Briton (Senior figure in the Muslim Council) backs imam in 'uncovered meat' row

Times ^ | October 28, 2006

[PRePublic]

Briton backs imam in 'uncovered meat' row

From Bernard Lagan in Sydney

ONE of Britain's most senior Muslims has defended as "a great scholar" the Australian imam who likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat that draws predators.

Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali's views, saying that "loose women like prostitutes" encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or "standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts".

Although the Australian cleric did not use the word prostitute, but appeared to be attacking women wearing revealing clothes, Dr Sajid said that the sermon had been taken out of context. Referring to the thrust of the Sheikh's argument, he said: "So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?" Dr Sajid, who is on a speaking tour, met the controversial Sheikh at his Sydney mosque yesterday.

Sheikh al-Hilali bowed yesterday to pressure and agreed not to preach for three months. But he defied those pressing for him to quit as the leading Muslim cleric in Australia.

After meeting him yesterday, Dr Sajid said: "As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence." Dr Sajid added that he believed that the inflammatory excerpts from a speech, given last month, had been quoted out of context. "I respect his views. His intentions are noble in order to make morality and modesty part of our overall society," the British cleric said.

Sheikh al-Hilali, who is the Mufti of Australia, delivered his remarks to hundreds of Muslims in his mosque. He likened immodestly dressed women to meat that attracted predators and suggested that they were to blame for being set upon by men. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street . . . and the cats come and eat it, whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem," he said.

Dr Sajid said that he had advised the sheikh, in future, to think before he spoke.

However, after the meeting with Dr Sajid, Sheikh al-Hilali told a media contingent inquiring if he would resign: "After we clean the world of the White House first."

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website .

[mware]

Isn't this the guy who sent threatening e mails to Little Green Foofballs, saying he looked forward to seeing the day when his throat was slit.

[kjo]

What's happened to the voice of US feminists? Cat got their tongue? Wouldn't want to be seen as being on the same side as Bush, would we?

[vimto]

Hope you like this one too!

[Mrs Ivan]

"So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?"

Anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by that filthy cult will object to that.

This guy should not be allowed back in the country.

[vimto]

I can tell you from recent conversations that some in the feminist movement in the UK to begining to see the picture. They are in shock. They have been taken in and spat out. Don't expect too much though, they can only take so much reality at a time.

[wodinoneeye]

Someone needs to tell these Muslims that in civilized societies, men are expected to be moral and have self control. If they (these 'imams') consider themselves and their fellow believers no better than dumb animals with no ability to control themselves (and act accordingly), then THEY should expect to be treated like unwanted animals (feral cats are Euthanized...)

[Kolokotronis]

""So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?"

Anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by that filthy cult will object to that."

I don't know what the practice was in Briton say 30 years ago, but here in the States, making veiled accusations that the victim of a rape was a loose woman was a regular defense tactic in rape trials. And how the victim was dressed, what time of day the rape took place, where the victim was and her sexual history were usually part of that defense. The question became, "Can one rape a whore?".

None of this has been allowed since at the latest 1980, either on account of court decisions or legislation, but this sort of vile talk, perhaps in a bit more polished manner, was part and parcel of our criminal justice system not so many years ago. I point this out not in defense of this Mohammaden savage, but rather in the interests of having many of us at least understand that we Western Christians might not be quite so long evolved beyond the Mohammadens as we might wish to think.

[Kozak]

What's happened to the voice of US feminists? Cat got their tongue?

Too busy getting measured for one of these

[Ninian Dryhope]

" rather in the interests of having many of us at least understand that we Western Christians might not be quite so long evolved beyond the Mohammadens as we might wish to think."

Bunk. We are so. You have compared two completely different contexts. A defense lawyer is expected to go to extremes to defend his client. This was the top religious leader of a country peddling this crap.

You have real problem when it comes to judgment.

[caseinpoint]

While I don't generally disagree with your premise, I take issue with one. The question was never "Can one rape a whore?" The issue was whether the rape was a consensual act which the accuser later regretted. The matter of clothing, sexual history and so forth was germane to what the victim might have been expecting herself.

That line of questioning of the victim is no longer allowed. While the idea is valid that no one deserves unwilling violation, some may say it has gone too far the other direction so that every woman is considered an absolutely innocent virgin in the case of rape. The reality is most often somewhere inbetween.

[USF]

Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain...

MCB's Inayat Bunglawala Defends Islamic Supremacism

MCB's Jew hatin', London suicide bomber praisin', Bin Laden (the "freedom fighter") lovin', Inayat Bunglawala gets Brit Govt "top job fighting extremism."

MCB's Bunglawala: Do As We Say, And Nobody Gets Hurt

MCB's Abduljalil Sajid backs "Aussie" imam in 'uncovered meat' row

Downing Street's Favorite – The Muslim Council of Britain - by Daniel Pipes

[EBH]

Now we need to start putting all these articles on the same pages for libs...maybe they'll wakeup a bit sooner?

IT'S OK TO KILL GAYS - BRITISH IMAM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727920/posts

[Kolokotronis]

"While I don't generally disagree with your premise, I take issue with one. The question was never "Can one rape a whore?" The issue was whether the rape was a consensual act which the accuser later regretted. The matter of clothing, sexual history and so forth was germane to what the victim might have been expecting herself."

Not really. The issue of whether or not the incident was consensual is still fair game. I remember arguing to the jury in the last rape case I had that "This is the story of two drunk people who fell into bed together one night and the women thought better of it in the morning." Because of the facts of that case, the argument worked.

What I was referring to was a practice of quite literally demonizing the victim, making her out to be cheap and easy and, though not said, deserving of what she got. The fascinating thing about that tactic was that it seemed to work better with women jurors than men. I personally never used that gambit, in the 70s I wasn't first chairing major felony trials, but I saw it done from both the defense and prosecution sides. Its a good thing that's now forbidden.

[Paladin2]

"a great scholar"

Islamic "scholars" seem to have trouble handling a crayon.

[bert]

Actually there are presently Americans very close to this position. The evangelical women commonly wear long sleeves and hems. they have the collars up to their necks. They don't cut their hair. They are holdovers from the yet to be overcome Victorian age.

The loud voice decrying the need for such comes from a Christian pulpit and promises ostracism and brimstone if not followed. The pot is not calling the kettle black. It has always been black.

[maica]

Someone needs to tell these Muslims that in civilized societies, men are expected to be moral and have self control. If they (these 'imams') consider themselves and their fellow believers no better than dumb animals with no ability to control themselves (and act accordingly), then THEY should expect to be treated like unwanted animals (feral cats are Euthanized...)

####

WE ALL need to say this whenever the occasion arises. You put it perfectly.
Bottom line - in western societies everyone, men and women, are supposed to control their behavior, not blame it on someone else.

If Imams are teaching muslim men that rape is "not their fault" we can see why so many believe that murder and terrorism "is not their fault." "We MADE them do it." That makes them less than autonomous adults. I think "feral cats" is a perfect appelation that could have legs (pardon the pun).

[Kolokotronis]

"Bunk. We are so. You have compared two completely different contexts. A defense lawyer is expected to go to extremes to defend his client. This was the top religious leader of a country peddling this crap."

A defense lawyer is expected to defend his client within the boundaries of the Law and in a civil fashion. Going to extremes is a violation, in my opinion, of every attorney's oath. And the contexts are not appreciably different. The third branch of our government contenanced those tactics for decades and only quite recently, as history goes, got rid of them. It does us no good at all to pretend that the West in its past didn't oppress women, chop off the heads of heretics, hang petty thieves and fight religious wars. This isn't indulging in moral equivalency. Understanding our own background will help us understand the Mohammadens and be better able to fight them.

"You have real problem when it comes to judgment."

Yeah, right! Thirty years as a trial lawyer; what would I know?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Get them out. Now.

[maica]

We do not mandate what women can wear in the US, and some women do push the envelope in their attire. It is wrong to be the "occasion of sin" just as if a wife served alcohol to her on-the-wagon husband, or a person going to Gamblers Anonymous was encouraged to place a bet on semething.

Dressing modestly is a choice, not a decree.

Today's choice of many women to dress like "sex workers" is having an effect on American boys and men. It is not a healthy one. Teen-age girls are practically naked on today's beaches and boardwalks - walking with their parents! - while teenage boys are wearing baggy trunks that go to their knees.

In schools the same dynamic prevails. Girls wear lingerie, practically, while boys wear hoodies or oversize teeshirts and baggy pants. I wish someone that girls respect would "do a study" about this style choice. I think it is a sign of domination of girls over boys in our present environment, brought about by the feminist movement, followed by the pornography movement.

[Mr Rogers]

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street . . . and the cats come and eat it, whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem,"

Cats eat meat because they must. For his analogy to be correct, young muslim men must be natural-born rapists, who cannot survive unless they rape.

If so, I suggest we eliminate all the 'cats'. If some muzzy decides he 'must' rape my daughter for jogging in short pants, I'll be gald to teach him the meaning of the word predator...

[bert]

.....Dressing modestly is a choice, not a decree.....

Not altogether. There is certainly a decree by the evangelical priestly class that demands modesty.

[Steel Wolf]

Actually there are presently Americans very close to this position. The evangelical women commonly wear long sleeves and hems. they have the collars up to their necks. They don't cut their hair. They are holdovers from the yet to be overcome Victorian age.

A ridiculous apples and oranges comparison if ever there was on.

If a religious American woman decides she wants to cover up and have long hair, it's because she wants to. At best, people might say, "Aren't you kinda hot under all those clothes." but otherwise it's not going to attract any attention if she wants to dress in an old school manner.

A religious Muslim woman faces anything from being ridiculed, ostracised, beaten, raped, or stoned to death for going outside uncovered. She can't just roll out of the house wearing whatever she wants.

It's not the fact of WHAT they're wearing, it's WHY.

[montag813]

The West is pathetically weak. Imams in Australia and England declare Christian women free to rape, and are not punished or deported. There isn't a single outraged English or Aussie man to attack these cretans. In America, MS-13 gangs are tearing the nation's cities apart and spreading Meth Madness into America's heartland, yet only a handful are apprehended, and the government refuses to conduct the mass deportations and raids that are required to preserve security, out of fear of being called "racist". What is happening? Eventually WE will be forced to take up arms ourselves to stop the madness. But by then will it be far too late? Will we be fighting the Islamists and gangs AND our own government too?

[MortMan]

Not altogether. There is certainly a decree by the evangelical priestly class that demands modesty.

First, be careful of your use of the term "evangelical". You are broad-brushing a whole group of very disparate viewpoints, which makes your argument fall very, very flat.

Second, in some small religious sociaties, there is a mandate for high levels of modesty on part of both men and women. The punishment for going outside the acceptable bounds may be as extreme as being cast out of that society, dependeing on the nature and extent of the transgression. This is a far cry, however, from the mandatory stoning of women who sleep with men other than their husband.

Third, "decrees" can only be made by those with the ability to enforce them - generally by force of arms. How does that square with your statement here?

Finally, it strikes me that your argument is against modesty. Is that your intent?

[bert]

.....How does that square with your statement here?.....

The threat is ostracism and exclusion. Not stoning, but punishment none the less.

[gogeo]

None of this has been allowed since at the latest 1980, either on account of court decisions or legislation, but this sort of vile talk, perhaps in a bit more polished manner, was part and parcel of our criminal justice system not so many years ago. I point this out not in defense of this Mohammaden savage, but rather in the interests of having many of us at least understand that we Western Christians might not be quite so long evolved beyond the Mohammadens as we might wish to think.

We obviously haven't come as far as we'd like to think intellectually, if some try to compare that which comes from the mouth of a "cleric," and that which comes from the mouth of a defense attorney.

[SauronOfMordor]

The question was never "Can one rape a whore?" The issue was whether the rape was a consensual act which the accuser later regretted.

Or where the "lady" in question was angry over not getting paid, or being "disrespected". A case involving some college lacross players comes to mind

[Lorianne]

Novel idea: Men to take responsibility for their own acts.

[jordan8]

This is a squabble between the forces of political correctness and the Muslims they have brought to colonize the West. Actually it is between Muslims and effete and politically impotent "conservatives" who are too cowardly to simply say we don't want these people in our country so they take a politically safe, feminist line of attack. The gang rapes that are at the source of this little fracas were viciously racist, why is it that not the issue? The left has mostly sat out this incident because they understand they are on dangerous ground vis-a-vis the more important political issue of multiculturalism and mass immigration.

[Mad Dawg]

I can live with this: It's YOUR fault I can't control myself. Nothing I do is my fault.

Is that mature or WHAT? C'mere, baby. I'm sorry, your bodice was a little too tight, so you have given up all your rights.

And people wonder why we fight these wackos. AS soon as they had enough power to hit us, they hit us. The more power they get, the more they will hit us. This will provoke more response and so they will continue to blame others for their failures.

It's a perfect system for people who want to avoid Freedom and her sister, Responsibility.

---