'Women are like uncovered meat'.

[John P. Cooper]

All sorts of prime stuff in this article-

Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'
By RICHARD SHEARS Last updated at 16:10pm on 26th October 2006

A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats.

Politicians including Prime Minister John Howard, community leaders and a large number of Muslims condemned the mufti's comments amid calls that he should be deported to Egypt, his country of origin.

He has since been forced to apologise for his remarks.

In a Ramadam sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame.

There were women, he said, 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 victims.

Addressing 500 worshippers on the topic of adultery, Sheik al-Hilali added: "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."

He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."

Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

His comments, reported yesterday in the nationally-circulated newspaper The Australian, created a storm of outrage.

It follows anger that erupted among Muslims in Britain earlier this month when MP Jack Straw said women who wear veils over their face can make community relations harder.

But Sheik al-Hilali's has created an even bigger storm by using the uncovered meat example to accuse women who do not cover their heads and faces of tempting men.

Prime Minister Howard labelled the mufti's comments as 'appalling and reprehensible', adding: "They are quite out of touch with contemporary values in Australia.

"The idea that women are to blame for rapes is preposterous. I not only reject the comments, I condemn them unconditionally." Treasurer Peter Costello urged the Muslim community to condemn the comments and take action against the Sheik.

"If you have a significant religious leader like this preaching to a flock in a situation where we've had gang rapes, in a way that seems to make it justifiable, or at least lighten the dehumanising and degrading extent of the offence."

A close associate of the sheik, Keysar Trad, said the speech was about adultery, not rape. "He wasn't talking about standard norms of dress in Australia or any country, he wasn't talking about the hijab, he was talking about people who engage in extramarital sex."

But Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Miss Pru Goward said there could be no backtracking over the comments. "He could be guilty of incitement to the crime of rape and should be deported," she said.

[Ron Thorne]

Where do you dredge this stuff up? And, why?

Just askin'.

[kenny weir]

Sad to say, Ron, this is true - the scandal du jour/week in Australia.

[Brian Olewnick]

Yeah, I heard it on the radio this morning. Not to overly defend religious fundamentalists, but my first thought was that the guy was using the term "meat" for its base meaning, not as the sexist metaphor used in the West. ie, the way uncovered meat attracts flies and vermin, uncovered women attract human vermin. Not the prettiest of metaphors but not necessarily pejorative toward women. I mean, the rest of the religion (and most others) does a fairly good job of that.

[walto]

Unfortunately, I think that "base meaning" just is the point of the sexist metaphor. He says it's the meat's fault, not the cat's, and he didn't mention any "vermin."

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by walto

Unfortunately, I think that "base meaning" just is the point of the sexist metaphor. He says it's the meat's fault, not the cat's, and he didn't mention any "vermin."

Bingo.

[Gentle Giant]

It seems the more fundamentally religious a person is, the less personal accountability he feels for his actions. It's all in God's hands, or the work of Satan. I'm not responsible.

That's bullshit. Humans were created with the freedom to make choices. We have responsibility in this world whether we believe in God or not. It's not a woman's fault if she's treated as a second-class citizen.

[Enforcer]

He meant it for the sexist metaphor. Dark ages, baby.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Where do you dredge this stuff up? And, why?

Just askin'.

It's been reported far and wide. I first saw it on CNN International yesterday. Nobody "dredged" up anything.

It must really suck to be uninformed.

[Dan G]

What I don't understand about the response is what good deporting the guy would do. Wouldn't that just put him in a place where his values are the norm? It would be better to keep him in Australia and challenge him, and try to make him see another point of view.

Or maybe they could punish him by getting him loaded on James Boag's and take him for a stroll down Surfers Paradise beach on a hot day.

[Paul B]

Someone like this is not likely to accept another point of view...Muslims don't tend to appreciate western notions of free thinking, regardless of how much time they spend in western countries. I don't really know what good deporting him will do, but hell, I'm all for it...

[Scott Dolan]

Sure, deport him. They'll plug someone else into his spot.

[tippy]

that's so poetic. is this guy still accepting wives?

[Scott Dolan]

Shameless....

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Yeah, I heard it on the radio this morning. Not to overly defend religious fundamentalists, but my first thought was that the guy was using the term "meat" for its base meaning, not as the sexist metaphor used in the West. ie, the way uncovered meat attracts flies and vermin, uncovered women attract human vermin. Not the prettiest of metaphors but not necessarily pejorative toward women.

Wrong answer, Ali.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Wrong answer, Ali.

Could be. Dunno. The way I heard it reported on radio this morning, it was as though the guy had said, essentially, that women were pieces of meat. It just seemed to me that Westerners were possibly grafting their own general usage of the meat/woman metaphor onto someone who might be coming from an entirely different (though no more savory) culture. Maybe he's totally westernized and knew what connotations the term would have; maybe not. I'm not talking about the other portions, the women being the provocations that should be locked up, etc., just the analogy to meat. The other stuff, while repulsive to anyone possessing a brain, is hardly an unusual point of view in Islam or elsewhere. Jeez, if we deported everyone from the US who held such views well, let's just say the political balance here would shift significantly.

[tippy]

we know, we know, Brian - at your house, uncovered meat is a delicacy a desirable, an honorable thing.

[tippy]

They should have a game show where the winner gets to select deportees. Who would you deport first?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by tippy

we know, we know, Brian - at your house, uncovered meat is a delicacy a desirable, an honorable thing.

Well, how else am I going to get the grubs to attain proper girth?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

It seems the more fundamentally religious a person is, the less personal accountability he feels for his actions. It's all in God's hands, or the work of Satan. I'm not responsible.

That's bullshit. Humans were created with the freedom to make choices. We have responsibility in this world whether we believe in God or not. It's not a woman's fault if she's treated as a second-class citizen.

Yes yes yes. All "fundamentalist" beliefs, in my opinion, boil down to a decision that life is just too complicated, decisions are too hard to make, and so I'll just make this last one: to not ever decide anything again, and just do what I'm told to do. So much simpler!

Which is why I've never understood the argument that morality necessarily stems from religious belief. The argument that an atheist is capable of anything, any wrongdoing, because he or she doesn't believe in having to answer to a higher power. This has it exactly backwards: the one who believes that his actions are commanded by a higher power is the one capable of anything--including great evil.

[Root Doctor]

Maybe this guy has a Marabel Morgan thing going on and likes women dressed up in Saran Wrap.

[stonemonkts]

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

The way I heard it reported on radio this morning, it was as though the guy had said, essentially, that women were pieces of meat. It just seemed to me that Westerners were possibly grafting their own general usage of the meat/woman metaphor onto someone who might be coming from an entirely different (though no more savory) culture. Maybe he's totally westernized and knew what connotations the term would have; maybe not. I'm not talking about the other portions, the women being the provocations that should be locked up, etc., just the analogy to meat. The other stuff, while repulsive to anyone possessing a brain, is hardly an unusual point of view in Islam or elsewhere.

Dunno what they reported on the radio but here's a translation of his sermon that led to the controversy: “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.”

[tippy]

yeah so if people wanna wonder why I'm not smiling at you it's because of people like this who think a friendly greeting is a seduction.

[Brian Olewnick]

Again, so "likening women to pieces of meat", which was the report I heard this morning, misrepresents the facts as that phrase would be generally understood in the US.

Surfer's Paradise?!?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by tippy

yeah so if people wanna wonder why I'm not smiling at you it's because of people like this who think a friendly greeting is a seduction.

"it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail."

It's a slippery slope!

[walto]

"likening women to pieces of meat", which was the report I heard this morning, misrepresents the facts as that phrase would be generally understood in the US.

No it doesn't.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Surfer's Paradise?!?

COWABUNGA - Hang Ten, Dude!!!!

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Again, so "likening women to pieces of meat", which was the report I heard this morning, misrepresents the facts as that phrase would be generally understood in the US.

I'm as confused as Walto is over this

[Brian Olewnick]

It's called an analogy. Every time you analogize one thing vs another doesn't mean you're "likening" the things in absolutely every respect. Here, he's talking about cats getting to negligently exposed meat vs males getting to negligently exposed females. From his point of view, fine. That doesn't, imho, equate to the same thing that your average US bozo means when he refers to women as "pieces of meat". In some ways, it's almost opposite as at least the traditional Muslim ostensibly wants his women pure and virginal unlike the US bohunk who just wants a slab of meat to spear.

It just strikes me as a typical thing where, because we by and large find a given culture repulsive, absolutely everything they do has to be portrayed in the vilest manner possible.