Fausta's blog

Faustam fortuna adiuvat
The official blog of Fausta's Blog Talk Radio show.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Uncovered meat

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.
When I first read this statement I thought, "what nation is that? Iran? Saudi Arabia?"

The nation is Australia, and the cleric is Australia's mufti. The words, which he now denies, are undoubtedly his, since The Australian newspaper obtained a recorded copy of his sermon and translated it:
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)."
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, who sent me the article last evening, asked What does a western woman make of this? What is she supposed to make of it?

What does a Western woman make of news like that monstrous Georgia man accused of mutilating his two year old daughter's genitalia with a pair of scissors . . . "to avoid bringing shame on his family"?
"He said he wanted (the girl) to have it done so that she will not be promiscuous," First added.
It's not shameful to mutilate a baby, but it's shameful to have a woman with all her parts intact? It's not shameful to believe that a woman has to be promiscuous simply from the fact of being a woman?

What will it take for political correctness to finally, finally, be shown for the farce it is, and will the moral people of the world come out and speak out?

Because, without a doubt, the immorality of believing that women do not have a right to their own genitalia, a right to have that that they are born with, by God's grace; the immorality of thinking that a father has the duty to inflict such harm on his own daughter; the immorality of believing that women are "uncovered meat"; and the immorality of sermonizing that not wearing a veil, "swaying when they walk", and wearing make-up deserves rape, is, or at least ought to be, clear beyond any question.

In Australia itself, the reaction to the mufti's words has been immediate, starting with Muslims themselves:
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.
Iktimal Hage-Ali, who will not be intimidated, gave a radio interview you can listen to. Let's hope more like her come forward.

SC&A also asked, How fearful/threatening is that kind of 'religion' or ideology?

My initial reaction last evening when SC&A asked was to explain how I've changed my mind when it comes to owning and using firearms - because, believe me, I've done an about-face on the subject. 2,000 rapes in any area of a city is definitely fearful and threatening, and not simply because of the violence of a rape. You have to assume that any man intent on raping you is willing to kill you, and there is no way the police can respond to calls (rape or otherwise) when there's that much going on.

However, there's a much larger issue.

Dr. Sanity has been writing on the issue of women's pervasive oppression under Islam (see hereand here). But it's not simply a matter of women's issues. It's a matter of the entire society being dragged into the Dark Ages, as Victor Davis Hanson writes today,
Who would have thought centuries after the Enlightenment that sophisticated Europeans - in fear of radical Islamists - would be afraid to write a novel, put on an opera, draw a cartoon, film a documentary or have their pope discuss comparative theology?
The intimidation is systematic: Tim Blair has found out that muslimvillage have apparently published the phone number and two email addresses of the Australian journalist who wrote the Hillali article.

Last year's French riots started a year ago tomorrow. Last night four buses were set on fire while their passengers were still inside. What the BBC article takes pains to avoid mentioning is that the "youths" (the euphemism for Muslim), who earlier in the day had presented a list of hundreds of grievances (20,000 complaints) to the National Assembly in Paris, live in housing projects where women who don't wear veils are gang-raped. It doesn't matter if the women are Muslim or not. Last night's "youths" didn't care if the bus passengers were male or female, Muslim or not.

Because what it all comes down to is that, in the long run, we're all "uncovered meat" for those intent on taking us back to the Dark Ages.

Related post: "Oppression brings out perversion in people."

Update Walking In Traffic

Update, Friday 27 October The misunderstood mufti

(technorati tags , , , )


At 4:36 PM, Blogger Dymphna said...

The Great Silence of western feminists is a moral crime. They are mute on this point -- and many others -- because their own political agenda about ethnic "victims" ties them in knots and seals their lips. They cannot complain about the behavior of any group that normal people find offensive because that would take them out of their fem ghetto and leave them open to criticism from the left for defending the female victims of the uber-victims, those poor Muslims.

Unfortunately, one of the things this does is to solidify the validity of the claim that women can't think logicially....hey, come to think of it, this deficit puts them right square in same tippy boat at the Islamists when it comes to rational functions.

At 4:57 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

Don't miss SC&A's post Walking in traffic. He talks about that.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home