Note how it is entirely the responsibility of women to avoid provoking men with "unduly sexy gym suits or physical exercises and movements that excite [them]." For that matter, it is noteworthy that the burden of avoiding "provocation" always falls more heavily on those who are subjugated under Islamic law -- that is, women and unbelievers.
The emergence and survival of a civilized society depends on self control, and that cannot be the duty of only one gender or party.
"Aerobics contrary to Islam, promotes lust, Sumatra Islamic leader says," by Mathias Hariyadi for Asia News, February 15:
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - "Sexy attire" used by women during aerobics class is "against the spirit of Islam," said the Indonesian Islamic Ulemas Council (MUI) in Palembang, South Sumatra province. The statement comes only a few weeks after the agency in charge of public morality and the defence of Islamic values had issued a similar fatwa concerning hairdos and pre-marital photos. In its recent pronouncement, it targeted sexy outfits that "provoke lust in men."
For the MUI, it is wrong especially for young women to wear "improper" garments during aerobic exercises in gyms or in the open air, because of their effect on men.
Aerobic exercises early in the morning, especially during weekends, have become a regular activity for thousands of women of all ages.
Kiai Hajj Sodikun, MUI leader in Palembang, said women should wear more chaste clothing so as not to arouse men. Because of this, unduly sexy gym suits or physical exercises and movements that excite men "should be considered haram (morally illicit)".
Mr Kiai does acknowledge the importance of physical exercises for human health, but insists that they must be practiced with the appropriate clothing.
The main problem is that no one knows with any certainty what garment or exercise is illicit and what is not. In many Indonesian provinces, there are many traditional dances and body movements, different from one to the other.
And that's where edicts like this are headed in the long run, not unlike previous legislation that contained vaguely worded injunctions against "pornography."
"Such views are a very poor argument," gym teacher Herlina told AsiaNews. "What about women wearing bikini at the beach or whilst swimming?" Jakarta resident Maria asks. "The MUI seems to be short of arguments to address problems raised in modern society," she added.
Founded in1975 by then President Suharto, the MUI has grown powerful over the years in the areas of morality and behaviour; it has been able to issue guidelines on its own on what constitute licit or illicit attitudes, customs and habits.
Its members act as if they and they alone held the power to define how Islam must be respected and its principles upheld. Over the years, its fatwas over clothing, smoking, fashion and traditions deeply rooted in the archipelago's history and culture have been controversial.
Not to mention the Muslima's uterus could fall out during aerobics. (sarc/off)
Sounds like it's still the year 700 for these people.
staying healthy is UN-Islamic...
Best story ever:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/marriage_annulled_after_man_discovered_lCGkHxIfP2G1HbJyB8tFgJ
http://www.newser.com/story/80643/ambassador-to-dubai-annuls-marriage-to-bearded-wife.html
Muslim diplomat has has close shave with disaster escapes by a whisker as marriage annulled after he raises burka to find wife is cross eyed and has a beard. Demands $137,000 back for gifts and clothes he bought her.
HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO HA HA HA HO HO
Normal, healthy women cannot help but attract men. That's how God made them. The only way to fix this is to have the women walk around in a tent with eye-slits. Surprise! The muslims already have that "solution".
Sounds like they should complain to God for doing too good of a job at designing women.
Also, what about clothing that excites women? Are women not attracted to men? Why is the ruling one-sided?
Ok Robert, here it is, please notify me asap if there is any copyright issue and I'll remove it from my site straight away : THE FIRST ARTICLE OF BLOGGING THE QUR'AN TRANSLATED IN FRENCH.
If you get someone to check it out and if you're happy with it,I can publish one every week, I believe it's an amazing material and many people will be blessed by it. Below the first lines of the article and a link to the full article. God bless you Robert and all of you guys who are fighting the good fight.
Ok Robert, voilà, c'est fait, et je t'en prie informe moi au plus tôt s'il y a quelque problème que ce soit en ce qui concerne les droits d'auteur : LE PREMIER ARTCLE DE BLOGUER LE CORAN TRADUIT ENTIEREMENT EN FRANCAIS.
si tu demandes à quequ'un de le vérifier et si tu es satisfait du résultat, je peux en publier un par semaine, je suis convaincu que c'est un outil extraordinaire et que beaucoup seront bénis. Ci-dessous un lien vers l'article complet ainsi que les premières lignes de l'article. Que Dieu vous bénisse Robert ainsi que vous tous qui combattez le bon combat!
"
“Bloguer le Coran”, par Robert Spencer : Introduction
Pour comprendre quelles sont les motivations des terroristes du Djihad islamique, il serait bon de commencer par explorer ce qu’eux-mêmes disent au sujet de ce qu’ils font et pourquoi ils le font, et ce qu’ils veulent . Cela vous amènera à vous pencher sur le Qur’an (ou Coran), le livre saint de l’Islam. Les djihadistes le citent fréquemment et se aiment à se présenter comme ceux qui suivent « le pur Islam », l’article de foi tel qu’il est enseigné dans le Qur’an et la tradition islamique. C’est pourquoi dans le cadre de mes recherches j’ai cité le Qur’an à plusieurs reprises – et rarement un jour ne se passe sans que je sois accusé de choisir intentionnellement certains passages violents plutôt que d’autres et de les citer « hors-contexte ». En attendant, le Conseil sur les Relations Americano-Islamiques (Council on American Islamic Relations) et les autres groupes musulmans nous disent que pour comprendre le vrai et pacifique Islam, il nous faut lire le Qur’an.
C’est donc pourquoi dans les mois qui vont suivre, je vais le lire avec vous, et en discuter dans une série d’articles. En entier. Pas de « choix intentionnel » ou « hors contexte ». Dans son intégralité, du début à la fin. Certain parmi vous sont peut-être familiers avec la série de David plotz sur Slate, « bloguer la Bible » (« Blogging the Bible »). Cette série y sera similaire, mais au lieu de seulement écrire ce que pense ou ce que je ressens au sujet d’un certain passage, je me référerai, contrairement à Plotz, aux commentaires – tous de sources musulmanes – sur le Qur’an.
Je tenterai d’expliquer comment le Musulman moyen qui étudie le Qur’an comprend chaque passage particulier, et ce que cela peut signifier pour les non-musulmans."
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/bloguer-le-coran-par-robert-spencer-introduction/
"...it is wrong especially for young women to wear "improper" garments during aerobic exercises in gyms or in the open air, because of their effect on men."
That is a pile of BS.
For many years I went to aerobic dance classes after work, meeting both female and male friends there. The guys usually hung out in the Weight Room, but some also took aerobic classes. There we females were in our leotards and tights dancing to fun tunes, and the guys in their skimpy exercise shorts and T's - and guess what? Everything was always A-OK! There was no "effect on men!" Or, if there was - guess what? They controlled themselves! Most importantly, everyone behaved civilized.
I enjoyed those classes at my male/female Health Club so much. I reached a point where I could follow the instructor for 2 hours without stopping (a mix of low/high impact).
Yet, according to this Islamic clown, I'm supposed to deprive myself of this joy in movement in aerobic attire because I have to be responsible for men's "arousal."
Unbelievable. Islam is a plague on the world. It's a germ, a contamination, a bacterium, Black Death.
"Also, what about clothing that excites women? Are women not attracted to men? Why is the ruling one-sided?"
This suggests, on the lines of Kramer's invention of the "Bro" in Seinfeld, a line of "Burqos" for men.
A thought I had after reading this:
Muslim men are AFRAID of women, aren't they? It's as if women have this power over them to excite them, to "arouse" them & cause them to lose control. Unless, of course they are in complete control-- forcing "obedience" and subjugation--perhaps that's why they're such conoisseurs of rape.
Woman, as a fully-functioning, thinking, sensitive and sensual human being is more than they can stand, their worst nightmare, loss of their power-base. The very thought that an independent woman could reject THEM and attract any number of others drives them insane with jealousy, fear & hate.
So there's the truth--muslim men aren't afraid for their own "arousal." They're afraid for EVERY OTHER man's arousal! And their sick little "religion" provides a convenient smokescreen & vehicle for this fear-driven female repression to maintain their control.
They lie to everyone including themselves!!
Again, this is what you get...when you get islam...
The main problem is that no one knows with any certainty what garment or exercise is illicit and what is not.
........................
Here in the civilized West, people are responsible for *controlling themselves*. Can you imagine how awful it would be to adjust your clothing, your actions, everything—so as not to "arouse" the most impressionable and immature person you come across each day? This is what Muslim women have to go through all the time.
And what causes arousal? In repressed Muslim societies, it doesn't take much.
A gaze that is not lowered quickly enough, speaking softly in the presence of men, laughing, clacking shoes, colorful hijabs, stray tresses, "tight-fitting" abayas—it goes on and on.
I just finished Azar Nafisi's book, "Reading Lolita in Tehran", and the amount of mental energy her young female students have to apply to this idiocy day in and day out is all-consuming, and extremely depressing.
I'm a white male who did aerobics in Indonesia for several years (it's too hot to go jogging).
Mostly the girls there are Christians/Buddists anyway, so hopefully this won't affect them.
Anyway, I sent this to a friend who is an aerobics instructor there to get her take on it.
She is a Christian Chinese but they won't say anything negative about Islam, they are scared.
There certainly would appear to be a host of prudential issues, concerns, and complications with Indonesian ulema seeking to take this type of stance. But this should not be occasion to take dubious, thoughtless pot shots at Islam.
It appears, Ms. Seibold, that you are displaying yet again serious deficient understanding in your own Catholic Christianity. Let's see what Catholic teaching has to say about pornography:
"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. CIVIL AUTHORITIES SHOULD PREVENT THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS."
-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2354
So does this make you a 'supremacist', Ms. Seibold, by being affiliated with such a religious group?
On this eve of Great Lent, Ms. Seibold, I would call upon you to start re-commiting yourself to the full truth of what our Catholic Church has taught and authoritatively stands for, including its teachings on pornography, the Social Reign of Christ that is incumbent upon all governments to recognize and embrace, and due recognition of the true, valid, and virtuous points encompassed by Islam.
Agreed. I also think Islam is a plague on both houses - the dar al Islam and dar al Harb. Jihad is a symptom; Mullahs, imams, muftis are the vectors and Islam is the plague.
I like to get apocalyptic sometimes, because doing so burrows deeply into nerve endings which sound alarms in my heart of hearts. Do you think it's simply a coincidence that the fourth horseman rode a green horse? I suppose an explanation of this would be that green is the color of putrefication, however, it's also the Islamic color.
"...And the Pest was given power over a quarter of the Earth..." Well, one out of six billion is not exactly a quarter, but we are talking about symbolic language, aren't we?
Whether or not one decides to take second century apocalyptic christian literature to heart, one needs to concede that Islam, its vectors and its symptoms are a dangerous force in current events, with the contemporary high water mark still unset. It's a bad moon rising. Foreboding sits on the back of my neck if I think too long about such things. My gut tells me something wicked this way comes, and it's not merely a case of diarrhea.
Jihad is a symptom. Mullahs, muftis and imams are its vectors. Islam is the pathogen.
Are you equating aerobics with pornography?
Must be a muslim.
No, ImNoDhimmi, I'm not equating the two. Ms. Seibold introduced the linkage.
"Muslim men are AFRAID of women, aren't they?"
George,
That's it, exactly.
"No, ImNoDhimmi, I'm not equating the two. Ms. Seibold introduced the linkage."
Noooo... It's the Indonesian Islamic Ulemas Council making that link. Read the article before you post, dear.
No Stormwarning, not sure why you're making such a bizarre, trivial comment. The posted AsiaNews report on this thread regarding Indonesia ulema makes no mention of pornography, only Ms. Seibold does.
Ladies, cover your arms and your thighs
While engaged in routine exercise.
You must wear a black cloak
So as not to provoke
Allah's uncontrollable guys.
You are such a creative genius!! Ha! Have you put your colorful rhymes into a book yet? If not, you need to do so.
Funny, informative and thot-provoking, I'm sure it'd be a hit.
Call it something like, Musings from Montedoro.
I am so puzzled by what Fairuz-fan is actually saying.
First of, why does he refer to Marisol as Ms. Seibold? Isn’t that private information? And how does he know she is Catholic?
She posted excerpts of news from Indonesia and her comments on it, which was good, relevant information about Islamic teaching and their interpretations. She then pointed out that the comments from MUI could well lead to legislation, a lot like previous legislation, which was called by Muslim “anti-porn(ography)’.
Then he compares Marisols religion, Catholicism, with Islam, but with now considering what the Catholic Church rules about Pornography, an attempt at Tu Quoque, it seems to me. But is this supposed to mean that Catholics would or should ALSO endorse the mentioned previous legislation, in Indonesia? Because Marisol argued against the MUI-comment but never said that that was about pornography. So, to me it was Fairuz-fan who really made the connection between aerobics and pornography in a devious and downright farfetched, illogical way.
Then he calls upon Marisol to re-commit to Catholic teachings?! Including those about pornography as if: I. when she doesn’t she isn’t a good catholic, or II. if she does she is a hypocrite for criticizing the Muslims for the same attitude as the Catholics have. But he has made a faulty comparison for that implied suggestion. And the 2 religious people do react very differently concerning the previous legislation and aerobic-outfits.
Finally he says that the Catholic Church stands for “due recognition of true, valid and virtuous points encompassed by Islam”. ???. If that were true it would mean the Catholic Church regards some points, but certainly not Islam as a whole, as true, valid or virtuous! That would be very broadminded and benevolent of the Church!
Any way, do Islamic leaders ever return the courtesy? And would a Muslim who stated that Islam gives due recognition of true, valid, virtuous points encompassed in Catholic teachings, not be considered a Catholic in disguise?! (Or would it not have big detrimental consequences for that person?)
Demsci, while I appreciate the thoughtful and civil engagement, I believe that upon close examination, a number of your points do not stand up to scrutiny. Although I must concede that you may well have a few valid points of concern as well.
Marisol's full name is public information, and has even been used on this website. And she herself has stated here that she is Catholic. I commonly use 'Mr. Spencer' and 'Mr. Fitzgerald' and sought to start being more consistent.
But one can say it was presumptuous of me to use 'Ms.', which seems to be common usage these days, as opposed to 'Miss', 'Mrs.' or perhaps some other perferred title. If she wishes to clarify, I will stand corrected and use the desired title in the future.
The posted article itself made no mention of pornography, and the subject was introduced by Ms. Seibold herself. The aerobics issue is certainly a problematic one, as even I agreed. But pornography is a serious matter.
However, in striving to be fair-minded as I reviewed your comments, I was probably rash in assuming, possibly incorrectly, what Ms. Seibold's point was with regard to her interjection of pornography.
If what was intended to be said is that we have competing and conflicting claims at issue as to what is or is not pornographic, then that would have been a sound point that did not call for my kind of response. Or if the stance being staked out is that anti-pornography legislation is acceptable in general, but vaguely worded edicts in the area should be avoided, that too is perfectly proper and sound.
However, if the claim at work is that there should never be legislation against pornography because of a "who's to say what's pornographic and what isn't" mindset, that is an unacceptable position that, as I have demostrated, conflicts with Church teaching. Or if the stance is that Christians can pursue rightful anti-pornography measures, but Muslims cannot do so, at least not without pejorative, sarcastic, sneering overtones of 'Ramandan gift' and 'creeping sharia', then this too is out of line, contrary to Church teaching [which calls upon all, not just Christians, to work for the outlawing of porn], and smacks of de facto bigotry.
My apologies, if I have misunderstood what was intended here.
In your final area of commenting, Demsci, the fact that one recognizes good, true, positive elements in another religion does not make one a covert member of that religion. The Catholic Church, in Second Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate of 1965, officially outlines laudatory elements of Islam, as well as other non-Christian faiths. One can also look to Pope Benedict's comment last year during a visit to Jordan when he said that "my visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by his majesty the king in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam."
If the head of Western Civilization respects the Muslim community, and recognizes the virtues proclaimed by Islam, then so should we all.
And, yes, there are some Islamic leaders and thinkers who, in some ways, do 'return the courtesy', though how much and how sufficiently can be a matter for discussion and debate.
I will close by noting that since today marks the beginnning of Lent for the Latin rite, I do want to acknowledge and state my regrets to the extent that my personal sinfulness has entered into my commenting on this site. I will use this period to seek to improve in this area.
I'm late to the party here, but not too late to address a few issues, I hope:
Fairuzfan: Click the link on the story about "pornography" in Indonesia. It was a vaguely worded document that non-Muslims were concerned would lend itself to increasingly strict, Sharia-style interpretations of "decency" that would be tantamount to the slow cultural genocide of non-Islamic traditions.
Demsci: I do appreciate the concern. I am a practicing Catholic, and occasionally make reference to it in the comments field. As for the surname, no worries: it's a pseudonym. If it were just me, I'd put my actual name out there, but I have my family to think of: aging parents, and an extended family including small children.
Hello Fairuz-fan.
I appreciate your thoughtful and civil response too, thank you. I now understand your position better.
There is the possible hypocrisy-point; that 2 measures are being used for Islam and Christianity. But I think that was not the case with the article of Marisol. Because Muslims, and I mean a part of them, behave often distinctly different from mainstream Democrats, as I view Jihad Watchers, comprised of Christians, Atheists, Divers.
And there is being against any laws, about or bordering on, Pornography, or being against them only to a certain extent en considering when such laws indeed are appropriate.
But I was in agreement with Marisol that the discussed comments and the threathened or already happened laws were not useful and highly disadvantageous for women and otherwise going contrary to mainstream democratic thought.
But we can always respectfully agree to disagree.