Imam who claimed not wearing a hijab invited rape attempts to rape a woman.

(Trigger warnings out the yin yang)

Yet another story that makes satire impossible…

Earlier this year, an Islamic Imam and mufti by the name of Shahid Mehdi said that women who don’t wear a hijab are entitled to the same respect and rights as all other women.

Wait, no.  That’s not right.  What he actually said is that a woman who is not wearing an appropriate piece of cloth over her head deserves to be the victim of sexual assault.

Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked,” Imam Shahid Mehdi said.

“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them. ”

“She disobeys her master, there are two places in the Qur’an has ordered her to cover themselves (…) Women make a clean society dirty when they walk around without a Hijab. They are not entitled to respect and are not valuable as those who wear a Hijab. ”

And, unlike so many other religious believers, Mehdi has demonstrated the courage of his convictions by attempting to rape a woman.  He was later arrested (three cheers for Europe and its more secular laws), and just like he blamed anybody but himself for his lack of restraint or respect for the autonomy of others, you can bet he’d never admit to the police that it was his fault he was in handcuffs.  Nope!  The police had to be racist:

During the interrogation he refused to plead guilty and believes that the accusation is based on racism because he has Pakistani roots.

Not sure how he arrived at the conclusion he was arrested for sexual assault because European society loathes Pakistanis and not because they loathe sexual assault…but there you go.  Maybe he has faith.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Glodson

    It must be the woman’s fault for not covering her hair, she has to take some of the blame. Or the next think you know, we’ll be holding the rapist solely responsible for the rape. And that would be terrible.

  • islandbrewer

    Obviously, being male and Muslim means that you can’t control your urges. the only obvious solution is that all Muslim men be confined to female-free concentration camps in muslim countries, while women run everything outside.

    As that’s the only reasonable solution, I’m certain Muslim countries will adopt these policies immediately, right?

  • Silent Service

    There are few times I support the death penalty. This would be one of them. Shameless denial of guilt in a horrible crime.

    • invivoMark

      I don’t think one has to support the death penalty to recognize that one really really really wishes someone else weren’t alive any more.

      • Artor

        I’d like a Sphere of Annihilation Drop someone in, and they’re gone, and retroactively never existed. Erase them completely from the universe.

      • Silent Service

        As always, I am incredibly slow to reply. Sorry about that.

        I do realize why most moderate to progressive people do not support the death penalty. I agree that it is abused far too often. However, in some cases where it can be shown with certainty that the person is not only guilty beyond all doubt, but unrepentant, and highly likely to repeat the behavior; and that behavior is so morally reprehensible as to make the person a permanent danger to society if ever released; then and only then do I consider the death penalty appropriate. That pretty much narrows it to serial rapists, serial child molesters, and serial killers.

        I will accept, however, life without reprieve or parole if the majority agrees that no one should be executed. I just dislike having to pay for their lifetime detainment, to include healthcare as they rot in jail for 50+ years teaching their hate to the other inmates. Can we agree on permanent solitary being fair and reasonable in this case?

        • Feminerd

          Ugh, no. Solitary confinement is torture. We all think (I hope we all think!) torture is always immoral. It only takes 2-3 months of solitary to break most people; 50 years of it is absolutely beyond the pale.

          Besides, life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty anyways, because of the cost of super-max prisons, the penalty phase trial, and the cost of appeals. If your sole objection to lifetime prison is the cost, then be glad! Life imprisonment is actually the cheaper option.

          • Silent Service

            I did not know that supermax had become truly cheaper than the death penalty. I can go with that. Just not sure about allowing somebody this vile access to the general prison population. But then, is there a general population in a supermax? I don’t know.

          • Feminerd

            Well, they usually go to not-supermax (the next-highest rating, whatever that one is) when they get life in prison. Supermax is basically solitary confinement until execution. It’s pretty inhumane, actually, and extremely expensive. There are a (very, very) few people who are just not safe to have others around, but most people can be put in with a general prison population that’s composed of other people with long sentences.

            Life in prison is a pretty harsh sentence. Why not just leave it there?

          • Silent Service

            Life in prison might be harsh, but it obviously does not deter a serial offender. At some point, confinement of an irredeemably violent offender for the public safety has to override the rights of the convicted. Even other prisoners should not be exposed to such dangerous offenders. You don’t confine somebody to solitary confinement for their protection. You do it to prevent them being a danger to other inmates and prison officials as well as the general public. Perhaps confinement only with other equally dangerous offenders would be a solution, but I foresee problems with such a solution. At that point, what do you do?
            This is the problem of life sentences. You build up a population of truly dangerous and irredeemable inmates that must be confined for the safety of other inmates who are not as dangerous and may be redeamable.

          • Feminerd

            Most punishments don’t deter offenders of any stripe, actually. The deterrence theory of punishment is pretty well discredited for a lot of reasons. Primarily, high punishment with low chance of occurring just isn’t an effective deterrent. Life imprisonment gets dangerous people, or at least people whose crimes we deem that serious, away from the rest of society until they die. That’s really all it does.

            As for your comments on solitary- you should really read up on how we do it in the US. We use it for a prisoner’s own protection on a regular basis. We use it for minor infractions. We use it because a guard got angry with someone for no good reason. Solitary confinement in the way we do it- 23 hours in a small cell without even a window, no contact with other humans, no mental stimulation of any kind, for months or years at a time- is torture. It breaks people. Sometimes they go permanently mad. It’s also a giant waste; imagine how much good could be done if each inmate had access to MOOCs and GED classes online and could educate themselves, so that they could become contributing members of society once they were out!

            If we took rehabilitation in prisons seriously, we might not even do life sentences anymore. Norway sentenced Anders Breivik to 14 years in prison, its maximum sentence, for his mass killing. They will attempt, through therapy and education, to rehabilitate him. If they determine he has not been rehabilitated, I don’t know what they’ll do. I don’t think they’ll keep him in prison- possibly they’ll involuntarily commit him.

          • Silent Service

            I would expect Breivik will be committed if he is deemed to still be a danger. And I fully agree that our system does not take rehabilitation of inmates seriously. That should be our primary effort in our prison system. Making sure that ex-convicts remain ex- convicts by helping them to be productive members of society if possible. Unfortunatly some people cannot be helped, some will not help themselves, and the bulk of our population treat prison and parol as a means to get revenge on those “bad” people that scare them. Plus our prision system has become a convenient form of slave labor in much of the country for corporate America.

            In reality our prison system needs a from the ground up overhaul that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

  • mywall

    I’m not saying this didn’t happen but do you have this news from any site that isn’t quite so… heavy with propaganda? That one doesn’t smell much like a credible news source.

  • Gehennah

    I was unaware that, as a male of the human species, that seeing a woman without a hajib makes me lose complete control over myself and makes me attack and rape her without any decision making on my part.

    • Zinc Avenger

      Maybe that only applies to Muslim men, because of all that godliness and holiness and goodness that religion gives you. You know, religion of peace and all that.

      • Gehennah

        Ah, I feel better then that I don’t have to fear attacking any of my friends because of my uncontrollable urges.

        Thanks Zinc. I was going to have to walk around with my glasses off and eyes half shut so I didn’t attack women.

  • onamission5

    One of the thoughts constantly rumbling about in the back of my brain every time I read something like this is what a terribly low opinion religious conservatives have not only of women but also of men. As an atheistic feminist I happen to hold men to the standard that they are not in fact slobbering fools ruled by base instincts of overwhelming aggression but actual human beings composed of stuff like brains and compassion and dignity, who are perfectly capable of not running around raping women.

  • Rogi Riverstone

    The source for this story is a full-blown, conservative blog site, operated by David Horowitz, with the masthead: “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian Screaming to get out.” I can find no credible news sources for this story in English, only anti-Semitic blogs about Middle Eastern people and Muslims. Here’s the Danish story, if someone can translate: