Recently, the Washington Post featured three editorials from women enjoying the veil. (Well, at least a two enjoyed it--especially the empty-headed Feminist convert to Islam.) Allah Pundit reminds the clueless, "that veil's there for a reason, darlin":
That veil’s there for a reason, darlin’:
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”…
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.”
The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”
This is the senior-most Islamic cleric in Australia, mind you. I wonder, how did a member of the tiny minority of extremists rise to such prominence? Are Aussie Muslims disproportionately radical? Doesn’t sound like it — the article notes that his statements were roundly condemned.
Perhaps it’s a simple matter of the tiny minority not being as tiny as we thought. For more of which, spend some time with this. Wow.And on the furthermost other end of the continuum — double wow