Women, Rape, Burkas and Rights

[JerrySeinfeld]

The following are extracts from Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly's controversial sermon given last month, as independently translated by an SBS Arabic expert:

“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.”

[Liam]

(edited response)

[Figleaf]

Religious insanity.

[Riverwind]

In the 70s case man could avoid conviction on a rape charge if he could show that the woman was promiscuous. It was also considered 'impossible' for a man to rape his wife. The Sheik's comments are appalling today but our society had similar attitudes not that long ago.

[scribblet]

Interesting, some think it was taken out of context, do you have a link?

[Liam]

I wrote a response to this earlier today, but opted to remove it... I have since thought about what I wrote and am back to post my initial thoughts...

I am a liberal person (by US standards), but I can't help but think that there is something sinisterly dark and deeply regressive about Islam, at least as it is represented by the major voices of their faith.

Is there a single moderate out there? How about a progressive? Will no one stand up to such language about women deserving rape?

The entire purpose of the burqa is to hide women, to make them invisible, to reduce them to nothing but a fungible commodity. There is nothing liberating about a burqa. It is entirely designed to hide the emotions, the expression, the character of the individual. It suffocates the soul.

And the burqa is insulting to men. The requirement of a burqa reinforces the notion that men are incapable of being rational around women and that we lack free will. It is the ultimate symbol of a society at odds with western thought, for it defines women as demonic temptresses and men as hormone-driven satyrs.

There is another thread somewhere about whether certain societies are superior to others. Even as a liberal, I can honestly and unaplogetically say that I think western, secular societies are FAR better than anything available elsewhere.

[Figleaf]

I wrote a response to this earlier today, but opted to remove it... I have since thought about what I wrote and am back to post my initial thoughts...

I am a liberal person (by US standards), but I can't help but think that there is something sinisterly dark and deeply regressive about Islam, at least as it is represented by the major voices of their faith.

Is there a single moderate out there? How about a progressive? Will no one stand up to such language about women deserving rape?

The media being what it is, of course, reports only dramatic attention-getting things. There are plenty of moderate Muslims, but they must find themselves in a position analogous to moderate Christians when the TV news cover abortion clinic bombers.

I agree with you. There is something sinister about Islam -- it exemplifies intensely the problem that most religions suffer to some extent: absolutist claims, unquestionable authority, archaic ideas, denial of reason.

The entire purpose of the burqa is to hide women, to make them invisible, to reduce them to nothing but a fungible commodity. There is nothing liberating about a burqa. It is entirely designed to hide the emotions, the expression, the character of the individual. It suffocates the soul.

And the burqa is insulting to men. The requirement of a burqa reinforces the notion that men are incapable of being rational around women and that we lack free will. It is the ultimate symbol of a society at odds with western thought, for it defines women as demonic temptresses and men as hormone-driven satyrs.

There is another thread somewhere about whether certain societies are superior to others. Even as a liberal, I can honestly and unaplogetically say that I think western, secular societies are FAR better than anything available elsewhere.

I agree 100% with those three paragraphs. Well said.

Of course, that being said, what can a liberal society do if someone wears her burka? That's a real problem.

[Riverwind]

Of course, that being said, what can a liberal society do if someone wears her burka? That's a real problem.

It issue is not whether someone should be allowed to walk down the street wearing a burka. This issue is whether businesses and government officials should be expected to cater to the choices that individuals want to make. If people who wear a burka expect to access services provided by non-muslims then they should be prepared to show their faces. By refusing to accomodate in this way we, as a society, signal our disapproval of the burka without having to restort to outright prohibition.

[Higgly]

Seinfeld, have you ever spent a Sunday morning watching Jimmy Swaggart?

[Rue]

Seinfeld, have you ever spent a Sunday morning watching Jimmy Swaggart?

Pt. taken Higgly. I think we all agree fundamentalists come in all stripes and colours. I guess what is happening though is that in regards to Muslim fundamentalism, it brings into play the larger picture of

disagreement between the West's values and the East's values. I guess I would put it this way-yes Jimmy and Jerry Falwell and a whole bunch of other tele-evangelists can be pretty darned rigid and fundamentalist as well but I guess the question is will they try violently impose their views on me in a war or terrorist act or are they content to work within the legal system and respect our differences of opinion.

I know some Christian fundamentalists have taken to terrorist acts (killing doctors) but am I wrong to feel they are far more of a minority and not representative of mainstream Christians as say fundamentalist Muslims now are today for Muslims?

That is a question not a statement. I am not sure. I mean I am the first to say there are moderate Muslims who do not feel this way and should not be scapegoated or negatively stereotyped because of such people, but are they truly representative of mainstream Muslims or are fundamentalist clerics like this one more

representative.

I fear the answer is that the vast majority of Muslims today are fundamentalist like this, and the moderate Muslims are a minority and need our help to develop their views and not feel endangered if they express them. Certainly in Canada we have read how moderate Muslims have had serious back-lash from fundamentalists in their community for speaking out. I applaud them.

[Who's Doing What?]

The following are extracts from Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly's controversial sermon given last month, as independently translated by an SBS Arabic expert:

“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.”

What a freaking crackhead!

No wonder there are so many muslim headcases, when they have to listen to this kind of twisted ass-backwards kind of rhetoric from their spiritual leaders.

What's next, blaming the children for their own poverty and starvation?

Bloody rediculous.

I can't wait to see the crap hit the fan when muslim women rise up and take the rights and freedoms they deserve.

[kimmy]

I fear the answer is that the vast majority of Muslims today are fundamentalist like this, and the moderate Muslims are a minority

I disagree. I have had numersous Muslim classmates and co-workers who, aside from their aversion to the mystery-meat at the cafeteria, were rather indistinguishable from everybody else. I believe that such people constitute by far the majority of Muslims in our country. They're not particularly notable on the street, they're not in the news, and they aren't making trouble. They go about their business and function well in our society.

Unfortunately, in the mind of the general public at large, "Muslim" means the pyjama-wearing meat-heads rather than the well-adjusted Muslims who just go about their business like the rest of us. "Christians" encompasses both decidedly normal folk as well as frothing at the mouth, speaking-in-tongues kooks... but by and large people recognize the kooks for what they are-- the exceptions. Hopefully that will happen for Muslims some day, as people come to realize that there are far more normal Muslims than kooks in the bunch.

-k

[August1991]

I think Kimmy is right. But I understand rue's point.

A British Daily Telegraph poll in February on the July 7, 2005, bombings of innocents on the London Tube and bus showed that 6 per cent of British Muslims insisted the bombings were fully justified. As the poll noted: "Six per cent may be a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do."

Link

This is no time to start a witch-hunt but it would be foolish to ignore the problem. The recent arrests in Toronto are further evidence.

Incidentally, how common is it to see a young woman wearing hijab in Edmonton or elsewhere? I see several on the streets of downtown Montreal on a normal working day.

[ft.niagara]

Seinfeld, have you ever spent a Sunday morning watching Jimmy Swaggart?

There will hopefully always be fundamental views of each religion, christian, jewish, muslim. The only problem is that there are very few christian or jewish terrorists by comparison to muslims. The unscarved women compared to meat would find no comparison in christian fundamentalism, IMO.

[Drea]

If you have religion(s), your going to get fundamentalists.

Muslims are currently the "bad guy" but in 200 years some other religion will be laser-targetting people....

Religion is the cause of 90% of all the problems on earth.

If god were real, he/it/she/whatever woulld get it's/his/hers ass down here and straighten everything out dontcha think?

[jbg]

I fear the answer is that the vast majority of Muslims today are fundamentalist like this, and the moderate Muslims are a minority and need our help to develop their views and not feel endangered if they express them. Certainly in Canada we have read how moderate Muslims have had serious back-lash from fundamentalists in their community for speaking out. I applaud them.

The problem is that Islamic education is being controlled by the fundamentalists, so things are if anything moving in the wrong direction.

[Frankie]

With comments like these, he's no religious teacher or faithful muslim, or any moral speaker....he's an idiot. Just like if you saw some crazy guy screaming a bunch of stuff about religion in the street, does he have any credibility? Now I guess the biggest problem on this issue is not what he said, but the fact that he's teaching it...but is it of any surprise to anyone? He's like the rest of the thousands, is not millions of muslim fundamentalist who've been put into power, and have corrupted it's society's and muslim religion beyond repair. Listening to any afternoon radio station on this issue, and you get muslims themselves calling in, defending this Sheikh Taj Din Al guy! It's amazing how much they can deny that they're wrong.

[JerrySeinfeld]

With comments like these, he's no religious teacher or faithful muslim, or any moral speaker....he's an idiot. Just like if you saw some crazy guy screaming a bunch of stuff about religion in the street, does he have any credibility? Now I guess the biggest problem on this issue is not what he said, but the fact that he's teaching it...but is it of any surprise to anyone? He's like the rest of the thousands, is not millions of muslim fundamentalist who've been put into power, and have corrupted it's society's and muslim religion beyond repair. Listening to any afternoon radio station on this issue, and you get muslims themselves calling in, defending this Sheikh Taj Din Al guy! It's amazing how much they can deny that they're wrong.

The scary part is they're the nutters yet they're the self-confident an aggressive culture - we're the self-hating apologistic ones. Just listen to societal self loathers like Black Dog and many others on this site. In their world you'd think the WEST is the nutters and the muslims are the sane ones....lol

[August1991]

The entire purpose of the burqa is to hide women, to make them invisible, to reduce them to nothing but a fungible commodity. There is nothing liberating about a burqa. It is entirely designed to hide the emotions, the expression, the character of the individual. It suffocates the soul.

I lived in the Middle East for several years and I have travelled in Muslim countries from Morocco to Malaysia. One of the most disheartening things I saw was the treatment of young girls. They were always more quiet and submissive compared to their brothers and when they entered puberty and started to wear a head scarf, they became too quiet and too old too suddenly.

[geoffrey]

Incidentally, how common is it to see a young woman wearing hijab in Edmonton or elsewhere? I see several on the streets of downtown Montreal on a normal working day.

Very common amongst the educated Muslim women in schools, many of my university classes have a handful of Muslim women wearing hijabs. The business school is heavily minority based (in fact, I'm a minority in it), so we probably have a higher rate of wearing such things as other areas of the school.

In the workplace in Calgary, much less so. We still have a very conservative work environment (at least in my industry, and many others that I've been exposed to), and while tolerant of different races and religions, such an expression would be frowned upon surely. I've never seen a hijab wearing professional in corporate Calgary, that's the honest truth.

You do see the women walking a few paces behind their men fully covered with some of the presumably Arab nationals that are visiting in Calgary on occassion.

[scribblet]

Alberta's Mount Royal College professor Mahfooz Kanwar, a Muslim, has said that niqabs and burqas (which have a mesh that cover the eyes) should be outlawed.

"People say they cover their faces to please Allah," says Kanwar. "But there is not even one mention anywhere in the Qur'an that urges women to cover their faces. Not one.

It is not a religious requirement, it is a misogynist and patriarchal dictate by fanatic clerics."

So, if it's not a religious requirement it cannot be considered a right under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom, argues Kanwar. Kanwar also says covering one's face is not a rightm, is an insult and a threat to a free society and particularly threatens women.

I agree with him, although just the actual veil and mesh coverings, we can't leglislate how people dress, but this speaks to the issue of security and ability to a job properly. In our society/culture covering one's face totally is usually seen as a mark of intimidation, maybe it is time to respect our culture.

Maybe getting the issue out in the open and discussed will give the women a chance to opt out of wearing it, especially if they know they have gov't and public backing.

[PocketRocket]

Without fear, courage cannot exist.

Likewise, without temptation, virtue means nothing.

So what the opening post is basically saying is that Muslims fear temptation.

Is this because they doubt their own virtue?

I would say unto them "You are the gatekeeper of your own soul."

Hell, did none of them ever read about Job? It's Old Testament, so it is somewhere in the Quran.

[Black Dog]

I'm gonna just put this in here because I don't like uneccesary thread proliferation and because it fits in with the general theme.

A Maryland appellate court has ruled that women can't say no to sex once sex has started.

Apparently women (and make no mistake: women are the ones this ruling applies to) lose all right to physical autonomy once penetration occurs. The Taliban would be proud.

[scribblet]

Not sure about this one, can a woman really claim rape after she said yes and consensual sex has started, I guess if she changes her mind it should stop.... but is it actually rape at that point?

[Black Dog]

Not sure about this one, can a woman really claim rape after she said yes and consensual sex has started, I guess if she changes her mind it should stop.... but is it actually rape at that point?

Why wouldn't it be? If you start having consensuel sex, but your partner subsequently asks you stop, but you continue regardless...well, what would you call it?