The veil. Sure seems to be causing quite a bit of controversy lately, huh? Now we have this brilliant guy Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali saying that women without the hijab are like meat without a cover, and thus are to blame if they are raped. I like how the BBC reports his defense in a somewhat legitimate tone:
A spokesman for Sheikh Hilali earlier said the quote had been taken out of context and referred not to sexual assault, but to sexual infidelity.
Oh, then it's OK. So uncovered women are automatically "asking" to be unfaithful to their husbands? Actually, I suppose in this view, being raped could also equate being unfaithful. Oh what a tangled web of logic. But wait, it gets better:
The sermon was targeted against men and women who engaged in extra-marital sex and did so through alluring types of clothes, he said.
People engage in extra-marital sex and do so through wearing certain things? Sounds fascinating. The people that I know that have had affairs didn't really put to much thought into what they were wearing when they did it. It had more to do with emotional or hormonal issues.
But before, dear reader, you think I am jumping on a Muslim-bashing bandwagon, I again will ask you to view Western culture with a critical eye. The girl was too drunk? This is often how the rape article begins. Or, she's making it up. You know, she's "playing the rape card." Which immediately puts the integrity of the woman in question, and sometimes ends with the perpetrator being not guilty. (of course, even if he is, we still doubt the integrity of the woman).
Of course I think this fellow in Australia is a complete misogynist, and should face harsh repercussions for his words. It's appalling that the 500 people that heard the original sermon just sat there and accepted such a message. It's appalling that his words may someday be used by some to justify a rape.
But whether it's not wearing a veil or drinking too much, both cultures blame the woman for the assault. Of course, the degree is different, and yes, there's more legal ramifications in the Western world, but the logic is the same.
Why is this rarely mentioned in the media, so often key to merely pit Muslim values against Western values?