KEYSAR TRAD: We understand. You can see this in that metaphor he’s quoting another person who is a literary figure, someone who is like a Shakespeare in the country that he comes from, whose works have been used into television productions and things like that.

JENNY BROCKIE: He was quoting an Islamic scholar?

KEYSAR TRAD: No, not an Islamic scholar, he refers to a literary figure a writer, someone like Shakespeare in the western world, someone like T.S.Elliott, people like that. The audience knows who he is and they know this is not a religious opinion.

Sheikh Hilali is one of those 25 per cent.

That’s not what he believes. He believes that the victim is guilty of inciting rape, and she should be imprisoned, and her rapists should go free. I bet the responders to the Amnesty poll didn’t say that.

Sheikh Hilali is one of those 25 per cent. He’s in a pretty big minority. He is also a Muslim cleric. And that means he makes headlines.

And he gets to say things like: “I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments.” And: “Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose.”

Yes, he apologised. His comments are revolting and stupid. But he seems sensitive to the criticism they have sparked and has apologised.

He has also been suspended for three months from preaching at his mosque.

But still, the Telegraph hears from the likes of Pru Goward, the Australian government’s sex discrimination commissioner. Says she: “It is an incitement to a crime. Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court. It’s time we stopped saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community [in Australia] did more than say they were horrified. I think it is time he left.”

But what should the Islamic community do? And why should they speak with one voice?
And why should the mad mullah leave? What is his crime? To say what 25 per cent of those polled in the Amnesty survey think? To echo of the words of people like Japan’s former Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, who said in 2003: “There are women who look like they are saying ‘Do it to me’. Those who have that kind of appearance are at fault, because men are black panthers”?

Or the example of Putin Laughing and joking about the Israele president raping 10 women [Did he have chechnya on his mind]

Or should we draw a veil over Sheikh Hilali – a man who shames his religion, his sex and himself..?

The longer we dwell on it, the more license we give the Munafiqs in our community to make hay.

eg: http://www.theaustralian.news......83,00.html

I hope she gets a book tour and tenure at the sydney institute, out of it, one must get some rewards for an act such as that.

It is so easy to record someone and publicise his utterings to create an particular biased viewpoint. Context is absolutely critical, surely !. A lecture in a mosque to muslims is a very different context to a public lecture which will be recorded and publicised to non-Mulsims. Imagine the Sheikh sitting with his students discussing various Quranic ayat pertaining to alcohol, and then someone records him explaining one of these ayat where ALcohol is NOT explicitly prohibited. The next day he’ll be accused of declaring alcohol, is only haraam if one is preparing to perform salaah, otherwise its ok !!!

Remember that you can record what someone says(only), you cannot record what he meant. The latter you must obtain from his explanations. In this contaxct, the recording was done by mischief -makers, and is irrelevanr – the Sheikh’s subsequent explanations only should be assessed.

Surely you now accept that he made those comments. The Sheikh’s defenders said that he was misquoted or that his remarks were taken out of context. This isn’t a defense of his statements, it’s a personal defense of the Sheikh that helps him avoid responsibility for his statements. It was the people who disagreed with the Sheikh who made it clear that the reports were accurate. So I guess that they were fulfilling their duty of verification, and the people who falsely claimed he was taken out of context were avoiding theirs.

“stop attacking the Muslim and making excuses for the non-Muslim”

Either Sheikh Taj al-Hilaly is right or he’s wrong. Surely if he’s wrong then his public statements need to be publicly corrected, otherwise they will lead people into error.

The thing that worries me most about sacking Shaykh Taj now is that it will be giving the government and Habashies what they want and they will think they can order us around next time. Better to say there is a process that needs to be followed, wait a bit, then sack him so it doesn’t look like a knee jerk response. Allahu alim.

That was just ridiculous. Are you really advocating that the ummah unite behind a man even if he is wrong? I am assuming you don’t agree with the comments he made – I am assuming you are a reasonable person who would not blame a rape victim for the violent crime carried out against her. I hope my assumptions are not wrong.

Whatever happened to “lower your gaze”? What of the Prophet’s example of softly turning away the *man’s* face when he looked lustily at a woman? These are actual Islamic precepts. Are you going to go against our holy texts to defend a confused man who has discredited the Muslim community with his loose words?

To make this simple: the ummah owes no allegiance to this man. He may have a beard and speak in a thick Arabic accent but he does not speak for me. It is preposterous to assume that there is going to be a show of unity for the sake of unity. The ummah should only be united in “enjoining the good, and forbidding the wrong” and the shayk Hilaly is certainly wrong!

What exactly do you have against br. Waleed Aly and sr. Shereen Hassan? If only we had more active, eloquent, sincere members in our community like them we would not be in this mess in the first place. You say that at least the good Shayk has qualifications. You’re legitimising the idea that his views are actually reflecting Islam. If you practice this bizarre form of Islam brother, Allah help us all. We’re in more trouble than I thought.

Asalam Alaikum,

This email is address to Waleed Ali and Sherene Hassan.

The public response by the both of you in the last 24 hours concerning Sheikh Taj is the straw that broke the camel’s back for me in regards to what is the worth of the ICV. To be quite frank- the response, especially Sherene’s, was appalling. What is the role of ICV, are you working for Muslims or to appease the government and media? From an outsider looking in it seems that the ICV is the unofficial government endorsed watchdog of the Muslim community.

Without even hearing the comments by Sheikh Taj you were all over him like vultures from the moment the story broke. Instead of trying to verify it, which is the DUTY (FARD) of all Muslims to do, you chose to use this as an opportunity to dig your well sharpened shoes into him calling for his immediate resignation and degrading him. Where was the public condemnation by the ICV of Ameer Ali when he said that the Prophet had character flaws and the Quran needs to be re-interpreted, WHICH ARE STATEMENTS OF APOSTASY? Why the silence? Was it because this is what exactly the media and government want to hear so there was a silent endorsement of what he said?

You are disenfranchising the majority of practising Muslims in the community. Sure, you are getting support- but doesn’t it make you wonder that this support is coming from Muslims who don’t know much about Islam- the ones whose Islamic identity means nothing more that their name and identify more with Steve Irwin than the Prophet Muhamad (saws)?

It is organisations like the ICV who are becoming more dangerous than Hilali. Why? Because it is you who give those sections in the media, who are never be happy with anything any Muslim leader says unless it is condemning all Muslims who are fighting for their rights anywhere in the world, the “legitimate right” to go open slather on our fellow brothers and sisters. You give journalists like Andrew Bolt, Pier Ackerman and Alan Jones the on-a-platter opportunity to divide Muslims and label the “moderates” from the “extremists”. You are the ones causing the discord, you are the ones causing the outrage by given credence to the systematic effort by the government and media to divide and divide again the Muslim community. Even Andrew Bolt consider the ICV to be spineless even when HE AGREES with you!

Did you even hear Sheikh Taj’s comments? Did you bother to even contact him? Or are you here just to pass Islamically uneducated fatawi. Not even a weak defence of him! Subhanallah! Sheikh Taj goes to Iraq to save Woods’ life and there is backslapping? Or was it backslapping through clenched teeth- upset he has does something of good moral character?

They decided to keep Sheikh Taj as their leader in Sydney and you voiced your disapproval? The question is- who voted you in to be the “peak representative body” of the Muslims in Victoria? What is your Islamic qualifications? At the very least, Sheikh Taj is qualified. Enough is enough, show some guts, show some leadership and stop attacking the Muslim and making excuses for the non-Muslim. This is not the way of the sahabah….this is not the way of the Muslim.

May Allah guide you and me. Ameen.

Asalaam Alaikum,