Typical trade show booth babe. Pretty? Yes? No? Enticing? Yes? No? Ifso, enticing for what? For a crummy pick-up line that will not work. I can assure you that this girl has heard a thousand lines. So, seriously, who cares? Can’t a Muslim NOT avert their eyes and simply say: “Hm. Not bad.” And walk on?
NZ Muslims disown Australian cleric – New Zealand news on Stuff.co.nz ii Don’t want to over-interpret this because it’s likely that the Christian fundamentalists would say something similar. But this comes from a major NZ Muslim cleric who was berating the Australian Mufti who compared women to meat and men to cats.
If a man sees a woman who is scantily dressed. . . you just lower your gaze away from her. You just leave the person alone. You don’t get into looking at the person or getting enticed, that is the Islamic religion.”
While this sounds fine I have to ask about the word “enticed.” Enticed? Enticed to do what? If I see a hot girl on the beach in southern France with her top off and give her a good look what does this “entice” me to do? Hey, I’m not going to pick her up. I am not going to run off and practice self abuse. I’m not even going to take a cold shower. Is that what they are talking about? What am I supposed to be enticed to do? Seriously. What? I’m not getting this attitude or the enticement.
Perhaps I’d be enticed to take a picture and that’s maybe bad. Is that it?
enticed to lust after her most likely, which is considered a sin.
Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
-Yeshua HaMashiach
Indeed; no individual faith is more deserving of ridicule than any other. This incident simply makes it topical.
(Note that I do not mean to discourage anyone from mocking Islam.)
Most women nowadays do not entice me. I hardly even look at women anymore, but yet, there still are some stunning women out there. So far this year I’ve only seen three women who have made my head turn. The first one I saw this year was on Valentine’s Day and I still shake my head, absolutely stunned, to this day from what I saw. I might just as well have seen God face to face. It was that much awe. The only words that could come out of my mouth was “F*CK!”, and I actually stopped on the street just to continue looking at her. What to say to these women? Nothing. As soon as a man approaches a woman whom she has not signaled it is over before he even opens his mouth. Enticement is just that- enticement. There’s nothing wrong with it. Fighting it causes more damage than accepting it.
you know, that “she brought it on herself by dressing like a tramp” used to be a fairly common attitude in the West.
I am pretty sure those “feminazis” really pushed the idea that no woman “deserved” to be raped …
Well being old enough I remember the 1976 Jimmy Carter Playboy interview that alluded the the Matthew verses above. The Hindu’s have it easier.
hook me up w/ that booth babe!!
and those crazy muslims are just trying to deny the real truth behind why we’re all here – we’re here to reach maturity, procreate, have young, and die. in that order. moronic religions the world over keep trying to gloss over this salient point.
Once when Mark Twain was in Hawaii or some island like that, he saw a few native damsels taking swimming in the nude on the beach. Being a gentlemen, he collected their clothes and sat on them to prevent the breeze from blowing them away.
“Enticed” So WTF does that mean?
The whole Muslim bit with covering the female body and face tells the whole story… the male is relieved of the onerous burden of conforming to a standard of civilized behavior and respect for others – restraining his baser impulses – by virtue of his innate “superiority.” The responsibility for his subsequent actions is thereby shifted to the “inferior” female. The passive rôle of the female in the transaction – simply being visible – is transformed into the deliberate, culpable act of “enticing” the innocent male.
And when you can believe atavistic peasant horseshit like that, you can pretty much believe anything… like God authorizes you to murder anyone who refuses to live by your beliefs.
There will never be anything resembling peace on this planet until the average human can reason well enough to recognize and reject superstition.
“Murder in the name of God: It’s not just for the Irish anymore!”
So Declareth The (25% Irish) Ghoti
People are enticed all the time – my wife, by the food brought to the people at the next table, others by SUVs with lighted cup holders (how very american), or me by a heatsink with a 120mm fan. How can you not grok enticed? If you’re male and heterosexual, you are either enticed by a 19 year-old female in hot pants and a halter top, or else you are intellectually dishonest.
The muslim guy is right about this one – the thing the male can control is whether he looks or not. Of course, for the woman, it’s a serious thing to cause somebody to sin because she can’t dress modestly.
If I read or hear one more comment from a female claiming to know how men feel and should act, well, then I’m going to be upset. Seriously, by virtue of an extra x chromosome women do not know what being a male entails, so stop preaching your nonsense. Rape is inexcusable, but women must acknowledge that dressing in an extremely provocative manner is not a completely harmless act.
If you make a joke about Muhammed, you evoke riots and murders. Suggest that Muslim men have the right to rape a woman if she shows too much skin and you evoke “We are really concerned that he has made such a statement. Really it’s not called for.” Huh?
Where is the apology that women were deeply insulted by the remarks and the rectification that men are not entitled to take what they want, “enticed” or not?
Where is the discipline of this cleric, his removal or demotion from Mufti of Australia? From the lack of action taken I suspect the cleric wasn’t too far off from the Muslim male consensus. They’re just upset he said it out loud.
lauren the ghoti- clearly you don’t know the islamic religion.
1. women are not required to cover their faces. Frankly, I never understood the practice, it’s not stated anywhere.
2. The reason it’s there is actually contrary to what you believe. It’s not there to assert male authority over women. It may appear that way to someone who doesn’t know better, but in reality it’s the opposite. It’s because, as is commonly known, men are stupid when it comes to things like that. Men are visually excited, common fact. Therefore women are told to cover up so that men aren’t excited to “rape” them. Sure, only .01% of men would do it, but if covering up makes it .001% then it’s worth it.
Put simply, it’s not about women, it’s about mens lack of sexual control and finding the easiest way to solve it. Men are told to look away, but obviously, how well does that work? The next conclusion is to tell women to put some clothes on.
When it was written, the Koran was pretty revolutionary because it accorded a higher status for women. Unfortunately, Koran got frozen in time and today we have half-boiled eggs like the Lauren the fishwoman finding fault with it.
Perhaps, everyone should give the old Testament a more thorough read.
Maybe, this will help The Dark Bible: Women’s Inferior Status.
Personally, I prefer Psalms 137:9 which says,
“a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!” (Jerusalem Bible).
#11 – What woman said these things? This is a short thread and I just skimmed over what’s here and I get the (possibly mistaken) impression that all the posters so far are males, so I fail to see who you’re saying “Stop preaching your nonsense” to…
#12 – From the lack of action taken I suspect the cleric wasn’t too far off from the Muslim male consensus. They’re just upset he said it out loud.
Bulls-eye! His attitude certainly jibes with that of 80%+ of the Muslim males I’ve known…
#13 – clearly you don’t know the islamic religion.
1. women are not required to cover their faces. Frankly, I never understood the practice, it’s not stated anywhere.
Exactly what Islam or the Quran does or does not require, in my extensive experience, depends entirely on the Muslim making the claim. You say the veil’s not required; that’s nice. However, that doesn’t exactly square with the claims of other Muslim men and women that it, in fact, IS required – unless they’re not real Muslims…? Or are they simply wrong because they’re not you?
It’s not there to assert male authority over women. It may appear that way to someone who doesn’t know better, but in reality it’s the opposite.
Well, that’s all very fine, I’m quite sure, but whoever said anything about “asserting male authority,” it wasn’t me…
I was citing it as a manifestation of the atavistic tradition of female subjugation, which, while once virtually universal, is at present largely maintained only by the most socially regressive subpops, which is to say, religious fundamentalists, Islamic and other.
Put simply, it’s not about women, it’s about mens lack of sexual control and finding the easiest way to solve it. Men are told to look away, but obviously, how well does that work? The next conclusion is to tell women to put some clothes on.
Wrong again. It’s ALL about women, since, obviously the veil is worn only by women – and then, only when the possibility of being seen by a man exists.
But it is also, as you say, about men’s lack of control. However, the “easiest way to solve it” actually has already been determined by societal consensus. It’s the way that the non-Islamic world does: Men and women alike are subject to the peer expectation of self-control, and the social and legal consequences of failure to exercise that self-control, which we infidels regard as one of the defining pillars of civilized life. Men who can’t keep their hands off of unreceptive women are, by non-fundamentalist definition, not civilized. Therefore, they are the ones obligated to modify their behavior.
No one has the right – in public settings, that is – to tell men to “look away.” Public means public. Some men will get excited by a glimpse of an ankle, others are blasé about total nudity – but all (except egocentric sociopaths) understand the tremendous gulf between looking and touching.
Whether or not to “put some clothes on,” for men or for women, is, in a truly civilized society, a matter solely of personal choice. Having a mode of attire forced upon one by fear for one’s physical safety is a major breach of the social contract.
So Concludeth The (gender-ambiguously-named) Ghoti
#14 – He who jumps to conclusion often winds up at bottom of cliff.
I suppose that when you encounter the names Pat, Lee, Robin or Terry, you automatically assume the bearers of them to be women too?
Or if that’s still too subtle for ya: I’m a guy, Brainiac.
What hypocrisy. You veil your women by making them wear clothes, especially tops, and you veil them again when you enter separate shower rooms and washrooms. Why do you think that would be in such a superior, self-controlled and civilized society?
RBG
so this it what it comes to when JCD and the boys take some time to themselves
0
#11
It is HARMLESS! Instead of encouraging them to go full naked, you talk about dressing them up. I don’t understand guys like you. If all those who think like me can join together, maybe we can defeat the fundamentalists and take a lot of pictures. IMPORTANT: No barrels of lard or old spunkers.
#15
Bulls-eye! His attitude certainly jibes with that of 80%+ of the Muslim males I’ve known
Different people have different cultures. Nudity disturbs some people just as burqa/veil upsets others. But, just as some people like to go naked, some people would like to wear the veil. Asking to people to cover the nudity is fine just as asking people to stop wearing the veil but imposing either idea is a crime and a violation of human rights. For those who have been wearing the veil since their childhood, asking them to go out without it is like stripping the naked in public.
People in the West did not turn into liberals over night. Give Muslims living in the West some time. It will take a few generations for them to change.
If you won’t, then send them back to their countries. And also, ask your co-relgionists not to pump their oil or support their totatalitarian regimes, which you know helps you pump their oil.
#16
You say you are Irish. What was the position of the majority of the Irish on abortion? What… now you are not Irish but an Irish-American?
#17
You, sir, I bow to you. We are on the same wavelength!
#16: Michael Jackson is a guy. In his case, it is his appearance. In your case, it is your freaking name.
#18 — you nailed it!!
10:Janky
If you’re male and heterosexual, you are either enticed by a 19 year-old female in hot pants and a halter top, or else you are intellectually dishonest.
Unless she weighs 200 pounds? (Then again….)
13:OmarPut simply, it’s not about women, it’s about mens lack of sexual control and finding the easiest way to solve it.
Reminds me of one of the anti-drug arguments: people have no self-control, and if we legalize (marijuana, e.g.) everyone will start using it. However, with the availability now, with prison as a ‘deterrent’, it’s possible to get what you want. My usual response is: if YOU can’t control yourself, learn self-discipline, but the rest of us can decide what to use or not.
J/P=?
Once up a time the Sumerians invented the year, the month and the week. And for them the seventh day of that week was an unlucky day. And the thing the Jews, Christians and Muslims did was tot take that idea of that seventh unlucky day and twist it, to make it the Holy day, or Sabbath.
Once upon a time the Sumerians had this two Godesses, who made the weather. When these two moved their long locks storm would break loose. To the Sumerians it was best if all women hid their hair. One could never know.
And again, the three monotheitical religions adopted the already estiblished tradition, but gave them their own twist.
That’s so sad about topics like this, that religious leaders will never acknowledge many of their holy traditions weren’t even invented by them, but older customs just taken up when their faith was established.
ijsbrand:
So, you know what happened becuase you were there all those thousands of years ago?
Nice!
ijsbrand:
By the way, can you use your super powers of knowing everything that ever happened with 100% certainty, even though you were not born yet, to tell me who was hiding in the grassy knoll?
Thanks,
Jim
Interesting commentary…
Actually, you’re missing the majority of the story. Taj el-Din al Hilaly (the guy who made the statement) is an Australian citizen. He can’t be deported, but perhaps we can do a swap for David Hicks in Guatanamo. (Btw, that’s a joke.)
Before he got his citizenship (which was at least 10 years ago), a number of govt officials wanted to boot him out of the country, but he had a political alliance with the man who later became Prime Minister (Paul Keating). Keating’s electorate of Bankstown was very close to Lakemba (in Sydney, where the biggest Mosque is).
The Muslim community in Australia is very divided about him. al Hilaly’s power base is in Sydney, but some Muslim groups (for example the Lebanese in Victoria) hate him, and are trying to dump him (from the position of Mufti of Australia). The govt would certainly like that, but thankfully they can’t interfere in religious organisations.
By the way, for the next few days you should be able to read a translated, edited version of al Hilaly’s speech here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/muslims-set-to-dump-defiant-hilaly-after-outbursts/2006/10/27/1161749321160.html?page=3
You should know that the comment about the blaming the cat if you leave meat on the sidewalk is a quote from an earlier religious scholar, much as the Pope made a (much smaller) mess earlier by quoting a Byzantine religious scholar.
Finally, you might like to know that when asked by journalists if he would resign from his post of Mufti of Australia, al Hilaly responded “after we clean the world of the White House first”.
All in all, I’d say that this strengthen’s the position taken by Lauren at #9. (Btw, Lauren, add a ‘t’ to your name and pretend that you’re french. You’ll score more. 😉
damn ya’ll think about some weird shit
#26 – …add a ‘t’ to your name and pretend that you’re french
Like the famous New Yorker cartoon (almost) said, ‘On the Internet, no one knows you’re a frog.’
#9, Well put.
This is why all women should be armed and carry firearms, and know how to use them.
I’ve never heard a Christian say that a criminal is not responsible for his/her actions. It might be possible that some mitigating circumstances surround the incident,but that doesn’t negate the criminal’s responsibility.
That being said, you can invite an attack by wondering into the wrong neighborhood, flashing money in front of poor individuals, not locking you door, wearing a bikini in downtown Arabia. This doesn’t mean the Muslim belief that men are just innocent animals and women are all to blame, just that society isn’t really as safe as TV would like you to believe.
This is why all women should be armed and carry firearms.
A dead Muslim or secular rapist would be no great loss to anyone, although they might be condemned to hell for their sin it’s better than some woman that is some families mother and wife dieing or having to live with the humiliation of rape.
But, to a Muslim, all is possibly as long as you are a man and follow the five pillars of their blasphemy. The Mormons had and have many of the same ideas, and both are said to have gotten their beliefs from the “Angel of Light”. Satin likes to go around as a “Angel of Light”, could it be the same one? Just wondering out loud, I’m sure some enlighten atheist/secularist can research it and find out. But since it was atheist/secularist that gave us Stalin and Hitler who really care what they think?