Detained: Egyptian sheikh who said it is ‘halal’ to rape female protesters

18

Egypt has issued an arrest warrant on Sunday against the Salafi preacher, who recently said it was “halal” (permissible) to rape female protestors, charging him with the defamation of religion, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported.
Ahmad Mahmoud Abdullah, known as “Abu Islam” owner of the private television channel of “al-Ummah,” sparked further controversy after he attacked women and Christianity. 

He is already on trial for tearing up a bible during a protest outside the American embassy in Cairo in September over a short film made in the United States that insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

The attorney general has received several complaints accusing Abu Islam of defaming Christianity through statements he had made to the Tahrir newspaper as well as on his TV channel. The latest probe came after a complaint filed by Coptic Christian activist Nagib Gibrail who accused Abu Islam of insulting Christians on a television show.
Written By: Al Arabiya with AFP
continue to source article at english.alarabiya.net

18 COMMENTS

  1. Given that most religions slander, slight, and usually express hatred of non-believers and believers of other faiths, anti-religious hatred laws, it seem to me, should have one effect: to outlaw religious expression.

    Both Islamic and Christian Holy Books, for example, spend an awful lot of time condemning non-believers, heretics or believers of different faiths. This, by definition, is religious hatred; it’s written right into their beliefs.

    Why, then, is it considered religious hatred if one random priest or imam says something hateful, but when Yahweh or Allah or Scripture says it, it’s OK?

    (I know — trying to make sense of religion may be a fool’s errand)

  2. In reply to #2 by Fujikoma:

    If the charge was defamation for saying rape was acceptable, then maybe islam could start to go through the long social modification that christianity is going through.

    Ironically, had he said it was okay to kill them, it may just have been “business as usual” for Islam.

  3. charging him with the defamation of religion

    See, here’s what’s wrong with the mentality of these Islamic states. This is not a religious crime, it’s a crime against humanity. It’s not religion that’s being harmed here, it’s the dignity of women.

  4. Criminalising the defamation of religion was always a stupid idea anyway, if only because if you can’t contradict other people’s religious beliefs you also can’t express your own, so it’s a ban on the free expression of religion. This runs rather contrary to the aim of these laws.

    One could make an exception for religious people to say what they religiously think (but this makes it a ban on the free expression of atheism, which is also unfair, and to a large and growing section of the world population, which is relevant because there have been efforts to apply this ban worldwide). However, this story is an example of such an exception not being made. This Sheikh made a religious statement secular people reject because it’s stupid, and religious authorities considered his religious statement defamatory of religion.

    There are two possible interpretations of this, that he’s giving religion a bad name or that his religious claims disagree with other claims the authorities seek to protect. If the former is not an example of what I’m talking about, you have to work out where the line is between rare religious opinions and “mental” ones. Do calls for killing people for religious reasons, in which these authorities regularly engage, give religion a bad name? What about silly Republican views on rape, if religious in origin? What about opposition to female education? What about opposition to specific medical, contraceptive or abortifacient practices? What about Old Earth Creationism? What about Young Earth Creationism?

  5. This photograph provides a fascinating window on the world of the eleventh century.

    But wait! I notice something a tad anomolous. A mobile phone? Mention of a television channel? Something’s not quite right.

  6. The “Beards” are back. :-(

    In a recent televised appearance, Abu Islam described Valentine’s Day as an event “for the Christians, a celebration for adultery and prostitution.”

    Sounds like an improvement on the vapid Valentine’s Day that we have here in the States!

  7. The most enduring, intractable and enjoyable/irritating debates – according to your disposition – are those centred upon the definition of something that does not in fact exist and can therefore never be uncovered for inspection to settle the argument, principal among which are the beliefs of religions.

    And I submit that there’s not much difference between the major doctrines, but as time passes Islam is certainly increasing its lead in the infantile lunacy stakes.

    It’s next to impossible to predict what the next viscious, stupid outburst will be.

  8. In reply to #2 by Fujikoma:

    If the charge was defamation for saying rape was acceptable, then maybe islam could start to go through the long social modification that christianity is going through.

    Yes, then hopefully all religions will do the planet a favour by eventually disappearing up their own rear orifices, just like the Oozlum bird.

  9. Bloody hell, I am way too young to be nostalgic for a time when rape in any circumstances was considered a bad and evil thing with the added satisfaction that anyone stupid enough to voice otherwise was publically destroyed and served as a reminder to every other misogynistic prick that this would not be tolerated. Really need to invent myself a stasis pod and put this scientific education of mine to good use (well I can hope right).

Leave a Reply