that what I do post is factuall to the best of my Knowledge acurate.

I think inherentley everyone knows the differance between right and wrong although I realize in some instances there are grey areas.

but I`m afraid you must live on a completly different planet to me.

your argument appears to be the catholic church(which I would hardly call extremist) is attempting genocide, because of faith in one of it`s cental tenets in relation to procreation.

and 
suicide bombing can be justified, because there are other examples of violence that have occured in history.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I'd be interested in reading the sheik's complete speech rather than just excerpts and the "spin" that he was trying exculpate Muslim men from raping infidel women, which seems to come more from his critics than anything he said directly.


There is a more complete version of his speech .



> "But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. ...
> 
> ... The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> WA, you're confusing the hell out of me.


The point is I don't know of any other religion that kill innocent people for the sake of killing, such as sucide bombings that the muslims do.

I hope most muslims do not believe in sucide bombings, but I have no idea. There are so many sucide bombings from muslims- it seems like they all do.

Somebody said they are so nice. Even the worst mafia thugs are nice. Hitler tickled children while millions of people were loseing there life because of him.

There are contradictions to life, such as, (some) Evil people give Good Gifts to their children. Or, thugs that protect the innocent from other thugs, and thugs are evil.

I suppose the muslims within the US have silently kept us safe from those muslims that would have done deadly terror acts within the US since 9-11. England has had problems along with France and Spain to name a couple of other places.

With all the terror acts, the unability of law (Iraq)- this is advertisement DO NOT BECOME A MUSLIM. For example a recent war: A & B use C land to attack D, which strikes back into C land to stop the attacks, and A & B are untouched- I can't think of another religion that leaves C so gullible.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

SGladwell,

So the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany is more morally outrageous than the terrorist actions of 9-11? How many more Mogadishus do you think the US should suffer? You are a wonderful apologist for tyranny.

Karl


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Just regarding the African situation, this is what the Catholic church preaches:

1. Do not have sex outside of marriage.
2. Once married, do not have sex with anyone else besides your spouse.
3. Once married, do not use condoms.

That is the belief of the Catholic church. They don't preach 'go have sex, don't use condoms, all the blacks can die in hell.'

It's not genocide at all. It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that a bunch of people who are so happy to break one rule (sex) then suddenly become religious zealots about another rule (condoms.) 

The fact of the matter is, the people who are having sex aren't listening to the Catholic church in the first place. Condoms aren't the issue.


----------

