The nation uttered a corporate gasp this week after it was revealed Australia's leading Muslim cleric, Taj Din al-Hilali, had suggested women could be blamed for rape. The sheik’s Ramadan sermon was translated from Arabic and published by The Australian newspaper and included the following words:

‘[In] the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65 years.’

The sheik’s sermon also included this statement:

‘If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem!’ The cleric continued, ‘If she [the woman] was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened.’

Understandably, groups working with rape victims have been outraged at al Hilali’s words. Prime Minister John Howard says the incident is a crucial test for Australia’s Islamic community—their beliefs will be judged on how they respond to al Hilali’s statements.

If any positive can be salvaged from an event like this it’s that words like al Hilali’s force us as a society to examine what we really believe. In this case, what do we believe about humanity? Are women satanic messengers of temptation, as al Halili goes on to say in his sermon? Are men victims to scantily-clad women, lacking any power to resist them and, therefore, lacking responsibility for acts against them?

Now, there’s no doubt that the way a woman dresses can incite a man to lust—a fact well-known to the advertising and magazine industry, at the very least. Our choices affect others. In our individualistic culture, this truth needs to be regained.

Is the cat, then, off the hook? Yes—if you believe men are soulless animals living at the mercy of their urges—and No if you believe they are human beings. Sheik al Hilali’s words are not simply derogatory to women—they’re inflammatory against men.

The more I reflect on it, the more the biblical picture of humanity makes sense to me. According to the Bible, both genders have been made in God’s image, investing them both with great value and dignity. And both genders have fallen and rebelled, making them both capable of wrong. No one gender is more satan’s helper than the other, and no one gender is less responsible for their actions.

Sheik al Hilali’s words may inadvertently prove beneficial—exposing error forces us to search for truth. Women are not essentially sexual temptresses and men are not essentially animals. When we act like either, it only shows how far from God we’ve fallen. In the meantime, the question to be asked is if al Hilali’s statements are the beliefs of Islam or his alone. And for that we await a strong and unanimous decision from the Islamic community.