The big issue when Unspun was Down Under last week was the controversy stirred up by Australia’s top Muslim cleric Sheikh Taj el-Din-al-Hilali who said in a sermon that women who did not wear the jilbab attracted sexual assault.
His exact words:
“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside… and the cats come and eat it… whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat?” Sheikh Hilali is quoted as asking during the sermon.
The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.
“If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [headscarf], no problem would have occurred,” he added.
The statement aroused anger and indignation among many Australians, even women Muslim Australians. One Muslim woman leader was quoted on TVas saying that the comment was unacceptable, his subsequent half apology was unacceptable and the Sheikh should step down. But she also added thatthe Muslim women could not get rid of him because the Mosque Association had decided that while the Sheikh should shut up for the next few months until the controversy died down, he should nonetheless be allowed to keep his position.
What sort of a structure do the Australian Muslims have where a cleric can shoot off his mouth yet be able to retain his position? What sort of image of Islam would this give to the non-Islamic world who already nurture the impression, wrong thoug it is, that Islamic organizations are mysogynistic?
Leave a reply to Kevster Cancel reply