Australian cleric in dress furore

Status
Not open for further replies.
maryam11 said:
that dosn't mention how she was dressed.
Click to expand...

Sister if u think from open mind than u will realize that its crime in Saudi Arabia for women to go out without Abaya. NO woman is allowed to dress immodestly in Saudi Arabia. U seem to be hell bent for exploring women's fault in rape,therefore U are mising these points.
 
lolwatever said:
oh yeh.. the govs rape the top sis's day in day out... we're talking about the society here.. not the crooks. Some governments torture sis's with rape :offended:
Click to expand...


Brother plz read the sad story carefully, the poor girl was raped by some society man who was sure that he will get away with it. And he did. :cry:
 
justahumane said:
Brother plz read the sad story carefully, the poor girl was raped by some society man who was sure that he will get away with it. And he did. :cry:
Click to expand...

Oh yeh i did, oops sorry my fault i judged based on title... the gov does same thing too.

Subhanallah if they didn't bring 3 witnesses against her, and she didn't swear that she didnt do it, the government is wrong no doubt... read into laws pertaining to punishment of zina... beyond scope of this thread.

on a sidenote, the government enjoys raping as a punishment.... wat u xpect

salamz

ps: bak 2topic... pls dont let my posts go unnoticed... reply 2 them!! :grumbling:
 
Islamicboy said:
I believe the people to blame are the women that make themselves objects for men. Men who cannot control themselves cuz probably they dont fear god majority of the time. Third television and the whole xxx rated enviroment person lives in. A person who follows any religion will try his best to avoid all evils. On the other hand people who dont fear god are evil who kill, rape, steal, and dont care for the punishment. In canada here the school i go to its cool to steal and whoever opposes or speaks out agiasnt it is tured out to be the bad person. O yeah majority of the people in my school are athesit who dont fear god at all. Or just dont believe in HELL! <<< Thats the problem with the world today!
Click to expand...

Go educate yourself brother. Seriously, some people commenting on this thread are making me really mad with the senseless posts they are making.

For the millionth time, rape isn't about sex it is about control. You don't necessarily need to be religious to know right from wrong and to know rape is wrong. Just because somebody may not share the same beliefs as you, it doesn't mean they are like wild animals and have no morals at all. Just define the word and you will realise how STUPID it is to lay blame at the door of the victim.

Rape takes place everywhere, not just in the 'corrupted West where women are dressed like pieces of meat' like many ignorant people like to think. Don't look for excuses to condone the actions of the rapist.
 
according to ur line of thoughts everything should be allowed, smoking, drugs using poisons..
Click to expand...

Only someone completly out of touch of reality would compare allowing women the right to wear what they want which does not contribute to the destabilization of ones health, to drugs and poison which does.

What are you thinking when you try and put in poison and unmodest clothes in the same category?
 
IzakHalevas said:
Only someone completly out of touch of reality would compare allowing women the right to wear what they want which does not contribute to the destabilization of ones health, to drugs and poison which does.
Click to expand...

In that case can you PLEASE explain to me why it is illegal to walk around naked? Because by your logic it should be perfectly legal.
 
In that case can you PLEASE explain to me why it is illegal to walk around naked? Because by your logic it should be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Walking around naked is irrelevant. It is illegal because it effects other people, but it does not effect other people or yourself in the way poison does!

The cleric does not say "naked people invite rape" he is speaking about imodestly dressed people. Therefore, in the post a few above mine, there is an illogical comparison of poison to not modestly dressed women. That my friends is just pathetic.
 
One man's violence against one woman may seem to result from his individual psychological problems, sexual frustration, unbearable life pressures, or some innate urge toward aggression. Though each of these "reasons" has been used to explain and even justify male violence, they oversimplify a complex reality: men have been taught to relate to the world in terms of dominance and control, and they have been taught that violence is an acceptable method of maintaining control, resolving conflicts, and expressing anger. When a boss sexually harasses an employee, he exerts his power to restrict her freedom to work and improve her position. When a battering husband uses beatings to confine his wife to the home and to prevent her from seeing friends and family or from pursuing outside work, he exerts dominance and control. When men rape women, they act out of a wish to dominate or punish. ​

Whether or not an individual man who commits an act of violence views it as an expression of power is not the point. The fact that so many individual men feel entitled to express their frustration or anger by being violent to so many individual women shows how deeply these lessons of dominance and violence have been learned. ​

Countless daily acts of violence create a climate of fear and powerlessness that limits women's freedom of action and controls many of the movements of our lives. The threat of male violence continues to keep us from stepping out from behind the traditional roles that we, as women, have been taught. Violence and the threat of violence keep us "in our place." ​

Now that I am on my own and living free of my abuser, I can see how my life was altered when I was being battered. Little by little, he isolated me from my friends, he convinced me to quit working, he complained about how I kept the house, he kept track of the mileage on the car to make sure that I wasn't going anywhere. Eventually, when the beatings were regular and severe, I had no one to turn to and I felt completely alone. ​

On the surface, it seems that men benefit from sexism--from this system of male dominance, control, and violence. On a deeper level, we know that sexism harms men as well as women. Sexism, and more specifically violence against women, harms men because it harms the women and girls in their lives and because it keeps them from having positive and loving relationships with women. In recent years, some men have begun to recognize and acknowledge the ways in which relating violently toward women (and other men) harms them. Groups like "Real Men" and "Men to End Sexism" have been working to raise consciousness among other men and to teach men how to be allies of women in the effort to bring an end to violence against women.​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Copyright © 1984, 1992, 1998 by the Boston Women's Health Book Collective. All rights reserved. Published by Touchstone, a division of Simon & Schuster Inc. [/FONT]

A suggested answer to the first question is that rape is not necessarily a crime of passion, but a crime of control and an exhibition of power. The rapist believes that his actions demonstrate power and control over the victim. The satisfaction for most rapists is not the sexual gratification of the act, but the "high of power" that ensues.​
Does the way a society is engineered contribute in any way to the occurence of rape? I believe that the answer to this question must be "Yes". A society that places pressure on women to avoid and prevent rape, a society that points the finger of blame towards the victim and creates excuses for the criminal - this is a society that creates a "barrier of shame" - this barrier does two things:​
-It provides implicit protection for the rapists by deflecting responsibility for the crime away from him to the victim.​
-It discourages women to come forward and report crimes against them - how its the victim that's put on trial in the court of law is a well known fact. Defense lawyers scan and probe every detail of the victim: what was she wearing, is she a virgin, her sexual history, whether she was acting in a provocative manner? In an adversarial system of law, they have to do this - guilt is all about determining blame. If the defense can deflect some of it towards the women, much the better for the defendant.​
http://www.aizuddindanian.com/voi/archives/2003/07/why_do_men_rape.html
 
Last edited:
IzakHalevas said:
Only someone completly out of touch of reality would compare allowing women the right to wear what they want which does not contribute to the destabilization of ones health, to drugs and poison which does.

What are you thinking when you try and put in poison and unmodest clothes in the same category?
Click to expand...

there he goes ignoring posts agen......... fine that was a crap analogy.. how about the one where i literally applied ur theorem in a similar situation.
 
IzakHalevas said:
Walking around naked is irrelevant. It is illegal because it effects other people, but it does not effect other people or yourself in the way poison does!
Click to expand...

How does immodest clothing not effect other people? :uhwhat
 
how about the one where i literally applied ur theorem in a similar situation.
Click to expand...

Most law makers have accepted some form of the Harm Principle as justification for laws prohibiting a given behavior. The principle states, loosely, that communities are justified in prohibiting actions when those actions cause harm to others. Robbery, murder, rape, and assault harm others, and are thus justifiably prohibited by criminal law. As it stands today, criminal law prohibits most actions seriously harmful to others, and if not prohibited, the actions' harmful natures: like those of second-hand cigarette smoke, pornography, and the medical use of marijuana—are hotly debated.

There are many ways of arguing for the prohibition of an action. Legal Moralists will appeal to the immorality of the behavior in question, or to its negative effect on the "moral fabric" of our society. Legal Paternalists will appeal to the harm the act does to the actor, such as laws that mandate the wearing of seatbelts or helmets. The libertarian strain in this country tends to balk at paternalist approaches to law, and authors of legislation usually argue for the bill's merits under other terms. There are variants to each of these lines of argument. A third distinct line is relevant to naturists today. More often than not, if a new law is proposed that limits the freedom to be nude, it is justified by an appeal to offense. Any of us may be offended by any number of things. Some people are more offended by certain behavior than others are.

Public nudity supposedly offends many people. But legislators are hard-pressed to show that public nudity per se harms anyone (although some are now making unsubstantiated claims about a negative effect on children). On the other hand, legislators have little footing in showing that public nudity is immoral other than to appeal fallaciously to cultural norms. Still, legislators often wish to ban all public nudity, or may feel pressured by constituents to do so. These days, a lawmaker who wishes to ban public nudity will often argue that public nudity offends people, and that because of the seriousness of the offense, such nudity may justifiably be prohibited by criminal law.

Therefore, we ban nudity because it "offends" people, yet if we became very politically incorrect, why would we not ban other things? In a "Christian" nation would Jewish and Muslim places of worship "offend" people, because these places of worship do not pray to Jesus? To ban things because they "offend" people is much different when comparing the outlawing of an act that can "harm" people. Two different categories, and two different thought processes.

How does immodest clothing not effect other people?
Click to expand...

Immodest clothes may very well effect other people, the males of our population are very effected by immodest clothing, but that is not the point. The point is that the effect of immodest clothing has on an average male does not encourage the male to rape the female wearing the immodest clothing. We live in a society which has advanced, and we should put the notions that females are responsible for violent crimes commited against them because of what they wear. The only thing you accomplish using this argument, is help the rapist "explain" or give him an "excuse" for the violent crimes he commited against the female.
 
cheese said:
How does immodest clothing not effect other people? :uhwhat
Click to expand...

so tru... y would they teach that women r such a powerful marketing device in elementary bizness management courses!

i learnt this stuff in year final yr b4 college :offended:

2bad they dont take it further n c the problems associated with usin em as marketin tools!!
 
IzakHalevas said:
Most law makers have accepted some form of the Harm Principle as justification for laws prohibiting a given behavior. The principle states, loosely, that communities are justified in prohibiting actions when those actions cause harm to others. Robbery, murder, rape, and assault harm others, and are thus justifiably prohibited by criminal law. As it stands today, criminal law prohibits most actions seriously harmful to others, and if not prohibited, the actions' harmful natures: like those of second-hand cigarette smoke, pornography, and the medical use of marijuana—are hotly debated.

There are many ways of arguing for the prohibition of an action. Legal Moralists will appeal to the immorality of the behavior in question, or to its negative effect on the "moral fabric" of our society. Legal Paternalists will appeal to the harm the act does to the actor, such as laws that mandate the wearing of seatbelts or helmets. The libertarian strain in this country tends to balk at paternalist approaches to law, and authors of legislation usually argue for the bill's merits under other terms. There are variants to each of these lines of argument. A third distinct line is relevant to naturists today. More often than not, if a new law is proposed that limits the freedom to be nude, it is justified by an appeal to offense. Any of us may be offended by any number of things. Some people are more offended by certain behavior than others are.

Public nudity supposedly offends many people. But legislators are hard-pressed to show that public nudity per se harms anyone (although some are now making unsubstantiated claims about a negative effect on children). On the other hand, legislators have little footing in showing that public nudity is immoral other than to appeal fallaciously to cultural norms. Still, legislators often wish to ban all public nudity, or may feel pressured by constituents to do so. These days, a lawmaker who wishes to ban public nudity will often argue that public nudity offends people, and that because of the seriousness of the offense, such nudity may justifiably be prohibited by criminal law.

Therefore, we ban nudity because it "offends" people, yet if we became very politically incorrect, why would we not ban other things? In a "Christian" nation would Jewish and Muslim places of worship "offend" people, because these places of worship do not pray to Jesus? To ban things because they "offend" people is much different when comparing the outlawing of an act that can "harm" people. Two different categories, and two different thought processes.



Immodest clothes may very well effect other people, the males of our population are very effected by immodest clothing, but that is not the point. The point is that the effect of immodest clothing has on an average male does not encourage the male to rape the female wearing the immodest clothing. We live in a society which has advanced, and we should put the notions that females are responsible for violent crimes commited against them because of what they wear. The only thing you accomplish using this argument, is help the rapist "explain" or give him an "excuse" for the violent crimes he commited against the female.
Click to expand...

you still refuse to even look at my post n analyse it line by line......

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/31068-australian-cleric-dress-furore-6.html#post542215

go on.. refute it, line by line.
 
"Oh those poor thieves, all these people leaving their cars doors open and unlocked, and these victimized robbers are only falling prey to that raw theif instinct which tells them to steel cars left open".

therefore... we should promote ppl to leave their cars open to everyone :rollseyes

coz we shouldn't let thieves prohibit us from doin wat we want.... since u indicate that women should walk around semi naked coz we shouldnt consider the danger they're exposing themslevs to :offended:
Click to expand...

Very odd analogy. You are suggesting that a car door left unlocked and open is comparable to women wearing immodestly dressed clothing. The faults in this analogy are very noticable because of the lack of reasoning and definition of the two crimes.

First is the term "immodestly" dressed, I will give to you that the cleric when saying "immodestly dressed" did not mean what he probably did which was not wearing a Hijab, and instead I will say that he means wearing a mini-skirt. Okay, now you say that wearing a mini-skirt in front of a male is similar to having a car door open in front of a thief. You are therefore, implying that males have the naturaul tendency, to violently subdue and have sex forcfully with women when they are wearing provacative clothing. That is just untrue. Men do not have the inclantion to rape every immodestly dressed women that moves, unlike thieves which want to steal open cars.

What you also allude to is that an open car, and a women who wear clothes but just does not cover herself complelty are very different things. An open car to a thief can be compared to a naked women in front of a hormoned crazed man.

Yet because this women is naked, or should we fault the hormoned crazed man who resorted to violently attacking and raping here.

How about this analogy. We should fault an old women for walking to her house the shortest way possible and getting robbed because she went through a bad neighborhood.

Now who are you promoting our society to attack with your point of view? The point of view you hold condemns people who use the freedom they have and tells them that they should not use those freedoms because there are bad people, and the people using freedom are just "asking for it". My point of view condemns the attackers, and promotes no tolerance in society for such people, because no amount of sexual urges, can FORCE you to rape a women. It is your choice alone to do so! When you choose this path, you are commiting an crime of violence, and you will get no condoning from me, and should not from any member of society which expects peace and goodness to prevail over good people worrying about the inclantions of bad people.
 
This debate has been held many, many times before. If any participants wish to carry it on, I invite them to use the search function and post in a relevant thread.

This thread on the other hand seems to have gone off on a tangent, rather than discussing the news story in the first post.

Therefore, I'm closing this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top