| kurasakiichimaru said: "in an interview on Russian TV, according to Breitbart." http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/206828
|
Israelnationalnews.com is Arutz Sheva, a right-wing, nationalist "religious zionist" paper in Israel. They're referencing Breitbart, an ultra-right-wing source in America that is itself supposedly referencing an interview on Russian TV. And this is about a German Imam...
You have to start asking questions when such a combination happens. You can't take things as fact when they can't even directly quote the supposed source, but instead have to quote someone who is supposedly quoting the source.
Breitbart has invented stories from whole cloth, so to speak, before - for instance, look up the "Friends of Hamas" story, where Breitbart asserted that Chuck Hagel was paid to speak in front of a group called "Friends of Hamas". It turns out that no such group exists. They had heard a sarcastic comment by a reporter, asking it as a way to say "what has Hagel done that is anti-Israel, anyway?", and that was all it took for them to create an entire story.
Which isn't to say that this is a fake story. What it does say is that you need to be more careful about your own sourcing. Sources that have ongoing, well-known biases shouldn't be trusted when they're talking about a topic that aligns with that bias. So I found a more trustworthy source, one that provides all of the information, rather than just the bit that casts things the way they want them cast.
International Business Times is much more reputable than either Arutz Sheva or Breitbart, especially when it comes to topics connecting to Islam. And when you read *their* article, you learn much more than you did reading that trash you linked to.
The Imam wasn't saying it was the victim's fault. He was explaining what prompted the action. Kind of like how you can say that a serial killer targetted their victim because of something they wore, without actually saying the victim was to blame. The Imam was quite clear in the follow-up interview (from the IBTimes article): "There were women scantily clad women who were wearing perfume as they walked through the drunken crowd. For some North Africans, this was reason to grope the women. That doesn't mean that I think women shouldn't be allowed to dress like that. Everyone has to accept that. And if they don't agree, they need to go to another country. That's the truth."
It's the difference between explaining and justifying.
