The Australian is reporting today and, as one might expect, the media is abuzz with Sheikh Taj al-Hilali’s alleged comments during Ramadan. According to the report — which I hope is untrue — the sheikh is reported to have likened rape victims to a piece of meat and those that rape her to cats merely dining on the meat that has appeared in their view.
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.”
I still hold out hope that somehow The Australian has got it wrong because these comments are so utterly disgusting and so completely antithetical to the teachings of Islam that it is hard to believe that any human, much less a Muslim leader, would utter them. For a Sheikh to allegedly choose Ramadan — a time when many non-practicing Muslim men are gathered — to offer what might be seen by some of them as a moral escape clause for sexual violence against women demands a response. Whilst I will refrain from commenting on Sheikh Taj or his particular situation until it becomes clear that he said these words, it is nonetheless necessary to deal with the idea itself.
In essence, the argument is this: by suggesting that women are like uncovered meat and men are like cats, rape is no longer the result of human agency but of impersonal and irresistible forces of nature. In other words, the rapist is no more morally implicated in his rape than the cat that eats the uncovered meat is morally implicated in the satisfaction of his hunger. This is a complete inversion of Islamic teachings which places responsibility for one’s behaviour solely on the individual. Just because one wants to commit a crime or has the opportunity to do so does not excuse one from actually doing it. If your neighbour leaves his car unlocked, you are as morally culpable for stealing it as if he had left it locked; or, to use the example of rape, if you rape a woman without hijab, you are as morally responsible as if you raped a woman with hijab.
Whilst human agency has long been removed from behaviours such as drug addiction (“The drugs hooked me”), crimes against property (“I fell in with a bad crowd, your honour”), or violence (“The alcohol made me do it”), it is surely taking things to new and disgusting depths to blame rape not on alcohol, drugs or even social determinism but rather on the nature of men. As reprehensible as these ideas will surely be to women, men should also be deeply offended by comments such as these.
We will wait to see how Sheikh Taj responds to these reports. The Australian apparently has a tape recording of the speech. However, regardless of whether the reports are accurate, the ideas themselves deserve the most aggressive condemnation that the Muslim community can muster because of their sensitivity. The issue of rape is still in the minds of many Australians thanks the efforts of the so-called “Lebanese rape gangs” that dragged our religion into their evil crimes by using religious slurs against their victims and selectively targeting women based on their stated religious beliefs.
Some people will almost certainly use this most recent event to smear Islam or all Muslims. It is, therefore, worthwhile repeating what the Qu’ran has to say about rape. The use of violence to steal property or to rape someone is known in Arabic as hirabah. It is mentioned in the Qu’ran in the following verse (al-Maa’idah 5:33):
The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter….
This is what Islam says about rape and how rapists should be treated if convicted.
UPDATE: SBS, the multicultural broadcaster here, have translated some of the Sheikh’s comments and made them available online.
39 comments ↓
If these statments are correctly reported, then I condemn it without hesitation or qualification. They are a threat to the public safety of all women in the wider community (including Muslim women who will be targets of retaliation).
There is no basis in law, custom, fact or precedent which gives cover for such a contimptible view. They do not represent the views of any Muslim that I have ever met.
That the senior Muslim cleric in Australia is alleged to have made these comments should be deeply troubling to us all.
The public safety of all women in our Australian community must be of paramount imporatance to ALL Muslims.
I think the Sheikh enjoys the media spotlight. So once in a while he will say something stupid to remind people that he is still here.
He says he was taken out of context.
I’m not sure that helps, nor is it useful to have “the Mufti’s associate” come and clean up after him.
Given his history with the media, why on earth would he even approach this topic?
If one cannot speak english, has a history of believing that he is misquoted, then why even discuss this particular issue which is very likely to attract(and rightly so), close public scrutiny ?
He must come out himself, and say clearly that he apologises, that he will never speak again, to anyone, in any language, under any circumstances whatsoever, for the rest of his life.
The problem is that he is seen as the “spiritual leader” of Australia’s Muslims so even though none of us have any connection whatsoever with him, we all get held hostage — like Douglas Woods — to whatever he says. His comments are then given the same weight by non-Muslims as if, say, George Pell or the Pope was to make some statement about Catholicism. That’s the real issue here. AFIC should just abandon the ridiculous idea of a mufti and stop trying to turn Islam into an “organised religion” with its own clerical class and “official leaders”. Of course, that would mean AFIC would itself have to go but then that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Very Disgusting statements
I think one of the main problems when we here statements like these is that they are based (usually) in some culturally anachronistic analogy then a defined principle of Islamic law.
So to correct the analogy those cats should be euthanized for rabies, and the meat should be taken back inside.
A few years back when those rapes happened, you could see that those accused had no relationship to the Din other than thier names and national backgrounds. The saddest thing was the ‘religious’ leaders that defended the youth and charged the Gov’t with racism.
In the end it becomes an “Us vs. Them” paradigm, where Islam is not guidance for all people in all times and places, but instead a personalized culture for people that refuse to deal with reality.
The latest news is that he has now apologised for the comments.
There are several observations that I wish to make, in no particular order
1. The report says the sermon was on the Eid celebration (presumably on Monday), but Richard Kerbaj waited until Thursday to break the story. I presume this was because the public outrage at the Melbourne gang attacks had reached its climax, so a story about a muslim sheikh saying women deserved it would have maximum impact.
2. Nowhere in the story does kerbaj say that Hilali was referring to rape, but the journalist inserts a suitably offensive context himself
quote
” hile 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 .”
3. Why would any sane person use the imagery of meat to describe anything to do with women is beyond me. especially when it is a Muslim , in Sydney
4. Why don’t Hillali and other people speak in english and record their sermons and publish them on their websites? that way the transcript or audio is there for evreyone to read or listen directly
5. don’t these guys have anything else to discuss except sex?. the quote is just as bad when it refers to adultery as much as it is to rape, so the explanation from the muftis translator is also bad.
SBS have a translation of his talk available from here.
OK, that’s actually worse than I imagined
That speech was sickening.
OK what I really want to know is what time do you guys go to sleep esp. Ameer and Gavin ?
Very sad and irresponsible comments which are now getting a massive amount of play in the media.
Amir,
It’s important not to slip into defending institutions or individuals that purportedly represent Islam. Islam has neither that need defending. People like Sheikh Hilali are a disaster, but he is just a person with a wacky and offensive opinion.
Concentrate on Islam and its theology.
This guy also needs a detailed response. An open letter published in the SMH castigating these opinions is now needed. The letter should also be addressed to the woman that was raped. You need a Muslim intelligentsia in Australia that deal with disasters such as this guy, who is an idiot.
Its is essential that there be a campaign to protect the Muslim community from fools and psychopaths like this guy. But under no condition should you slip to defending him, who is he anyway.
26th October 2006
Sheikh Taj Ul-Din El-Hilaly
C/O Lakemba Mosque
65-67 Wangee Road Lakemba
NSW 2195
Dear Sheikh Taj,
Assalamu Alaikum,
We refer to comments that were reported in The Australian Newspaper on 26 October 2006.
The ICV is deeply concerned about comments you have been accused of making in which you blame women for inciting sexual assault.
It is morally repugnant and disgraceful to blame the victim of a sexual assault for inciting the crime in any way. Sexual assault is unacceptable and there is no justification for this behaviour. It is reprehensible that you would think that a women’s attire justifies or even
rationalises a sexual assault in any way whatsoever. Moreover it demonstrates a troubling ignorance of the nature of rape. Rape victims include elderly women who live in nursing homes and even Muslim women who wear the hijab. It has nothing to do with lust. It is a crime of violence and power.
The victims of sexual assault bear no responsibility for this degrading and traumatising crime. It is the perpetrators of these heinous crimes that are guilty. The responsibility is theirs. It is to them that you should direct your condemnation and disgust. We are deeply concerned that your views on this matter are at odds with this basic and obvious proposition.
The ICV also finds your suggestion that women are more responsible for adultery than men profoundly objectionable. Each bares the responsibility for their own actions. In this context, your likening of some women to uncovered
meat which will be devoured by cat is deeply repulsive. Women are not meat, irrespective of what they wear. They have the dignity of being human beings. Worse, your comments normalise and justify the sexual immorality of men by suggesting their acts of adultery, or worse, are as natural and inevitable as an animal eating. We believe your comments in this regard violate the most basic notions of human decency.
We condemn the comments attributed to you on these issues.
We demand that you issue an unreserved apology to the entire Australian community for these comments. Your expressed views on these issues are unacceptable and repulsive, and are not representative of the Muslim community nor Islamic teachings.
We further demand that you apologise to the Muslims of Australia who will be unfairly associated with your comments, when they do not endorse them. It is they who will feel the brunt of any backlash.
For some time now the ICV has been concerned about the position of the Mufti of Australia and other comments that have been attributed to you. As you are aware, our public view on this issue is that the position of the Mufti of
Australia should be abolished. In the interim, given the gravity of this issue, we call for your immediate resignation.
ICV
Yours sincerely,
The Islamic Council of Victoria
The letter is not on the ICV site yet.
It is important that it have the word “open letter” to facilitate publishing.
A similar letter should be prominently displayed on Austrolabe and other forums. The present post on Austrolabe is reluctant at best.
The letter must be signed by individuals, not just the ICV.
Yours sincerely
Name
Name
Name
on behalf of ICV
quote from Amir’s text:
” still hold out hope that somehow The Australian has got it wrong because these comments are so utterly disgusting and so completely antithetical to the teachings of Islam that it is hard to believe that any human, much less a Muslim leader, would utter them.”
quote from me
“If these statments are correctly reported, then I condemn it without hesitation or qualification. They are a threat to the public safety of all women in the wider community ”
Rabee, I am heartily sick and tired of people telling me just how vocal I need to be in my condemnation of various things. I am not sure how you think that these are “reluctant” comment, but I suggest that the problem is yours and no one else’s.
I am also against publishing pro-forma chain letters which appear manifestly insincere, since the person signing it could not be bothered in drafting their own words for their website.
Um Khulutun, Amir and Baybers are composite identities of 20 or so different people, who spend the entire day (in shifts) sitting by the computer, typing stuff. If they were individuals, then they would have to be deeply troubled.
Another response to ICV’s response:
rabee, that would have to be one of the most dumbass things that I has been posted.
i note that in your comment you failed to condem this, so does that mean that you also support hilali’s comments? if not I want a clear fullsome condemnation, and i want it now. and i want your photo with it and you had better not be smiling, perhaps you could cry, or look sad, and i want your full name, your mothers and the rest of your family, i want a sign outside your house, a sign stuck to your t shirt condeming this,
if you do not then i will think that you secretly agree with hilali, or you are hillili.
did anyone notice that thwe australian sat on this story for several weeks before they published it? it must have been hard for them to hold back all of that self righteous indignation , until they could make some cheap political capital out of it. I salute their fortitude.
Give me a break! Boo hoo. The Aussie media is beating up the poor, defenceless Muslims again.
It’s never our fault.
We have no responsibility.
Al Hilali enver defends terrorism, denies the Holocaust or defends rapists. No!
He’s always just taken out of context.
And guess what? If we on’t like how OUR community is being portrayed, we have a choice:
We don’t have to stand up and say anything;. No one forces us to repudiate the Mufti. But then we can’t piss and moan when Christians and others see us collectively in a certain way. If we feel it is not our job to speak up, then we must accept the consequences of that. You know why? Because WE are the minority religion here. WE are the newcomers. It is not the Job of the older Aussies to learn about Islam or Muslims. It is our job to engage them and present the image we believe is correct.
We are such a community of whingers! Where in the word do we have it better? Certainly in no Muslim country!
Yet when the MUFTI calls women meat and defends rape, we cry and cry about the mean and hurty Aussie media.
Give me a f*cking break.
When the Israeli Ambassador to Australia recently remarked the racist remarks:
“We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don’t have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not – we are basically the white race.”
Did we hear anything about it? No because the Jewish community came down on him like a ton of bricks. He was recalled in one day and sacked. That’s how they avoided “bad publicity.” (“I can’t tell you how sensitive these things are here,” said a senior member of Sydney’s Jewish community to Haaretz)
As soon at the head of AIPAC in the US was investigated by the FBI for revealing secrets to Israel he was sacked and AIPAC survives.
This idiot of a Sheikh calls a judge who sentenced thug gang rapists
“a judge, who has no mercy” because
“It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years. In his literature, the writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it. If you get a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?”
What was he referring to. The gang rapes, of course. This is unacceptable. Even if he was not justifying rape in general (which he was), he was justifying the actual gang rapes that happened in Sydney. He should have been sacked two days ago. No when he made the remarks to his Arabic audience.
He should be sacked because he is an idiot and a fool. He should also be sacked because it is the right thing to do for a community of people of goodwill. Anyone who justifies his remarks should think again.
Lala,
No one here (at least not the Muslims) has said any such thing, you are welcome to re-read all the posts, and you will not see that any Muslim is crying about the media treatment. Gavin is entitled to his opinion, as of course you are. The comments posted by FAIR, are not from us, and are reprinted here to highlight the absurdity of the “faux condemnation”.
I’m not sure what blog you are reading but it is not this one. I am not sure why I need to explain these things, when they are there written in plain English, but I understand your emotions of mortification, and I share them.
My personal opinion was the original piece in the Australian was quite mild, and did not mention the stupid comments he also made about about Jews and Christians. I cannot fault the reporting, which has been very measured.
I think that Gavin is incorrect to say the comments were not about rape, they were specifically about rape.
It is manifestly not our fault, we did not hire this man, we cannot fire him and we did not put words into his mouth. AFIC hired him, and is now in receivership and I’m not sure they will do anything.
Rabee, I agree that Muslims (especially the LMA) chose to defend gang rapists , rather than Islam during the notorious Skaf brothers trials, It was unforgivable that they deserted their faith and chose to be nothing more than an ethnic community group. I agree that Muslim leaders failed to strongly condemn rape at the time, without equivocation, and chose instead to moan about racism.
I also strongly agree with your point that Hilali, should have been sacked, many many years ago when he made stupid, anti-Jewish remarks, which were no more than crude racist and unforgivable. He restated those remarks during the recent Lebanese conflict. It was unforgivable that the LMA has not shown him the door. It reflects very badly on all Muslims, even those who had no say in his appointment. For once I agree with Howard, that our response to this situation will define our relationship with the general community.
these are things that we have previously commented on at this website:
http://austrolabe.com/2006/09/.....rtcomings/
and
http://austrolabe.com/2006/06/.....daughters/
I think that he should be sacked, and that for his own edification, he should assume a more humble, less pompous attitude and go and work in a rape crisis centre, away from the public spotlight, and that for the benefit of the Muslim community he should not deliver a khutbah again.
I also agree with non-Muslim commentators that some Muslim men do have a problem with their attitudes to women, attitudes that have clearly been fostered by their parents and religious leaders like Hilali.
“we are basically the white race.”
Well that’s a complete and total lie, unless eg Ethiopian Jews are all bleached on arrival at Tel Aviv airport.
Not that it matters a jot, but Jews are historically ethnically semitic, the same as Arabs. Semitic skulls may be “caucasoid” rather than “mongoloid”, anthropologically speaking, but historically speaking Jews are of “Middle Eastern” appearance which is usually a different category to “white/European” on most (albeit pointless) demographic forms.
To SecretDubai,
Dude! The guy was a moron. No one took him seriously. The Israeli government os not exactly enlightened and even they were appalled. No one has seriously talked of “white” or “yellow” races in a long time.
For what it’s worth, the Semitic designation is no longer considered scientific either.
The most broadly accepted science is of ethnogenesis, pioneered and spearheaded by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. In one of his massive studies, he demonstrated that Jews are actually most closely related to Kurds, who are supposed to be “Aryan” (because they speak an Indo-European/Indo-Iranian language). But the Kurds are themselves closely related to people previously considered Semites. Anyway, do a google on Cavalli-Sforza for more on this. His studies are wonderful, and the critiques of his methodology are interesting also.
baybers, you’re a blowhard. before impugning my comprehension skills, read over what was written in this thread. And who am I to know whether brother Gavin is indeed a brother? I assume everyone is Muslim in just the same way I assume no one is.
Shaikh Hilali, Westerners and rape…
Technorati Tags: sheikh hilali, australia, rape, bilal skaf In the past week, the storm over the sermon delivered a month ago by the Egyptian imam Taj al-Din al-Hilali, the imam of a major mosque in Sydney, Australia, and supposed “mufti……
Sheikh Taj was taken out of context again. There is a concerted effort by the media and certain muslim groups to rid the Sheikh of his duties. Allah swt says in the Quran
“O you who believe! If a Fasiq (liar – evil person) comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you should harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful for what you have done.” (49:6)
I listened to the audio of Sheikh Taj’s lecture tonight and it was faithfully translated. Strangely, nobody has said that he was mistranslated. The reference to someone a judge with no mercy throwing someone in jail for 65 years can only be in reference to Bilal Skaf and rape. Nobody gets thrown in jail for adultery.
If you understand Arabic go to http://www.islamicmedia.com.au/series.php?num=30 and it is there or you can hear it at The Australian site.
He should be allowed to be Imam at Lakemba but that is up to the LMA. What is absolutely essential is that he is stripped of this title of Mufti and the media stops reporting him as the leader for all Muslims. He has been a constant source of embarassment to this community and we deserve better than this. His comment that he will only leave when the White House is destroyed shows how completely out of it this guy is.
I agree that these comments are utterly sick and he should be stripped off his title. It’s really sad. We don’t need muftis etc.
I think there are two issues here. Firstly, the only reason this has become the issue it has (unlike the Sh Faiz incident ) is because Sh Taj is seen by the media, politicians and some members of the Lebanese community to be the Mufti of Australia and New Zealand. For example, the PM didn’t call on GIYC (the organisation where Sh Faiz was working) to sack him but he is obviously anxious for Sh Taj to be sacked as mufti because of the significane of the supposed ‘office’. The fact that every Australian Muslim has, yet again, been made to answer for the views and opinions of one man is unfair and must be addressed. The entire idea of a national mufti must be abandoned. The fact that it is only a small group of Lebanese men in Sydney that are able to decide whether he continues in that role demonstrates the fallacy of him being a national leader anyway.
Secondly, there is the issue of his role at Lakemba mosque. Some people have asked for him to be sacked. I disagree. It is a matter for the LMA to decide whether Sh Taj accurately reflects their views, values and religious ideas. He is their employee and, like any employer-employee relationship, sole responsibility lies with the employer as to whether he is satisfied with the performance of his employee. If recent reports are any indication most people in the Lakemba community agree with his views and support him.
Assalaam Alaikum Ihsan,
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.
ICV elected him to that role so if they want to withdraw support for him they are within their rights to do so.
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.
“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…”
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 Islamic standpoint regarding crimes such as rape is clear to all Muslims – surely this does not require debating. I think it is scnadalous to even suggest that the a Muslims religious scholar would propogate anything different.
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.
I think that AhmadK’s point is spot on. It is one thing to strip him of his role as Mufti, but to sack him from his job is quite another. I don’t want to hound someone who has apologised for his comments, we should move on.
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.
In 2005, an Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people found over 25% believe the rape victim is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.
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..?
In 2005, an Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people found over 25% believe the rape victim is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.
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.
Does anybody know who “Al-Rafee” is? The closest I came up with was Al-Razi, but it doesn’t sound like advice Al-Razi would give.
I have never heard of that name either, maybe someone can fill us in. A type of explanation was given on Insight:
Leave a Comment