Australian Imam regarding Aussie girls' dress: "The uncovered meat is the problem"

Katheryn

Deity
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
2,415
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks
Richard Kerbaj
October 26, 2006

THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.

In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in 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."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali's remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia's mufti.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."

Australia's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not "detract or add to a person's moral standards", while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was "ignorant and naive" for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.

"Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime," he said.

Ms Hage-Ali said she was "disgusted and offended" by Shiek Hilali's comments. "I find it very offensive that a man who considers himself as a mufti, a leader of Australia's Muslims, can give comment that lacks intelligence and common sense."

Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about "adultery and theft", a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian.

Sheik Hilali said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as "meat" and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk.

He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: "If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame ... but a man should be able to control himself". He said if a woman is "covered and respectful" she "demands respect from a man". "But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself."

Sheik Hilali also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.

Waleed Ali said Sheik Hilali was "normalising immoral sexual behaviour" by comparing women to meat and men to animals and entirely blaming women for being victims.

"It's basically saying that the immoral response of men to women who are not fully covered is as natural and as inevitable as the response of an animal tempted by food," he said.

"But (unlike animals) men are people who have moral responsibilities and the capability in engaging in moral action."

Revelation of the mufti's comments comes after he criticised Mr Howard last month in The Australian for saying a minority of migrant men mistreated their women. Sheik Hilali said such a minority was found in all faiths. "Those who don't respect their women are not true Muslims."

"There's a small percentage found among all religions, but we don't recognise ours as Muslims."

Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Hilali's remarks during Ramadan were inaccurate and upsetting to the Muslim community.

"They are below and beyond any comment (and) do not deserve any consideration."



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...37-601,00.html
 
Muslims brace for rape blame fury
October 26, 2006 12:20pm

MUSLIMS say they are bracing for a backlash after comments from Australia's mufti that immodestly dressed women invited sex attacks.

Waleed Aly of the Islamic Council of Victoria said he was outraged at Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly's comments, made last month in a Ramadan sermon and that a backlash was inevitable.

In his speech Sheik Hilaly likened women who wore makeup and dressed immodestly to meat that attracted cats.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in 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 said.

Mr Aly said the comments were repugnant and ordinary Muslims would bear the brunt of anger.

"I am expecting a deluge of hate mail. I am expecting people to get abused in the street and get abused at work," Mr Aly said.

"There is always a backlash. You come to expect that it will come. It is not people like Hilaly that will suffer, it is normal kids whose friends' parents might pick on them," he said.

Mr Aly said the vast majority of Australian Muslims would condemn the comments.

Comments 'taken out of context'
Amid a storm of criticism Islamic community leaders quickly moved to distance themselves from the comments, reported in The Australian newspaper today but which were made during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month.

President of the Islamic Friendship Council of Australia, Keysar Trad, said the sheik's comments had been misrepresented, although he admitted his analogies could have been better.

"From what I understand, he was talking about the context of encouraging people to abstinence before getting married," Mr Trad said.

"His references to exposed meat etc was a very poor example that was meant to be a reference to both men and women, he wasn't talking about Islamic dress, he wasn't talking about rape."

However a former member of the Federal Government's Muslim Advisory board, Iktimal Hage-Ali, said she had listened to a recording of Sheik Hilaly's speech and believed he should be stripped of his position.

"I was just flabbergasted," she said on ABC radio.

The Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria said Sheik Hilaly's views were at odds with most mainstream Australian Muslims.

"These unacceptable comments ... do not reflect the values of ethnic communities or of many mainstream Australian Muslims," said council chairman Phong Nguyen said.

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward believes the comments are an incitement to crime.

"Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man ... their leader in court," she said on Channel 9.

"It's time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left," Ms Goward said.

Politicians condemn comments

Senior members of government were also scathing.

"Certainly I think if a religious leader in the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church or in Judaism was to make these sorts of statements, they would be getting a very severe rap over the knuckles, at the very least," Health Minister Tony Abbott said on Nine.

"He's wrong. He should be reprimanded and it's up to ordinary, decent Australians to make it clear that he is wrong."

Treasurer Peter Costello urged other Muslims to pull the sheik into line.

"I hope that the moderate Muslim leaders will speak out today and condemn these comments," he said on Channel 7.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the sheik's comments were offensive and should be corrected by the Islamic community

.http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20645635-2,00.html


And the outrage begins.

I wonder if he will get sacked?

Probably not.

Still, I can't think of anything I have read that is more offensive that this sermon. It is really bad, saying that 90% of the time, it is a womans fault for being raped. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Yay!! Blame the victom. What is this guy thinking? I wonder how he justifies the rape of muslim women who wear full body covers.
 
Nothing particularly new here though... the same sentiments were being aired around the time of the trial itself.

There are Muslims who 'get it' and Muslims who don't, same as any other Australians. For an example of anglo Aussies who equally need psychiatric help, consider Werribee
 
Katheryn said:
I wonder if he will get sacked?
Who would sack him?

I wonder how that whole system works.

An interesting claim he implies is that if they were covered up they wouldn't be raped, I wonder if there is any validity to that whatsoever (not that I'm implying that if it was valid that it was thier fault).
 
The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."


I am not sure why this isn't hate speech against women.

Do Australians have hate speech laws?
 
Katheryn said:
I am not sure why this isn't hate speech against women.

Do Australians have hate speech laws?
I'm not sure if could be classified as hate speech. I don't think he actually hates women. I see it more as "idiot speech". I don't think we can ban that.
 
Perfection said:
I wonder how that whole system works.

An interesting claim he implies is that if they were covered up they wouldn't be raped, I wonder if there is any validity to that whatsoever (not that I'm implying that if it was valid that it was thier fault).


I think it terribly offensive that you asked that question!

I went to Disneyland today with my sister and the kids. And there were just regular people walking around in regular clothes, it was hot, so there were tank tops, and shorts - just regular people in regular dress, some attractive some not, some fat some thin, some old and some young. It was a hot day. They were dressed comfortably.

And then there were a few Muslim ladies with head scarves, full length arms and legs - only their faces showed. They looked hot and uncomfortable, and they kept their eyes averted from anyone else - evidently intimidated and afraid to entice other men.

Now, to say that these women in tank tops and shorts (99% of us) were suggestive is just ridiculous. Or that the Muslim women were more modest than anyone else is also ridiculous. There is nothing suggestive about a tank top.

The problem is how kids are brought up!

These Muslim boys are brought up to think that women are SATAN'S TOOL so women do not get respect. They are told that women are less than nothing, they are stupid, evil and cannot be trusted (a woman cannot be used alone as a witness in court - there must be two women's word for one man's) they are property to be used by superior men. To be beaten when they do not behave properly, or starved for sex, while they go off and make a temporary marriage with another woman. It is gross mistreatment of women.

And this behavior is tolerated in sophisticated western countries! Incredible!
 
For women, it's offensive; for me, his speech is ridiculous.
As long as he didn't abuse his wife, commit polygamy or cut his daughter's throat when she sleeps with another man (In these cases he should be jailed). I think the best strategy is "girlcott", i.e., organize women, including Muslim ladies, start a counter speech.

The problem is the closeness of Muslim minority communities in western countries. If they're closed, anything ridiculous could happen.
 
Katheryn said:
I think it terribly offensive that you asked that question!
Are you going to advocate throwing me in jail?

Katheryn said:
Now, to say that these women in tank tops and shorts (99% of us) were suggestive is just ridiculous. Or that the Muslim women were more modest than anyone else is also ridiculous. There is nothing suggestive about a tank top
I agree there, I was just wondering from a statistical perspective if rape is more or less common among muslims wearing conservative clothing versus those who wear nonconservative clothing.

Katheryn said:
These Muslim boys are brought up to think that women are SATAN'S TOOL so women do not get respect. They are told that women are less than nothing, they are stupid, evil and cannot be trusted (a woman cannot be used alone as a witness in court - there must be two women's word for one man's) they are property to be used by superior men. To be beaten when they do not behave properly, or starved for sex, while they go off and make a temporary marriage with another woman. It is gross mistreatment of women.
Certainly his message is sickening, but I'm not sure if it can be characterized as hateful. Sexist, definitely, but I'm not sure if it's hateful.

Katheryn said:
And this behavior is tolerated in sophisticated western countries! Incredible!
Just because it is legally tolerated doesn't make it societally tolerated.
 
Adamb0mb said:
I agree with you Katheryn, but you are too hard on tolerance. It one of the west's greatest qualities.

When tolerance is viewed with disdain by the one receiving it, then questions need to be asked about whether or not a group is abusing it.

If it is being abused, then maybe it needs to be withheld until similar courtesies are extended.

But then, that would make sense, wouldn't it? We think we are so superior over everyone else that we have to condenscend to their level and play the munificient benefactor.

Why? To appease our guilt over having a decent life when these other people don't seem to be able to build one? Then we are expected to be 'tolerant' when they want to move out of there hellholes and bring them to our shores? And they are doing exactly that, demanding exactly that.

Tolerance is viewed as a weapon with which these groups use to gain what they want, which of course is power; power to tell everyone what to do.

And that is not exactly an attitude that should be treated with tolerance.

I don't want them telling me how to dress, or telling my daughter to stop dancing ballet. I don't want them trying to regulate every moment of my kids' life like they do to everyone in Islam. No thank you.
 
IMO it should be any free society's responsibility to ensure that this guy can say what he wants to.

It should be up to the Muslims who follow him to reject what he says.

I don't think his rhetoric is very useful, but it shouldn't be illegal. If he was inciting people to actually go out and rape girls that aren't wearing conservative Muslim dress.. now that'd be another story.
 
That's a stupid speech, though an MP used to cause an uproar here as well by making the same remarks about women.
 
I agree there, I was just wondering from a statistical perspective if rape is more or less common among muslims wearing conservative clothing versus those who wear nonconservative clothing.


The problem is that if women are raped, they are unable to go to the police because they must have FOUR witnesses to the rape. If they don't have it, if they do not prove it in this manner, then that female is immediately charged with fornication/adultery. MOST women in Pakistan's prisons are there because of this law. Last month, the Parliament was supposed to rid the law of this terrible practice, but it DID NOT GO THROUGH.


. Critique Of the Zina Ordinance

A. Power of Law: The Zina Ordinance and its Application in Pakistan

In 1977, under President Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan enacted a set of "Hudood"1 Ordinances, ostensibly to bring the laws of Pakistan into "conformity with the injunctions of Islam" (P.L.D. 1979, 51; Bokhary 1979, 162; Major Acts 1992, 10). These Ordinances, setting forth crimes such as theft, adultery, slander, and alcohol consumption, became effective in February 1979 (P.L.D. 1979, 51; Bokhary 1979, 164; Major Acts 1992, 10). The "Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979" (Zina Ordinance) criminalizes "zina," or extramarital sexual relations (also a crime under Islamic law).2 The Zina Ordinance states:

A man and a woman are said to commit ‘zina’ if they willfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other.

Zina is liable to hadd [punishment] if--

(a) it is committed by a man who is an adult and is not insane, with a woman to whom he is not, and does not suspect himself to be married; or

(b) it is committed by a woman who is an adult and is not insane with a man to whom she is not, and does not suspect herself to be married (P.L.D. 1979, 52; Bokhary 1979, 176; Major Acts 1992, 11).

Under its heading of zina, the Zina Ordinance includes the category "zina-bil-jabr" (zina by force) which lays out the definition and punishment for sexual intercourse against the will or without the consent of one of the parties. The section articulating the crime of rape, as zina-bil-jabr, states:

A person is said to commit zina-bil-jabr if he or she has sexual intercourse with a woman or man, as the case may be, to whom he or she is not validly married, in any of the following circumstances, namely:--

(a) against the will of the victim,

(b) without the consent of the victim,

(c) with the consent of the victim, when the consent has been obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or of hurt, or

(d) with the consent of the victim, when the offender knows that the offender is not validly married to the victim and that the consent is given because the victim believes that the offender is another person to whom the victim is or believes herself or himself to be validly married.

Explanation.--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of zina-bil-jabr.

Zina-bil-jabr is liable to hadd if it is committed in the circumstances specified [above] (P.L.D. 1979, 52; Bokhary 1979, 182; Major Acts 1992, 11-12).

Finally, the Zina Ordinance then specifies the evidence required to prove both zina and zina-bil-jabr:

Proof of zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms, namely:--

(a) the accused makes before a Court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the commission of the offence; or

(b) at least four Muslim adult male witnesses, about whom the Court is satisfied, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah al-shuhood [credibility of witnesses], that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kaba’ir), give evidence as eye-witnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence (P.L.D. 1979, 53; Bokhary 1979, 182; Major Acts 1992, 12).3

When this law was enacted in 1977, proponents argued that it enacted the Islamic law of illegal sexual relations. The accuracy of that claim is addressed in detail later.4 First, it is important to note that the application of the Zina Ordinance in Pakistan has placed a new twist and a renewed urgency on the question of its validity. The twist is this: when a zina-bil-jabr case fails for lack of four witnesses, the Pakistani legal system has more than once concluded that the intercourse was therefore consensual, and consequently has charged rape victims with zina.

A few cases will disturbingly illustrate the concern. In 1982, fifteen-year-old Jehan Mina became pregnant as a result of a reported rape. Lacking the testimony of four eye-witnesses that the intercourse was in fact rape, Jehan was convicted of zina on the evidence of her illegitimate pregnancy (Mina v. State, 1983 P.L.D. Fed. Shariat Ct 183). Her child was born in prison (Mehdi 1990, 25). Later, a similar case caused public outcry and drew public attention to the new law. In 1985, Safia Bibi, a sixteen-year-old nearly blind domestic servant reported that she was repeatedly raped by her landlord/employer and his son, and became pregnant as a result. When she charged the men with rape, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence, as she was the only witness against them. Safia, however, being unmarried and pregnant, was charged with zina and convicted on this evidence (Bibi v. State, 1985 P.L.D. Fed. Shariat Ct. 120).5

Short of conviction, women have also been held for extended lengths of time on charges of zina when they allege rape (Asia Watch 1992, 41-60). For example, in July, 1992, Shamim, a twenty-one-year-old mother of two charged that she was kidnaped and raped by three men in Karachi. When a rape complaint was lodged against the perpetrators, the police instead arrested Shamim, and charged her with zina when her family could not post the fee set for her release. The police held her in custody for six days, during which she reports that she was repeatedly raped by two police officers and a third unnamed person (Amnesty International 1993, 11-12). There have been numerous reports of such custodial rapes in Pakistan.6

Police action and inaction in rape cases in Pakistan have in fact been widely reported as an instrumental element to the injustice. There is evidence that police have deliberately failed to file charges against men accused of rape, often using the threat of converting the rape charge into a zina prosecution against the female complainant to discourage women from reporting.7 And when the perpetrator is a police officer himself, the chances of pursuing a case against him are nearly nonexistent. Shahida Parveen faced this very situation when she reported that in July, 1994, two police officers broke into her house and locked her children in a room while they raped her at gunpoint. A medical examination confirmed that she was raped by more than one person, but the police refused to register her complaint (Amnesty International 1995, 14).

Political rivals have further exploited women by using rape as a weapon against each other. In November, 1992, Khursheed Begum, the wife of an arrested member of the Pakistan People’s Party was abducted on her way home from attending her husband’s court hearing. She states that she was blindfolded, driven to a police station, and repeatedly raped there by police officers, who asserted political motives for the attack (Amnesty International 1992, 207; Scroggins, 1992, A10; Rashid 1991, 14.). Later the same month, forty-year-old Veena Hyat, of one of Pakistan’s elite families and daughter of a prominent politician, stated that she was gang raped for twelve hours in every room of her house by five armed men. Despite her father taking the unusual social risk of publicly reporting the attack, a judicial investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict the alleged perpetrators (Zia 1994, 55-57; Economist 1991, 43; Rashid 1991, 14; Robinson 1992, 11).

Cases such as these resulting from the unfortunate application of the Zina Ordinance are widely reported in the Western media.8 The issue is now a primary topic in women’s and human rights discussions globally,9 and stirs up an expected share of frustration, anger, defensiveness, and arrogance from all sides. The debate, however, begs the question: What is the Islamic law of rape? Any real substantive analysis of the zina-bil-jabr law and its application must first approach it from this framework--the same framework upon which the law purports to base itself. I will therefore ask the critical question: does Pakistan’s Zina Ordinance accurately articulate the Islamic law of rape?



B. Law of God: the Qur’an on Zina

The Pakistani Zina Ordinance subsumes rape as zina-bil-jabr under the general zina law of unlawful sexual relations. To analyze the appropriateness of this categorization, we must first analyze the Islamic law of zina itself. The preamble of the Pakistani Zina Ordinance states that it is enacted "to modify the existing law relating to zina so as to bring it in conformity with the Injunctions of the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah" (Major Acts 1992, 10)10 Indeed, the term zina itself appears in the Qur’an. In warning generally against the dangers of adultery, the Qur’an states:

And do not go near fornication [zina] as it is immoral and an evil way (Qur’an 17:32).11

Later, the Qur’an more specifically sets out actual legal prescriptions criminalizing illegal sexual relations:

The adulteress and adulterer should be flogged a hundred lashes each, and no pity for them should deter you from the law of God, if you believe in God and the last day; and the punishment should be witnessed by a body of believers (Qur’an 24:2).

Following this definition of the offense are extremely strict evidentiary rules for the proof of such a crime:

Those who defame chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards, for they are profligates (Qur’an at 24:4).12

Thus, after criminalizing extramarital sexual relations,13 the Qur’an simultaneously attaches to the prosecution of this crime nearly insurmountable evidentiary restrictions: four eye-witnesses are required to prove a charge of sexual misconduct.14

Islamic jurisprudence further interprets the Qur’anic zina evidentiary rule of quadruple testimony to require the actual witnessing of penetration during sexual intercourse, and nothing less.15 This interpretation is based on the reported hadith (tradition) of Muhammad in which, after a man persisted in confessing to adultery (the Prophet having turned away to avoid hearing the information several times prior), Muhammad asked several specific questions to confirm that the act was indeed sexual penetration (Bukhari 1985, 8:528-35 (Bk. 82, Nos. 806, 810, 812-814); Abu Daud 1990, 3: Nos. 4413-14).16 Moreover, Islamic evidence law requires the witnesses to be mature, sane, and of upright character (Salama 1982, 109; El-Awa 1982, 126-27; Siddiqi 1985, 43-49). Furthermore, if any eyewitness testimony was obtained by violating a defendant’s privacy, it is inadmissible.17 And lastly, the Hedaya, a key reference of Hanafi jurisprudence18 prominent codification of Muslim law in India,19 even sets a statute of limitations for charging zina.20

Why so many evidentiary restrictions on a criminal offense prescribed by God? Islamic scholars posit that it is precisely to prevent carrying out punishment for this offense. By limiting conviction to only those cases where four individuals actually saw sexual penetration take place, the crime will realistically only be punishable if the two parties are committing the act in public, in the nude. The crime is therefore really one of public indecency rather than private sexual conduct.21 That is, even if four witnesses saw a couple having sex, but under a coverlet, for example, this testimony would not only fail to support a zina charge, but these witnesses would also be liable for slander.22 Thus, while the Qur’an condemns extramarital sex as an evil, it authorizes the Muslim legal system to prosecute someone for committing this crime only when it is performed so openly that four people see them without invading their privacy. As Cherif Bassiouni puts it, "[t]he requirement of proof and its exigencies lead to the conclusion that the policy of the harsh penalty is to deter public aspects of this form of sexual practice" (Bassiouni 1982, 6).23

This analysis is consistent with the tone of the Qur’anic verses which immediately follow the above verses regarding zina. After the verses establishing the crime and the attendant standard of proof, the Qur’an states:

Those who spread lies were a clique among you. Do not think it was bad for you: In fact it has been good for you. Each of them will pay for the sin he has committed, and he who had greater share (of guilt) will suffer grievous punishment.

Why did the faithful men and women not think well of their people when they heard this, and [say] "This is a clear lie?"

Why did they not bring four witnesses (in support of their charge)? And since they did not bring the four witnesses, they are themselves liars in the sight of God.

Were it not for the grace of God and His mercy upon you in this world and the next, you would have suffered a great affliction for the false accusation.

When you talked about it and said what you did not know, and took it lightly– though in the sight of God it was serious–

Why did you not say when you heard it: "It is not for us to speak of it? God preserve us, it is a great calumny!"

God counsels you not to do a thing like this, if you are believers (Qur’an 24:11-17).

The Qur’an’s call to respond to charges of sexual misconduct with "it is not for us to speak of it" echoes the hadith in which Muhammad was reluctant to take even a man’s confession of adultery.24 The Qur’an contemplates a society in which one does not engage in publicizing others’ sexual indiscretions. Qur'anic principles honor privacy and dignity over the violation of law, except when a violation becomes a matter of public obscenity.



You can read the rest here:

http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/social issues/rape_laws.htm


And you truly believe that 'we' must be more tolerant towards this belief system?

You believe that these people should be able to live under this type of law in your home country in the west?

Seriously? You do?
 
Katheryn said:
I don't want them telling me how to dress, or telling my daughter to stop dancing ballet. I don't want them trying to regulate every moment of my kids' life like they do to everyone in Islam. No thank you.
I could say the same to a bunch of jerks who say that I, as an atheist, am the bane of America. They say I am out to destroy people's ways of life. They shout ot from the streets that I'm delusional, evil and am going to Hell. I find that hateful and intolerant, but I don't go calling the cops. You don't have the right to never be offended. You don't have the right to not be viewed as evil by some. You don't like what some people say? Tough! Deal with it! I deal with it all the time, why can't you?
 
At least he knows how to apologise.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=70792

Sheik apologises for 'meat' comments
Thursday Oct 26 16:45 AEST
Australia's senior Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali has apologised for any offence caused by his comments that immodestly dressed women provoke sexual attacks.

The Australian newspaper reported that, in a sermon delivered last month, Sheik Alhilali likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat eaten by animals.

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments," he said in a statement.


RELATED LINKS
VIDEO: Uncovered meat
YOUR SAY: React to the Mufti
"I had only intended to protect women's honour, something lost in The Australian presentation of my talk."




Sheik Alhilali has been widely condemned by Muslim and non Muslim 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 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," he said.

"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."

But the mufti of Australia and New Zealand would not back away from his comments and 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.

"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and right to dress as they choose (while) the duty of man is to avert his glance or walk away.

"If a man falls from grace and commits fornication then if this was consensual, they would be both guilty, but if it was forced, then the man has committed a capital crime.

"Whether a man endorses or not, a particular form of dress, any form of harassment of women is unacceptable."

A spokesman for Sheik Alhilali said the backlash and criticism had badly affected him and he had been depressed and confined to bed all day, breathing with the assistance of an oxygen tank.

His comments had provoked a storm of protest from political, religious and community leaders.

Prime Minister John Howard said the comments were appalling and reprehensible.

"They are quite out of touch with contemporary values in Australia." Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard said the sheik's remarks clearly related to a "particularly appalling" rape trial in Sydney.

Asked if the sheik should resign, Mr Howard replied: "It's not for me to say what position he should hold in the Islamic faith.

"But it is for me as prime minister to say I totally reject the notion that the way in which women dress and deport themselves can in any way be used as a semblance of justification for rape."

The Islamic Council of Victoria had called for the sheik to resign, saying comments that likened women to meat were an unfounded justification for rape.

Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) committee member Sherene Hassan said she was outraged by the comments.

"Those comments are extremely offensive, and there is no basis for what he said in Islamic teachings," Ms Hassan told AAP.

"They are a paternal distortion of Islamic teachings.

"The ICV is issuing a statement calling for his resignation.

"There is no justification for rape."

Ms Hassan said she wears a hijab because of her "devotion to God".

"It's a form of identification. Men do not enter the equations. I don't do it to hide from men."

The Islamic Council of NSW also condemned the sheik's remarks.

The council said the remarks were "un-Islamic, un-Australian and unacceptable".

A spokesman for the council, Mr Ali Roude, said he was "astonished" at Sheik Alhilali's comments, saying he "had failed both himself and the Muslim community".

"While we respect the rights of any Australian citizen to freedom of speech, there is a further responsibility upon our civic leaders, be they religious, political or bureaucratic, to offer appropriate guidance to the people under their care," Mr Roude said.

"The comments widely reported today do no such thing."

Sheik Alhilali had seriously misrepresented the teachings of Islam in his comments, Mr Roude said, which were offensive to both sexes.

The comments also showed a deep misunderstanding of rape and personal violence, which Mr Roude described as a "crimes of power".

"As a father, brother and son myself, I take offence at the portrayal of both men and women in the alleged published comments," Mr Roude said.

"Islam requires all people, men and women alike, to dress with modesty.

"This is not to reduce the risk of sexual assault and rape, but rather to show respect for the God who created us all as equals and to show respect for ourselves as people who rise above the world of mere things and animals to stand as conscious beings in the presence of that same loving God - Allah Ta'ala."

Mr Roude said he had known Sheik Alhilali for many years and was deeply disappointed he had made the remarks, which were in no way shared or endorsed by the council.

"Any comments or actions which might lead any person, especially any Muslim, to despise or to objectify any other person are clearly contrary to the will of God," Mr Roude said.

"The comments reported today must be heard, read and understood in that context."
 
Back
Top Bottom