In
this previous post, I mentioned Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali [شیخ تاج الدین الهلالی] (parts of his name are variously written as Tajeddin or al-Hilaly), the leader of the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, in connection with his reprimand of another Muslim leader, Dr. Ameer Ali, for allegedly criticising Muslims for taking a close-minded approach to religion. So the Sheikh is, shall we say, a bit of a religious hardliner.
Now Sheikh al-Hilali is in trouble for making derogatory remarks comparing women to meat during his Ramadan sermon. This weekend's edition of
The Australian has a number of articles discussing various aspects of the incident.
First, the transcript of the actual sermon may be found
here. In the part of the sermon that the media has focused on, the Sheikh compares unveiled women to uncovered meat left in the open, which is snatched up by wandering cats:
But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.
Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?
If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.
If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."
For some reason that is unknown to me, the Sheikh seems to really have it in for
Canadian women in particular:
On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man.
So, according to the Sheikh, Canadian women are responsible for gangsters and bank robbers. Got it.
Most articles and commentaries have focused on the Sheikh's reprehensible comments about women. However, he also attacks Christians and polytheists, whom he lumps together into one group:
Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it.
Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful".
What kind of god is so
pathetically weak that he has to resort to threats of violence to keep his believers in line? It is said that a man creates his god in his own image, and by al-Hilali's description of God, we know just what kind of man he is.
The idea that blasphemy should be treated as a crime, or that any crime against an omnipotent being is even possible, is patently absurd. As some atheists say, "blasphemy is a victimless crime." Or, as
Mark Twain quipped:
Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.
The absoluteness and arbitrariness of God is one of the major philosophical problems that Buddhism has with monotheism. In Buddhist philosophy, all beings are subject to the same laws of the universe, even the highest gods. This means that the gods, no matter how powerful they might seem, still suffer from decay and even death. Furthermore, their actions produce karma, and it would be impossible for a god to burn sentient beings in a fire (for
eternity, no less!), without incurring tremendous negative consequences for himself.
That is why no Buddhist can take seriously the idea that moral conduct should be motivated by "the fear of God" (i.e., really, the fear of
punishment). To a Buddhist, placing
beliefs above actual
conduct seems like a case of misplaced priorities. How can not believing in God, or believing in multiple gods, be a "worse crime" than actually hurting other living beings, by murder, theft, sexual misconduct, lying, etc.?
Sheikh al-Hilali is seriously out of step with the times, as is a segment of the Muslim community who hold views similar to those of the Sheikh.
Also from
The Australian:
南無阿彌陀佛
