As it’s so topical, here’s a resurrection from 2007.
You can buy t-shirts, mugs, and bags bearing Mo’s campaign slogan from the J&M shop.
An all-time classic!
Author – isn’t that your avatar on Mo’s sign? You are messing up with my (so far pretty reliable) gender recognition abilities.
Finely crafted irony.
Mo really doesn’t get it – those eyes can be really alluring. Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan goes one step further: he wants to enforce the one-eyed hijab which is a tradition noted in the hadith. It must be clear to all rational men that showing both eyes encourages the use of eye makeup to look seductive.
Personally, I think that this is just a half measure. Hasn’t a woman ever winked at him? Come to think of it, a blink is a wink in a one-eyed hijab! What we need is a no-eyed hijab.
Naturally, we will need to stop women bumping in things, so we might need to supply guide dogs. However, some of those dogs are quite attractive – they probably need burkas, too. No-eyed versions, obviously. Then they, too, will need a further guide dog. Wait … that’s a infinite regress. Just give women a white stick. And gloves to cover those sexy hands. And they mustn’t talk as their voices can be inflamingly sexy. And maybe get them to wiggle their hips a bit less when they walk.
I feel less horny already.
Still my favourite coffee mug !
Hijab ahoy, girls!
It’s all your fault for having tits, you shameless hussies.
As the ferenghi said they clothe there woman the height of perversion inviting others to undress them..
The defining feature of a Muslim male
Is immaturity and, with out fail…
Not a bit of self controls
From these dim witted ass wholes
Who should be welded in underwear of chainmail.
You know those ‘comedy’ aprons that self-proclaimed ‘life-and-soul’ blokes wear when incinerating the burgers on a barbeque, the ones that are supposed to make it look as though the wearer is a voluptuous, curvy woman in saucy underwear? Well, do you think there might be a market for burqas along the same lines, only with the naked body of a fat old Arab geezer on instead?
You may be on to something there, AoS. Marketing is going to be a problem to start with. Maybe we could get some churches to make it their mission.
Well, that’s pretty much on the money for society as a whole these days, religion aside.
Your inability to accept responsibility for yourself is is someone else’s fault.
Another example of Author’s ability to hold a mirror up to society. Cudos to you Sir.
Funny, but not sure it really gets to the point… it isn’t about controling male lust, but is about male power – keeping women subservient and “in their place”. The issue of sexual lust isn’t aimed solely at men but, like the catholic church, at both sexes as a guilt trip – again as a power-trip, this time by the religious institution over its followers.
Of course WE know it’s about male power, but the people promoting it always make the excuse that its about protecting the eternal soul of men, who are weak and lustful and mustn’t be inflamed by the sight of an “immodestly dressed” woman. In their eyes women are at fault for a man who can’t control his baser instincts. It’s a philosophy that subjugates women and infantilizes men, making both easier to control.
QuineDuhem, you made a number of interesting points. You wrote, “Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan goes one step further: he wants to enforce the one-eyed hijab which is a tradition noted in the hadith. It must be clear to all rational men that showing both eyes encourages the use of eye makeup to look seductive.” Have you ever heard of Veronica Lake? She was an American film star in the 1940s. She didn’t wear a hijab, of course, but she was known for wearing her hair so that one of her eyes was covered–yet she still wore eye makeup on both eyes. I think the same principle behind peek-a-boo lingerie is in play here: if a man finds one of a woman’s eyes alluring (with or without makeup), he’ll want to see the other eye–and more .
“What we need is a no-eyed hijab. Naturally, we will need to stop women bumping in things, so we might need to supply guide dogs…” Actually, no-eyed hijabs already exist–I’ve seen them not only in pictures but in real life. The hijabs are black, and the opening for the eyes is covered by black lace. The lace hides the womens’ eyes but allows them to see, so they don’t need guide dogs. Aren’t you glad that no-eyed hijabs help prevent cruelty to animals (because the women who wear no-eyed hijabs don’t use burka-wearing guide dogs) ?
“Just give women … gloves to cover those sexy hands.” I saw a photo of women in Saudi Arabia wearing–you guessed it–both no-eyed hijabs and gloves. I grew up in a desert climate, and I can easily imagine how oppressive it must be (in all senses of the word) to be outdoors in the scorching desert, covered entirely in black cloth that prevents one’s perspiration from environment and traps the heat!
“And they mustn’t talk as their voices can be inflamingly sexy. And maybe get them to wiggle their hips a bit less when they walk.” Perhaps those mandating hijabs will one day force women to speak into voice-distorting speakers to mute the sexiness of their natural tones, and to use something like a Segway to keep their hips from wiggling.
“I feel less horny already.” Even with all of the measures mentioned above, some men will still feel horny, because they’ll know it’s a woman under all those covers, and they’ll want to unwrap the package to see the goodies inside. Fortunately, in the countries where the hijab is mandated, the men are wealthy enough that they can use the time-honored cold shower to alleviate their uncontrollable lust.
Oops–that should have been “prevents one’s perspiration from evaporating”. Sorry about that!
@two cents’ worth. Wearing black in hot climates is common. This counter-intuitive behaviour has been studied scientfically and the sense of it understood. Google it.
two cents’ worth said
Even with all of the measures mentioned above, some men will still feel horny, because they’ll know it’s a woman under all those covers, and they’ll want to unwrap the package to see the goodies inside.
In that case, let the women wear what they please, and make those men unable to control themselves wear welders’ masks – visor locked shut, of course – whenever they are out and about anywhere there may be women. They’d also need ear-plugs and nostril clips so they can neither hear the siren song that is obviously the voice of all females, from pre-pubescent girls to 98 year old great-grannies, nor detect their delicate, feminine odour, which again are equally irresistable whether they come straight from bathing in rose water, or un-bathed from a 12-hour shift in the gutting department at the local fish processing plant.
Still, one has to have a little respect for those men: not for them the restrictions of fancying a certain ‘type’ of woman. Irrespective of age, size, looks, body-shape, and so-on. In their eyes, all women are equally desirable.
Heh! And we say they don’t do equality
Wearing a veil isn’t really offensive, even if it’s a bit daft. I personally don’t care if a woman weirs a veil any more than I care if a youth wears a hoodie, that is, or should be, their prerogative.
The problem is that some women are compelled to hide their faces by their husbands, family or community. Instead of saying that compelling women to wear a veil for any reason, including religious ‘custom’, is plain WRONG, the discussion seems to be about whether it’s practical in a hospital or a courtroom.
The very essence of a social contract, of the fundamental basis of any civilisation or culture of any kind is that the animals taking part in the contract agree to abstain from some of their less polite animal behaviour. Wolves in a pack don’t tear each other’s throats out to get at the best food, chimps in a troop don’t beat each other’s brains in to get close to the watering hole and hominids restrain their continuous and unending sexual urges to keep the peace amongst themselves. There is a great ape that has a social contract that not only permits but demands every one of a troop to shag every other one as casually as humans say “hello”, the bonobo, but this has never been a trait common to human societies. Never. In spite of the urban legends about the Western World and its 1960′s counter-cultures, “free love” is something socialised humans just do not do.
So far as anthropology and archaeology can determine “free love” has never, ever been a large part of any human society, not for long.
This indicates that humans, including human males, have some sort of control over their lusts. Humans *can* see humans of the gender they focus on without immediately stripping and jumping them. All humans *can* do this. It is a part of the make-up of the species and perhaps the entire Genus.
All socialised human males have a contractual obligation, a responsibility, to control their own lusts.
All of them.
Every woman to breathe should (and in fact does) have the inalienable, natural born *right* to walk anywhere, at any time, wearing or not wearing any clothing she wishes without being the subject of unwanted touching of any sort.
That is what “civilisation” is all about. The freedom to not be molested. Anywhere this is not the way of things is not a society, is not civilised but is a pit of rabid savages.
UKland, USAlia and Europe in general are not perfectly safe for woman to exercise their freedoms but they are fairly close and getting [apart from the obvious contaminations from the "East"] better, generally and slowly. “The West” is not paradise but sit in any county town in England in mid-summer and watch the pretty girls in fripperies and gauze walk by then contrast that with herds of black bin-bags stewing in their own juices in the savage lands and you will see a vast difference.
The savages want to do that to us. They want our beautiful, lovely ladies wrapped in black bin-bags forever.
Because in their savagery they can not control their lusts.
That is not a society, that is not even a pack, a troop or a herd, it is not even as civilised as gangsterism. Even gangsters have rules enforcing self-control. For protecting the wives and daughters.
Putting your women in black bin-bags because the males have no self-control descends below the level of rapist frogs.
Mohammedans have less social grace than rapist frogs in a ball of summer sexual frenzy and they have built this into the organised rape they present as a “culture”.
Real Men can see a half-nude beauty and smile at her loveliness as she walks by. Real adult human beings can catch an inadvertent glimpse of underwear and admire its gauzy prettiness. Adult human beings can admit that women, too, are Real Men and adult human beings. Real Men can treat with women as partners and equals.
Real Men are social animals who have no need of black bin-bags.
@WetWednesdayInBognor – this site, this comic, pokes fun and highlights the absurdities of ALL religions, but there is a world of difference between that and the kind of ignorant hate-speech of your rant. Perhaps someone with more patience than me might be willing to explicity point out the sexist, racist idiocy of your comments but I really can’t be bothered. Your mind is as twisted as those you attack, so it’d be a waste of time.
xxxFred, this particular comic is about the burqa, specifically the hijab component, and these are Muslim garments. WWiB has simply taken the reasons given by those that enforce their wearing to their natural conclusions, ie. unlike most of the male population of the world – and unlike many non-human animals – Muslim men cannot control their sexual impulses when faced with a glimpse of a woman’s head hair or a flash of chin. This is not a Western ‘urban myth’, it is the main reason currently given by those enforcing Sharia Law.
Please don’t have a go at WWiB for simply pointing out what those Imams and Mullahs are actually saying about their fellow male Muslims when they spout such nonsense.
Oh, and Islam isn’t a race. And I don’t see the sexism in WWiB’s post either, unless you think the line about ‘watching the pretty girls go by’ was an invitation to ogle. If so, I don’t think that’s what was being said. I read it as an indictment of a system that disallows half the population from enjoying a hot summer day by dressing comfortably and coolly because if they did they’d end up flogged, or raped (or both, in either order), or dead. I will say, though, that that particular line of WWiB’s would have worked just as well without the inclusion of ‘pretty’.
Well, xxxFred, when you are right you are right. What I said was mean, nasty, wrong and possibly evil and I apologise unreservedly to everyone, especially everyone I insulted. Most especially to any Mohammedans who may be reading these pages.
AoS, it was indefensible.
I offer no defence. I was wrong.
@WWiB- to be honest, I am not sure if you’re being sincere or sarcastic. I hope the former, because really…. well, as @AoS seems to be defending your post, and I’ve cooled down a little after a night’s sleep, I’ll elucidate a bit.
Perhaps I too could have toned my post down a little, but I’m afraid I just felt my blood boiling as I read it. @AoS, it’s not enough to to say “WiB has simply taken the reasons given by those that enforce their wearing to their natural conclusions” – he as given every appearance of taking these reasons at face value (See, @Author, *this* us why I don’t like perpetuating this red-herring.) Then he went way beyond that. He made no attempt to distinguish between moderate and fundamental Islam, instead labelling all Muslims as “uncivilised” and “savages”, going into great detail to try and justify this with some pseudo social-scienctific argument. Oh, yes, and such savagery is now “contaminating” the West… (And yes, I know Islam isn’t a “race”, so it was perhaps a little lazy of me to use it, but in the wider meaning of the word it’s not entirely unreasonable to have used it here.)
And “sexist”? Is he not able to refer to women without employing adjectives to decribe their “beauty” and “loveliness”? Does he not realise that all women are bound by the same rules of Islam, no matter what their physical appearance, not just the “beautiful, lovely” ones that he so enjoys staring at (in a totally non-sexual manner, of course…)? “Real Men can see a half-nude beauty and smile at her loveliness as she walks by.” Give me strength….
Sorry, I could go on, but I’m getting all hot under the collar again…
Sorry, got this sentence wrong:
“…not just the “beautiful, lovely” ones that he so enjoys staring at (in a totally non-sexual manner, of course…)?”
“.. not just the “beautiful, lovely” ones that he so enjoys staring at (whilst so manfully controlling his lust…)?”
Men who cannot control their lusts are savages (=uncivilised).
Some Muslim men require ‘their’ women to wear the burqa, because they, the men themselves, insist that they cannot control their lust.
When that makes them uncivilised savages, it’s not Islamophobia, it’s formal logic.
@hotrats – there is an old saying you would do well to heed: “‘Tis better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.”
Oops. Too late.
Hey, have you noticed all the lustful attacks by Muslim men in Britain on women here not covered up? No? How strange. I wonder how they’re managing to control themselves?
Seriously, fool, what makes you think Muslim men are any different from any others? Try to understand this, please: millions of men and women from – well, certainly the two biggest religions in the world, Islam and Catholicism – have been systematically screwed up over issues of sex for centuries. The power-brokers in these institutions realised long ago that messing with peoples’ minds over sex was a bullseye route to holding power over them. Sexual desire is a natural human need and emotion – it is a significant part of everybody’s psyche and, as Freud will tell you, is a fundamental part of it too. So it’s easy: make people feel guilty about it, make them feel bad about just thinking about it – tell them they are dirty, lustful sinful people, and that God will punish their immortal soul forever – well, we’re all fucked now, aren’t we, because we all think about it… except – tara! – your church can save you! Salvation is at hand – all you have to do is hand over your soul to their safe-keeping, and God loves you again. Whew that was close – almost ended up in Hell for all eternity there. The Catholics of course slammed a double-whammy on women, by pinning Original Sin on them just for good measure. Because it isn’t enough foe them to have your soul – they need to control you in society too, and a significant part of that is preseving the patriarchy. Both Islam and Catholicism have done everything they can to diminish women’s role in wider society, and restrict them to little more than the roles of mother and wife, to be owned, possessed and passed around by men. In pursuit of this, Fundamental Islam has gone down the route of literally confining women to the home, and insisting that they only go out accompanied by a man and covered up from head to foot. But of course they aren’t going to be so explicit as to tell them the real reason why, so instead they play the sex/guilt card: men: you are sinful for lusting after women, and must be stopped from doing so, and women who stir men’s desires by showing any uncovered skin are equally sinful.
So please, don’t buy this line from anyone, even Muslim men. It *is* Islamaphobic to think that Muslims are any different from anyone else – Western men are no better (or worse) at controlling their lust. The only difference is that we in the West have at least partially thrown off the shackles of our religious institutions, and have had some time to understand and undo some of the damage those bastards instilled in us over centuries. Too many Muslims are, unfortunately, still held in the vice-like grip of the sick teachings of the warped minds of their religious leaders.
The burqa is NOT about controlling men’s lust. It is all about religion holding power over both men and women.
The burqa is NOT about controlling men’s lust. It is all about religion holding power over both men and women.
I know that, you know that, and they know that, so why don’t they just fucking admit to that instead of coming out with bullshit excuses? Non-Muslims, particularly those without encylopaedic knowledge of Islam, cannot be held to account for what they say in response to what they are told by Muslims, so when they hear Islamic ‘leaders’ say “our men are unable to control their lust around women therefore hijab”, in what sense are they wrong to call them on that?
Or are we supposed to instinctively know they’re bullshitting and just call them liars?
By the way, I wonder how they came to the decision that they’d rather be seen as unable to control themselves rather than be thought of as over-controlling mysogynists.
Is it just me that thinks they haven’t exactly chosen the lesser of the two?
@AoS > “Or are we supposed to instinctively know they’re bullshitting and just call them liars?”
To some extent, yes – because unless yo are a racist (or whatever) – you will know that people are people, the world over, no matter what their skin colour, nationality, religion, sexual orientation etc etc. On what grounds would you think that Muslim men are less able to “control themselves” than any other?
Having said that, I would suggest that a good many Muslim men (and women) who spin this line are no more aware that they’re bullshitting any more than a good many non-Muslims are aware of the falsity of it. They’ve been brainswashed since birth to believe these lies. (Which answers your second question: they haven’t made any decision: it’s been made for them.) So perhaps, rather than calling them liars, we should engage with them and hopefully enable them to shine a different light on their religion.
And perhaps I shouldn’t call non-Muslims who fall for it “fools” – but for heaven’s sake, we’ve had a century of enforced education in this part of the world, relatively free from religion, and been encouraged to think for ourselves…. and it doesn’t take a genius to see through this bullshit.
And, btw way, despite possible appearances, I don’t want to sound smug about this – just angry. It wasn’t that long ago, in historical terms, that the likelihood would have been that I’d have been subjected to our own religions’ form of brainwashing, and even today many are in the so-called “enlighteneded” West.
There but for the grace of good luck, go you and I….
@hotrats – there is an old saying you would do well to heed: “‘Tis better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.”
Apart from the patronising and gratuitous insult, do you have a point to make? Or should I take your bluster for a rebuttal?
Is this the right room for an argument?
xxxFred asks “On what grounds would you think that Muslim men are less able to “control themselves” than any other?”
On the very clear grounds that this is exactly what their Imams and mullahs tell us.
xxxFred claims “I would suggest that a good many Muslim men (and women) who spin this line are no more aware that they’re bullshitting any more than a good many non-Muslims are aware of the falsity of it.”
Really? You accuse us of insulting Muslim men then suggest that they do not even know whether they can control themselves, and rely on their ‘leaders’ to tell them. Now who’s insulting them?
OK, I’ll tell you exactly why this ‘uncontrollable lust’ bullshit is being spouted by the mullahs. It’s because they are losing the power to control their women thanks to the decadent West and the information available to those women through our technology. They are learning that their sisters outside of the backward, Shariah-ruled countries don’t have to be hidden away from the world and they want a bit of that freedom. Also, the mullahs have realised that the time is coming when basic human rights will trump religious dogma even in their corner of the world, and they’re starting to run scared and are turning to direct threats. What better way to keep their women in place when ‘because I said so’ no longer holds sway than to say ‘because you’ll get raped’?
Yup, in order to keep their women hidden away, they’ve virtually given their men an Allah-given right (because Allah made them unable to control themselves) to rape and assault any woman not fully swathed in cloth.
Micky, yes, as long as they stay civil and refrain from personal insults (xxxFred note; no name-calling).
@AoS Oh, gosh, am I in trouble for calling someone a fool? Someone who’d just called a billion people and more “uncivilised savages”, and tried to justify it on the grounds of “formal logic”? Sorry, but “fool” was about the most polite word I could come up with.
“You accuse us of insulting Muslim men then suggest that they do not even know whether they can control themselves, and rely on their ‘leaders’ to tell them. Now who’s insulting them?”
That’s not quite what I was saying, which was that they are brainwashed into believing this lie – and likely many of the Iman’s believe it too. Is it an insult to say that the religious mind is brainwashed and/or deluded? Well, if so, at least I am applying it equally to any and all religions, not just Islam. By its very nature, religion warps people’s minds. And it’s less of an insult than calling them “uncivilised savages” which, apart from being rude, betrays an ignorance of Islamic culture of quite enormous proportions.
I think your reasoning about this issue in your last post is slightly off though – after all, it’s a much older issue than the cultural invasion of the decadent West. They’ve been preaching this shit for centuries.
“..in order to keep their women hidden away, they’ve virtually given their men an Allah-given right (because Allah made them unable to control themselves) to rape and assault any woman not fully swathed in cloth.”
Come on, now – that’s BS, and you know it. Muslim men do NOT go around raping and assaulting any woman not fully swathed in cloth. Being rude about religion is one thing, but spouting this kind of nonsense is quite another, and really is not on.
And, @Micky, a site such as this is bound to generate argument – it’s amazing really there isn’t more of it, but it would be foolish (oops, careful now!) not to expect any. Howerver, @Author: tell me to shut up and I will – but hey, it’s not long til Wednesday and we can all move on!
xxFred asks: On what grounds would you think that Muslim men are less able to “control themselves” than any other?
I answer: Muslim men tell me so. Am I not entitled to take them at their word?
xxFred comments: It *is* Islamaphobic to think that Muslims are any different from anyone else …
This is not entirely true. Muslims have a distinct culture that is not shared by non-Muslims. If they have a culture that assumes men cannot or will not control themselves, then the men will not *expect* to control themselves. If they never see women at all, then they may well get much more excited when they do.
This cultural difference is significant. If they have a culture that says it is ok to beat up women who show too much skin, then I should not be surprised when they do that. If they think a woman who shows too much skin is available for sex, then I should not be surprised when they try to take it. *They* *themselves* have told me that this is what they think.
Meanwhile, *my* culture considers that abhorrent; you may reasonably expect that *I* will not force sex on a naked woman at the beach, and that *I* will allow young girls to leave a burning building, even if they aren’t wearing anything at all.
So tell me there is no difference there.
b.t.w. I am aware that the culture of my neighbors (here in the US) also has issues with what clothing women may wear. We have laws similar to the Saudi laws about burkas, except that we have much lesser requirements for what the women must wear and we have less harsh punishments. I personally do not approve of these laws, but there are enough people that do that it would be impossible to repeal at this time.
@Mark S. There is just one problem with your hypothesis: there is no evidence at all to suggest that Muslim men commit rape or sexual assault, against scantily-clad women or otherwise, any more often than non-Muslim men. Where are all the news stories about Muslim men “forcing sex on naked women at the beach”? For crying out loud, please stop repeating this rubbish.
And if Muslim men think that scantily-clad women are “available for sex” then it just demonstrates even more that they are prefectly capable of controlling themselves, because such women are in no more danger from Muslim men than any others.
But when you say that they say that such wonmen are “available for sex”, I really don’t think they mean “they’re asking for it right now” – but rather it is the generalisation that Western women on the whole, and those that dress revealing in particular, are more sexually liberated, and are more likely to have sex outside of marriage (i.e. when sactioned by religion), than their Muslim counterparts. Hardly so contentious really, is it? Non-Muslim men are every bit as likely to try it on with a revealingly-dressed woman as any Muslim man is.
xxxFred says “Come on, now – that’s BS, and you know it. Muslim men do NOT go around raping and assaulting any woman not fully swathed in cloth. Being rude about religion is one thing, but spouting this kind of nonsense is quite another, and really is not on”
I’m not the one saying that, I’m merely pointing out that this is the chief justification given nowadays by Muslims to ensure their women don’t get ideas above their station.
But then again, since it’s in Sharia-ruled countries where it is the woman’s fault if she’s raped and where it’s the woman who is sentenced to be stoned to death if she is raped – whether she was complying with the dress code or not – are you really sure you’re not defending the indefencible?
Of course, nobody here is saying that all Muslim men are uncontrolled savages, merely that Sharia Law as it stands gives a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ for those that are.
@AoS – I am not defending anything, and certainly not Sharia Law vis-a-vis rape. I am merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument that Muslim men are unable to control their sexual urges, and have tried to explain the real reasons that lie behind it. Nothing that contentious, really. In fact, I am somewhat taken aback by the fact that so many of you want to argue the point. It seems pretty obvious to me. Perhaps it’s just easier to label Muslims as uncivilised and go back to playing GTA V.
@AoS Oh, gosh, am I in trouble for calling someone a fool?
Not in trouble as such, just looking neurotically arrogant and self-righteous.
Someone who’d just called a billion people and more “uncivilised savages”, and tried to justify it on the grounds of “formal logic”? Sorry, but “fool” was about the most polite word I could come up with.
I did nothing of the sort. Firstly the number of men who insist on the burka is several orders of magnitude short of ‘a billion people’, and not all of them do it because they claim uncontrollable sexual urges, so your accusation is absurdly exaggerated.
Secondly, men who do insist that sexual urges are uncontrollable, are by definition, uncivilised savages, whether they are mullahs, imams or just ordinary career rapists, and whether there are ten of them or a billion of them.
It doesn’t even need logic, it’s a matter of simple definition, and it isn’t just about the burka. If you do anything (or more to the point, make women do something) because you can’t control your sexual urges, you are not civilised, you are a savage. I can’t see how you can take issue with this point without excusing rape and oppression.
It may be, as you suggest, that the argument that Muslim men are unable to control their sexual urges is fallacious. It does not alter the facts; it really doesn’t matter whether it’s empirically true or not, as long as people believe it and act as if it were, and especially when they use such arguments to justify the burka, the prison sentences, the stonings, and the general misogyny.
Aren’t we mixing up two levels of approach here? One level is the religion, its books, its laws, its leadership and its practice. (It so happens that with Islam, religion is not only a way of life and everyday behavior, it is also has a distinct political agenda). The other level is the personal conduct of the individual in accordance with these regulations.
These two levels work fine when in tandem – that is, contained inside their communities. Saying a dozen ‘Hail Marys’ or receiving fifty lashes is totally acceptable as long as they are confined to the flock for whom they are designed – meaning those who are deluded (for whatever reason) into following their religious/spiritual leader.
It’s when these levels conflict with external philosophies that the opportunity rises for excrement hitting the rotor. While ‘multiculturalism’ is quaint in an area with a dominating culture (most nations) – e.g. ethnic cuisine, dress, etc. – it is still to be measured by the yardstick of adding or detracting to the culture of the majority. Additions could be a new musical instrument or an architectural innovation. Detractions might be a minority’s religious custom of blocking traffic in order to hold prayers, or endangering public safety by concealing your face (outside a ski lodge, theater stage, or surgery).
We can actually see that when these minorities are just a few, they do not cause much trouble – they conform with the dominating culture or keep mostly to themselves. It’s when they grow in numbers that demands suddenly crop up. Religious ‘rights’ are on the agenda, beginning with preaching, on through funding, continuing with incitement and – if not contained – a political takeover.
When in a distinct minority, the individual wife-beater would pay the full penalty of the law, regardless of his religion. But with the backing of enough supporters (and supporting regimes from outside), he could claim religious adherence and get away with it. And I really think that if he knows he can get away with it, he’d be more inclined to disregard the laws of his hosting country.
We’re seeing it all over Europe! We can almost make an equivalence between multiculturalism and political correctness! Local laws are bent (if not totally disregarded) in ‘respect with religious norms.’ Demanding the removal of a burka in Paris is ‘offensive’ to the Muslim – but nobody claims that the existence of the burka on the Paris streets is offensive to the average Frenchman. Because it isn’t (well, not per se). What is offensive is facing the fact that non-French customs are gradually becoming the norm in France. The same with other countries.
The individual male in Saudi Arabia would see no problem in beating his wife or forcing her to walk outside in a tent. He would be backed by the laws of his country. If his wife transgresses (being raped is a transgression) she could be flogged, stoned or whatever. If a foreigner allowed his wife to walk ‘exposed’ on the streets of Riyadh, he (not to mention she) would be in a great deal of trouble – and justifiably so! So why aren’t there masses of liberal-minded people (immigrants?) in Riyadh demanding to build churches or equal rights for women? Figure it out for yourselves.
The problem with Islam is that it is not a quid pro quo system. The same things they demand from Western culture would never be granted to minorities in their own culture. Clearly, the terms ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’ for them go one way only – they demand it but cannot bestow it. Now that I find offensive and insulting in the extreme!
In previous threads I advocated debating with borderline religionistas. I left the entrenched alone as they were hopeless cases to me. I still think so. However, where radical Islam is concerned (demanding ‘respect’ for religious practices contrary to local laws) I would take it further. These are inciters and devotees of the Muslim political agenda (see above), and I believe they should be separated – geographically – from the hosting cultural community!
I’ve no idea what GTA V is, so I can’t go back to playing whatever it is, so back to the discussion at hand.
Now, why are you so taken aback that we want to argue the point? You started this by claiming WWiB’s post was racist, Islamophobic, and sexist, I merely pointed out that it was neither of the first two, and had no need to mention physical appearance to make the point about women in public. I still say WWiB was right to take the claims of the mullahs at face value and follow them to their natural conclusion; if just one Muslim reads that comment and realises that his religion labels him a savage then it was a point well made.
Now you may not like this bit, but I’ve had a nagging feeling that there is a hole in your argument that ‘Muslim men do NOT go around raping and assaulting any woman not fully swathed in cloth’, and I’ve realised what it is. Had you written ”Muslim men in non-Sharia ruled locations do NOT go around raping and assaulting any woman’, I would have agreed whole-heartedly, but here’s the problem: in Sharia-ruled places it is a crime for a woman (or girl) to be raped. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when a rape victim’s choice is to stay silent and live, or report the rape and die in a barrage of rocks, then the official rape statistics in those places are going to be wildly skewed in favour of the appearance that rapes are few and far between. I maintain that the fallacious claim made by fundamentalist Islamics that their men are unable to control their lust, when added to the fact that they see the victim of rape as the wrong-doer, is a charter to rape for those men so inclined.
Now, can you tell me honestly that you know for certain that rape is not a regular occurance in Sharia-ruled areas – areas where the law has no other interest in rape than as an excuse to kill yet another woman?
Put simply, if you are bought up in a religion that teaches you that women are second-class citizens (if ‘citizens’ at all in the real sense of the word); if you live in a country where you are allowed to treat women as such without fear of retribution; if your religious leaders proudly proclaim that this is OK by your god; you are more likely to join in with the mistreatment of women.
In summary; don’t lambast us for responding to what the mad mullahs are saying; lambast them for saying it.
By the way, this isn’t Twitter, so please stop preceding our names and ‘nyms with ‘@’. Around these parts we talk to people, not at them.
Oh, and welcome to the Cock and Bull.
Undeluded, you must have posted that just as I began composing mine (I’m not that slow at typing, I stopped halfway to make Mrs o’Sagan her bedtime cocoa) as I’ve only just seen it.
Anyway, just wanted to say thank you, it’s an excellent post.
The rape, statutory or otherwise, of women in Sharia-ruled areas is not the issue – such women are, for the most part, covered up according to Sharia law. The allegation is that Muslim men are incapable of controlling their lust when confronted with a woman exposing bare skin. The fact that Sharia Law gives them carte-blanche to do as they like with “their”women is a separate issue (and one I have no desire to defend. In fact, I have no desire to defend Islam or any religion per se, I just think that if you’re going to attack something, do it on valid grounds. Neither do I think it helpful to to be, effectively, racist by sggetsing thet “they” are somehow different ffrom “us”. Peoplea re essentially the same the world over – we’ve all just had our minds fucked over in different ways.)
I don’t have anything of substance to add to this debate (so nothing new there). I just want to state my support for WWiB, AoS, Undeluded, Hotrats and Mark S. Oh, and Micky, I told you once!
No you haven’t!
Well, I suppose it’s to be expected that a site such as this will attract bigots. (“Uncivilised savages”. Good greif….) Pity though. The comics are good.
@ [sic] HaggisForBrains – You have a very apt username.
Don’t worry – I won’t bother troubling you (all) again. There’s a brick wall over here I can bash my head against whenI feel so inclined.
GTA V is a video game called Grab That Artichoke 5, in which a gardener called Mario runs all over the screen trying to stop Colorado Beetle from nibbling his wife’s huge melons. At least, I think that’s what it is.
Heads up. Wednesday tomorrow.
HFB, thanks for the support. I really don’t think he understood what we were trying to tell him: either that, or he was going to grind his axe regardless.
Methinks xxxFred needs to look up the definitions of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’. And how rude of him to flounce off in a huff after being cordially welcomed to the C&B.
JohnM, thanks for that; and there I was thinking it was about beating up prostitutes and stealing stuff.
Mickey, (all together now, boys and girls) Oh yes he has.
Oh, xxxFred, be careful with the headbanging, you wouldn’t want your forehead to look like a fundie rug-butter’s. Would you?
Is xxxFred Danish? http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/09/24/danish-woman-guilty-of-racism-for-criticizing-islam/
Sorry, is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?
And thanks Haggis. What a bampot, eh?
I found the entire debate to be quite educational. I had to stop and really think about this, but do you know that I have never even SEEN a burka? I have seen them on TV and movies yes, but not live and in person. The closest I can come to understanding the cultural usurpation you all are on about is to note the ubiquity of Spanish in the USA in deference to our Spanish speaking immigrants. That isn’t as in-your-face though. Thanks for the discussion.
A video game about beating up prostitutes and stealing stuff ? What kind of psycho would create and sell such vile pastimes? Just think, such could easily fall into the hands of impressionable adolescents – and into the hands of adults who haven’t understood they are not adolescent any more.
I’ll tell you what’s just tickled me: xxxFred (a name in itself quite ironic considering it sounds like the bloke everybody got their ‘under the counter’ videos from in the ’80s, and he comes here ranting about sexism. But I digress) thought we were wrong to take the ‘uncontrollable lust’ thing at face value, then has a pop at HFB based on a face-value interpretation of his ‘nym.
It’s Wednesday JohnM [:)] not long till ‘next’ .
Foretelling the future – it’ll be another brilliant one!
If that give dear Author writer’s block how will I forgive myself.
hey ho – the smiley didn’t work!
No, this room is for insults. Argument is next door.
GTA was designed and developed in Scotland, I must confess, but based on “a comedic satire of American culture” [Wikipedia].
At least everyone was relatively polite to xxxFred – I doubt he’d have lasted as long over at Pharyngula. That, steeve, is the room for insults. And don’t ping that bell, I’ve paid cash for another five minutes.
Joking apart, I came late to this discussion, and reading through the comments, was about to tell WWiB that I thought he had expressed the problem very well, when xxxFred chipped in. Thereafter all I could do was sit back and watch you all do a much better job than I could have done – thanks guys.
See you all at the next strip.
*I* am being defended? After what I said? That’s… sweet. It brings a tear to the eye of an old, old bigot to think that anyone would consider my mental meanderings worthy of anything but a scream of incoherent rage.
Yes, I admit to being a bigot. Indeed, I am quite proud to accept the label. I dislike, intensely, those who divide the world into “us” and “them” and see harming “them” as acceptable for whatever reason.
I am well aware of the irony. My defence is that I don’t use my division to justify the annihilation of “them”. I would prefer to teach them and to make them sufficiently “us” so *everyone* gets to live.
Truthfully, I don’t hate the *people*. How could I? I haven’t met most of them. I hate the *attitude* and the indifference to suffering. I hate *suffering*.
There was a nice shopping centre in Country A. People were shopping. Nasties from Country B want to change the governing legal structure of Country B so they invaded the shopping centre in Country A and killed people. Killed them for shopping. Killed them because they could.
That is *never* going to make a religious paradise out of Country B. Indeed, it is entirely possible that most of the population of Country B will never even hear about the brave action of those brave martyrs, for Country B is poor and broken and lacking in much modern infrastructure due to constant warring.
The brave actions of those mighty warriors for righteousness won’t even make Country *A* a religious paradise. All it did was harm people and destroy something useful.
How is that good?
“But that was the work of only a few fanatical, extremist zealots and it is not in any way representative of an entire religion.”
Bombs in Pakistan. Killings in countries with a minority belonging to the militant religions. Entire nations perverted into weapons against “the West”.
No, it is not the religion. Nor is the people who profess faith. Nor even is it most of the priests.
It is a few nutters massively insulting their own religion, their own people and their own laws. It’s a tiny number perverting the faith that should be a shield and a warm blanket and using it as a hammer to beat down all dissension and difference. Religion is an excuse to do what they may well have done anyway but would have been unable to justify in any sane way without a deity to back up their evil actions.
My first posting in this stream about how the religion makes all into savages was worded indefensibly. It was, sadly, also true, after a fashion and in the minds and words of some religious leaders. Not because the religion itself is evil, nor because those with faith are evil, but because evil is being done in its name. And before anyone accuses me of being islamophobic, I should mention that *many* religions have harmed “false believers” and infidels in vast numbers. Including the cuddly Roman one.
It is not religion I have an issue with. I don’t see how it matters what you believe. It is using religion to justify evil.
People who do that are quite unlikeable and I’m bigoted enough to find them uncomfortable company.
I focussed on one aspect, triggered by the excellent cartoon. I could have used others.
But I *was* offensive and I apologise for that.
If you insist, WWiB, but slightly voyeuristic description of women in public aside, you have nothing to apologise for.
Let’s be honest here, if I were to say that Catholics were a bunch of guilt-ridden baby-making machines – because the Pope insists they apologise at least once a week for being born of sinful woman, and bans any effective means of contraception – there is no way I could be accused of racism because Catholicism isn’t a race; so if you say that Muslim men lack the qualities that civilised men possess when Imams say that Muslim women have to cover up because Muslim men cannot control themselves, it is not an act of racism because Islam is not a race either. If Muslims (or their apologists) are upset by that, then they should take it up with Islamic leaders and not with you.
Damn, I always miss the good ones. Probably a good thing: hard to find all the expletives on this phone #*&%@.
AOS, after reading your first response I was going to accuse you of lacking romance but then I read about fetching bedtime cocoa – works much better than sexy lingurie.
WWIB, I have no idea where Bognar is but it doesn’t sound enticing. Love the social contract. I saw nothing racist, homophobic, speciest or even sexist about using a group’s own dogma against them. Unlike AOS I am quite partial to watching pretty women dressed in summer fripperies wander past – this is why I live near a beach in a tropical climate. Unfortunately, it is one of the horrors of evil Western culture that it seems to be men with bodies which should never be seen in public draped in anything less than the full burka who feel an irresistable obligation to never wear a shirt! I apologise unreservedly and wholeheartedly for the offence caused by slipping into sexist judgment and generalisations – my nasty inner self slipped out for a moment and in the interests of full disclosure (so to speak) I can guarantee that I am not one of the fripperied delights of summer.
I have never understood how people proudly stand up and say ‘I am one of God’s favourites but I have no control over my own actions if I but merely glimpse something I desire – therefore the entire other half of the human population must be restricted to cover my own weaknesses.’. Personally, I like to steal things. Everyone who lives in my city should be forbidden by law from owning nice things so I feel no temptation I then have to overcome. Problem solved.
xxxFred, I ‘ll make this quick in case you ever come back. I really, really hate that kind of faux outrage at an equivalency that only you see and the rest of us think is intentional obtusenss for the sake of said outrage. To say that (some) Muslims claim burkas are necessary for Reasons a, b, c and then show how ridiculous a,b,c are, is, in no way, equivalent to saying (all) Muslims are rapists and stupid. How did you even make that connection once let alone continue to berate six other people all denying your conclusions? Then, when people still disagree with your conclusions, you chuck a wobbly (as we say in my world), storm off and declare that nobody loves you and you will be going somewhere you are truly appreciated. I truly hope you are about 12 years old otherwise you may wish to re-sit those classes on ‘conversing with grown-ups’.
Well, Mary2, you may have been late to the party, but your appearance was well worth the wait. Excellent stuff.
Just one point; I’m as partial to the aesthetic delights of a pretty woman (almost said ‘girl’ then, which would be a little creepy for a man of my age) as anyone, I was simply pointing out to WWiB that ‘pretty’ was superfluous to his point that it is not a problem for most of us men to see a bit of female skin without turning into rapists.
And don’t fret about accusations of sexism; some things should never be seen in public, and the semi-naked bodiies of over-weight, out of condition, beer-swilling, kebab-eating men are about as pleasing to the eye as the noses of kids with heavy colds and no tissues.
AOS, I know. I was just being rude because I can. And because some people think the new laws of policial correctness and equality mean one is no longer even allowed to look. As far as I am concerned: looking is fine, even flattering. Preferable not to include dribbling, commenting, stalking or grabbing. Even if not illegal, these things just make one look like an idiot.
WWIB, minor point: given current news headlines around the globe I probably would refrain from using the word ‘cuddly’ to describe the Roman Catholics – just for the time being – don’t mean to make generalisations or accuse ALL catholics . . .
Mary2, I fully agree; there’s a hell of a difference between window-shopping and smash-and-grab.
xxxFred at September 22, 2013 at 8:48 am said:”WWiB- to be honest, I am not sure if you’re being sincere or sarcastic.” In the posting of September 22, 2013 at 5:08 am, I was being entirely honest and apologetic. My previous posting *was* mean.
If your 16 year old daughter was walking around “half naked” and some teenage boys said that she made them aroused and they admitted that they masturbated to the thought of her half nakedness, how would that make you feel as a parent? I’ve been all over Europe and Asia. For the most part, the women (and men) dress quite tastefully. Dress modestly. If not, wear your pants on the ground so everyone, including your little kids, can see your underwear and butt crack.
NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.
NAME — Get an avatar
EMAIL — Required / not published
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.NET.