Women are like uncovered meat to a cat...

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks
Richard Kerbaj
October 26, 2006

THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has 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.
In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "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."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.
========================================================


I want all of you pinheads who claim you are supportive of women's rights, to pay very close attention to what the sheik said. I want the words to sink in with you, because I don't think you understand. This man is not one of the radicals in Iran or Pakistan, he's considerably more moderate than Osama and Zarqawi. He is the senior Muslim cleric in Australia.

The point he makes, is that women are raped because they dress provocatively and invite rape, like "uncovered meat to a cat." That if they were in their rooms, in their hijabs, this kind of thing would not be a problem.

Where is NOW? Where are all the Liberal Women's rights advocates? You're too busy making effigies of Bush and Cheney to torch, and bashing Christians to pay attention to this. You're too busy tearing down America and trying to undermine Bush's war against this kind of backward oppressive thinking toward women. In short, you don't really give a shit.
 
If he were in America trying to promote those attitudes I would be unhappy about it.
 
Dixie said:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks
Richard Kerbaj
October 26, 2006

THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has 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.
In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "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."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.
========================================================


I want all of you pinheads who claim you are supportive of women's rights, to pay very close attention to what the sheik said. I want the words to sink in with you, because I don't think you understand. This man is not one of the radicals in Iran or Pakistan, he's considerably more moderate than Osama and Zarqawi. He is the senior Muslim cleric in Australia.

The point he makes, is that women are raped because they dress provocatively and invite rape, like "uncovered meat to a cat." That if they were in their rooms, in their hijabs, this kind of thing would not be a problem.

Where is NOW? Where are all the Liberal Women's rights advocates? You're too busy making effigies of Bush and Cheney to torch, and bashing Christians to pay attention to this. You're too busy tearing down America and trying to undermine Bush's war against this kind of backward oppressive thinking toward women. In short, you don't really give a shit.
Click to expand...

Woa, big fella. Whose story are you telling, anyway? Didin't Satan use Eve to get Adam to eat the apple? Isn't that how we all got here on this damn earth in the first place? Isn't that what precipitated The Fall???

I'm amazed that you find this so provacative and incindiary. This idea was the hallmark of all rape defenses until quite recently in America. In fact, it is ony recently that the defense in rape cases has gone from she made me do it or I thought from the way she was dressed that she wanted it to she is insane and has had sex with everyone she ever met. However, the idea that women shouldn't be out or shouldn't be out alone is still sometimes used as a defense or as an accusation. But in either the previous case where she dressed provocatively or was where she shouldn't be, or in the more enlightened defense she is crazy and she wants everybody she meets; it is still always the woman's fault when she gets raped. I fail to see where all the outrage stems from especially since I haven't seen any outrage when white males from America rape a woman about every 6-8 minutes in our own country. Where have you been with all your outrage in the case of American women being raped and blamed. In fact, I haven't ever seen you write one word about blaming the victim before now. But I am glad to see this feminist side of you finally starting to assert itself. And I am also glad to see that you are finally beginning to realize just how damaging these arguments that blame the victims are. I really think that this shows tremendous growth on your part.

Now if you could just go back and see what caused the hundreds of thousands of rapes of black wowmen by white men in the South during slavery and write something equally outraged about that. But I don't think it is going to be coming out of your mouth anytime soon, either because you don't believe that there were any rapes of black women during slavery or because you feel that because white men owned those women they could do anything they wanted with them, including use their bodies for whatever degrading practices they chose.
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed that you find this so provacative and incindiary.

I'm amazed that you don't find this provocative and incendiary!

Save yourself the trouble of creating a defense for it, you can't. If you want to go off on some wild-ass rant about the south and display your ignorant bigotry some more, that is your prerogative, I don't have to respond to it.

Let me give you another word of advice, don't presume to know what my sentiments are, because you have proven yourself to be clueless as to what I think or my viewpoint. When you come here, and immediate launch into an attack on me, the South, racism, or whatever, you show people what an absolute dishonest piece of trash coward you are, and nothing more. It doesn't get under my skin, it doesn't bother me in the least, I am quite accustomed to bigots who presume all Southerners are racist, you are nothing new to me.

I am not going to bother responding to you again on this matter, if you want to continue to show people what a bigoted ass you are, go for it!
 
Dixie said:
I'm amazed that you find this so provacative and incindiary.

I'm amazed that you don't find this provocative and incendiary!

Save yourself the trouble of creating a defense for it, you can't. If you want to go off on some wild-ass rant about the south and display your ignorant bigotry some more, that is your prerogative, I don't have to respond to it.

Let me give you another word of advice, don't presume to know what my sentiments are, because you have proven yourself to be clueless as to what I think or my viewpoint. When you come here, and immediate launch into an attack on me, the South, racism, or whatever, you show people what an absolute dishonest piece of trash coward you are, and nothing more. It doesn't get under my skin, it doesn't bother me in the least, I am quite accustomed to bigots who presume all Southerners are racist, you are nothing new to me.

I am not going to bother responding to you again on this matter, if you want to continue to show people what a bigoted ass you are, go for it!
Click to expand...

Let me start at the beginning. I don't think I said a word about how I found the particular statement by this religious fanatic from another culture, I just advised you that perhaps since this same attitude is found in the first story of the Bible and since many Bible thumpers from the Bible belt still feel this way, maybe since we live in America, we should be more concerned about how people feel about these issues in American. than how they feel about them in Australia. I have no problem with your outrage, I actually congratulated you on it. I just feel that perhaps we should clean up our own rather dirty house first. That is, since this is the first time I have seen you take such a strong feminist stance (perhaps you have a link from an earlier post) on this issue, I have to wonder why you would pick the country of Australia as your workshop for the new world of equality that you envision rather than some place closer to home, like say America...

I understand the continuing claims that I don't know how you feel or think. But after reading your posts for some time now I feel that this claim is getting a little old and tired. Since in fact, with every rant I am getting a clearer and clearer picture of not only how you think but how deep in denial you are about so many things. You also claim that When you come here, and immediate launch into an attack on me, the South, racism…. Not true, I did not immediately launch an attack on you, the South or racism, if you read my post carefully you will see in fact that I said nothing about racism or the treatment of Black women during slavery until the very end of my post. In fact, most of the content of the post was to alert you to what has been happening all over America, not just in the South regarding women since the inception of the republic. I find it especially heinous that people such as yourself, "do-gooders," if you will, always want to fix things in foreign climes but never feel compelled to fix things right here at home.

Not only that, but to take the irony and hypocrisy one step further, many of those who find the practices in other countries so disturbing turn a blind eye to or actively participate in those same practices in this country while fuming and ranting about those people "over there" doing the same things that are being done by those "good ol’ boy" Americans "over here." Yet, in spite of all their righteous indignation such ranters and fumers never seem to be able to muster that same level of exception or outrage to the problems in America as they do when those same problems appear someplace else, especially when exhibited by the enemy of the moment, whoever that might be. It has long been recognized that the propaganda coming out of Russia regarding America hypocrisy had more to do with the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education than any arguments presented in the courtroom. But perhaps the greatest irony of the Cold War was the spectacle of Sen. Joe McCarthy railing against oppression in the Soviet Union as he jailed some people and ruined the careers of hundreds of others here in America for their thoughts and writings.

But other than slamming me personally for a few paragraphs, I don't see even one line in your post which demonstrates a recognition that the same kinds of attitudes that you find so outrageous, provocative and incendiary when exhibited by a religious fanatic in Australia are exhibited by men against women right here in America on a daily basis. In fact, if you really cared about women, and not just demonizing and war mongering, it seems to me that you would be comparing those outrageous comments with the same attitudes here at home rather than ranting about another country and culture, while ignoring those attitudes when exhibited by Americans.

Why is it so hard for you to see the dirt on your own doorstep?? Why can't you ever admit that America has its own set of problems with all these issues that you are so fond of pointing out elsewhere??? And why do you continue to say that I don't understand you when in fact, you seem to not understand yourself. The most revealing statement in your attempt at a rebuttal, if one can call it that, is this one which is a metaphor for your general mindset and problems. You say early on here: "I don't have to respond to it." But then you go on for three more paragraphs doing just that. If you truly believed that you didn’t have to respond to it, you wouldn’t, but you did, so you must have felt you had to. Therefor, as with most other things, you are in denial even about some aspects of the post you recently posted. And I would venture that this is not the only thing that you are in denial about.

Have a nice day!!!!
 
Last edited:
We have the leading Muslim cleric in our allied partner country of Australia, suggesting that women who are raped are asking for it by dressing provocatively, and further stating that they should have been in their rooms with their hijab covering their heads and there would have been no problem.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is a good example of how the radical Muslim fanatics who have waged war on us, think the rest of the world should live. It seems like, the NOW people and women's rights advocates would be outraged by this sort of commentary, but they are silent. It seems to me, liberals who claim to care so much about personal freedom and equality, would be incensed by the comments, but they are silent as well. Instead of condemning this sort of ideology, they are all busy condemning Bush for fighting this sort of ideology. Look at your own comments, you are not even willing to acknowledge this point, you have to twist and spin things around and challenge me on domestic issues that haven't a thing to do with the ideology expressed by the Sheik.

The point you should ALL be getting is, these people believe this way and want to force the entire world to live by this ideology. They believe in treating women as objects, and adhering to some 5th century standard of treating women as inferior beings, incapable of making their own decisions on how to dress. For people so hyper-sensitive about women's rights and equality, it amazes me that you will continue to bash Bush instead of standing on your principles.
 
Damocles said:
He apologized like the Pope... "I'm sorry you took my statements wrong..."
Click to expand...


Yes, and he went on to clarify, he was talking about adultery... the only women who should stay in their rooms with their heads covered, are the ones who are married to Muslims, not single women. So, it was a relief to know the Sheik only wants to classify married women as objects who should be covered from head to toe at all times.

The thing that really gets me is, if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson had suggested something like this, we wouldn't hear the end of it, they would rail on about it forever, until the men were completely ostracized from society for even thinking such a thing. The calls and cries to do something about this, would be deafening from the left, they would not tolerate a Christian saying these things, but for some reason, a Muslim can say it, and you don't hear a peep from them, they just continue to rail on Bush for his "illegal wars" and throw up straw men arguments to justify their complacent attitudes.
 
Its not about being couragous, its about minding your own business and not fighting other peoples battles. People have a responsability to stand up for themselves and if they are unwilling or unable to do it, you cant do it for them!
 
Jarod said:
Its not about being couragous, its about minding your own business and not fighting other peoples battles. People have a responsability to stand up for themselves and if they are unwilling or unable to do it, you cant do it for them!
Click to expand...

I think that standing up for others, particularly those who can't speak for themselves or do anything about their situation, is the ultimate personification of courage. When your convictions will not allow you to mind your own business, your principles are too important to ignore, this is what "courage" is.

Where would we be today, had people "minded their own business" regarding slavery? women's suffrage? civil rights? It is cowardice to say that you should mind your own business and not stand with others against injustice. No, you can't "do it for them" but you can stand with them. Yes, they too, have a responsibility to stand up for themselves, but their inability to stand is not always their fault, and shouldn't be considered failing their responsibility. Take your same way of thinking on this, and apply it to the days of abolition... what if you made this same comment about the slaves? Would you think that to be courageous or cowardice?
 
In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "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."
Click to expand...
This is clearly the statement of a diseased mind. No rational or moral persoan could believe something like this.

So tell us, Dix: do you object when idiot conservative Christian preachers in this country take the same immoral position? Do you? I do. I'm sure that uscitizen, Jarod and others do too. In fact, I'm sure that many of the real conservatives -- like Damo and Watermark, say -- do as well.

The problem isn't "uncovered meat." The problem isn't meat at all . . . except that which is in the skulls of overly conservative, authoritarian clerics. Of whatever creed.
 
Dixie said:
I think that standing up for others, particularly those who can't speak for themselves or do anything about their situation, is the ultimate personification of courage. When your convictions will not allow you to mind your own business, your principles are too important to ignore, this is what "courage" is.

Where would we be today, had people "minded their own business" regarding slavery? women's suffrage? civil rights? It is cowardice to say that you should mind your own business and not stand with others against injustice. No, you can't "do it for them" but you can stand with them. Yes, they too, have a responsibility to stand up for themselves, but their inability to stand is not always their fault, and shouldn't be considered failing their responsibility. Take your same way of thinking on this, and apply it to the days of abolition... what if you made this same comment about the slaves? Would you think that to be courageous or cowardice?
Click to expand...


All of the things happened in our country and were solved within this country. I think it is my business when it is done by MY GOVERNMENT. I vote and am politically active, especally when I think MY government is opressing someone.
 
Dixie said:
I think that standing up for others, particularly those who can't speak for themselves or do anything about their situation, is the ultimate personification of courage. When your convictions will not allow you to mind your own business, your principles are too important to ignore, this is what "courage" is.

Where would we be today, had people "minded their own business" regarding slavery? women's suffrage? civil rights? It is cowardice to say that you should mind your own business and not stand with others against injustice. No, you can't "do it for them" but you can stand with them. Yes, they too, have a responsibility to stand up for themselves, but their inability to stand is not always their fault, and shouldn't be considered failing their responsibility. Take your same way of thinking on this, and apply it to the days of abolition... what if you made this same comment about the slaves? Would you think that to be courageous or cowardice?
Click to expand...

You are so stupid. I often don't know where to start with your utter stupidity, you remind of a bleeting goat.

Slavery, women's suffrage and civil rights, all movements led by the victims themselves. Certainly, women's suffrage and civil rights, the ones on the front lines, the ones who bled, were mostly women themselves, and blacks themselves. The suffragists were put in prison and force fed in extremely brutal manners. The blacks were beaten, right in front of fbi agents, and sometimes murdered.

Where are the muslim women leading the feminist movement in the muslim world? Are they asking for your help?

Or, do muslim intellectual females, published on the subject, pretty much uniformely state that change must come from within, and that further more,, any change will NOT be consistent with Western mores.

Their religion is very important to them.

And so, like many bleeting little Christian soldiers who march off to church every Wednesday and Sunday to hear a male minister tell them to mind their men! the Muslim female will WILLINGLY take the veil, stand behind her man and lower her eyes, and do as she is told to do.

and that is the history of religion in this world.

Change will come to that part of the world, and things will probably get marginally better for women. But not when judged by popular western mores, even though, popular western mores contain many of these same "ideas", but have been forced to dress them up with the cloak of something we call "deniability".

Some day, Muslim men may be forced, by educated Muslim women, to don the Western male cloak of deniability, and then though they will still look at a rape victim the same exact way you look at her Dixie, and that is, the first question in their minds willbe the first question in your mind: Is she a whore? Who has she fucked this month? Was this really a rape?...but the only difference will be, that like you and other Western men, they will know better than to admit to it.

So, the Muslim woman has that to look forward to.
 
Dixie said:
We have the leading Muslim cleric in our allied partner country of Australia, suggesting that women who are raped are asking for it by dressing provocatively, and further stating that they should have been in their rooms with their hijab covering their heads and there would have been no problem.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is a good example of how the radical Muslim fanatics who have waged war on us, think the rest of the world should live. It seems like, the NOW people and women's rights advocates would be outraged by this sort of commentary, but they are silent. It seems to me, liberals who claim to care so much about personal freedom and equality, would be incensed by the comments, but they are silent as well. Instead of condemning this sort of ideology, they are all busy condemning Bush for fighting this sort of ideology. Look at your own comments, you are not even willing to acknowledge this point, you have to twist and spin things around and challenge me on domestic issues that haven't a thing to do with the ideology expressed by the Sheik.

The point you should ALL be getting is, these people believe this way and want to force the entire world to live by this ideology. They believe in treating women as objects, and adhering to some 5th century standard of treating women as inferior beings, incapable of making their own decisions on how to dress. For people so hyper-sensitive about women's rights and equality, it amazes me that you will continue to bash Bush instead of standing on your principles.
Click to expand...

You are so stupid. Bleet...bleet...bleet...bleet...

Can you hold two conflicting thoughts in your head dummy? Why do cons find this so diffucult?

I have plenty of time to bash both Bush and the extremist elements of the Muslim relgion, as well as extremist elements of all religions. The extreme elements of all religions shit on women and call it a "religious experience". Just ask the Jews, who right here in NY, make their wives sit behind a wall at Temple. Back of the bus type of thing, you might know what I mean.

Just ask Bush's friends the whackos in the Christian fundamentalist sect. Just ask the guys who put out the Watchtower magazine. Have you looked at some of those covers?

I have contempt for authoritarian men, and the women who get on their knees for them, of all stripes.

Any questions?
 
Dixie said:
I have contempt for authoritarian men, and the women who get on their knees for them, of all stripes.

Apparently, you don't, particularly if they are Muslim.
Click to expand...


Bleet...bleet...bleet.

Instead of taking one sentence out of 50 I wrote, and pulling you response out of your ass, how about an example of "apparently" I don't care?

What is "caring"? Advocating nuking the entire east?

Trust me Dixie, I have plenty of contempt to go around for your kind, and it doesn't matter what kind of skin you're wearing. Could be white, could be black, could be mocha.
 
Slavery, women's suffrage and civil rights, all movements led by the victims themselves.

Nothing would or could have ever been done about any one of these, without the help and courage of people other than the victims. I'm sorry you apparently don't grasp this, but it is the truth. If it weren't for white people who wanted slavery ended, the slaves would have never been free. If it weren't for men who wanted to end suffrage, it would have never ended. You can pretend that the victims stood alone, and did it all on their own, if you wish... but you are an idiot, if you believe that.
 
Dixie said:
Slavery, women's suffrage and civil rights, all movements led by the victims themselves.

Nothing would or could have ever been done about any one of these, without the help and courage of people other than the victims. I'm sorry you apparently don't grasp this, but it is the truth. If it weren't for white people who wanted slavery ended, the slaves would have never been free. If it weren't for men who wanted to end suffrage, it would have never ended. You can pretend that the victims stood alone, and did it all on their own, if you wish... but you are an idiot, if you believe that.
Click to expand...

Women gained the vote for themselves Dixie. I know you would like to believe we are all beholden to the great white penis, but it's not the way the story unfolded, sorry. And the idea that the likes of Martin Luthur King, and the many unknown young and incredibly brave blacks, who risked, and sometimes lost their lives, to gain human rights, would not have won them without the help of the great white penis, is so condescending as to show you up as the paternalistic little shit of a racist that you really are.

As for Islam, I suggest you read some published, and easily found essays written by female PhD's who also happen to be Muslim, to help expand your very limited understanding of this problem.

You seem to not want to address the fact, that there will be no change in that part of the world, anytime soon, that is any way compatible with Western faux mores.

Is it because you are completely ignorant on this subject Dixie?
 
Trust me Dixie, I have plenty of contempt to go around for your kind.

You know nothing of me, and any presumptions of "my kind" you have made, are pure speculation on your part. Based on your stereotypes and bigotry. I have never read one of your posts to me, that wasn't dripping in seething hate and contempt. You made up your mind about me a long time ago, and you simply refuse to see anything other than what you want to see. As far as I know, I've never had a harsh word for you, much less unfairly judged you personally, as you have me. But that is okay, you continue on, in your bigoted ignorance and prejudice toward me, you don't have the class and integrity to be friends with me anyway, so you may as well be another enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top