"The report says some imams apply Sharia (Islamic law) when it benefits men but not when it benefits women"

On what occasion does Sharia "benefit women"?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 20, 2008 9:00 AM

Ahh, sheik Fehmi, Al Hilali's stooge!

The one Yusuf Irfan wanted to sent off to Indonesia to prevent FGM:

“Perhaps our imams can remind Indonesian imams that not all vestiges of Indonesia’s indigenous pre-Islamic customs are worth holding onto.”

As if that wasn't outrageously stoopid enough, here's what sheik Fehmi thinks about clit-cutting:

“You probably don’t need it but women in hot countries do”!!!

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=540&Itemid=0

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 20, 2008 9:07 AM

"On what occasion does Sharia "benefit women"?"

Great question, Cornelius! I'm thinking about it, but the gear-grinding and smoke are starting to distract me... LOL

Posted by: Abscedere at November 20, 2008 10:20 AM

Yeah, he's that asshat, th esame guy who denied publicly that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21891258-5006009,00.html

AIM is down today, Sheik. I was just reading it very early this morning.

You know that this story is so much worse than was reported. This was Al-Age. Lord knows what kinds of behavior they were condoning. Every single day Islam just makes itself more and more intolerable. How long do they think they can treat women like that in the Free World and have them stay in the cult? Seriously. You know the first order of business when they leave the kinds of sickos who abide by this kind of advice is to adopt a German Shepherd.

Posted by: jdamn at November 20, 2008 10:20 AM

(Moslimas) divorcees have also been told by imams that they must leave "with only the clothes on their back" and not seek support or a share of property because they can get welfare payments.

Moslem men seeking divorces need only chant "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" as if a magic benediction. What the hell, for them it is a magic prayer.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

A friend of mine's mother is a director of finance at a major urban medical center here in Minnesotastan. She says that everybody knows the scam whereby a Moslem Man takes four wives, one legally, the other three off-record with nuptials kept to the mosque. The three black market wives pump of Moslem bambinos as fast as the legit wife, but with a difference: They go down to the Welfare and plead that they are unmarried mothers, and get the AFDC check.

Naturally, their healthcare bills are fully paid by a combination of MinnesotaCare and MedicAID.

Next time you see four Moslimas piling into a Lexus with an off-duty Moslem Male cab driver (which I've seen more than once), now you'll know how this can be.

Cash flow.

Posted by: 33:21 at November 20, 2008 11:36 AM

True to their ideal personification the misogynist and evil, criminal and rapist, prophet of Islam Mohammad. Lies, deceit are part of the game for Mohammedans. They are just emulating their dastardly prophet of theirs Mohammad.

The religion of violence, rape and hate is ....? uh...what was that? ISLAM! Good going, here is some love for you.

Posted by: savsiv at November 20, 2008 11:36 AM

There has to be a way to legally get these people deported. I mean, they are advocating criminal behavior, right?

Posted by: Mo Foe at November 20, 2008 12:36 PM

Marital rape. Domestic violence. Polygamy. Forced underage marriage. Coercing women into dropping criminal charges against their violent husbands.

Remember all this next time some idiot starts talking about Islam and its supposed support for "family values".

Posted by: gravenimage at November 20, 2008 1:10 PM

There has to be a way to legally get these people deported. I mean, they are advocating criminal behavior, right?

It is not just the imams. A large Muslim population will always be a "pain in the neck" for the society that it is in. This will continue until we accept Islam, or we get rid of the cause of the pain. Painkillers will not do.

Posted by: DP111 at November 20, 2008 3:14 PM

This is news?

Sigh, somehow the politicians we vote to represent us are incapable of noticing a one hundred percent correlation between Islam and barbarity.

Sigh, it beggars belief.

Posted by: Ian at November 20, 2008 5:18 PM

Muslim 'Family' values.

Yeah - like 'the Family' in a mafioso movie.

Violence and lies, lies and violence; and fraud, fraud, disgusting, revolting fraud, of every imaginable kind, ripping off the non-Muslims all around them, with NO compunction, rather, with a Nazi-level arrogance and sense of entitlement that makes one want to spit.

Treating their women like sh*t, just like the evil unholy unlaw of sharia requires.

Parasites. Thieving, mooching, whingeing, whining, bullying, raping, robbing, and lying, lying, lying.

Kick the b@st@rds out.

NOW.

All of them.

Start with every imam listed in that report who has ever taught, or condoned, or carried out, actions contrary to Australian civil and/or criminal law; OUT with them, and their entire extended families; and *every* mosque where polygamous marriages have been carried out, should be shut down and bulldozed flat, after being searched from attic to basement.

NO MORE MOHAMMEDANS IN AUSTRALIA.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 20, 2008 5:18 PM

What dumbledoresarmy said.

Posted by: jewcat at November 20, 2008 5:21 PM

The only politician in Australia who's standing for No More Muslim immigration, is Fred Nile's Christian democrat party. We need to find a Moses who will stand up and decry the invasion of our fair land by this ugly ideology and its unfortunate adherents -- the first victims of Islam. Oremus.

Posted by: jewcat at November 20, 2008 5:29 PM

Mafiosi are far more principled than your average Mohammedan. They're not polygamists. They're better parents. They don't have their children mutilated and pimp them into incestuous Sharia sex slavery for money as children. Jihadists tend to kill indiscriminately. The Mafia has targets. They don't kill just to kill. They don't enslave women as war booty. They don't actively brainwash people to turn other people into zombies. They want their children to have better, not worse, lives than they do.

And Muslims can't sign you up for the cult fast enough. If you join the Mafia, they make sure you know what you're getting into. It gets easier as time goes on because they make you prove yourself when you're a new join. Muslims make it harder as time goes on as they slowly unfurl the long list of demands. The Mafia is narcissistic, but not supremacist. They both kill you if try to leave, though.

Mafiosi also enjoy wine, cinema, and music. Sorry if I seem too sympathetic toward the Mafia. I was obsessed with Sicilian movies and novels for a few years.

Posted by: jdamn at November 20, 2008 6:39 PM

jdamn

point taken...I guess I'm using the analogy with a well-known organised crime entity, to help new visitors grasp something of the way that Islam operates.

Islam considered as a system has clear similarities to the mafia, the Triads and the Thuggees - and the Nazis - but is, I think, on the basis of the elements that you have just pointed out, far worse than all four.

I think only Pol Pot and the monstrosity that is North Korea, or perhaps the Aztecs, compares properly to Islam in full swing. (And even the awful human-sacrificing Aztecs had art and music, kept pets and painted pictures and let their women wear pretty dresses in public!).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 20, 2008 6:51 PM

Regarding domestic rape Abul Kasem, in his article Sex and Sexuality in Islam (11), quotes from the Hedaya, an authoritative commentary on Islamic laws:

“Here is what Hedaya (ref. 11, p. 141) writes:
“One can enjoy a wife by force”
“But not if she be refractory.”
“If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband's consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoy her by force.””

Other notes on wife-beating:

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2141:
“Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: “Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.””

At first, Mohammad said don’t beat them. Then, when it was found that the women had become “emboldened toward their husbands,” Mohammad gave the husbands permission to beat them (Koran, 4:34). When the latter policy was in effect, Mohammad criticized those women who complained about their husbands’ abusiveness! Finally, although verse 4:35 calls for abitration to settle the dispute between the husband and wife, Mohammad says in the hadith below that the husband will not even be questioned for beating his wife:

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2142:
“Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at November 20, 2008 7:29 PM

Note: Abul Kasem is an apostate and critic of Islam. His well-researched articles can be found at Islam-Watch.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at November 20, 2008 7:32 PM

I cannot believe it is only some Imam's. It is only some Imam's because evidence cannot be found on the rest, YET?
They all believe in the Sharia and they all consider our laws inferior when our laws clash with Sharia (They must act this way given the requirements of the Ideology - any denial is just a lie). I simply do not believe any misunderstanding is due to poor English skills etc...
The abuse of Welfare is rampant but can it be stopped? I cannot imagine any action now or in the near future gaining any headway given the sentimentality of our legal and political hierarchies towards Islam. It is so much easier just to ignore it. Anyway, it is someone else’s responsibility, isn’t it? Surely stats are available which show the demographics of welfare recipients? How do we use them to force an appropriate response from those responsible?

Posted by: Will at November 20, 2008 9:05 PM

Nothing in human history can top Islam when it comes to evil. Nothing, even if you took the diabolic acts of violence, torture, oppression, hate, rape, etc... and there have been many gruesome acts committed against humanity by groups of people, Islam still tops them. That is the mantle that Islam has inherited. Even when you take individual serial murderers, serial rapists and pedophiles, robbers, liars, criminals, bigots etc... Islam comes out on the top there as well. Those are the accolades of Islam.

Posted by: savsiv at November 20, 2008 9:25 PM

kinana of khaybar

thanks for that.

I suggest that all Aussie resisters of jihad and sharia here present, both posters and lurkers, send the relevant links (the 'Age' article itself, plus the jihadwatch link) to their religious leaders (I just fired off the links to my parish priest) and to their political representatives both state and federal, and to the Attorney-General.

Make sure you provide a covering letter explaining the simple fact that every single Muslim practice described in the report, including marriage to underage girls, and marital rape, and not forgetting wife beating and divorcing the wife by saying 'I divorce you' three times and throwing her out with nothing, are practices both prescribed and permitted by Sharia and derived from texts in the Quran, the Sira, the Hadith and their interpreters past and present. Mention the 'Hedaya' and the 'Reliance of the Traveller'. Quote the Quranic verse about wife-beating, and the verse that clearly implies that a female may be wedded, and bedded, and divorced, before she's even had her first period.

Explain that it is mainstream, orthodox Muslim doctrine that ALL non-Muslim law - and systems of government - are invalid and must one day be demolished and replaced by sharia...

Make sure you also refer to taqiyya and kitman, the permission to lie to protect Islam.

Cite the example from Undercover Mosque: the Return: the incident where the Muslims smiled prettily while their naive 'interfaith' Christian visitors were present, then the instant the Infidels were off the premises, the vilest of hate speech was spewed forth. Stephen Crittenden, on the Religion Report, interviewing the producer of Undercover Mosque, refers specifically to that incident as an example of Muslim twofacedness.

Point out that it is nonsensical for Fehmi to pretend that he doesn't know this kind of thing is happening, or that it is not permitted and prescribed by Islamic law, and practised openly in most Muslim countries. Therefore: Ockham's Razor says that he is lying through his teeth, to protect Islam.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 20, 2008 10:31 PM

First: Is a second wife really considered a "de facto" wife under Australian law? This is news to me. Is this a tiny step on the way to Sharia then? If an Australian man is married but has another woman, her status is no more lofty than that of "girlfriend".

A few years ago imams in Australia were trying to weasel their way to our acceptance of Sharia law. Their heart-rending plea was that Muslim women could not get a proper divorce and thereby the freedom to remarry unless they were granted a Mulim divorce as well as one under Australian law. It was a calculated ploy, designed to get us onside from a "feminist" viewpoint, using their women to get our sympathy, but it didn't work. But is this what this conference is all about?

I am suspicious, because of things which were said by Muslim women attending the conference.

In the "Age" the day before the conference was an article, headed on the front page as "Fighting Back: Muslim Women Speak Out". "Here we go", I thought, Muslims whingeing again about the rest of us. But the article inside the paper was about the conference, and how Muslim women suffer a status which is "second-class" after their men.
"Well, get with the programme, girls", I thought, "You are Muslim! What do you expect?"

They complained about their situation when divorcing, and that their imams were often "uneducated". They were "discriminated against" in mosques and in community life, despite the education and often professional working lives.

But what difference would "education" make to the imams? Would education teach them more about the Koran, the Hadiths etc, or encourage them to ignore the discriminatory bits, and if so, how? (And again I wondered how these uneducated imams are coming here; on what visas?)

So they blamed uneducated imams - and yet they could not resist blaming us as well. It was predictable. They blamed Social Security, which pays a benefit to the extra wives. Yet I have never met an Australian woman who has been tempted to become a man's second wife because of welfare, and it is hardly a Christian habit. They did not mention that polygamy comes from their Islamic culture and took place in the countries they all come from.

They also had a dig at our Western women's sluttishness. Just like many Western reporters who discuss Islam, they neatly contrasted their hijab (read dignity, saintliness, modesty, whatever) with Western "decadent and immoral" Sex and the City lifestyle, as if that is the only option on offer here. Charming.

I have no sympathy for them. They claim to be educated and in professional jobs. Islam is hard on women, because that is what was commanded by the cult leader himself. If they want to get away from horrible, violent men, they should take the kids and scram - and I mean from the religion, as well as from the men and their ridiculous imams. If they want to stay in their religion, they should persuade their imams and menfolk to write up a new Aussie Koran, with only the nice bits left in it, if they can find any.

Yes, I know, it won't happen. The whingeing will continue. Poor Muslimahs, my heart bleeds for you, with your obsessive attention-seeking, tedious piety and horrible clothes.

Another thing: why do so many Muslims, including women, study law? It worries me.

Posted by: PG at November 20, 2008 11:05 PM

In the Sudan I met a seventeen-year-old girl who did truly make me feel very sad. She was pregnant to the "stupid, lazy boy" her parents had married her to. Her father had tried to rape her when she was younger and she had tried to kill herself. She was told she was bad all the time before she was married. She hated her headscarf and kept pulling at it contemptuosly, and told me she wanted to be free so badly, so she could be an artist,write; she was very expressive. Now she was pregnant and had to look after her husband. And so on...very tragic, a bitter young girl. If she was here, judging from her comtempt for her religion, she would find a way to be free. I wished I could have helped her. This is one reason I have so little sympathy for these Australian Muslim women complaining. Here they can be free, so why don't they? Do they really want to be stooges for their menfolk all their lives? It is even possible their men have put them up to this so that they can always be in the news for one reason or another, always after our pity, but not doing anything concrete or creative or coutrageous to help themselves.

Posted by: PG at November 20, 2008 11:24 PM

Sorry, I meant courageous.

Posted by: PG at November 20, 2008 11:26 PM

PG, only one marriage will be recognised by Law, so any other marriages will just not be declared to centrelink.

If a woman has children, she can expect support from Centrelink, and if the father of the child is not living with them, and is also on benefits, she'll get a more benefits.

With our benefits, you can get rent assistance, you get concessions on power bills, and transport and also on pharmaceuticals, which can be of great help.

If the couple are of particular religious or ethnic minorities, they are treated differently to your regular, anglo aussies.

One thing of note is that this article, and the one mentioned above about women "fighting back" is that they were published in The Aged, which is Melbournistan's answer to all the lefty rags in the US and Britain.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/muslim-women-start-fighting-back-20081119-6blh.html?page=-1 is the article about women.

Of course, women praising Catmeat Hilaly for supporting women's rights even as he preaches differently to his patriarchal, conservative flock at Lakemba strikes me as a bit too much doublethink, but what would I know? I'm only a kaffir.

L.Drummond

Posted by: L.Drummond at November 21, 2008 8:33 AM

In the US, welfare regulations require that any woman with children seeking public funds (welfare) name the father of the children, married or not. Upon the granting of relief (welfare) the named father is dunned for the support of the children and possibly for the support of the woman.

Of course, the woman may lie about the father, but welfare regulations also require presentation of a valid birth certificate for the children not only to establish identity but also to verify the father's name which appears on most birth certificates.

If a named father does not pay these dunned child support amounts, then welfare will persue the matter in court, and attach the father's wages and properties. If the father is able to pay and does not, he may also be incarcerated after being found guilty of contempt of court for refusal to pay a judgement against him in court awarded to welfare.

Australia probably has similar civil mechanisms available for debt relief of the taxpayer. If not so, then it's time for the Aussies to pass some new laws. If the Aussies are not using these available civil remedies, then they should stop whingeing.

Posted by: Jockaira at November 21, 2008 10:30 AM

If any person advises, counsels, or incites another to engage in a criminal act, then that advisor is guilty of conspiracy to commit that criminal act, or at the least, a willing accessory to that act.

An Imam, from his position of religious authority and communal respect, who counsels criminal acts is no less guilty than the laiety when doing so, and should be subject to the same legal censures. An Imam who counsels a man to beat his wife or children, has incited to violence. An Imam who counsels lying to welfare to gain benefits, has committed conspiracy to defraud.

Once charged and convicted of such conspiracy or incitement, it should be a slam-dunk to deport that Imam, as well as those who have taken his advice. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

Posted by: Jockaira at November 21, 2008 10:55 AM

Welfare is also only temporary in the US. Social Services checks up on them periodically. They have to provide proof that they are looking for jobs (a certain number signatures every month from places to which they applied, signed under a statement that they did apply but were not hired) if they remain unemployed. They eventually have to get jobs. The only circumstances under which people can remain on welfare for years in the US is if they are single parents in school. Then they have to get jobs when they graduate. This is why our Muslims integrate better. We don't allow them to parasitize us indefinitely. Our public housing is disgusting too, as it should be. There should be zero incentive for people to parasitize taxpayers. They should live in fetid, rat-infested hovels with paper-thin walls situated in the worst of ghettoes if they parasitize us. Thank God they do.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 10:58 AM

To jdamn, L Drummond and Joshaira, above: In Australia also women are required to name the father of the children when they apply for welfare (and of course on the birth certificate). They also, as in the US, must pursue maintenance payments from the father, if necessary in court, and maintenance will be deducted from welfare payments.

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the women may get cheap government housing which they may keep all their lives. It is very nice housing, often quite luxurious, and all repairs are free unless things are deliberately smashed (well, so the government says, but I think they still fix them). Our government in Victoria's beloved "integation" plan is to give them nice houses in expensive suburbs. But presumably Muslims would turn them down as those suburbs usually don't have mosques.

The hitch, as regards the government, is if the men are on welfare. Then they don't have to pay maintenance. There is a great incentive for men with many children, and even more so with duplicate families, to not work. And if women have a few children, as Muslim women will, they are not pushed into work.

I worked for years in the Department of Social Security, many years ago, and it was a hotbed of laissez-faire progressives. I don't know if it has changed, but I am curious to know why second wives were referred to in the article as "de facto" marriage. (Jockaira, the "new laws" we need are not always the new laws we get).

If a mother applying for welfare does not want to pursue maintenance from the father she must declare she doesn't know who the father is, which would imply a rather worse lifestyle than that even portrayed on "Sex and the City".

Yes. I know about the Age. I only bought it because of the article; I wanted to know what the Muslim minxes were up to. It is a disgraceful rag. Thank God for the internet.

As for Hilaly, yes it seems strange that they hold him in high esteem. But what else could they do? They are proud of their "purity" and they themselves see Aussie women as "catmeat". I have met Muslim women from time to time and after a while they cannot resist telling me how CLEAN Muslims are and how MODEST they are. For instance, one woman told me proudly how Mulims always have a shower after sex. "What, only AFTER?" I said to her, shocked. "Not before, as well?"

Posted by: PG at November 21, 2008 4:02 PM

Muslims shower after sex because they believe women are filthy. Ali Sina says that Pakis, literally, "the clean people" are the dirtiest people he has ever encountered, physically, mentally, spiritually, morally, and ethically. He left Pakistan for Italy because he was just so disgusted with it.

Welfare is intended to help people get back up on their feet, not to live on indefinitely. People should not be able to stay on it long.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 4:44 PM

Here's the ABC (Aussie national news) 'take' on the same report.

Note what's left out - but note, also, the appearance of a hoary old rhetorical ploy with which we are, at jihadwatch, dismally familiar.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/21/2425877.htm?section=justin

Islamic women pressured to stay in violent marriages: report
Posted 8 hours 39 minutes ago

'A new report has found Islamic women are being pressured to stay in violent marriages or accept polygamy by some Muslim leaders.

'The research found instances of imams suggesting women drop their complaints, or discontinue divorce proceedings when they had gone to their religious leaders for help.

'The research, conducted by the Islamic Womens' Welfare Council of Victoria says a lack of training and regulation for imams is to blame.{and whose fault is that? – and what about sharia – which prescribes polygamy and commands wife-beating? - dda}

'Council spokeswoman Joumannah El Matrah says it means vulnerable women are not getting the help they need.

"They're more prone to violence, not being financially supported and they're not enjoying the rights that they would have under the Australian system nor indeed the rights that they would have under the Islamic system of marriage {WHAT rights? – dda}," she said.

'She says a lack of regulation means the women are stuck in violent situations. {I suspect this is code for: 'Australia, recognize sharia law' - dda}

"Women find themselves in situations where the the Australian system may have finalised their divorce but they're still waiting on the religious system to finalise their divorce. So in a sense they're left in limbo."

'However, Sherene Hassan from the Islamic Council of Victoria

says *it does not represent the broader Islamic community* {NB - dda} because the women interviewed were already accessing welfare services.

"So the women who were in the focus groups were all people who were experiencing problems with their marriage."

"So its not a reflection of the wider Muslim community. So these are extreme cases." {hmm – where have we heard this argument before? – dda}.

END ARTICLE.

'It [domestic violence etc etc] is not a reflection of the wider Muslim community".

Oh yeah? Yet again we encounter the 'tiny minority of extremists' argument, blah blah blah.

Somebody should send in a letter to 'The Age' mentioning Qur'an 4: 34, the one that prescribes pre-emptive strike for husbands who merely 'fear' wifely rebellion (no: the woman does not actually have to have *done* anything, he just has to suspect or imagine that she might, well, be insufficiently submissive in future).

One could then also mention the study, done in the UK in the early 1990s, referred to by Geraldine Brooks in her book 'Nine Parts of Desire', which revealed that women in the UK with Muslim husbands were EIGHT TIMES more likely to be murdered by their spouses than women with husbands from any other faith group/ belief system.

One could quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali's 'Infidel', namely, her description of hearing, every night, while her family lived in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Sunni Islam, the screams of women being beaten by their husbands. One could mention the domestic violence figures that seep out of Pakistan...horrific.

One could tell people to read 'The Caged Virgin' and watch 'Submission' -which grew out of Ayaan's first-hand experience working as an interpreter for the Dutch social service, during which she noticed - she couldn't help noticing - that the vast majority of domestic violence victims were *Muslim* women.

Or the news story that recently came out of the UK:, as discussed on this very site -

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023412.php

"Muslim men 'think they have God-given right to beat wives', claims female Muslim medic," by Martin Beckford for the Telegraph, November 7 (thanks to Writer Mom)

(link to original story)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3397490/Muslim-men-think-they-have-God-given-right-to-beat-wives-claims-female-Muslim-medic.html

in which a Muslim - yes, a Muslim - female physician blew the whistle on the appalling violence inflicted by Muslim men on Muslim women.

Quote:

"Fatima Husain, a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, has told how she sees Muslim women coming for treatment with strangle marks around their necks and bruises on their pregnant bumps".

"Domestic violence is supposedly equally divided amongst the various groups but I get the impression it is more common in Muslims."

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 21, 2008 5:05 PM

Dumbledoresarmy: I think we are thinking along the same lines. Muslim men tried to have sharia law introduced a few years ago and were unsuccessful. It is highly possible that they are now using their stooge-wives to have another try. And if Shere Hassan is in on it, I am even more certain. She is a tireless (and much award-given) promotor of Islam.

But maybe I am getting paranoid. The divorcing women are "waiting" on the Islamic system to finalise their divorce. This means a kind of de facto Sharia law is being used already. But it is totally unnecessary for them to get a "religious" divorce, and if their ex-husbands are violent there are measures under Australian law that can be taken.

Really, it is a non-issue. Nobody can convince me that these women are not far better off here than where they came from. Remarriage? What chance would they have in their countries, where they must remain faithful to a man who takes another wife or two, or if they divorce lose their children?

Posted by: PG at November 21, 2008 5:49 PM

Nobody should be able to convince anyone that "waiting for a proper Islamic divorce" while being legally divorced means anything in the Free World. And why are these men then not in prison? Because these women are too stupid to breathe, that's why. Screw 'em. If they don't respect our superior laws then they get everything they deserve under Islamic law, including being beaten, raped and murdered; not for being women, but for being so stupid and seditious that Darwinism would preclude their existence, but of course Darwinism doesn't affect people who marry their cousins in arranged an forced marriages.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 6:20 PM

Why am I not surprised by all of this?

Good thread on this one. It is nice to see that at least some of our population is doing homework on these issues.

Posted by: joe-six-pack at November 21, 2008 7:24 PM

A report has appeared in the Age about the conference. Sheikh Fehmi, the mufti of Oz, is full of wily, disingenous earnestness in replying to the women's complaints.

He will "try" to arrange unsegregated mosques (That will be nice. Then the women, newly freed from onerous discrimination, can join in and learn more about how discrimination is necessary against non-Muslims).

On domestic violence, he said "The Prophet said, 'I never hit a woman in my life', and everybody should do the same". (Does he mean everybody should lie about hitting women? That is what it sounds like. Didn't Mohammed even hit Aisha, his favourite wife?)

If women receive unsatisfactory advice from an imam, they should consult another one.(But aren't they all singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were?)

The confernce heard that imams advise divorcing women to get welfare payments, rather than asking their children's fathers for maintenance. (Do normal Australian laws about maintenance not apply to Muslims?)

For some reason the "religious divorce" thing is a big issue. I cannot see why, except that Sharia law is, apparently, applied here already and is important to them. They have to pay at least $200 for a "religious divorce". Other rackets exist with the "religious divorce" requirement.

On other matters, racism and discrimination (sigh!) blight their lives, and are particularly bad now. Arabs suffer from "persistent emotional trauma" while Lebanese youths were "under siege". (They were from me one day, that's for sure, when they were shouting and swearing on the tram. They might have been traumatized after my admonishment of them. And I hope their emotional trauma keeps them at home a bit, so they won't be out bullying my son and his friends when they are skateboarding.)

They need money for "recreation". "There is a shortage of facilities...where Muslims live and recreation funding has dried up". (Presumably they are talking about taxpayer-funded, free-to-them facilities.)

And schools: mysteriously, schools are a problem. A social worker talked about a dreadful school, so bad that kids "drop out". (A school near me closed down - too many out-of-control Muslims apparently, no discipline from parents, abuse, bullying. Now other schools in the area have had to cope with an influx of these kids.)

So. In a nutshell, what do they want?
Sharia law (a bit, just a bit).
But nice, Westernized imams.
More mosque-life.
Money.
Tolerance and love from infidels.

And what are they happy to keep?
Islam. Hijabs. Mosques. Imams.
Living in Australia.

Posted by: PG at November 21, 2008 10:59 PM

PG - after that business where the Muslims asked for recognition of Muslim polygyny, and got knocked back by the Attorney-General, did you write to the A/G to commend him for saying a nice loud NO to the Muslim demands?

I did. He got an email first, then a paper letter to follow up, signed, with a few extra facts about what sharia does to women, just to get him thinking. I made sure to mention the Quranic prescription for wife-beating, and the obscenely unjust Muslim rules about rape, and the example of Aisha - any decent non-Muslim Australian should get the creeps at the thought that any 'religion' would permit old men to marry and rape nine-year-olds.

Since he's the Attorney-General I told him about 'Reliance of the Traveller' so he can get the info from the horse's mouth; I also referred him to Joseph Schacht's 'An Introduction to Islamic Law'.

The Prime Minister, and my elected representative, also got letters on the same topic.

I understand that the Mothers' Union, a very large women's organisation within the Anglican Church (which has Sudanese Christian refugee women among its membership, nowadays, by the way), made very strong representations to the Australian government on the subject of marriage and why Muslim polygyny MUST. NOT. BE. RECOGNISED in Australia.

We have to keep the pressure up, on our politicians, to let them know that non-Muslim Australians do not want any part of Muslim sharia to be recognised in this country, ever.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 22, 2008 4:29 PM

Dumbledoresarmy: Thankyou - some very good suggestions.
My daughter told me what "dumbledoresarmy" is about. She said I must have been about the only person in the Western world who didn't know!

Posted by: PG at November 22, 2008 10:03 PM

PG wrote:

Dumbledoresarmy: Thankyou - some very good suggestions.
My daughter told me what "dumbledoresarmy" is about. She said I must have been about the only person in the Western world who didn't know!
..................

Yeah--like you, PG, I look forward to Dumbledore's Army's posts. And I love her username--as appropriate for fighting Jihad as for standing up to Voldemort!

Posted by: gravenimage at November 22, 2008 11:46 PM