Mufti Hilali comments about dress code and assault

The Australian has reported on October 26th that Sh Hilali has made comments during a Friday sermon in the month of Ramadan that indicated that he “blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.”

I can’t confirm or deny the accuracy of the translated version of his speech. However, I would like to make the following comments:

1- Islam encourages and prescribes modesty in dress (including Hijab). At the same time, Islam views rape as the most heinous of crimes and prescribes a severe punishment for rapists.

2-I have no doubt in my mind that Sh Taj never meant to rationalize the act of rape nor to suggest that rapists should not be exposed to the full force of the law. However, he should have been careful about how he presented his view so not to risk the slightest chance of being misunderstood by youth that he is rationalizing rape. He made a grave mistake by making such irresponsible comments.

3- I think that some of the words of the Sheik have been intentionally mistranslated like the use of the word "meat" instead of "flesh" to make the comment sound even more degrading than it already is. "Exposed flesh" is a word used commonly by Australians.

4- This view (suggestive dress encourages assault) is still used in courts of law by defence lawyers of raping offenders. It is also a view held by some church groups.

5- If you asked me: Does Hijab / conservative dress reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted? I would say: Probably yes, although it does not prevent it. Rapists are sick people anyway and may not only be sexually motivated for example elderly women are also raped in Australia. However, I would advocate (as Islam does) maximising of personal safety.

6- I am surprised that the comments were published more than 2 weeks after being made and their release was timed with the Werribee incident in Victoria. It is suspicious because the author of the article is Richard Kerbaj, the same guy who claimed that Dr Amir Ali said that the prophet had "character flaws" last week (see previous posting).

UPDATE: ICV and other Islamic organizations have asked for Sh Hilali's immediate resignation. We will see what happens.

References:
The Australian article.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/muslims-pan-muftis-speech/2006/10/26/1161749253946.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773857.htm

Dr Amir Ali's statement about Prophet Mohammad

 
On October 4th, 2006, The Australian published an article titled "Prophet not perfect, says Islamic scholar". In my view, the article is a venomous attack on the Prophet (pbuh) and an intentional mis quotation by the journalist.

I have to say that the minute I read the article, I had a strong suspicion that Dr Amir Ali was misquoted for the following reasons:

1) The author described Dr Ali as an Islamic Scholar which he certainly is not, nor did he claim so.

2) This answer to this question appeared to me as an answer to a different question. "Asked if the prophet had character flaws, he said: "Of course - you must look at him as a human being also.""

3) The journalist "Richard Kerbaj" is known for his anti-Islamic view.

Later, Dr Ali has issued a statement dated 6th October titled "MISREPRESENTED BY JOURNALISTS", where he argued that his statement was taken out of context.

While I fully understand what Dr Ali has experienced, I think that a person in his position should be more savvy as how to handle hostile journalists like Richard Kerbaj. He should have recorded his interview. I think he is negligent (at least).

The prophet has made very few minor mistakes in his life (without which he would have been more an angel than a human). These few tiny mistakes where corrected by the Quran to set the standard. An example of that was when he did not give sufficient attention to answer the enquiry of a blind man.

Oh my beloved prophet Mohammad...may the peace and blessings of Allah be on you.