Thursday, October 26, 2006

Australia's Top Muslim Cleric: Rape Victims are Like 'Uncovered Meat'

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim cleric: What? What I do wrong?
"There were women who sway suggestively and wore make-up and immodest dress and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women rape victims – whom he said were "weapons used by Satan to control men...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. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." Remember, this is not some backstreet preacher, he's the number one Mulism in Australia: A new survey shows that 84% of Australians believe the Imam should be deported.

I have recieved a number of complaints that I am selectively quoting the Imam, so I give you the entire speech; I believe that the speech in its entirety is actually more damning than my selective quotes:
“Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.”

“When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. 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.”

“But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, 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?”

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.”

“If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.”

“Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger in necessity, Satan tells women you‘re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons.”

“...The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.”


  1. As I understand it, his comments were made over a month ago in Arabic. Somebody has dragged this one up from somewhere for a reason. I submitted a longer reponse to this topic this morning when you had it further down the page. But that submitted comment appears to be lost?

    The mufti made comments which aren't actually so far removed from how more conservative folks in western countries view the situation of the modern world anyway.

    We recognize that skimpy clothing sexualizes women more, because people have concerns about such clothing being aimed at young girls in shops. That is proof enough that we know that 'part' of what he is saying, is true. Many guys in the west tend to view a woman as more slutty,if she wears skimpy clothing. So why are people now in such an uproar as if his comments are totally incorrect?

    I'd suggest it's because he's an Islamic Cleric.

    Yes, he twisted things into a typically Islamic view of women. But the 'essence' of what he is saying, finds more agreement in our countries than we'd care to admit.

    People don't want to admit that he has a point, because he is a Muslim. If Australians want this guy deported for speaking his mind, then we can rule out Australia as a haven of free speech, just as nearly all our western countries are losing that freedom, with law after law preventing us from speaking our minds. Political correctness etc. We screamed about our right to publish cartoons mocking Islam. Now Australians want someone "deported" for speaking his mind? It seems we westerners want the freedom to offend "others" as much as "we" want without any objection from the attacked. But we want to condemn and deport Muslims who offend "us" with their comments? Bizzare. In that case, perhaps it is time to admit that no country in this world has genuine freedom of speech, and stop deluding ourselves that our countries are pinnacles of enlightenment and freedom anymore.

  2. Who cares if this speech is from a week, a month or a year ago....from the headlines today, this psycho hasn't changed his stripes.

  3. The Mufti's comments are the typical hell fire approach found in several near eastern religions if we are honest with ourselves. We have Christian Evangelists ranting away in city centres not too far away from me. People just ignore them if we don't feel what they say is relavent to our lives. The thing to do in a society which would "claim" itself to be a forum of free speech and worlds apart from the stone age, would have been to ignore the Mufti. Simple as that. If he views women that way, then so what?

    If his comments truly have no basis in truth, then why all the fuss and uproar from us non-muslims? It is interesting. Making such a damn fuss about this,suspending him,and threatening deportation,makes him a martyr in a way, and makes it look as if the "infidels" can't handle having their raw nerves being hit by comments "they" don't like.

    During the Danish cartoon affair, many of the more moderate Muslims in the west said this was mostly a matter of respect and decency not to slander their Prophet. Most westerners took an approach of - "Oh for god's sake get over it and stop being so childish. Develop a thicker skin". Now the western world has seen an Islamic clerics comments as disrespectful to women and want heads on spikes. Many are 'demanding' he apologizes,demanding he is deported,demanding he even be jailed for "inciting rape", demanding he should never be allowed to preach again. Some media in Australia are predicting possible violence against Muslims, due to the Mufti's comments. If that occurs, we are not so different from rioting Muslims really. There are countless hardline preachers of other Religions in the west, that many citizens find offensive. But we usually dismiss them as crackpots if we feel that way about what they say. We don't usually group up on them with pitchforks and attack. We are making our form of "hellfire" for those who don't agree with the particular ideology we hold dear.

  4. Anonymous is always so disarmingly polite, and yet is always prepared to "understand" & defend the outrageous behavior of even the most radical Islamists; he also tends to make ridiculous moral equivalency comparisons. I have never heard of an Evangelical Christian, even the most extreme, blame women for the criminal behavior of men in the form of rape. It is true that Evangelical Christian Ministers encourage women and men to dress and behave modestly, but I have never heard of a Christian Minister compare women to Satan’s tool, or that women should cover themselves from head to toe in black tents and be hidden away in the back rooms of their homes. I have never heard even the most extreme Christian Evangelical compare a scantly dressed woman to a pile of meat, and to men as animals not responsible for their own behavior. This is plain sick, and to try to make such an equivalency is disgusting and a calculated insult to believing Christians. I say that even though I myself am not a Christian or particularly religious. I have never heard of a modern Christian blowing himself up in a subway station, flying planes into buildings or beheading “infidels.” The attitude of the average Muslim preacher to Women is not dissimilar to attitudes held in the West well before the age of enlightenment, going back many centuries. To try to make a leap of centuries with extreme and disingenuous moral relativism is preposterous and will not fly; period.

  5. My dress is modest and appropriate and I've still had guys approach me. Does that mean I should quit teaching and stay at home in my room so I'm not a temptation to men? I think not.

    Also, consider men that are attracted to little boys and girls. Is it the fault of innocent children who have no idea how sick some people can be?

    The Sheik is a twisted sicko. Period.

  6. Excluding certain ideologys from being able to use free speech, is bizzare and shows our true colours for what they are. We are 'not' pinnacles of freedom and tolerance. We are 'not' heroic defenders who cherish free speech. We are people who pick and choose. We love it when we like what we're hearing.

    We seem to want to muffle,fire,and threaten with deportation,clerics who offend us. Suggesting that I am 'defending' his behaviour as if I agree with everything this guy says, is a cheap shot attempt to pigeon hole me. I am simply saying that in 'essence', what he is talking about (all the extreme symbols aside) is not so disimilar to conservative attitudes in several western nations anyway. That is why I find the over the top reaction to his comments, bizzare.

    Like Pope Benedict, the Muftis comments took place in a setting that was not a proclamation to the world anyway.Somebody just leapt on it and decided to make it public.

    In terms of Evangelical Christians, I don't believe I said they talk about women like the Mufti did.

    I believe I said they come up with all sorts of rants that citizens find offensive. But we don't usually react to them this way.

    When I hear an Evangelical preacher in the street pointing his finger around saying unbelievers will burn in hell for their sins, then I find it offensive but I just ignore it or debate the issue if I feel to.

    We recognize that "that" is the thing to do in a a free society which so frequently "claims" to cherish free speech. Simply ignore that which we don't want to hear.

    Let us face the reality here. People are going berserk because he is a Muslim, and people don't like to hear what Muslims have to say.

    Muslims on the whole are being portrayed by our nations as the new "Jewish Problem" of Europe and the United States, simply because the hardline preachers and militant nutcases make it into the headlines, and the ones who just go about their lives moderately,don't.

    By all means,everyone shoot down his comments. But the reaction of Australian society in the form of suspending him from work, and holding polls to see how many people want him "deported", or saying he should not be "allowed" to say what he said,is plain odd.

  7. Once again, anonymous misses all points entirely:

    1) Nobody has suggested that the Imam has no right to speak. But to wrap his words in the Western shield of “free speech” and then suggest that Westerners have no right to react to his speech with contempt is an attempt to limit our own free speech. We cannot go silently into the night as primitive predators spread their hate using our own freedoms against us.
    2) The Imam himself comes from a society where Christians and all other non-Muslims are afforded no such “free speech.” Churches in Saudi Arabia for example are entirely illegal, and non-Muslims (infidels) are not allowed to participate in any organized religion… other than Islam.
    3) The Imam apparently expects to be shielded by the same Western traditions that he himself holds in contempt; and would never offer the same rights if the shoe was on the other foot.
    4) It is completely unreasonable to think that Westerner should sit back and allow those who hate our values, to use our values of freedom and tolerance in the service of our own destruction. We will not submit; we will not commit suicide.

    In short, anonymous, your whole “free speech” thing is a crock. Freedom is for those who value and cherish freedom and are willing to defend freedom from the likes of this Imam and his followers. Freedom isn’t free; the price of freedom is eternal vigilance against those who would destroy our freedom, especially from within by using our own freedoms against us.

  8. One more thing; your comparison of today’s Muslims of Europe to the Jews of the 1930’s is particularly contemptible. The Jews of Europe never rioted, blew up buses and trains or flew planes into buildings. Rabbis never preached hatred or encouraged violence against anyone. The Jews of Europe were (and are) major contributors to the age of enlightenment in all areas, science (Einstein), philosophy (Spinoza)…etc…etc… one third of all Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, in almost all categories’, that’s more than Catholics and over 1000 times their proportion in the population. So far, Muslim contributions to civilization and the betterment of man have been miniscule in comparison. The most influential Muslim invention of the past few centuries is the suicide bomber. Anonymous constantly makes truly bizarre more equations, but comparing the Muslims of today to European Jews of the 1930’s is certainly beyond the pail.

  9. And yet one more comment: Once again, anonymous makes a strange moral equation, comparing the comments of the Australian Imam to the comments of the Pope. Here’s the difference: the comments of the Pope were accurate and true. Islam does have a problem with reason, and does seek conversion by force and intimidation. Many Muslims proved his point by rioting and killing in reaction to his comments.

    The Pope did not compare scantly clad females to meat, and men to animals who are not responsible for their own actions. In any event, I have not seen Christians rioting and killing in response to the Imam’s words. If indeed, the Imam’s words were meant only for his congregation and not for the world at large, that makes his words even that much more disturbing. That would mean that he is inciting his flock confidently knowing that he would never be accountable to the outside world.

  10. Did the Imam at any time suggest that westerners have no right to react to his speech? Not that I've seen (so far). I myself have not said anything about us having no right to be outraged by his comments, either. All I said was that the approach taken so far in Australia, has been to "suspend" him from preaching, suggest he should be jailed for inciting rape, or even talk about deportating the guy.

    It is saying he should "shut up". Your point about the possibility of some people using our freedoms "against" us, is valid and I recognize that. In this particular case though, how on earth are his comments threatening "our" free speech? Destroy his comments with debate, rather than gag him, suspend him from speaking, and threaten deportation. Doing all these later, makes it 'look' as if his comments hit too close to home for some people, and may have had a 'grain' of truth in them.

    You say the difference is that the Pope was "right" and the Imam is "wrong". Again, you miss the point of my posts which was that a surprising amount of people believe that the 'essence' of what the Imam was saying, is not exclusively Islamic.

    Don't believe me? Go to the many 'feedback' sections on internet news services, and you will see quite a number of people saying similar to what I've been saying all along. That although his comments were wrapped in typical hardline comments, the 'essence' of what is saying is not 'so' far removed from what more conservative folks in our countries have thought for centuries,, and isn't so new or exlusively Islamic.

    Saying I am comparing Muslims of today with Jews of 1930 in the way you 'thought' I was, is odd. I never talked about achievements or worthiness or any such thing.

    I'm simply using the comparison in the way that a large part of society is out to get Muslims on the whole, and paint them as the parasites and rats in the way Goebbles propaganda movies did with the Jews of the 1930s (and before). The comparison is that an entire community is portrayed as parasitic, cunning, and dangerous to us all.

    You yourself keep up dragging examples again and again of bus bombings, beheadings, planes flying into buildings, and small groups of loonies with headscarfs holding threatening plackards, whenever I mention the world Islam. It is keeping the worst of the worst in mind, to make it easier to create the "enemy".

    It is being selective about Islam. It appears to be picking up on the worst examples, and saying "that is what they are". It is like someone in Pakistan saying that F16s and Daisy Cutters bombs are everything the United States is about. It is plain wrong. Just as the idea that Islam is nothing but "evil and inhuman", is wrong and ignorant.

    You appear to be saying that Muslims are not much to lose sleep over, because their contribution in 'modern' times has been miniscule. It is another way of saying they are just parasites and the world would lose little without them. The argument that Islam has done little for the betterment of man, many would disagree with you.

    The amount of people who have found self peace and morality through Islam shows otherwise. Do you rate the worthiness of someone's existence in terms of what they added to the "system"? If that is so, then many western citizens fail to qualify.

    If you agree with the Pope, that there must be dialogue then I agree with you. If you agree with the Pope quoting an ancient Byzantine Emperor that Islam has brought nothing to the world but everything "evil and inhuman" then I disagree. The Emperor's words came at a time when Muslims were like all other groupss in that early time of Earth's history, carving out lands and conquering. Europe was hardly a passive victim. It was also conquering land under Christianity, just as tribes which had embraced Islam, were doing the same thing. If Islam has been passive, it would have been wiped out. If Europe had been passive, it would have been wiped out.

    The Pope dragging up an example from the distant past, didn't help. It was like saying that due to the horrors of the 1500's Spanish Conquistadors in Latin America, Christianity is nothing but a plundering, destructive force which garrots, burns, or beheads those who don't accept the bible instead of their "heretical " ways.

  11. 1) No, the Imam did not suggest that Westerners have no right to react to his speech; you did, by repeatedly implying that the Imam’s right to free speech were being violated by intolerant folk; reserving your outrage not for the Imam but for Australians. I do believe that the Imam should be deported as a message to other radical Islamists that unlike the UK, you either adapt Australian values or go back to a wonderful Muslim country where the Sheria law that he wants so much is tolerated. He certainly has a right to say what he wants, and Australian’s certainly have the right to deport him. He is not the only one with “rights.”
    2) I have no doubt that there are many folks “on the internet” who support both the spirit and the “essence” of what the Imam was saying. I’m sure on every Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda, Al Lefty and Al web site there are a million examples of folks cheering the Imam’s words and worse.
    3) Nobody I would associate with is “out to get Muslims as a whole.” I feel badly that there is a large and growing group of Muslims (not a tiny group as you suggest) who subscribe to the Islamo-fascist ideology if not the objectives. Unfortunately for all Muslims, it’s not the passive majority that counts; it’s the committed minority that acts in the name of all of Islam that counts. If the passive majority can’t act to suppress the radicals within their midst, all Muslims will suffer as a result just as all German’s, most of who were not active Nazi’s, suffered. That is the tragic reality that all Muslim’s face. You rush to blame the West for failing to differentiate between Muslims rather than the failure of non-radical Muslims to stand up to the radicals in their midst. That is where you go wrong.
    4) The Jews of Europe were not trying to impose their values on non-Jews in the 1930’s. In fact active proselytizing is against Jewish tradition. No Rabbi’s were preaching hate; there were no Jewish riots, violence or provocations. Jews (and other minorities) were simply scapegoated by Hitler, rounded up and sent to death camps. Nobody that I would tolerate would ever suggest doing that to Muslims of today. But there is simply no comparison to the rioting, killing and murdering that is done in the name of Islam today, to the peaceful European Jews of the 1930’s, who had been a part of the European fabric since the emergence of Europe and the West in general.
    5) Large amounts of people have found “self peace” under Islam? Which you consider a contribution to humanity? Good lord. People can find self peace in all kinds of religions and I respect that. But that won’t cure Polio (Dr. Jonah Salk, another Jew). I have traveled to many lands where Islam is the predominant force: I have seen the backwardness, poverty, sluggish and primitive systems of commerce, trade and technology in every sector. I have seen the condition of women, children and minorities, the predatory “survival of the fittest” street mentality. Please leave these “self peace” types of arguments for naive Western liberals who are easily manipulated.

  12. Hi.

    1) No,I did not repeatedly imply that westerners have no right to destroy his argument and speak their mind in response. I repeatedly implied that Australia was acting like the very people it criticized, by suspending him from work, suggesting he be jailed for incitement to rape, and even discussing deportation. When extremists try to use free speech to "stop" free speech, then they are a threat. When they get into politics and try to change law so that women have to wear a tent and stay home, then they are a threat. When they simply speak their mind about women in australian society, they are not a threat. They are just offensive, and should be ignored or debated. Disarm them that way. Muzzling, suspending, and possibly deporting someone who's speech you despise, simply gives the appearance that the speaker hit a raw nerve, and gives them power.

    2) When I referred to people on the internet who were not calling for his muzzling and deportation, I said that there were people who also recognized that in our very "own" culture amongst more conservative elements, such a view (albeit less extreme in condemnation) has been around for a long time. But we don't deport "those" folks. This isn't agreeing with his awful use of descriptive language, or agreeing that women shoulder 'all' the blame for rape.

    3) I agree you with you fully that the Islamic community 'must' group together to 're-capture' the image of their faith. Absolutely. But in the process, we must also be carefull not to demonize the community ourselves in the media. Because all it does,is create huge resentment in that community, and causes them to close in on themselves and 'potentially' start listening to the more political and militant elements. In the rush to find militants in Britain (for example), there has been much injustice and unfair treatment by the police and government towards Muslim communities. Our tabloid media just "loves" to portray Muslims as evil too.

    4) You may not tolerate anybody suggesting that such things happens to Muslims today. But I tell you, it is not far off it. Many countries have made Islam on the whole, enemy number one due to the actions of a minority. When it kicks off, people may cease to see the two as separate, and our media hardly help matters.

    5) Yes I consider a system of self morality and social brotherhood, a good contribution to humanity at a time when more and more of the world doesn't give a damn about their neighbour or what the effects of their choices have on others. I don't know in what context you visited those lands. But it seems you encountered and chose to notice negativity, and took more of an objective view of things. I on the other hand after travelling in those lands, experienced the beautys of Islam which are admirable (and yes,there are aspects of it I despise).

    Btw, what do you mean by the 'Survival of the fittest' street mentality?

    You saw the backwardness, poverty, sluggish and primitive systems of commerce, etc, possibly because Islam is like a scattered people now. It has no Empire anymore. Islamic empires in the past excelled in trade,and creativity. Islamic nations today are mostly poor,yes. Sure. But there are many reasons for that. You appear to imply that it is just because they follow Islam. Many cultures around the world are living in sluggish poverty, and many of them don't follow Islam. They follow Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism, or have no religion at all. There are a plethora of reasons why they are not successfull. So saying Islamic nations are living in poverty because of Islamic ideology, is a half truth (IMO).

  13. Anonymous get the last word this time around.

  14. Oh. Well, thanks for the discussion anyway :)


Please keep it clean. Comments do not reflect the opinion of this blog and are the sole opinion of the commenter. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Of course, opposing views are welcomed.

Auto-flagged and monitored IP addresses:
Teksavvy - IP 76.10.141, Onterio, Canada.
Charter Communications - IP 68.188.68. Ballwin, Missouri