“Man forcing himself upon a woman is less than a dog and never to be trusted.”

Referring to women as “meat”, in the west, is highly offensive. I suspect that in Lebanese culture, it doesn’t have the same offensive connotations. (Interestingly, in American Yiddish, the term “schiksa” may have originated as a play on words; one theory of its origin is that it refers to the meat of a ritually unclean animal.)

Those who were at the sermon in question seem to all agree that the remarks made sense in context, speaking as he was about life as a Muslim woman. I do believe him when he said that the papers completely missed the point that he was trying to make, and he did not intend to excuse sexual assault. This is much like the Pope didn’t intend to denigrate Islam.

Now having said that, I’d be more charitable if Al-Hilali hadn’t said this sort of thing before on multiple occasions. I don’t think he’s a sick and evil man (at worst, I think he’s highly insensitive and out-of-touch), but I do think that a person who can’t express himself properly has no business in a public leadership position.

And having said THAT, there’s one thing in his sermon which I did find quite sick, even when you account for cultural differences.

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.

That “65 years” refers to the original sentence handed to Bilal Skaf (which was actually 55 years). Skaf didn’t indulge in mere adultery, he was the ringleader of a series of quite brutal gang rapes. The comparison goes beyond offensive.

Cheers,
Australian man who agrees that Amy should wear whatever she wants without fear.

I feel he is saying go ahead, you see a non islamic woman go ahead and rape her, it is her fault, you have every right to, what does she expect going out like that letting you see her hair and arms, that is what she deserves.

I think he is an evil man inciting hatred and violence against women and to be honest it makes me sick sick sick.

Regards,
Australian woman that wears whatever she wants.

As a matter of historical accuracy (see “The Fritz Kreisler I Knew”, H. Frank :Deutsche Press) my point is incontestable. There can be absolutely no question of the use of meat hooks in this context nor can there be much conjecture concerning differences of attitudes between the Muslem world (as represented by the comments of this IMam and the attitude of Western cultures toward meat.

I would be very interested in your response to this point in particular! I feel myself to be an objective person , open to differing points of view.

I remain your friend and respect your right to disagree with me as I trust you will equally respect my rights.

What do you mean?