There is something pathetically primitive in a religious standard that suggests that men cannot be counted upon to control themselves when they are confronted with a bare ankle, head, or bosom, for that matter. Read about what’s happening in Nigeria because someone wants to run a beauty contest. The Muslims there are up in arms (literally) in part because the women are showing off their bodies, and in Islam, men should not look at those things because it provokes unclean and impure thoughts. Presumably, such thoughts are automatically a precursor to rape, asmen cannot control themselves in the presence of the female body. Fortunately, in some other parts of the world, there is the precept that humans do have minds and can activate them in the service of civility, the greater good, safety of others, etc. What religion can prosper today without giving credit to humans for being able to think for themselves? Not that version of Islam, that’s for sure. I sure hope this doesn’t count as hate speech. Babbling, venting, etc. yes, hate, no.
Actually they’re rioting has very little to do with the beauty pageant. They are upset over a newspaper article that suggested Mohammad would have married one of them, because they were all so attractive.
But what does fact have to do with anything.
Hate speech? Saying that Islam as a religion is pathetically primitive? Noooo, I suppose not. It would only be hate speech if you said that you wished that all those fucking pathetic Islamic primitives would shut the fuck up about the Miss World contest and get with the program, it’s the fucking 21st century.
Link for anybody who hasn’t been following the news.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/11/22/nigeria.missworld/index.html
Assmen? Yes, there’s some truth in that. It’s hard for an assman to control himself in the presence of a fine booty.
<ducking & running>
I wonder what “Mohammed in a Jar of Urine” would do to them?
Far be it from me to gush with praise for Christians, but at least they didn’t go on a mass murder spree over that incident. Perhaps they’re just more accustomed to irreverance (or outright blasphemy) towards their savior, and thus less likely to fly off the handle at every perceived slight.
Dunno if that idea would carry over well, though…
Mohammed Built my Hot Rod?
“I don’t fear crusades or comets
‘Long as I’ve got plastic Mohammed
Sittin’ on the dashboard of my car…”
Feh.
Skipping right past the current upset in Nigeria, I have to say that I agree with what I think I understand to be the gist of the OP.
I too have noticed that what Muslims who espouse this kind of thinking, overly simplified as “we need to impose these rules on women to protect them from men” , really seem to be implying is-
- Men are really animals and can’t be trusted to behave well.
- Humans in general can’t be trusted/smart enough to look out for themselves. They need us who know better to tell/impose it on them.
Now, I’m no student of Islam, but this seems inherently in conflict with some of the basic tenets of the religion, including 1) free will (Remember the “jihad” discussions? how jihad can also mean the struggle with oneself to be a better person/muslim?), and 2) equality among men/people. Furthermore, even if #1 is believed to be true, shouldn’t the “corrective action” be aimed at the men? Why put the onus on the women?
DISCLAIMER: I’ve not singled out Islam for analysis of inherent inconsistancies. People who know me as the heathen that I am know I ask these questions wherever I encounter it.
When I’ve discussed this with a close friend who is also a muslim and grew up in a muslim country, he said he basically agreed with me, and explained that
A. It’s more a cultural belief than a truly religious one, at least according to his interpretation.
B. There’s an element of "think of the children"™ who aren’t developed enough to make their own decisions.
C. Those who do this are largely either ignorant and haven’t thought it through, or educated and attempting to advance a political agenda.
Probably doesn’t help in providing answers, but perhaps it helps frame the discussion.
Hehe, thanks for the laugh.
I don’t know how to paste quotes in here, but I said in my OP - “In part because…” In fact, I was referring to a Reuters news article from earlier today attesting to the fact that a good deal of the furor relates to the issue of Islamic prohibitions against the showing of the body. I know that the “Mohammed’s wife” comment tore up a lot of people, but that was just the straw. My point is that “that version” of Islam which doesn’t trust men to keep away from women if they can see their body is pathetically primitive. I stand by my belief. Many of the folks in the rest of the world have evolved to a much more civilized view of humanity - even many Moslems. I don’t hate them, thank you, Duck. I judge their beliefs, rooted in archaic times and ways of thinking, to be pathetically dated and out of touch with reality, in addition to being perfectly dismissive not only of men’s sensibilities and intelligence, but also of women’s.
The Turks didn’t require their women to wear veils. Not just in the modern, secular Turkey created by Kemal Attaturk (his last name translates into English as “atta boy!”), but even back when the Turks were being Isamicized by the Arabs.
They got away with it because they were the biggest, baddest Moslems on the block, and could afford to bend a few rules.
With that perspective, I propose that WE ALL convert to Islam, and change all the rules disliked by the new majority. Sure, we’ll agree to brush our teeth, pray five time a day, kick a few bucks to the poor and try to make a pilgrimage to Mecca (the new, Carvival Cruise-style Mecca, that is).
But as for all the rules designed to keep lonley dessert goatherds and their daughters and their goats from fucking eachother, those can be seen for the relics they are and not adaptible to everyday situations such as taking out a mortgage from a female loan officer.
CC, click the quote button on the far righthand side under the post of the person you want to address.
hmmm, like this? I’ll try it and see. Thanks.
Now refute refute refute!
I agree with the OP; all Muslims are way too tightly wrapped over the sex thing.
For example, here in America, Attorney General John Ashcroft - who is a Muslim - ordered that a statue be covered up … simply because of an exposed bare breast!
Still, it sometimes happens. Jesse Helms et al. went after the National Endowment for the Arts with a vengeance, after Serrano came out with the referenced Piss Christ. And at a 1997 exhibition, Piss Christ was physically attacked - twice - and the exhibition was subsequently closed.
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
More recently, a painting called The Holy Virgin Mary was assaulted in Brooklyn, for having dried elephant dung as a component. Rudolph Giuliani, had sought to cut the museum’s funding just for displaying the piece.
RTA, those are good examples of Christians getting angry about blasphemy, but I think it re-enforces the point of the OP. In the cases you cited, no one got killed.
Attorney General John Ashcroft - who is a Muslim -
really?
Re: Ashcroft a Muslim
ROFL!
As Skammer pointed out, no Bludgeoning, no foul.
Yes, of course he’s Muslim . You didn’t know that? I’ll bet you also didn’t know that Jesse Helms is an illegal immigrant from Mexico.
I mean really, CC, you gotta keep up with these things.
See, that’s something else I didn’t realize. Is it also true that Condaleeza Rice is Jewish?
Born in Jerusalem IIRC.
Well, it was a ridiculous thing to say. Mohammad wouldn’t marry them because they are women. Mohammad was a pedophile. His wife was 6 years old.
Now, if this were a Little Miss Pagent in Kentucky I could see…