Baby, I likes the way you shakes your tenderloins
Oh yeah, t'ain't nothin' hotter than uncovered meat.
Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.Really, does anyone find this sentiment shocking? This is the religion that spawned shari'ah.
Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said women who did not wear a hijab (head dress) were like "uncovered meat".
A pregnancy as a result of rape first of all counts as evidence of adultery committed by the woman. The rape victim then has to prove that she really was raped. In case the man - which is very likely - denies that he has raped the woman, the woman has to name four male witnesses to prove the rape. In case the woman does not find these four male witnesses - which again is very likely - she will be charged with slander.
For the crime of slander, shari'ah prescribes a punishment of 80 lashes. On top of that, the woman will be charged with adultery, and is thus threatened with the death penalty, if she is married. In case, she is unmarried, the "adultery" counts as immoral behaviour and is punished with 100 lashes. This is at least what the criminal code of January 2000 of the Nigerian state Zamfara says.
4 comments:
Oh Jeez, once again you're trying to make Islam look bad.
That is not the sort of tolerant stance proscribed by the more inteligent, enlightened souls among us.
Get with the program or be censured.
Maybe killed.
Whatever.
They're all wrong. It's a given. One thing I liked about this situation, though, is how Australian Muslims spoke out against it. Now if they would just have the clout to have the cleric ousted, we'd be seeing something cool happening.
I made a connection on a message board between this and the way U.S. Christians blame the immorality of the country on gay people, and I got shut down. But really, blaming the victim has really taken off lately. Hell, how about we don't attack those who hire illegal immigrants, and instead attack the immigrants themselves? That'll work...
What would you have us do? Attack those who can defend themselves??? Get with the program.
Step 1. Pick weak target with no allies
Step 2. Form coalition of willing
Step 3. Attack
Step 4. Accuse anyone who questions the purpose, motives, or prosecution of the attack of being mamby-pamby (or in league with Satan)
Step 5. See Step 1
This works in lots of cases, obviously. But I can see what you'd have us do. Attack someone strong, or well-allied, thereby blowing the whole thing apart. Or worse...you might not attack anyone at all!!!
Ah sarcasm definitely becomes you.
Don't get upset at your peeps for that little flyover thing. It's not unusual, not at all.
The only people bitching about it are anti semites and/or those who disagree with the Iraq "war."
The Israelis are doing very well under the circumstances.
One scary thought (scary for me) is that, though I knew your comments were sarcasm I agreed!
Post a Comment