Friday, October 27, 2006

Muslim cleric likens uncovered women to exposed meat





Egyptian-born Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, the leader of Australia’s Muslim community since 1989 and a former adviser to the Australian government on Muslim issues has been widely condemned by mainstream politicians and Muslim leaders over a Ramadan sermon in which he likened immodestly dressed women to meat and suggested rape victims were as much to blame as their attackers.
He said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and inappropriate clothes, "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years," The Australian reported yesterday.
"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 sheik asked.
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (Muslim headscarf), no problem would have occurred." See here for more:

And here

Or here

Australian PM John Howard described the comments as "appalling and reprehensible".
You’ll never guess....but the Sheik says he “has been misunderstood”. Where have we heard that before????

7 comments:

CityUnslicker said...

but he as apologised now, so that's all right then....

Ellee said...

I pity his wife, or would it be wives...

istanbultory said...

The problem is that the cleric in question has "form" - he has been busy stirring up controversy for 20 years. Time for him to go back to Egypt...

Croydonian said...

He is a loathsome and verminous individual, isn't he?

However, those of us with long memories or who are older than dirt will remember the judge in these parts who fined a rapist rather than imprisoning him in '82 or thereabouts because of the woman's 'contributory negligence' - being out late, on her own was what it amounted to, I think.

istanbultory said...

Loathsome and verminous certainly. He's also a confirmed Holocaust denier as you won't be surprised to learn.

Colin said...

In other words, he claims that the temptation is responsible and not the person unable or unwilling to resist the temptation. Thus, the bank is responsible and not the robber. According to his logic, the victim must always be responsible and never the criminal who was unable to resist to opportunity.

Voyager said...

He didn't seem happy with the 55 years to reflect on attacking uncovered meat though did he ?