Last week, I posted about Australian Sheikh Sharif Hussein, caught on video preaching hate against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Jedis.
Ok, not Jedis, but I wanted to see who was concentrating.
At the time, we had heard from Islamic Society spokesman Dr Waleed Alkhazrajy, who voiced his disapproval of the remarks:
“We definitely do not approve such remarks and words and language. It’s intolerable, cannot be defended and we don’t know how and why he’s done that because it’s all edited but whatever is on the material that’s been posted on YouTube is unacceptable,” he said.
I noted the part in red, which was a foreshadowing of this:
Islamic Da’wah Centre of South Australia officials defended Sheikh Sharif Hussein’s “emotional” words, in which they said were “put together in a suggestive manner” in an online video .
As community anger mounted over his speech , the IDCSA confirmed the Sheikh’s sermon was delivered on March 22 this year at its Torrensville centre, in which he directed his anger at those who committed “war crimes” against Muslims.
In a defiant statement, the IDCSA said while its members did not “necessarily” agree with the Sheikh’s “strong words”, his original sermon had been “heavily edited”.
A video posted on YouTube of the event, first revealed by Advertiser.com.au last week , was only two and a half minutes long, having been cut from its original 35 minutes.
“The Sheikh presented in his speech some of the war crimes directed against Muslims around the world, something that was completely ignored in the video,” they said.
“While addressing the mass rape cases in Iraq, the Sheikh was emotional and used strong words in addressing those who committed these crimes.
“The Sheikh directed his feeling to Allah (The Almighty GOD) to avenge those who committed atrocious war crimes.”
The statement makes a comparison between the commentary of the under-siege Sheikh and the calls by some “non-Muslim Australians” for former prime Minister John Howard to be tried as a “war criminal” for supporting an “illegal, unjustified Iraq invasion”.
The statement also accuses the media of presenting the video as a “hate speech” and that no part of the video clip contained “any call towards violence” or was intended to cause friction between non-Muslims and Muslims in Australia.
The IDCSA has questioned the “reliability, independence and veracity” of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), it believes created the “sensational de-contextualised cut-and-paste video clip”.
Ahh yes, the old “taken out of context” routine. We have heard it so many times before when it comes to the hate-filled sermons of hate Sheiks. For instance, remember fellow “Aussie” Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly, otherwise known as Catmeathead?
Sheik Hilaly has been widely condemned by Muslim and other groups for the Ramadan sermon he gave in Arabic to 500 worshippers in Sydney.
According to The Australian’s translation, he said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat.”
“The uncovered meat is the problem.
“If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (Islamic headscarf which covers the hair neck and shoulders), no problem would have occurred.”
The mufti of Australia and New Zealand did not back away from his comments but said he was shocked by the way his sermon was interpreted.
“The Australian front page article reported selected comments from a talk presented one month ago,” the sheik said.
“The title was ‘Why men were mentioned before women for the crime of theft and woman (sic) before men for the sin of fornication’.
“I would like to unequivocally confirm that the presentation related to religious teachings on modesty and not to go to extremes in enticements, this does not condone rape, I condemn rape and reiterate that this is a capital crime.
Or what about Samir Abu Hamza, who seemed to direct his followers to hit their wives and force them to have sex?
The President of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) Ramzi Elsayed said he had spoken with Mr Hamza about the lecture, titled The Keys to a Successful Marriage.
“He told me he was speaking in a metaphorical sense,” Mr Elsayed said.
“In regards to hitting your wife, his position is that it has always been metaphorical – it’s not a whack, it’s not a slap, it’s a wake-up call.”
He said Islam did not condone violence against women or making a wife have sex with her husband against her will.
“He believes he was taken out of context insofar as he was talking about people who censure their spouses – it was not so much a physical hit as a metaphorical one to say wake up, we’re heading for a divorce kind-of-thing,” Mr Elsayed said.
And the list goes on and on.
You may read such stories and think these Sheiks sound like buffoons and need not be taken seriously.
If we don’t take such people and their followers seriously, there may arrive a day where we all want to be take out of context.
The context being life under an Islamic Caliphate, living under Sharia Law.