Muslim cleric: women incite men's lust with 'satanic dress' (1 Viewer)

[transcendent]

The nature of his arguement is that it's so controversial. The way he states his opinion on the contemporary fashion that adorn girls these days and how he links it to rape is the sole reason it's generated so much heated discussion.
Society has etiquette that although not spoken is generally so second nature that that which is not to be spoken of in the same sentence is usually less known to those with less social ability in maneuvering the labyrinth of social context.
To speak of the provocative nature of fashion is fine.
Also rape is a crime with negative connotations associated with the act and anyone who commits it.
To debate the religious clothing of Muslim women is also fine.
But in the context of the uproar generated by the war on terrorism, 'boat people' and the gang rapes it was possibly the worse situation in which to discuss this debate, not that it's best to debate it any other time but that it was worse at the time he stated them. Miranda Devine has again written another artistic opinion piece on the opinions of this sheik, nothing's changed. So if you really want to continue debating this you must understand the religious context with which Muslim women wear or decide to wear their religious clothing, the continuing provocation with which clothing is designed and worn these days and the nature with which the gang rapes were committed.

 

[soha]

and btw......why do we allow so many immmigratns and immigratns families into our country....when they think like this....as if this is a good thing for australia.

)

um they are not the only ones that think like this
i have a male australian friend who agrees with him
and im sure many other people have stupid views as such
doenst matter what country u are from
its HIS opinion..not an islamic or lebanese opinion etc

 

[Jonathan A]

do you guys think that the dude should be arrested or charged for his comments?

Hard to find any criminal law against it.

and btw......why do we allow so many immmigratns and immigratns families into our country....when they think like this....as if this is a good thing for australia.

Consider that the way females dressed was often given as a justification for rape in this country in the late 1800s would suggest migration is not the source of such thought alone. Not all migrants would say the same as this cleric.

i dont know though.............he did have a point to an extent....if girls didnt dress like sluts...and torment guys etc..........and act so easy etc........there would be alot less rapes......

but im not saying its the girls fault.

Not really, rapes have been connected with other factors, such as psychological factors, social factors among males and the like.

 

[Jonathan A]

and im sure many other people have stupid views as such
doenst matter what country u are from
its HIS opinion..not an islamic or lebanese opinion etc

Can't stress this enough.

 

[sly fly]

Hey, I consider myself a practicing Muslim.
What that guy said is a load of c**p and is his own opinion, not an Islamic one. The guy comes from a minority sect of Muslims called 'Wahabbi's'. These ppl r generally hated by mainstream Muslims coz of their wacked interpretation of the Quran and of Islam.
However, I do agree with him to a certain extent. Ofcourse it isn't a womans fault if she's getting raped. Even if she was wearing nothing, it doesn't give anyone the right to go and rape her. No woman is asking to be raped for God's sake. However, a woman who dresses like a s**t, whether u like it or not, is provoking men. It's not that she's ASKING to be raped. But she is to a certain extent provoking men. Personally, I used to dress, well not so modestly. I can assure u, that in those days, I was bothered by sleazy males far more than I am now. Now i wear the headscarve and noone asks me for my number or anything like that anymore. Not only because I cover up more but also because, hijab (headscarve) is like a flag of Islam and anyone who see's that a Muslim girl is wearing one wouldn't even bother coz he knows straight away he'll be rejected. Many ppl have commented on ''well u dont see women raping men, it's called self control'' etc. I think what most ppl should understand is that men are naturally sexually driven to a much larger extent than females are. Thus it's alot easier for a female to exercise self-control. Which is why you get so many sleazy guys. Im not saying that's an excuse to go out and rape women, no way. Im just saying that we as a society know this and should therefore come to terms with why more men r like that and why women should cover themselves to reduce the chances of getting raped or being bothered by these idiots. Ofcourse, this is Australia and whether a woman chooses to cover herself or not is up to her, but she will generally be bothered less by men if she did.

I also wanted to say that many of u seem to have this misconception that Muslim women r oppressed blah blah blah. Dont believe what the media feeds u for God's sake. Women have heaps of rights in Islam. Australia only gave women the right to vote in the last 100years. The prophet of Islam (pbuh) declared that women were to have the right to vote and should be respected and treated well 1400years ago. You can go research it if u dont believe me. As a Muslim woman, I dont feel oppressed whatsoever. If ur definition of freedom is to go out dressing in practically nothing and having men whistling at u and being treated by ignorant men as if ur worth nothing, then that's up to u i guess. But seriously, I don't see how covering up is taking away someones freedom. Anyway, we have mad rights For example, when a woman get's married, if she decides to work, she gets to keep the money and she can spend the money on the household only if she wants. The husband, however, does not have the option to keep all his money to himself. He is obliged to spend it on the household and provide for the family. Or like, when a Muslim man and woman get married, the man once again has to provide for the family in addition to doing all the housework. The woman is not obliged to do any housework or outside work(other than take care of the kids). She can if she wants (and it's highly reccommended that she does) but it's not obligatory upon her.

Btw, if anyone has already said these things, i do apologize. I read like the first 2 pages of this post and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.

 

[ogmzergrush]

The post started off well, but:

Many ppl have commented on ''well u dont see women raping men, it's called self control'' etc. I think what most ppl should understand is that men are naturally sexually driven to a much larger extent than females are. Thus it's alot easier for a female to exercise self-control. Which is why you get so many sleazy guys.

I'm male, and I can't say I've ever really struggled to not rape people, what gives? I think blaming rape on the fact that someone is male and has hardcore hormones to be dealing with is an absolute crock. If someone isn't up for it, they're not up for it, it's really not a difficult concept from where I stand, and raping someone is something which I can easily state, with 100% certainty, that I'd never do, as I think it constitutes one of the most extreme violations of another person's rights possible. People don't commit rape because they're just "sexually driven" males, they do it because they have serious issues.

Im not saying that's an excuse to go out and rape women, no way. Im just saying that we as a society know this and should therefore...

Society "know" that I'm inclined towards rape just because male? That's a pretty harsh indictment of all males due to the actions of those who are presumably the vast minority.

come to terms with why more men r like that and why women should cover themselves to reduce the chances of getting raped or being bothered by these idiots. Ofcourse, this is Australia and whether a woman chooses to cover herself or not is up to her, but she will generally be bothered less by men if she did.

As has been mentioned prior to this, often rape is motivated by factors other than desire. Unless you mean to state that female senior citizens are raped as a result of showing too much cleavage, I don't really see how this works.

If we are to ignore non-sexually motivated rape, then certainly there are cases where it [desire] is a factor, but I think that people's right to dress however they want and feel safe should not be blamed for the actions of those who are unable to control themselves.

Regardless of what they're wearing (Assuming they are clothed at least to an extent), these victims are not in violation of any law, and the bit that I think a lot of people here who have responded struggle with understanding is the fact that there are people who would seek to blame, even in part, the wrong-doing of an individual on them.

Btw, if anyone has already said these things, i do apologize. I read like the first 2 pages of this post and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.

Many seem to be under the impression that we're going around in circles. I haven't read the entire thread as of yet, but as long as we're conversing in a moderately civilised fashion I don't see the problem.

 

[Jonathan A]

However, I do agree with him to a certain extent. Ofcourse it isn't a womans fault if she's getting raped. Even if she was wearing nothing, it doesn't give anyone the right to go and rape her. No woman is asking to be raped for God's sake. However, a woman who dresses like a s**t, whether u like it or not, is provoking men. It's not that she's ASKING to be raped. But she is to a certain extent provoking men. .

It's not provocation. People are expected to excercise self-control. By a female dressing the way they do in a manner that might entice men, they are neither asking or provoking men to attack them. Whilst their intention may be to entice males in many ways, rape is a crime and against the will of a female. There is a way a female dressed non-modestly can attract a male's attention without being attacked. I would agree it would set up circumstances of temptation, but we are all faced with temptations - our society imposes laws to oppose this. It is a temptation for anyone if you are driving behind a vehicle holding millions of dollars, to steal from it, yet we don't.



Personally, I used to dress, well not so modestly. I can assure u, that in those days, I was bothered by sleazy males far more than I am now.

And if anyone in your position had males advancing toward them in an illegal or threatening fashion, they would be breaking the law and at their own will.


Many ppl have commented on ''well u dont see women raping men, it's called self control'' etc. I think what most ppl should understand is that men are naturally sexually driven to a much larger extent than females are. Thus it's alot easier for a female to exercise self-control. Which is why you get so many sleazy guys. Im not saying that's an excuse to go out and rape women, no way. Im just saying that we as a society know this and should therefore come to terms with why more men r like that and why women should cover themselves to reduce the chances of getting raped or being bothered by these idiots.

If these men are 'sleazy', then it is their problem, not the fault of the female. There are laws against indecent exposure, however no laws against dressing in a promiscuous fashion,but laws for the attacking of a person. We can't legislate all our morals, how we dress changes, and what is acceptable now wasn't 50 years ago. So by whose standards do we address this?


Ofcourse, this is Australia and whether a woman chooses to cover herself or not is up to her, but she will generally be bothered less by men if she did.

That's not entirely true. There is no evidence to support this. If all women covered up, what would men then do? They would look to covered women if they are sexually driven. Evidence also goes to show humans are not necessarily driven by sex.

 

[sly fly]

''I'm male, and I can't say I've ever really struggled to not rape people, what gives? I think blaming rape on the fact that someone is male and has hardcore hormones to be dealing with is an absolute crock. If someone isn't up for it, they're not up for it, it's really not a difficult concept from where I stand, and raping someone is something which I can easily state, with 100% certainty, that I'd never do, as I think it constitutes one of the most extreme violations of another person's rights possible. People don't commit rape because they're just "sexually driven" males, they do it because they have serious issues.''


First of all, I was talking on a general level. Obviously, it doesn't apply to all males. Secondly, i never blamed rape on ''hardcore hormones''. I was simply accounting for the rason why it is more common for males to be raping females than for females to be raping males. Third, ofcourse rapists have serious issues. Im not questioning that. If you read my post again, u will see that i continually made a point of stating that hormones r no excuse to rape ppl. I was not justifying the actions of rapists, I was merely stating a major contributing factor as to the reasons for the occurence of rape.

''Society "know" that I'm inclined towards rape just because male? That's a pretty harsh indictment of all males due to the actions of those who are presumably the vast minority.''

I never said that society know that men r inclined to rape. I said that society know that men are alot more into sex than females r. In fact, I once heard that males (and this is on a general level) think about sex every 7 minutes. But that was by word of mouth so yeah i dunno how accurate that is.

''As has been mentioned prior to this, often rape is motivated by factors other than desire. Unless you mean to state that female senior citizens are raped as a result of showing too much cleavage, I don't really see how this works.

If we are to ignore non-sexually motivated rape, then certainly there are cases where it [desire] is a factor, but I think that people's right to dress however they want and feel safe should not be blamed for the actions of those who are unable to control themselves.

Regardless of what they're wearing (Assuming they are clothed at least to an extent), these victims are not in violation of any law, and the bit that I think a lot of people here who have responded struggle with understanding is the fact that there are people who would seek to blame, even in part, the wrong-doing of an individual on them.''


What exactly is ''non-sexually motivated rape''? Would u care to elaborate plz.

Sure everyone shoudl be able to dress how they like and feel safe, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. It's like saying, everyone should be able to drive their ferrari's and park it in the streets of New York, without needing to worry about it getting stolen. Noone with a ferrari would ever do sumthing like that unless they were really stupid. Same thing applies to the way we dress. Also, I never said that the victim should be blamed for getting raped. Thats absurd. However some do provoke it (but still, thats not to say that it's their fault for getting raped).

''Many seem to be under the impression that we're going around in circles. I haven't read the entire thread as of yet, but as long as we're conversing in a moderately civilised fashion I don't see the problem.''

Yeah ur right. But unfortunately, many ppl constantly complain

 

[Jonathan A]

What exactly is ''non-sexually motivated rape''? Would u care to elaborate plz.

The law does not require sexual motivation. Remember 'rape' is not so much a crime anymore, usually supplemented by "Sexual Assault" (reasoning to do with Statute Laws). So the act of someone making an unwanted contact with sexual organs could fulfill this. I think your definition is a little closed for its broader purpose.


Sure everyone shoudl be able to dress how they like and feel safe, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. It's like saying, everyone should be able to drive their ferrari's and park it in the streets of New York, without needing to worry about it getting stolen. Noone with a ferrari would ever do sumthing like that unless they were really stupid. Same thing applies to the way we dress. Also, I never said that the victim should be blamed for getting raped. Thats absurd. However some do provoke it (but still, thats not to say that it's their fault for getting raped).

Taking precautions are definantely important. But the offence is inherent in the offender, not the victim. A victim may be more susceptible to an offence, however its not usually because of their dress. When you say 'provoke' you imply they share blame for the event, that is my understanding of the word 'provoke' in legal terms, which is why in criminal law it is a defence and in civil law limits the amount of pubitive damages.

 

[SabtheLab]

ive noticed that law dude seems to be forgetting the difference between idealism and reality. idealistically, a woman is weel within her right s to wear whatever the hell she wants to wear and not be bothered by it. realistically, however, thats assuming too much. some guys(i will refrain from a generalisation) dont care about womens rights and when they are out looking for prey, will more likely go for a sl**ty, teasing chick than a girl who's dressed modestly. going back to the ferrari example, armed with the knowledge that ur car might be stolen in new york(a higher chance than say a hyundai or sumthing) u will most likely drive in with one of ur other less expensive cars to reduce the risk of having it stolen. same applies to womens dress. dress modestly and ur much less likely to get attacked

 

[sly fly]

''The law does not require sexual motivation. Remember 'rape' is not so much a crime anymore, usually supplemented by "Sexual Assault" (reasoning to do with Statute Laws). So the act of someone making an unwanted contact with sexual organs could fulfill this. I think your definition is a little closed for its broader purpose.''

Yes I know that the law does not require sexual motivation. However, you haven't answered my question. Sure, there may be the odd case of someone raping somebody simply to get back at their husband or something like that. However, the vast majority of rapes are sexually motivated. So whether the law does or does not require sexual motivation has no relevance to the issue.

''Taking precautions are definantely important. But the offence is inherent in the offender, not the victim. A victim may be more susceptible to an offence, however its not usually because of their dress. When you say 'provoke' you imply they share blame for the event, that is my understanding of the word 'provoke' in legal terms, which is why in criminal law it is a defence and in civil law limits the amount of pubitive damages.''

Correct me if Im wrong, but in Criminal law, provocation is only a partial defence to murder and possibly for some other crimes, im not sure. However, Im pretty sure it cannot be used as a defence for assault (eg: if someone provoked u into bashing them). So here the issue arises, why is it a partial defence for murder and not for assault (which is pretty stupid if u ask me but anyway thats another issue)? You'll find that the answer is that because subjecting the blame onto somebody because they provoked somebody else is only applicable to certain situations. Now in the situation of rape, whether a girl dresses modestly or immodestly does not give anyone the right to rape her. So no, she does not share the blame for the rape. However, she is guilty of failing to take those precautions. This is why the majority of ppl, (and whether u admit it or not, this probably applies to yourself aswell), would feel more sorry for a nice girl who always covers up and takes precautions that has been raped than for an immodest girl who goes around dressed in practically nothing. In this situation, the same crime has been committed against them. However, the vast majority of us would feel more sorry for the first girl. Why is this so? Pretty self-explanatory really....

 

[Generator]

Now in the situation of rape, whether a girl dresses modestly or immodestly does not give anyone the right to rape her. So no, she does not share the blame for the rape. However, she is guilty of failing to take those precautions. This is why the majority of ppl, (and whether u admit it or not, this probably applies to yourself aswell), would feel more sorry for a nice girl who always covers up and takes precautions that has been raped than for an immodest girl who goes around dressed in practically nothing. In this situation, the same crime has been committed against them. However, the vast majority of us would feel more sorry for the first girl. Why is this so? Pretty self-explanatory really....

Actually, no it isn't. Nice of you to think that the majority believe that the victim is at fault, though (as you implicitly suggested by stating that they wouldn't feel as sorry for an 'immodest' girl as they would for a 'nice' girl).

 

[Jonathan A]

ive noticed that law dude seems to be forgetting the difference between idealism and reality. idealistically, a woman is weel within her right s to wear whatever the hell she wants to wear and not be bothered by it. realistically, however, thats assuming too much. some guys(i will refrain from a generalisation) dont care about womens rights and when they are out looking for prey, will more likely go for a sl**ty, teasing chick than a girl who's dressed modestly. going back to the ferrari example, armed with the knowledge that ur car might be stolen in new york(a higher chance than say a hyundai or sumthing) u will most likely drive in with one of ur other less expensive cars to reduce the risk of having it stolen. same applies to womens dress. dress modestly and ur much less likely to get attacked

You have missed my point. The point that slyfly was making that I was responding to was provocation. So these guys you know, have they committed a sexual assault?

 

[Jonathan A]

Yes I know that the law does not require sexual motivation. However, you haven't answered my question. Sure, there may be the odd case of someone raping somebody simply to get back at their husband or something like that. However, the vast majority of rapes are sexually motivated. So whether the law does or does not require sexual motivation has no relevance to the issue.

Well you can't have the cake and eat it too. You can't raise an issue and expect me not to raise a justification for why it's there. You raised the concern about sexual motivation, I noted that it is wrong to suggest that all sexual assaults are motivated by sex, many theorists would argue there is a concern of psychodynamic manifestation, where the male seeks to overpower the female in the situation and sexual assault is one of those ways, the motivation on that account is open for discussion.



Correct me if Im wrong, but in Criminal law, provocation is only a partial defence to murder and possibly for some other crimes, im not sure. However, Im pretty sure it cannot be used as a defence for assault (eg: if someone provoked u into bashing them). So here the issue arises, why is it a partial defence for murder and not for assault (which is pretty stupid if u ask me but anyway thats another issue)?

To the best of my knowledge provocation is partial defence all round unless legislation otherwise suggests.


You'll find that the answer is that because subjecting the blame onto somebody because they provoked somebody else is only applicable to certain situations. Now in the situation of rape, whether a girl dresses modestly or immodestly does not give anyone the right to rape her. So no, she does not share the blame for the rape. However, she is guilty of failing to take those precautions.

You can't be guilty of not taking precautions, these are acts against a person, this is not Workers Compensation cases we are dealing with where an employer needs to take precautions. The fact is if you dress indecently and expose too much, then you are offending, however if your dress is not an indecent exposure, then you are fine in the eyes of the law. You can't be provoked by something that tempts you only. If a girl walks past a guy and she is wearing a mini-skirt and he attacks her, she has not provoked him. A provocation would be she would go up to him and make a comment or approach that would offend or the like.


This is why the majority of ppl, (and whether u admit it or not, this probably applies to yourself aswell), would feel more sorry for a nice girl who always covers up and takes precautions that has been raped than for an immodest girl who goes around dressed in practically nothing. In this situation, the same crime has been committed against them. However, the vast majority of us would feel more sorry for the first girl. Why is this so? Pretty self-explanatory really....


Perhaps. But if the latter girl was gang-raped and humiliated and even vilified based on race, then the community would tend to feel sorry for her more. The situation here is the offender themselves. How can you suggest restricting what people wear, because some people who lack self control, have encompassed poor-child rearing, and have been with their offending mates most of their lives, decide to prey on an innocent person. Innocent in the way they are not associated with the offender.

 

[SabtheLab]

ok then lets talk about provocation. perhaps this isnt the right word to use. how about involuntary incitement. of course, theyre not asking to be raped but nevertheless, through their own behaviour and dress ( or lack of) they are inciting the lust of men. and thats exactly what theyre aiming for! obviously, heyre not asking to be assaulted but in dressing in skimpy attire they must understand that they run a greater risk of being raped simply because rapists have no self-control. though this is no excuse, this is reality. face it. a girl walks past a rapist, parading her naked flesh and she has to face reality-she has a higher risk of being raped. end of story. this is reality. now everyone please, lets stop entertaining idealism and raving on and on about "awww well women have rights to wear mini-skirts and bra tops walking down the street " and " non-sexually motivated assualt". sitting in front of our computers and talking about a womans right to wear what she wants isn't going to solve the problem nor will it ease the reality of the situation. a woman is raped every 2 minutes somewhere in the world. fact. perhaps the best way to lower this figure(sexually motivated attacks anyway) is to discuss ways of prevention. after all, prevention i the best cure.

 

[breaking]

ok then lets talk about provocation. perhaps this isnt the right word to use. how about involuntary incitement. of course, theyre not asking to be raped but nevertheless, through their own behaviour and dress ( or lack of) they are inciting the lust of men. and thats exactly what theyre aiming for! obviously, heyre not asking to be assaulted but in dressing in skimpy attire they must understand that they run a greater risk of being raped simply because rapists have no self-control. though this is no excuse, this is reality. face it. a girl walks past a rapist, parading her naked flesh and she has to face reality-she has a higher risk of being raped. end of story. this is reality. now everyone please, lets stop entertaining idealism and raving on and on about "awww well women have rights to wear mini-skirts and bra tops walking down the street " and " non-sexually motivated assualt". sitting in front of our computers and talking about a womans right to wear what she wants isn't going to solve the problem nor will it ease the reality of the situation. a woman is raped every 2 minutes somewhere in the world. fact. perhaps the best way to lower this figure(sexually motivated attacks anyway) is to discuss ways of prevention. after all, prevention i the best cure.

ffs, this exact thing has been discussed for the last 28 pages.

 

[Generator]

of course, theyre not asking to be raped but nevertheless, through their own behaviour and dress ( or lack of) they are inciting the lust of men. and thats exactly what theyre aiming for!

The idea that it is a way to state "I am a woman and proud, you can all go and jump" is of no value, I guess?

a woman is raped every 2 minutes somewhere in the world. fact. perhaps the best way to lower this figure(sexually motivated attacks anyway) is to discuss ways of prevention. after all, prevention i the best cure.

Are we going to consider the castration of all men, too? Surely that's fair given that it is just as excessive as repressing women through the enforcement of 'preventative' clothing.

 

[Jonathan A]

ok then lets talk about provocation. perhaps this isnt the right word to use. how about involuntary incitement. of course, theyre not asking to be raped but nevertheless, through their own behaviour and dress ( or lack of) they are inciting the lust of men. and thats exactly what theyre aiming for! obviously, heyre not asking to be assaulted but in dressing in skimpy attire they must understand that they run a greater risk of being raped simply because rapists have no self-control. though this is no excuse, this is reality. face it. a girl walks past a rapist, parading her naked flesh and she has to face reality-she has a higher risk of being raped. end of story. this is reality. now everyone please, lets stop entertaining idealism and raving on and on about "awww well women have rights to wear mini-skirts and bra tops walking down the street " and " non-sexually motivated assualt". sitting in front of our computers and talking about a womans right to wear what she wants isn't going to solve the problem nor will it ease the reality of the situation. a woman is raped every 2 minutes somewhere in the world. fact. perhaps the best way to lower this figure(sexually motivated attacks anyway) is to discuss ways of prevention. after all, prevention i the best cure.

Having studied Crime Prevention in great detail recently and analysing current models (and now looking at efectivness of models) I can tell you that you solution is not effective at all. You present what is called a situational measure to reduce attractiveness. What does this lead to? It leads to what's referred to as 'displacement', that is crime will spread in another way. Rape has always been around, and dress in 1800s was modest.

So put yourself into the shoes of a rapist, one who you see a sexually-motivated individual who targets those with mini-skirts. What are you going to do if all girls are wearing modest dress? Are you going to stop offending? Evidence will suggest certainly no.

 

[fashionista]

ffs, this exact thing has been discussed for the last 28 pages.

thank you!!...can someone say going in circles???

 

[zahid]

thank you!!...can someone say going in circles???

GOING IN CIRCLES