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".
So… the rapists were not at fault? Have they no self control? Of course, the answer is that is Islam, self control is not part of the theology. Removing temptation is a central tenant. So, if a woman fails to remove the temptation by choosing to appear in public without a veil, she’s asking for the rape. This twisted logic would paint the poor unfortunate Muslim rapists as not in control of their own lust. Perhpas they should not have been judged so harshly. Perhaps probation would have been a better idea.
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."
Oh really? Are Muslim men cats? Because, last time I checked, cats did not know the difference between right and wrong. Men on the other hand, know the difference between right and wrong. A rapist knows what he is doing is wrong. Hell, men should know that eating abondoned meat is not a good idea. Would a Muslim man eat abondoned bacon?
Note to Muslims: It is NEVER the victims fault.
Questions for consideration: Why is it that Muslims choose to remove temptation over exhibiting self control? How is is possible that an Atheist can clearly see the moral ramifications of "blame the victim" thinking when a religious person cannot?