Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Sheik yet again

Sorry to harp on this but there is a real problem here.

A point made by the Treasurer Peter Costello in relation to the 'cat meat' Mufti Sheik al-Hilali is that he made this obnoxious speech a month before it was reported and yet no-one in the Muslim community spoke out against it. Indeed 5,000 Muslims have recently demonstrated their support for the views of the Sheik. And Costello makes the obvious point (that I also made in the immediately preceding post) that the Sheik's followers were likely to have been among those involved in the Cronulla riots. Costello's statements are contained in an insightful interview with Alan Jones.

This confirms my impression that while the usual stream of Muslim representatives are rejecting as intolerable the views of the Mufti a substantial number of Australian Muslims agree with them. This was certainly my impression in looking at the Muslim Village website and is reinforced by two articles in The Australian today (here and here).

Isn't it time we addressed what is a serious problem in Australian society?

6 comments:

Guy said...

I guess the question I would ask is how many Muslims are "sticking by" the Sheik because they agree with the letter of what he said, as opposed to just expressing solidarity with the guy given the massive uproar over his comments?

When you stick by someone when they say something stupid, it does not necessarily mean you support the gist of what they said.

derrida derider said...

Harry, where's the evidence that the Sheik's followers were involved in those riots? Since the rioters looked a notably irreligious lot to me (lots of swearing, lots of un-Islamic bling and rap music, etc), and since the Sheik followed all the other Muslim clergy and denounced them I think this is very, very doubtful.

The reasoning seems on a par with the Saddam-al Quaeda links to me - "the Sheik (Saddam) is an evil arab, the rioters (Osama) were evil arabs, therefore they are in cahoots".

Stick to denouncing people for what they did, not what you supposed they might have done.

hc said...

Didn't the rioters retreat to the Mufti's mosque during the riot. I have inserted the quality 'were likely to have been' to soften my expression but I don't change my views.

The Lebanese men who pack-raped young girls in Sydney because they were 'Aussie sluts' and the Lebanese males who hassled sunbathers at Cronulla Beach all project the same mysogynist attitudes. They are pretty much the attitudes of this hateful Mufti.

Australians enjoy the beach and a relaxed sexually-liberated environment that does not identify women as agents of Satan.

Why should we suffer violent actions and violent rhetoric from these creeps?

concerned australian said...

The widespread and misguided reporting of the Cronulla riots had all of the non-anglo/irish being muslims, when in fact they were a mix of ethinicities. Greek, Italian included.

First, by focussing on Muslims, even though you are only saying the Sheiks followers were probably included in those who rioted, you are repeating this misguided view by ommission.

Second, you are condemning a group on something they "probably did" with no evidence. This is a form of racist scapegoating.

Finally, do you know the proportion of rapes committed by the Lebanese community out of the total? No, you don't, and until you get these statistics, please try to refrain from continued scapegoating of one group when there are arseholes in every ethnic group, Australians incuded. Do you remember Anita Cobby?

Anonymous said...

Dear Harry,
A message from Peter Barnett (Convenor of the Melbourne City Circle) to his muslim friends may be supportive to your idea.

Regards
MIB

"Dear Respected Brothers and Sisters
Asalamualaikum
I write in firm support of the words of my colleague Shabbir Moosajee (October 30) regarding Sheik Taj al Hilali. He underscores the point that the Sheik may have qualities of contribution to his own mosque and community, but he must refrain from further public statements made allegedly on behalf of Muslims in Australia that he does not represent.
The Sheik has a record of voicing comments that indicate extremely poor judgment.And he seems unable to learn from his mistakes, with one communication crisis following another.
The latest verbal disaster is causing severe difficulties with relationships within and beyond our community. Brothers and sisters are irritated, even angered, by comments of friends, especially on the internet. Our unity is under stress.
Beyond that,non-Muslims are giving these developments their fullest attention.Unfortunately many in the media and politics have muddied the waters. Prime Minister Howard, for his own reasons, has charged full bore into the debate.But it must be said that one of his comments is worthy of serious consideration.
He says that there is going to be widespread resentments towards Muslims if the Sheik Taj issue is not resolved quickly.
This cannot be denied and happens to be the view of the vast majority of our community.
Sheik Taj has to relinquish his role as "Mufti of Australia" as underscored by the Islamic Council of Victoria immediately after the crisis erupted.
Precautions need to be taken to ensure that the "great survivor" doesn't slip through the cracks and emerge triumphant yet again. ."Resignation now" is the only option. Otherwise the Sheik's latest misadventure could have a negative impact on all of us."

Peter Barnett
Melbourne City Circle

Anonymous said...

1. with regrds to the support of the mufti - in a patriarcial society, the one that Islamic thouhgt is promoting, it is natural that people are standing next to the father, the mufti or the head of the clan. its not that different than the mother of a murderer stadning next to him on a trial - it is a show of solidarity and clinging to core values. In addition, the middle-eastern culture is very sensitive about issues of tirespect and honor - thus, an attack on any memeber of the community is an attack on the community as whole.

2. while I generally agree with you that Asutralia has the right to choose its incoming migrnats, and even if we ignore the poltical feasabilty of such an action, it does not seem very practical. people can fake their bank notes, their IDs and their medical records - will it be impossible to fake one's views? until you are able to make an efficinet psycholgical profile for each migration applicant, or force them to take polygraph test, such suggestions will reamin on the paper.