Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

valkyrie wrote:
You can research this for yourself, but most rape cases are reportedly being committed by 'foreignors' from Muslim countries.

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... 190268.ece

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that cases of rape in Muslim countries is lower then the west simply because women are in a climate of fear to report their rape.

Ok Valkyrie - I believe you, it is the Muslims who are raping the blond nordic ladies.

Perhaps they are also to blame for the rapes in the US as well?

Did you know that there is a very large Pakistani immigrant population in Japan as well (Muslim) - I have friends with relatives there. In the aftermath of the Kobe earthquake, the first group on the scene in some areas offering humanitarian assistance was a Pakistani Muslim charity group, for example, it took another day for the local authorities to gear up and take over the work.

Therefore, the low rape rates in Japan can't be explained by the lack of immigrants.. or can you come up with another theory blaming the muslims.

Abuse of women in many countries is well documented - India, China and yes Pakistan. I condemn all such abuses unreservedly - as do all religious people. However I can't see the arguement that it somehow makes the rape rates in the US and Europe any more palatable or acceptable.

Respect to you for the brilliant way in which you have turned the blame of rape in the west onto muslims. I'm sure you believe it too.

Cheers,
Shafique

Chocoholic wrote:They have been accusing him of that! Did you not read the direct quote I posted earlier from what he said? Go back and read it again and tell me how this is not giving the grren light as you put it, to give men an excuse to harrass or assault women.

well choco u r taking that out of context........ that's why "clash of civilisation" occurs....... first to see the point of view of the cleric u have to see and undertand islamic way of life........which doesnt even allow staring erotically at women. Sofor men to have better self-control he went too far to analogise the "uncovered meat" . If u read the complete story published in BBC u will see what he said. As far as I know rape is illegal in islam so howthey hell can he give green light for raping women. But i dont accept the fact that he is deeming muslim women to b reponsible for rape. whatever he made his point but those grown up muslim men must differentiate right form wrong living in the country.

Shafique, you must have missed all the posts where the different reasons and causes of rape were discussed. We can play with stats forever if you like. For example, can you tell me that Japanese women have as high a reporting rate for rape that the women in the Nordic countries have? Do you suspect that there may be some cultural differences involved? Also, who is doing the binge drinking? The men or women or both? Does high alcohol consumption mean binge drinking? Are there any pieces of research that can definitely correlate that a scantily clad woman is more likely to be raped?

I fully stand by the statement that Finnish men are more respectful of women than men in some other cultures. They don't stare, touch and verbally or physically harrass women who aren't covered up. Look at the laws applied equally to men and women. Look at how many women are involved in government compared to other countries that say that government is the domain of men. There is a female President and was a female Prime Minister (although Jaateenmaki had to resign over misconduct). On the whole, Finnish men see women as their equals who are subject to the same rules they are. There is a lot of suicide, violent crime, and domestic abuse in Finland related to alcohol use - so why is it so hard to believe that rape is sometimes caused by alcohol abuse as well? Alcohol causes lots of problems - and in this case, I would identify that as a big reason for rape in Finland - not what the women are wearing and not as a sign that Finnish men are more disrespectful to their women.

The message of the cleric was that the cats can't be faulted for eating the uncovered meat. So yes, the cleric was implying that men are like cats and can't help but eat the uncovered meat - so they can't be faulted. It also implies that women who have not covered themselves should expect to be fed on by the men - so cover yourself or don't complain because the "cats" aren't to blame.

kanelli wrote:The message of the cleric was that the cats can't be faulted for eating the uncovered meat. So yes, the cleric was implying that men are like cats and can't help but eat the uncovered meat - so they can't be faulted. It also implies that women who have not covered themselves should expect to be fed on by the men - so cover yourself or don't complain because the "cats" aren't to blame.

So you don't believe his apology and explanation?

As for rape stats - why let the figures change one's opinion? I don't have any way to confirm or deny or second-guess the figures.

Let's agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

I believe that in hindsight he likely sees how offensive his comparison was. Everyone makes mistakes, and it is excellent that he apologised. In the case of both the Pope's offensive comments and this Imam's offensive comments - the damage is likely done, despite the apologies. That is the sad part.

There are many in's and out's to consider when interpreting and comparing stats, as you know. That is why people can drive each other nuts trying to hash it all out by throwing figures around trying to refute other figures.

I can only speak from my own experience that I have never been attacked or abused by men because I dared to show my hair, my calves or my arms. I wonder who in Australia the Imam thought would be harrassing and abusing the Muslim women who did not wear hijab etc.?

kanelli wrote:I believe that in hindsight he likely sees how offensive his comparison was. Everyone makes mistakes, and it is excellent that he apologised. In the case of both the Pope's offensive comments and this Imam's offensive comments - the damage is likely done, despite the apologies. That is the sad part.

There are many in's and out's to consider when interpreting and comparing stats, as you know. That is why people can drive each other nuts trying to hash it all out by throwing figures around trying to refute other figures.

I can only speak from my own experience that I have never been attacked or abused by men because I dared to show my hair, my calves or my arms. I wonder who in Australia the Imam thought would be harrassing and abusing the Muslim women who did not wear hijab etc.?

What, kanelli, do you think is the damage that the cleric did? Do you think muslims will think it ok to rape?

The Pope's comments may have reinforced views that Islam was spread by the sword and the Quran condones this.

There may be damage in people thinking that Muslims believe it ok to attack women when the reality is that Islam empowered women centuries before the rest of the world did and the hijab etc liberates women from unwanted attention and allows women to participate freely in society.

As for the stats - Japanese rape rates are low because there is still a very strong sense of personal honour in Japan - this translates into modesty in behaviour and restraint generally, despite heavy drinking. I do not think it is under-reporting. Similarly, Muslim men have respect for women and view them as the pillars of society - they are our mothers and sisters.

You say that many rapes are under the influence of alcohol and say that the Finns etc drink a lot. On balance, that is a good argument to expect rape rates to be lower in Muslim countries.

Even on the domestic abuse cases - alcohol is the main factor according to the reports I've read.

The Australian cleric's sermon and clarification did not say to men to disrespect women.

So again, what damage?

Cheers,
Shafique

I have already explained my perspective throughout all my posts. I can't add anything more. It is completely inappropriate to preach to men that uncovered women are putting themselves out there for attack in a country where the majority of the women are uncovered. There is no correlation between a woman not covering her hair or showing some arm or leg being attacked by men compared to women who cover up completely - especially in a society where most women are uncovered. Therefore, I argue that the Quran and other holy books are archaic to suggest that women need to cover all of their skin to be protected from men - especially in non-covering cultures. I have lived my whole life as an uncovered woman and I can say that telling women to cover completely to protect them from men is only scaremongering (in uncovering societies at least).

Islam in the past gave women more rights than other neighbouring civilisatons, but that was in the past. I would say things have regressed. It is the same as how all the great Islamic thought of the past that saw many of the world's great inventions was also curtailed by fellow Muslims who wanted strict political and religious power over the population.

I could never truly enjoy life if I were to be barred from having male colleagues, schoolmates, and friends - just to stay locked away for a future husband and protect me from supposed danger. I value my friendships with male friends and find it only natural to work side-by-side with men. I am pleased that I can vote, dress how I like, and pursue any career I like. This is simply not the case for women in other parts of the world.

It is completely inappropriate to preach to men that uncovered women are putting themselves out there for attack in a country where the majority of the women are uncovered.

Agreed. He agrees too - the advice he was giving was to Muslim men and women.

There is no correlation between a woman not covering her hair or showing some arm or leg being attacked by men compared to women who cover up completely - especially in a society where most women are uncovered.

Dressing modestly is only part of it - one can act provokatively even when fully covered up. The Quran even addresses this - telling women not to violate the spirit of 'covering' up by rattling their jewellery etc.

Therefore, I argue that the Quran and other holy books are archaic to suggest that women need to cover all of their skin to be protected from men - especially in non-covering cultures.

It's not a question of being protected from men - but a recognition that one can choose to flaunt one's body or choose to share the beauty of the human form only within the marital home

I have lived my whole life as an uncovered woman and I can say that telling women to cover completely to protect them from men is only scaremongering (in uncovering societies at least).

I think you're missing the point here. Muslim women cover up only in the presence of men outside their immediate family - wearing the outer clothing is to give them the freedom to mix in society freely, a liberty that men are not given (i.e. men can't cover up and go into female only areas).

With the debate over the veil etc in the UK, what has been brought forward is people's own insecurities and a negation of the views and feelings of those who do want to cover up.

Islam in the past gave women more rights than other neighbouring civilisatons, but that was in the past. I would say things have regressed.

Islam hasn't changed - women still have the rights under Islam that were given 1500 years ago. The right to own property, inherit wealth, to divorce etc. They also have the added benefit of being held in very high regard and cherished.

Yes, some Muslim women are culturally being abused - but look at women in Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and even Pakistan - women are fully participating in all areas of society from Prime Minister downwards.

It is the same as how all the great Islamic thought of the past that saw many of the world's great inventions was also curtailed by fellow Muslims who wanted strict political and religious power over the population.

No argument here - the 'middle ages of Islam' is what we're going through with politically minded clerics misusing religion in some instances.

I could never truly enjoy life if I were to be barred from having male colleagues, schoolmates, and friends - just to stay locked away for a future husband and protect me from supposed danger.

This exposes your predjudice more than the reality of women who choose to wear the veil. Women wear the veil or hijab when they are mixing in society and in the presence of male colleagues, schoolmantes and friends.

I value my friendships with male friends and find it only natural to work side-by-side with men. I am pleased that I can vote, dress how I like, and pursue any career I like.

So do Iranian, Malaysian etc etc women. Muslim women are pleased they were given rights 1500 years ago that were only given to European women in the 20th Century. We are pleased you have caught up.



Cheers,
Shafique

edit:

Shafique, I am happy that you are proud of your religion, but we can definitely see that you think your invisible friend is superior to all the others.

kanelli wrote:Shafique, I am happy that you are proud of your religion, but we can definitely see that you think your invisible friend is superior to all the others.

My invisible friend tells me to get along with everyone else and protect those who need protecting, whether they believe in Him or not.



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

kanelli wrote:Shafique, I am happy that you are proud of your religion, but we can definitely see that you think your invisible friend is superior to all the others.

My invisible friend tells me to get along with everyone else and protect those who need protecting, whether they believe in Him or not.



Cheers,
Shafique

Thats something I've never heard of Islam or the so called preachers of the religion. They say believing is the only way.

And as for the original issue,I think the cleric may have been right when he equated men to cats. For a reason, the religion was formed at a time and in a region where majority of the men were just brain less fools, who were fighting for everything. from money to women. So at that time, it was pretty correct and understandable that the wise men made rules that protected women from attacks by unwanted twats...

but the Cleric forgot the reality that the world has changed.

And there's no point in arguing. Coz the preachers of religions' inject thier thoughts and theories into people's mind and limit people to think only in one way, that is.. what ever said their religion is the best and only way.

St Lucifer

These statements clearly reflect more on your own misconceptions (about this and other established religions) than on the real or purposely distorted issues surrounding the religion itself.

St.Lucifer wrote:Thats something I've never heard of Islam or the so called preachers of the religion. They say believing is the only way.

And as for the original issue,I think the cleric may have been right when he equated men to cats. For a reason, the religion was formed at a time and in a region where majority of the men were just brain less fools, who were fighting for everything. from money to women. So at that time, it was pretty correct and understandable that the wise men made rules that protected women from attacks by unwanted twats...

but the Cleric forgot the reality that the world has changed.

And there's no point in arguing. Coz the preachers of religions' inject thier thoughts and theories into people's mind and limit people to think only in one way, that is.. what ever said their religion is the best and only way.

Im not sure i agree with any of this.

The modest dressing and "protection" of women was present before Islam.
Just like the preachers inject their thoughts, the Audience do the same.

What Hilali said wrote:That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to
theft, because his responsibility is to be the provider. "The male
thief and the female thief, cut off their …"
But 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 65years.

But the whole disaster,
who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary
works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation
of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in
morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.

Why,
Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat
wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't
put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in
on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight
with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible).
Right or not?
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! If it was
covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and
circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her
room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters
wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and
temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a
soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last
weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a
few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But
you? Oh, you are my best weapon."

http://three-lives.blogspot.com/2006/11 ... -said.html

Still flogging this horse?

Note the distinction between adultery and rape - he says that in 90% of cases of adultery, he blames the woman - as they possess the 'weapons of seduction'.

That's an interesting view - effectively saying that women have more control than men when it comes to adultery. That's a separate debate and one I'm not qualified to argue either way .

I don't agree with the quote where a jurist says a rape victim should be imprisoned for life!

But the structure of the sermon implies he's talking about adultery when he makes the unfortunate comments about 'uncovered meat'.

BTW - The guy apologised, clarified what he meant, was suspeneded, requested indefinite leave and then suffered a heart attack!

[Oh, and where he is quoted as saying 'in house, wearing hijab' - they are exclusive comments - you don't wear a Hijab in the house or your room normally, it is worn outdoors when in presence of un-related men - therefore he's not saying women should stay indoors, but is saying if they weren't in the presence of men or dressed modestly when in public, then the 'weapons of seduction' wouldn't be unleashed! I wouldn't have said this in the way he did and he paid the price for his sermon.. ]

Cheers,
Shafique

He was sorry people were offended, not that he made those comments.

valkyrie wrote:He was sorry people were offended, not that he made those comments.

I think he went beyond that - he clarified what he said and that he did not condone the attacking of women:

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," the statement published in The Australian said.

"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose.

"Whether a man endorses or not a particular form of dress, any form of harassment of women is unacceptable."

Cheers,
Shafique

I think he went beyond that - he clarified what he said and that he did not condone the attacking of women:

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," the statement published in The Australian said.

"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose.

"Whether a man endorses or not a particular form of dress, any form of harassment of women is unacceptable."

Cheers,
Shafique

65-year old Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilaly, the Egyptian-born imam of the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, is no stranger to controversy. In 1988 he notoriously addressed Muslim students in Sydney University with a speech about Jews in which he said, amongst other things: "The Jews try to control the world through s.e.x, then s.e.xual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, traitory, and economic hoarding."

As well as his anti-semitism, Hilaly has some strange views on terrorism. He is reputed to have been caught on camera, weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks, extolling Islamic suicide bombers in the Middle East, calling them "heroes', stated Australian Liberal Party MP, Christopher Pyne. The imam has, since 1989, been paid an annual salary of 40,000 Australian dollars ($29,668 US) from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) to be Australia's "mufti".
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article. ... ticle=6306

valkyrie wrote:

65-year old Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilaly, the Egyptian-born imam of the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, is no stranger to controversy. In 1988 he notoriously addressed Muslim students in Sydney University with a speech about Jews in which he said, amongst other things: "The Jews try to control the world through s.e.x, then s.e.xual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, traitory, and economic hoarding."

haha that old man has some valid points. i aint anti semitic but val turn on the TV and look for yer self........hustler's jeremy who wants his children to follow orthodox judaism while he does stuffs too outrageous for judaism, South park's authors who has so much explicit crap going on (interestingly: if u did watch richard dawkins he questioned a rabbi in London http://evomech5.blogspot.com/2006/10/ri ... virus.html and ridiculed him South Park immediately releases an episode ridiculing Richard). Moreover most of the tv networks and hollywood (from oscars to distributers) are controlled by Jews, even the business from pepsi to pand G to johnson and johnson which has very huge influence in west cos ours is a consumer soceity and democracy so only way to change and control views of ppl is only through media and government that's why AIPAC has huuuge control on the most powerful nation.

interestingly even Borat who is sasha cohen a supposedly orthodox Jew tries in his recent movie to prove Jews are innocent and spanks the rest of the gang espcially those boys in trailer who were drunk by taking em to a bar and then using em....the rest is ur homework val