A religion of peace? Yeah. Sure.

There has been a recent brouhaha over a speech by the mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, in his Ramadan sermon of a few weeks ago, in which he compared “immodest” Western women with meat, and in which he asked the question: “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 good Sheik complained that his words were being taken out of context, and that he was being unjustly maligned.

In the interests of accuracy, the Australian News obtained a complete transcript of the good Sheik’s sermon, and had it translated into English. That transcript may be found here. In reading that sermon, I would have to agree: the good Sheik had far more to say than simply that women were responsible for adultery. In fact, I find his sermon and his reasoning to be so fascinating that I think it is in the interests of truth and justice that his full speech be published widely, and his hidden reasoning be brought out for all the world to see.

The sheik starts with an examination of the sura in the Koran which punishes for the crime of theft: “The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred”. He notes first of all that in the prohibition, the man is put before the woman. He contrasts this with the prohibition against and the punishment for adultery: “The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes.” The sheik notes that in this prohibition, the adulteress, that is, the woman, is put first. He further notes that in such prohibitions, in addition to the order of the prohibition, and the punishment, the prohibition ends with an attribute of God. In the case of adultery, the full statement is: “The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes, for God is mighty and wise.”

The sheik also remarks about a Hadith, a commentary on the Koran, in which a follower of the Prophet recites the verse on theft, as follows: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", the follower said "for God is forgiving, merciful." A non-Muslim Bedouin hears the recitation, and knowing flawless Arabic, the Bedouin corrects the believer: The Prophet would never say such words. The believer and the Bedouin take their case before the Prophet, who agrees with the unbelieving Bedouin: God is mighty and wise, and not forgiving and merciful.

More particularly, the sheik notes that in all punishments involving a “cutting off”, including theft, adultery, and polytheism, that the attributes described concerning God indicate God’s wisdom and might, and not his forgiveness and mercy, because in such cases, no forgiveness nor mercy should be offered, either by God or by his “followers. More particularly, if God was merciful and forgiving, he would not have ordered the cutting off.

And then the sheik dwells more deeply on the subject of polytheism, in a way which should be of interest to every Christian. In the interest of fairness, and of justice, I give you the Sheik’s words in their entirety:

Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden."

We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all.

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". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth.

In other words, the sheik teaches that every one who believes in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the concept of God becoming man is a polytheist, deserves only the fires of hell, and will receive no mercy or forgiveness from God. Tough luck out there for any Christians in the audience, or for any former Christians or Jews.

Finally, the Sheik points out the reason for the difference in order between man and woman for the respective crimes of theft and adultery: man is supposed to be the provider, and theft deals mainly with the man using improper means of providing, whereas the woman is put first in adultery, because in the Sheik’s opinion, 90 percent of the time the woman is responsible for adultery. He even goes so far as to quote with approval another scholar’s opinion:

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.

In short then, the Sheik , at least to his own mind, has been unjustly accused of intolerance towards women. He has, at least to his own mind, shown by sure logic that any one who is a Christian is to be damned to Hell by an unforgiving God for the “crime” of polytheism, that any woman who is involved in a rape or adultery is to be punished for her “crime”, and that the faithful Muslim should go out of his way to execute sentence in either case.

And this is supposed to be a “religion of peace”? Yeah. Sure.