JEDDAH, 28 October 2006 — Australian Muslims yesterday rallied behind the country’s mufti who said women who did not wear a veil were “uncovered meat” and attract unnecessary attention. According to news agencies, the country’s Muslims have pledged that the imam would keep his job as their spiritual leader.
Sheikh Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali, the Egyptian-born imam at the center of the raging controversy, was confirmed as the mufti of Australia yesterday after the governing body of Sydney’s largest mosque rallied behind him.
“The board is satisfied with the notion that certain statements made by the mufti were misinterpreted,” Tom Zreika, head of the Lebanese Muslim Association, told a radio station in Sydney. Zreika said, however, that Al-Hilali would not be preaching until after he has returned from the Haj pilgrimage in six weeks time.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said the imam’s remarks in Arabic during Ramadan to 500 worshippers that compared unveiled women to food left for stray cats were “appalling and reprehensible.” In his statements that have now become controversial, Al-Hilali had criticized women who sway suggestively, wear make-up and no hijab. “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?” he asked. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”
Howard warned Muslims they risked a backlash from other Australians if they continued to back Al-Hilali against mainstream opinion. “If it is not resolved, then unfortunately people will run around saying ‘Well, the reason they didn’t get rid of him is because secretly some of them support his views,’” Howard said.
Although, the imam has tendered an apology for his comments, saying he had “only intended to protect women’s honor,” opinion in the Muslim world remained completely divided. Some were outraged while others said the message of the imam had been lost in translation.
Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali, who does not wear a hijab, said the Islamic headdress was not a tool worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. “It’s a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don’t wear the head scarf doesn’t mean that you’re considered fresh meat for sale…The onus should not be on the female not to attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves.”
Australia’s most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not “detract or add to a person’s moral standards,” while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was “ignorant and naive” for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.
Mansour Al-Hejla, a Saudi Shariah consultant, said Al-Hilali’s statement describing women who do not wear Islamic dress as “uncovered meat” left to be eaten by cats was an unsuitable comparison.
“Islam addresses nonbelievers in a humanitarian and suitable manner and does not abuse them. So how can a mufti issue such a statement?” he asked. It should be pointed here, however, that the imam was addressing an exclusively Muslim audience.
He also emphasized that Muslims must avoid statements that would be used by the enemies of Islam to label them and their religion as extremist and racist.
“The present delicate situation demands from Muslims to be extra cautious. We should not become a burden to Islam and Muslims,” he said.
Dr. Ahmed Omar Hashim, head of the religious committee at the Egyptian Parliament, said Al-Hilali’s statement came at a wrong time, adding it would lead to further disfiguring the picture of Islam. “An Islamic preacher should understand his surroundings and should not lose his cool and balance while making statements,” he said.
In Canada, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, said: “It is indeed regrettable for an imam not to exercise sensitivity toward others with ideological differences. His comments are unduly provocative and go against the teachings of the Qur’an, which also cautions Muslims against offending the sensibilities of others.”
Dr. Muhammad Al-Misteeri, an Islamic scholar in France, also objected to Al-Hilali’s statement, saying Islam does not allow comparing men with animals.
“Rape has nothing to do with the dress worn by a woman. It is caused by factors such as immorality, deviation, psychological problems and unemployment. Rape is done by men and how can we blame women for that?” he asked.
The defenders of the imam, and their numbers are legion, say he should not be persecuted for something taken out of context.
“We’re certainly not going to pass judgment on the basis of one comment in which we know his intentions were completely different,” said Keysar Trad, the president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia.
Long-time Jeddah resident Zaheer Iqbal said, “Only yesterday, a Danish court rejected the plea of Muslims to punish a newspaper that offended Muslims by lampooning the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in a series of caricatures.”
“The court decided that the purpose of the drawings was not to belittle Muslims. While the Danish court was delivering a license to offend Muslims, in another culturally Western country an imam, who was simply trying to preach to his congregation the virtues of decency, was being forced to apologize for something taken completely out of context,” he said.
“The example was in Arabic and in the Orient such examples definitely do not seem as outlandish as they do in the West. The Western media need to understand that its perception and understanding of speech is not the status quo. Certain actions and ways of saying things in the West can equally be misunderstood in an Eastern context. The difference is people in the East never make an issue out of such things,” Iqbal added.
