Muslim women should wear bikinis..

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 8:31 AM

This rings hollow as you are allowed to rape Christian girls whether or not they cover up! This sheikh is a hypocrite!

Posted by: David England at April 27, 2008 9:01 AM

Robert:
Hilali has a fatal theological problem.
As a Moslem, the Koran is the SOLE, AUTHOURITATIVE religious source. Consequently, why then is he even referring to the Bible as another source of authourity, to convince Christians about the veil, when Moslems regards the Bible as a thoroughly corrupted book? What's the matter, the Koran doesn't suffice, persuade or convince non-Moslems about teh reasonability of the veil? If not, why not and why does this particular 'imam' feel compelled to cite a book that he regards as theologically untrustworthy as an authourity on the reasonability and necessity for women to wear a veil?

Of course, since the Moslems don't are absolutely disgusted by the notion of humans as imago dei and free will, his arguments are irrational, infinite regresses

xavier

Posted by: xavier at April 27, 2008 9:10 AM

Why use the Bible?

Simple. To fool the non-muslim target into thinking no harm is meant. Muslims spreading islam through jihad will resort to any behavior to reach their goal. Any behavior. From a false smile, to planned deception, to planes into buildings, to children slaughtered in school, to nuclear devices.

The Jihad is not a joke. Too many of us are not behaving as if our very lives are at risk. Which, conveniently, is exactly what the muslims spreading islam through jihad want.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at April 27, 2008 9:29 AM

This guy is such a loser. Hey shiek - don't you have anything better to do than worry about women, any women, wearing veils? You need a job.

"...the cleric points to references in the Old and New Testaments to women wearing a veil."

Even if that's true, so what? We don't stone people anymore, either. Unlike you Barbarians.

Posted by: darcy at April 27, 2008 9:45 AM

"Sheik Hilali, who remains the head of Australia's largest mosque..."

What??? Why didn't all the "moderate" muslims demand his resignation from the mosque after his remarks about rape and women being uncovered meat?

One can only speculate why.

Posted by: Celsius at April 27, 2008 10:08 AM

Keyzar, where are you?

"out of context, out of context..."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 27, 2008 10:14 AM

I thought sheiks were supposed to wear bikinis.. then again yechhhhh!

Posted by: lonewolf at April 27, 2008 10:19 AM

When I do a search for "veil" with my Bible program I get in Hebrew: mitpachath - a wide cloak, poreketh - screen, magveh - veil, that Moses wore, tsaiyph - wrap or cloak,and in Greek: kaluma - veil referring to Moses again in 2Cor 3:13, katapetasma -referring to the screen that tore at the temple when Jesus died.

The only mention of someone wearing a veil is Moses in Exodus 34:33-35 and 2 Corinthians 3:13. It is my understanding that Moses (Musa) was a man according to the Old and New Testaments, and the Al-Quran and Hadiths. Sheik Hilali is just another mouthpiece for the Religion of Liars.

Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at April 27, 2008 11:01 AM

This Sheikh is a man of principles. He has strong convictions. He's no flip-flopper. No matter what the opinion-polls say, he sticks to his guns. He never wavers on the issues, or is evasive.

That's good, no?

Posted by: special_guest at April 27, 2008 11:29 AM

Another example, once again, of the Mohametan mind being stuck perpetually in the 7th century. Move along, nothing new here, same old same old... "Freedom go to hell" stuff.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 27, 2008 11:39 AM

Paul only commented that women might respectively wear a veil while in prayer only.
Others have viewed Pauls comments as only referring to women wearing long hair as opposed to short hair.

Posted by: Mackie at April 27, 2008 11:48 AM

Moslems will rarely if ever accept any religious arguments from a non-Muslim, but non-Muslims shouldn't be so narrow. Hilali's arguments are probably very similar to those who can find evidence of scientific theories in the Koran. In the case of science found in the Koran, what is missing is anyone taking the Koran and pulling out a new valid scientific idea. Hilali should be asking himself why, if it is so obvious to him that Christian women should cover their head in Arabic fashion, it is not a conclusion that many Christians come to. Even the recent news stories of polygamists in Texas has shown that women who take their modesty very seriously don't feel a need to cover the head.

Posted by: Jerry M at April 27, 2008 1:48 PM

This Sheikh Hilali should be forced to wear a veil himself for the rest of his life. Better, put him in a burka and make him live in a cage with cats prone to jumping on raw meat. Actually, that's too cruel to cats.

Posted by: traeh at April 27, 2008 2:08 PM

Actually, our uncovered meat friend has got some basis in the bible. I Cor 11:5-6:

5And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.

6For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head].

As for Christian denominations that still follow this, the Quakers still follow this tradition.

But the Quakers are pacifists - their women cover their heads, but they don't kill people for not doing the same thing.

Posted by: Ernie Banks at April 27, 2008 4:18 PM

Ernie, there's a lot of debate about just what the meaning of that passage actually is. Most Christian exegetes agree that this was related to social custom in Corinth - which saw head coverings for women in public places as an appropriate sign of modesty. It is interpreted in the sense that Corinthian Christians would naturally be expected to show the appropriate respect and reverence in their gatherings by following the conventions familiar to that congregation from their general culture, not as a universal rule for Christian women in general.

Either way the Sheikh's comments are, as usual, completely inappropriate and repulsive. Like most Muslims, he needs to learn to mind his own damned business.

The arrogance of these people is sickening! We don't need these benighted Muslims telling us how to be Christians!

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 4:32 PM

The more Muslim leaders speak, the more folks must be embarrassed to be Muslims.

This is as loonie as the Jerusalem Muslim leader who says that the Temple Mount, never had a Jewish Temple.

They are just making it up as they go along ... much like their false prophet Mohammad did.

Posted by: James Martel at April 27, 2008 5:38 PM

Why can't Muslim men keep their peckers in their pants? That is the real issue, not women's immodesty.

I am serious. I think there is something sexually disturbed about Muslim men who must insist that women must cover up. Are they beasts who have no self-disipline? I think so, since one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Holy Trinity, is self control. It appears from the Muslim need to cover women up, that their men have little self control. It is a rational conclusion.

Posted by: James Martel at April 27, 2008 5:44 PM

"What??? Why didn't all the "moderate" muslims demand his resignation from the mosque after his remarks about rape and women being uncovered meat?"

Celsius, our favourite Shake Hilarious is very highly regarded in Lakemba, and I think you'll find that he wasn't removed from the mosque.

He only agreed to stop making public service announcements to the filthy kaffirs.

Personally, I think he should have been able to keep up the good work, since he is a true islamic scholar, and has played the infidels well.

The more he tells the world about islam, the more dhimmis he awakens.

L.Drummond

Posted by: L.Drummond at April 27, 2008 5:50 PM

Muslim males force brainwashed muslimettes to "observe hijab". It ain't voluntary. And they are still expected to look like a million bucks underneath so the husband may choose her over the other wives, (even if she'd rather not be choosen.) Worse of all worlds. Awful.

This miserable excrement of a man knows "misery loves company". If he can convince his Muslims that other religions are just as restrictive of freedom has his, then he will look less of a prig. This is common. Just one example, Muslims practicely get geedy about mentioning Timothy McVeigh being a Christian terrorist (He of course was not. He stated he was basically an atheist, unlike jihadists who murder in the name of Mohammad).

What's with this "observe hijab" phrase anyway? Do I "observe pants" when I wear them? I got something Islamists can observe: My middle finger extended upward as a gesture to their anti-human, "mullah-as-your-master" ideology.

http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com

Posted by: Max Publius at April 27, 2008 6:06 PM

"Why can't Muslim men keep their peckers in their pants? That is the real issue, not women's immodesty"

James Martel:

I hesitate slightly to post this because I'm always skeptical of things as salacious as some of this is (specifically, the second of the two links below), but if it provides an accurate picture of things, it would offer considerable insight into the answer to your question. This information is posted at its source by someone claiming to be a psychoanalyst, and assuming that it is backed up by solid research according to reliable methodology, it explains a lot. Islam, which is largely a theological projection of Arab desert culture, could probably be analyzed anthropologically as having canonized many of these attitudes and practices in its approach to differential treatment of boys and girls in the family of origin, and so the inhibition of normal male self-control is reinforced within the Islamic male's religious experience.

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2008/02/the-arab-mind-1.html#more

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2008/02/the-arab-mind-2.html#more

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 6:25 PM

Oh, plus the fact that Arab norms of conduct are upheld as superior by many sects in Islam because of the fact that Mohammed, an Arab, is "the model human being".

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 6:45 PM

To add to Templar's points:
Aside from some Arab tribes, like Mohammad's, which were pagan, Arabs were Christian before hundreds of years before they were Muslim. It was just a minority of Arabs that took up Islam or were forced into it by Moe's henchmen.

Aside from the remenants of Christian/Jewish Arab culture, Arab culture has been highjacked by Mohammad's illiterate, violent pagan/monotheism fusion for 1400 years. This cultural dead-end has snuffed out innumeral other foreign cultures like Persia's as well, and replaced it with Arab-master worship with a much-vaunted figleaf god called Allah.

http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com

Posted by: Max Publius at April 27, 2008 7:26 PM

It is one thing for a Christian woman to dress in modest western style clothes, it is another wear a head veil all the time like a Muslim woman. I wear a simple hat in church for mass, but when I am not attending church I do not wear a hat. As long as a Christian woman dresses modestly in western style, she is doing well. No non-Christian is to tell Christians what is modest.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 27, 2008 8:14 PM

But, of course, bigcatgirl13106, no Christian would MURDER you if you did not wear "modest" clothes, whereas the Mussulmen WOULD murder you.
This is because, to answer James Martel's question
"Why can't Muslim men keep their pecker's in their pants?" the Mahometans are ULTRA-VIOLENT THIRD WORLD BARBARIAN THUGS.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at April 27, 2008 8:56 PM

But, of course, bigcatgirl13106, no Christian would MURDER you if you did not wear "modest" clothes, whereas the Mussulmen WOULD murder you.

________

The different between the Bible and the Koran:

The Bible -

Thou shalt NOT kill in the Bible -

plus the narrative of the woman who committed adultery, but was forgiven by Jesus.

The Koran -

4:15 As as for those for your women who are guilty of an indecency, call to witness against them four (witnesses) from among you; so if they bear witness, confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens a way for them.

..of course some Muslims just hasten this "..death takes them away bit" and just summarily stones them.

Such is the mercy and "peace" of Islam.

Posted by: Monkeywho at April 27, 2008 9:29 PM

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left:

Darn! You said it so much better than I did. My post might have almost sounded like an apology for the silly, pathetic bastards. Of course, that was not my intent at all. I wanted to make them look ... well ... silly and pathetic. Cutting through all the psychobabbling bullshit, the simple fact is that they can't keep their pants zipped up because Islam is a silly, pathetic excuse for a religion, and not really a religion at all, just a criminal racket of socially and culturally retarded riff raff of the world.

Cheers, Patriot ;-)

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 9:34 PM

Strand this loser in bag in the outback where there are no women and let's see how long he laughs you will

Posted by: crusader at April 27, 2008 10:15 PM

From above: "Why can't Muslim men keep their peckers in their pants? That is the real issue, not women's immodesty"

Among it's other questionable attributes, Islam is a sex violence cult. The sex symbolism is rampant, from Minaret's which are phallic symbols, to the black rock that is a female fertility symbol. Haj is a sexual experience...the quest for 72 virgins is obvious. Mohammad, the perfect man and roll model was oversexed by most standards, thirteen wives, child brides, innumerable slave girls and sweet boys, not to count umpteen rapes. A role model for good muslims to emulate.
HMMM the US has an xxx president who is sort of like that.

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2008 11:01 PM

There are certain areas in Western nations now where non-Muslim women are covering their heads to avoid harassment, or worse. I believe the excellent writer Fjordman alludes to that, in at least one of his essays.

I had noticed long ago, when I was a young student, how many Muslim men, despite their so-called religion, seemed to think there was nothing wrong with having sex with non-Muslim women before (or in many cases, after) marriage, hitting on non-Muslim women constantly, while expecting Muslim women to be as pure as the driven snow. At least fundamentalist Christian men did not have this outrageous double standard.

Posted by: angloirishslav at April 28, 2008 12:00 AM

Re. the quotation from Corinthians: "5And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.

6For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head"

St. Paul was more than a little messed up about women. When he wrote that, he was still in favour of Christian woman assuming positions of leadership and teaching. Later on, he forbade women to teach or have any authority over men. Which passages does one take as authority? Clearly, most Christians look to the earlier Paul as a model, not the later misogynist he became.

Posted by: angloirishslav at April 28, 2008 12:11 AM

I'm sure in an easy going, beach loving country like Australia this suggestion would go over like a lead balloon

Posted by: Dumbo at April 28, 2008 12:23 AM

Yo, Anglo, chapter and verse, please...

Seriously, though, I believe you mistake temporal or 'project' leadership, so to speak, with a systemic 'spiritual' leadership. I don't think Paul had any issues with the former, but major issues with the latter.

Considering what is happening to the denominations and/or churches that have allowed women ordination, for instance, I must reluctantly conclude the old rabbi had a point. Several points.

I agree that Paul had some issues regarding sex. In all of its possible meanings. Why is this a problem? We agree that it is the Holy Spirit breathing His Word, and not just Paul writing some thesis or dissertation, after all.

Posted by: gkong3 at April 28, 2008 12:58 AM

"Uncovered meat" Sheikh: Christian women should wear veils
............................

It may seem like a minor point, since this vile person has no right to dictate to Christians, but does anyone believe that his comments are meant only for Christians who take the Bible literally?

Most hardline Muslims like to refer to all Westerners as "Jews and Christians", even those who identify as Agnostic, Atheist, or practitioners of New-Age-neo-Aborigine-Wiccan-Age-of-Aquarius-Buddhist-spirituality. I imagine the Sheikh wants to see all dhimmi wenches in hijab, not just Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists.

Posted by: gravenimage at April 28, 2008 2:13 AM

"Uncovered Meat" Hilaly isn't the least bit interested in what the Bible says or doesn't say about veils, except insofar as his statements might persuade some of the more gullible Christians out there.

What he's interested in is seeing all women with their heads bound, as a sign of submission to his and his deity's rules. I imagine it gives him and his likeminded Muslim male followers a bit of a thrill, to see that the infidel women are demonstrating submission to them right in the faces of infidel men.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at April 28, 2008 3:05 AM

"We agree that it is the Holy Spirit breathing His Word, and not just Paul writing some thesis or dissertation, after all."

Posted by: gkong3

Do "we" really agree on that? I don't think so. Paul was a great man, but only a man. I believe he personally feared and resented the power and authority of women, and it comes through in his writing. Nothing unusual there. I'm a Christian, as in a believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ, not a "Paulian," and to be a Christian I don't have to swallow uncritically everything he wrote, especially when it's contradictory. But that's a topic for the seminary, not this board.

Posted by: angloirishslav at April 28, 2008 5:18 AM

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left.,

"But, of course, bigcatgirl13106, no Christian would MURDER you if you did not wear "modest" clothes, whereas the Mussulmen WOULD murder you.
This is because, to answer James Martel's question
"Why can't Muslim men keep their pecker's in their pants?" the Mahometans are ULTRA-VIOLENT THIRD WORLD BARBARIAN THUGS."

This is not suprising considering WHO the Muslims TRULY are following, and it is NOT the God of the Holy Bible but the ENEMY or the DEVIL and his false prophet Muhammed. They are just doing as they are telling them to do.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 28, 2008 6:22 AM

Monkeywho,

"The different between the Bible and the Koran:

The Bible -

Thou shalt NOT kill in the Bible -

plus the narrative of the woman who committed adultery, but was forgiven by Jesus.

The Koran -

4:15 As as for those for your women who are guilty of an indecency, call to witness against them four (witnesses) from among you; so if they bear witness, confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens a way for them.

..of course some Muslims just hasten this "..death takes them away bit" and just summarily stones them.

Such is the mercy and "peace" of Islam."

Now you can understand why the Bible is still the number 1 best selling and greatest book of all time.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 28, 2008 6:29 AM

If you follow the link and read the whole article, you'll see that the Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, sets Sheikh Catmeat straight.

QUOTE
'The Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, challenged Sheik Hilali's comments about the veil being "mandated" in the Bible, saying they were misleading.

'"The New Testament does call upon people to dress modestly," he said. "But there is no understanding that women are commanded to wear the veil. But it is mandated that you should dress appropriately for your social context.""
UNQUOTE

Bishop Forsyth was my parish priest for many years, before he got promoted to Bishop. I know him. He is very smart and has his head screwed on tight. No dhimmi he! (Our parish church supported two missionaries who spent years in Muslim lands, supporting the indigenous minority churches there, and as I recall, they had a pretty realistic view of Islam).

Sheikh Catmeat's 'spin' will not deceive any 'Sydney Anglicans' - they know their Bibles much too well. They'll laugh at him.

I imagine he won't be able to pull any tricks on Catholic Cardinal George Pell, either.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 28, 2008 7:02 AM

As has been noted above, the actual quote is from 1 Corinthians 11.

This chapter is specifically talking about worship, not when going about everyday life:

"...every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head..."

Also note that in ending this section, Paul does not refer to this being divinely inspired, but simply a practice currently followed by the churches:

"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."

As a result, this practice has not been followed universally by the Church.

I can say that up until the 1960s (at least), the practice of women covering their hair in church was followed by at least some Catholic churches in hispanic countries.

For example, when my family lived in Puerto Rico we sometimes visited some of the old historic Catholic churches, and my mother and sister were required to put a napkin over their heads before being allowed to enter.

However, this custom has not been universal, and was never obligatory outside of church services.

Posted by: StephenDvd at April 28, 2008 10:41 AM

Posted by: StephenDvd: For example, when my family lived in Puerto Rico we sometimes visited some of the old historic Catholic churches, and my mother and sister were required to put a napkin over their heads before being allowed to enter.

However, this custom has not been universal, and was never obligatory outside of church services.

*****************************************************

When you visit St. Peter's in Vatican City, women are required to have knees and shoulders covered and guards at the door enforce this. Many of the women who visit also cover their heads although there are no services being held. This observation from first hand experience by me.

Posted by: mepeteart at April 28, 2008 11:56 AM

Christians are wrong to confuse Islamic veiling with the "modesty" demanded of Christian women. Women in Christian theology (speaking as a Roman Catholic) are not viewed as ONTOLOGICALLY bad nor inferior. Indeeds Christ's actions during his earthly ministry show an equal treatment and concern for men and women and clearly He taught that women are responsible to God for their own souls in equal measure to men's responsibility to the Creator. There is no indication that Jesus viewed women as so bewitching, dangerous, or alluring that men were absolved of their actions toward them were they to encounter a women without veil.

There is something disordered in the Islamic view of women. It is almost as if men are PROTECTING themselves against these strange creatures who would lead them into peril were they not draped from head to toe.

Posted by: bevc at April 28, 2008 12:24 PM

mepeteart

"When you visit St. Peter's in Vatican City, women are required to have knees and shoulders covered"

True of course but I would suggest they are only drawing a line. Otherwise some ignorant girl tourists would eventually walk in topless wearing sandals and a thong.

Posted by: Fred at April 28, 2008 12:37 PM

Muslims seek total control of the entire world. That includes Christians. And they intend to bully their way into their desired role of global subjugator. This sheikh and his demagoguery provide a vivid illustration of what is headed down the Islamic pike and into our lives.

Thus--

The more Christians yield to Islamic bullying, the more bullying by Muslims they will find themselves on the receiving end of.

The key is for Christians NOT to yield to Islamic bullying in the first place, so that Muslims will realize that they can be brought to account for their terrorist actions by Christians.

In many cases we DO teach others how to treat us. By giving into Muslim and their cult of terror, Christians are teaching Muslims that terrorism is an effective way to control Christians. And Christians will receive MORE terrorism by Muslims.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 28, 2008 12:46 PM

mepeteart,

"When you visit St. Peter's in Vatican City... Many of the women who visit also cover their heads although there are no services being held. "

1. The point is that scripture does not mention women covering their heads other than during worship.

2. 1 Corinthians 11 clearly indicates covering head during worship was a custom, not a divine command.

3. The Church has not universally enforced this.

4. You are talking about a specific context ... St. Peter's in Vatican City -- which has traditionally been the center of the Catholic church, and which may have its own restrictions regarding modesty that are not directly related to Scripture. i.e. "knees and shoulders covered " are not mentioned at all in 1 Corinthians 11.

5. Regarding my example, it also was in a specific context and, even though the society around these churches was predominantly hispanic Catholic, women in the surrounding communities were NOT required to cover their heads outside of church.

6. Even by your own words... "Many" -- but not ALL -- "of the women" covered their heads. That indicates that it isn't required of them even at St. Peter's, and that some women do this voluntarily, out of respect.

So, as I said previously, this custom has not been universal, and even where it was practiced, it was never obligatory outside of church services.

Posted by: StephenDvd at April 28, 2008 3:14 PM

@ StephenDVD: It was not my intent to disagree with you nor to judge Catholics...I was offering a fact that I thought was pertinent to the discussion.

Sheesh, now I know how RS feels...

Posted by: mepeteart at April 28, 2008 3:53 PM

Sounds to me like Hilali isn't very bright. The book hasn't been published yet, but the target audience was alienated ages ago.

Posted by: Abscedere at April 28, 2008 4:28 PM