Aussie Muslim Cleric blames women's attire for rape attacks

[Cooldude]

Australia's senior Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali during a Ramadan sermon had compared women who dressed immodestly to meat that attracted cats. The comments had drawn widespread condemnation from all over Australia. The Cleric has now retracted his statement & apologised to Australia's Muslim population.



Cleric blames women's attire for attacks (http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Cleric-blames-womens-attire-for-attacks/2006/10/26/1161749216145.html)

Women who do not cover up are similar to abandoned "meat" making them responsible for sexual attacks, a senior Islamic cleric has said.

Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali has outraged female Muslim leaders with comments he made during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, News Limited newspapers report.

"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 asked.

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (islamic headdress), no problem would have occurred."

He also alluded to the Sydney rapes in 2000 where four women were separately gang-raped by a group of young Muslim men, including Bilal Skaf, who originally received a 55-year sentence, later reduced.

He said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and inappropriate clothes, "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years," News Limited reports.

The Sheik went on to say women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men and when it comes to adultery the responsibility falls on the woman 90 per cent of the time.

He defended the sermon about adultery and theft when contacted by News Limited, which obtained and translated a recording of the 17-minute talk.

But he did clarify his reference to the Sydney gang rapes and said Skaf was guilty and deserved such a sentence.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali does not wear a hijab and said it is not worn to prevent rape or harassment and it is up to "males to learn how to control themselves".

Australia's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, echoed the young adviser's statements, saying she was "disgusted and offended" by the Shiek's statements.

[JaiSpeaks]

now is the time to throw him out .. the seeds of intolerance are sown

[krishna]

Why is this s surprise? Islam is a culture that is still in the 11th century. If they can issues fatwas for gang rapes, female mutilation, acid attacks, beheadings, why not blame the rapes on women? After all, when a guy rapes the gril, the jihadis honor whack the girl and the pious terrorist gets away. Punish the crime by getting rid of the victim. No victim no crime.

[tantric_yogi]

A friend who lives in Australia told me this ... they come in as rufegees ... live of dole/welfare ... have dozen children ... and at every opportunity bite the fingers that feed them. Namakharam saale.

[Sane Less]

A friend who lives in Australia told me this ... they come in as rufegees ... live of dole/welfare ... have dozen children ... and at every opportunity bite the fingers that feed them. Namakharam saale.

Who are we talking about, Tanyagnic pai:confused: mullahs or muslims? You cannot brand all muslims as such... not all of them are bad... many of them are just plain unlucky to be born in such an unfortunate religion:(

[tantric_yogi]

Who are we talking about, Tanyagnic pai:confused: mullahs or muslims? You cannot brand all muslims as such... not all of them are bad... many of them are just plain unlucky to be born in such an unfortunate religion:(

BhaYa ... strange cause this was the verry sem question I asked my friend. His reply made little sense to me but here is for your digestion ...

He said: "Yogi, I can asnwer your question but only as an Indian cause good people of local kind give shit for my religion ... they all know me for country of my origin and not religion." My freidn added: "Our Muslims are not much different from Hindu Indians. They work hard, pay their taxes, raise kids to be responsible, are least problem and appreciate new adopted motherland for opprotunity. "

Sanelessbhai ... this leads me to believe

that trouble makers in Australia who bite fingers that feed them are from an enviornment different from ours ...

that Indian muslims are not much different from us Hindus. In adopted lands they behave (just as us Hindus) and are productive members of society. But back home ... here in India ... our motherland ... all of us (Hindus or Muslims) fu(k India, beat the shit out of each other for religion, beliefs, and economic muscle.

Being a Hindu I do not know what shit Indian Muslims do among themselves in India but I can tell you what we Hindus do to each other. We push down each other's throat our beliefs. Those born with golden spoon dont miss a single opportunity to screw the living shit out of dis-advantaged poor Hindus and keep them where they belong ... in gutters.

Sanebhai ... Tantric talking bull shit is what you're thinking ... right? How is this for a proof ... in 5000 years of our history and we brag with pride ... Indians have never attacked another country. But we have always attacked and stabbed each other in the back.

I can go going but enough of derailing this thread.

[Sane Less]

...

Sanebhai ... Tantric talking bull shit is what you're thinking ... right? How is this for a proof ... in 5000 years of our history and we brag with pride ... Indians have never attacked another country. But we have always attacked and stabbed each other in the back.

I can go going but enough of derailing this thread.

No Tanyigino pai, you are not talking bull sh*t nor are you derailing this thread. We are right on track and what you say does hold logic. But (shit, there is always a but) the problem is, it does not stop at that. Indian muslims... by basically being Indians, do well in foreign countries. They behave well, present themselves well... but they have to attend the same mosques as other muslims. And not only that, they take their kids to the same mosques too. And at the mosque, they have to listen to the same mullah shit that this topic is about.

A Indian muslim will take it in through one ear but pass it out the other... maybe take it in through both ears and pass it out somewhere else. But what about the children? How do they relieve themselves:confused: So eventually, the Indianness dies out... and all that is left is pure shit (islam in all its glory) that we now get to see happening around the world.

[Sane Less]

When it comes to logical reasoning, who better than a muslim mullah :D. What he means to say is that we Indians can go kill as many muslims in USA and still be free of any punishment. Oh, how I wish this was true... yeah, we do need islamic laws all over the world... it will help us all in getting rid of the muslims :D



Abu Hamza 'was wrongly convicted' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6102046.stm)


A radical Islamic cleric should be freed because Victorian laws do not apply to foreigners killing foreigners, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Abu Hamza al-Masri is challenging his convictions for soliciting to murder and race-hate crimes. He was jailed for seven years in February.

His lawyers argued legislation used to convict him only applies to those who incite British citizens to kill.

Lawyers for the Crown say incitement law also applies to foreigners.

The Egyptian-born cleric, who is being held at Belmarsh high-security prison, was jailed after being found guilty of 11 of 15 charges, including crimes under the 1861 Offences Against The Person Act.

Those offences centred on speeches made by Abu Hamza at a number of mosques between 1997 and 2000.

Prosecutors argued that the cleric acted as a "recruitment sergeant" for terrorist organisations and incited members of the audience to kill Jews and non-Muslims.

But, at the start of the second day of the appeal, lawyers for Abu Hamza argued that the 1861 legislation only covered a British citizen being incited to kill someone abroad - and not foreigners encouraged to murder other foreigners overseas.

Prosecutors had failed to prove British citizens were in Hamza's audience and, as a result, he should not have been found guilty, said his defence team.

'Prejudiced trial'

Earlier in the appeal, Edward Firzgerald QC said his client had been denied a fair trial at the Old Bailey because of a combination of unique circumstances.

It had become "impossible" for Abu Hamza to get a fair hearing because his speeches were being judged amid a media hate campaign, the public actions of ministers, including a decision to strip him of British citizenship, and general tensions following the 9/11 attacks and 2005 London bombings.

Had there been a case against the preacher, argued Mr Fitzgerald, it should have come four years earlier when anti-terrorism officers seized recordings of the sermons, along with an alleged terrorism training manual.

Despite police scrutiny of this material and further MI5 monitoring, Abu Hamza was not charged and the material was returned, said his lawyer.

The appeal continues.