The funniest comment was the Australian Muslim leader who tried to excuse this as a misunderstanding.............like the one involving The Pope recently...........

Wow. Where do they think the Muslim relief worker should be murdered ? Somalia ?

Or should we burn effigies of Mohammed as we torch mosques ?

Maybe we should behead a few imams as they seem to defile Christian priests in Baghdad ?

It is hard to know how to make the reaction commensurate with the "misunderstanding"

Posted by: Voyager at October 28, 2006 7:59 AM

Muslim Council of Britain MCB

The Government withdrew its support from Britain’s largest Muslim organisation yesterday after accusing it of failing to lead the fight against religious extremism.
Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, attacked the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day, criticising police anti-terrorist operations and “sitting on the sidelines” in the campaign against extremists.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24894

A good decision

Posted by: shiva at October 28, 2006 8:24 AM

“loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral.

Except according to these barbarians, a "loose" woman is one who's not all hijabbed up, sitting in her room. This is their twisted idea of morality & modesty.

The amount of anger and disgust here in Oz over this, is very heartening. People aren't buying the 'out of context' argument. We're not stupid and we resent being treated as such. Keep it up, Hilaly. You're good for showing all the naive, trusting types what Islam is really about. And thanks to all you supportive Muslims who've closed ranks around the hate-monger. You've shown us just how "moderate" you really are.

Posted by: feralee at October 28, 2006 8:31 AM

Man don't these people ever know when to shut their arrogant mouths. The big undoing of Muslims and their plans to take over the West is their inability to shut the hell up and behave themselves. Me thinks they have jumped the gun a bit with being so brash and in our faces.

And for their on-going idiocy, I say thank,thank,thank you. Keep talking morons,keep killing people and burning things, the people are beginning to listen and speak and the faint hope is emerging that some consequnces for your arrogant stupidity are on their way. Just couldn't shut up could you?

Posted by: abdulalshirk at October 28, 2006 9:05 AM

When I hear these arguments used to explain why we have it wrong. It makes me wonder. What would happen if some pervert was turned on by veiled women? If they were hunted for wearing them and God forbid attacked because of them, what would happen? Would these same imams demand the removal of the veil to protect muslim women? We are repeatedly told they wear them to protect them, that argument would disappear if the veil drew attention and did not provide protection. Hopefully, It would never happen but it would cause an interesting dilemma for imams.

Posted by: Ronin at October 28, 2006 9:16 AM

Let them continue on this way.

Eventually it might sink into the minds of those apologists that perhaps Islam is a threat.
Their arrogance is starting to sound very 1939. I know that this is much abused but the analogy is starting to look more ominous by the day.

The Australian Imam has led a charmed life as he has made speeches BEFORE about "western women deserving rape" but this was hushed up as it supposed to be(it was dropped) a defence in the notorious lebanese rape case as the rapes followed his speech.

It is not politically correct to say it but I know what I would do to these individuals: anyone who justifies rape is guilty of it and should be given the same penalty.

While I have always been against the death penalty I think that I would like to see it applied to this individual and now.

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 28, 2006 9:27 AM

All these imams who keep saying that they have been quoted out of context make me think that they should be put back into their context as soon as possible. I think that particular guy's appropriate context was in Egypt. :)

Posted by: Vera at October 28, 2006 9:57 AM

After every controversial remark from the Muslim world, it is always "taken out of context." Every single time. It happens so much that the phrase "taken out of context" means nothing to me. It has morphed into utter nonsense.

Posted by: No More Spin at October 28, 2006 10:13 AM

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/eid/index.jsp

Event: Eid in Trafalgar Square
Date: Saturday 28 October 2006
Time: 1pm – 5pm
Entry: FREE – all welcome

The first ever celebration in Trafalgar Square to mark the Muslim festival of Eid ul-fitr will take place on Saturday 28 October from 1pm to 5pm. Eid ul-fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting observed by millions of Muslims across the world, including London. The phrase literally means 'breaking of fast', with celebrations taking place that bring communities, families and friends together.

Eid in the Square is being organised by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Mayor of London. This event will include live entertainment, a street bazaar and exhibitions and displays about Islam. It is free and open to all Londoners.

The Muslim Council for Britain
Islamic Relief
Islam Channel

Posted by: Voyager at October 28, 2006 10:48 AM

Out of context?

I read the entire transcript of this controversial sermon and "meat" is what this cleric is calling Australian women. Even as a metaphor this is disgusting.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20656690-601,00.html

Out of context? 'fraid not. this guy has exposed who he really is and now says he didn't mean it.

We have to make more mileage of this. I'm submitting a letter to the editor today of this "meaty" issue.

Posted by: a10billr at October 28, 2006 10:49 AM

"The big undoing of Muslims and their plans to take over the West is their inability to shut the hell up and behave themselves."
Posted by: abdulalshirk

Exactly. Most of what they do shows a immature impatience for someone presuming to accomplish a global project.

Hopefully these premature verbal ejaculations will eventually cause the violent wannabee morality police to damage their relationship with the left.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 28, 2006 10:54 AM

I am happy to read the Muslim Council of Britain leader backs Aussie imam on the "meat" issue.

A few more people will understand what "moderate muslim" means.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 28, 2006 11:08 AM

Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.

These guys are so sexually inadequate, that they are scared to death that their woman may wander. Just because they may 'do it' a lot (have multiple wives and children), does not mean they 'do it good'. They project their own isecurities on their woman and blame them, because NOT to blame them , means they must confront their own inadequacies. Dont be in the company of other men, especially alone, dont show any part of the body, dont drive because driving means freedom to visit lovers. Some sexual surgery is in order here. A womans place is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Try anything else and the insecure and inadequate may try and kill you...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2006 11:16 AM

This is actually good news in a way, because they're showing their true face. This could lead to more anti-dhimmitude. However, with the politically correct media, left wingers, "secular humanists," and all the self-proclaimed intellectuals, I doubt it.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 28, 2006 11:23 AM

Eid in Trafalgar Square hunh. Do they celebrate Easter in Trafalgar Square with government support? If not, when will they?

Posted by: MP at October 28, 2006 11:29 AM

Just cehcked the link to "Red Ken's London" so helpfully provided by Voyager. While Diwali, Eid, and Tet are all celebrated on Trafalgar Square, Christmas and Easter are somehow forgotten?! Guess Red Ken does not give a toss about his Christian citizens. Wankers!

Posted by: MP at October 28, 2006 11:39 AM

This might not be popular to post but...

First, nothing makes rape ever justifiable--so I reject that. The idea that every female who does not wear a veil and doesn't stay home has crossed the line is absurd.

HOWEVER, WE DO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE that standards of dress these days in the west make it so our women in general are often dressing like SLUTS--showing their bellies above these pants that cling and are so low cut, the bra-less scant tops and..... you all know what I am referring to. The pants are these tight rear end lifting hugging pants etc.

My point is that I can see that our standards we have descended to the level of "telegraphing nudity" in the most popular/common styles being worn. I have to make sure my own women (wife and daughters) don't fall into that--it turns women into visual whores and men into horny voyeurs. We need to clean up our own act on this. How can we stand with any credibilty and say we don't have a problem here?

With the erosion of standards is there any wonder that that we see the levels of promiscuity and teen pregnancy, mothers of kids with multible fathers, etc that we do? Howard Stern and M-TV and the media in general today are leading our culture into becoming a modern Babylon or Roman orgy.

No, Islamists--I think you need to go back to your caves as far as requiring veils and burqas and all that--but we in the west better CLEAN UP OUR ACT!

Posted by: BB at October 28, 2006 11:43 AM

feralee

You won't believe how heartening it is to see you guys in Australia so level-headed and tough on Islamic crap like al-Hilali's.
If there's hope for Western civilization, it's, in large part, because of you Aussies.

God bless Australia.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 28, 2006 12:06 PM

Mother Ecclesiastica

So true. It's all about war on the Infidel and submission, not sex. If there ever was a case of "rape is about power, not sex" (made by feminists, which I believe is a false dichotomy), Islamic rape comes the closest to it.
And yes, Islamic rape is a weapon in a war.

I think we should start referring to rape committed by Muslims against Infidels as "Islamic rape," for it's not an ordinary kind of rape. It's an ideology-driven rape, like the rape perpetrated by Nazis on Jewish women.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 28, 2006 12:19 PM

In Australia, Norway, Sweden and other Western nations, there is a distinct race-based crime in motion being ignored by the diversity police: Islamic men are raping Western women for ethnic reasons. We know this because the rapists have openly declared their sectarian motivations.

When a number of teenage Australian girls were subjected to hours of sexual degradation during a spate of gang rapes in Sydney that occurred between 1998 and 2002, the perpetrators of these assaults framed their rationale in ethnic terms. The young victims were informed that they were “sluts” and “Aussie pigs” while they were being hunted down and abused.

In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.

And earlier this year Australians were outraged when Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.

A few months earlier, in Copenhagen, Islamic mufti and scholar, Shahid Mehdi created uproar when – like his peer in Australia – he stated that women who did not wear a headscarf were asking to be raped...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20646

Posted by: kasper1062 at October 28, 2006 12:32 PM

To BB : NO womans clothes can be an excuse to abuse or rape a woman!

Posted by: miep at October 28, 2006 1:07 PM

BB
You are not making sense. You contradict yourself when you say rape is never justified, but Western women dress like sluts, ergo their dress may be causing their own rape.

You make me sick.
Dress is never a factor in rape. Never. Show me a single case you know in which dress played a part. Most raped women are defenseless women, either because of alcohol, or drugs, or in a defenseless environment, like a highway at night, an unlit lobby or parking lot at night, in which, evidently, dress plays no part. Rapes of girls inside or taken outside the home fall into this category too, and dress plays no part either.

Other rapes happen inside families, by male relatives, perpetrated on daughters and step-daughters and nieces and step-sisters.
Women raped behind the cover of night, or because the lack of light, are victims of opportunity, whose identity, let alone the manner of dress, is completely unknown to the perpetrator.

Finally, your language says a lot about your realtionship to women, which explains your post/attitude: a guardian of

"my own women, wife and daughters'" virtue. You don't "own" those "women," sir.

You can't fool me. You secretly approve and cheer Al-Hilali.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 28, 2006 1:15 PM

Voyager,

This year's Ramadan has been celebrated the traditional way, with 1,600 people killed in 91 terror attacks in 17 countries, according to www.thereligionofpeace.com.

Ironically, the place-name Trafalgar comes from the Arabic taraf al-garb, which means the end of the West.

Posted by: Elephant at October 28, 2006 1:25 PM

"Dress is never a factor in rape."
Posted by: ovidius_naso

With most of your sentiments I concur, and in our Western culture, historically, most women knew their rapist.

However, al-Hilali is clearly not talking about "date rape" or "incest rape". In actuality, his analogy to "meat" is a good one because he and his kind are animals, stalking vicious soul-less animals. With these animals, they are telling us not only that dress IS a factor for them, because to them it is invitation and justification.

We should be more wary until we rid ourselves of this menace. Women should consider wearing more for their own protection. More mace and more firearms.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 28, 2006 1:40 PM

There are muslim countries where whores find the burqa very convenient.
It helps them hide their profession and they can enter any building or hotel room unnoticed, for all veiled women look the same.

Prostitution is rife in many Muslim countries under the cover of piety.
Imams are naive or too simplistic if they think that a cloth cover is going to produce moral behavior in a woman.
But then Islam is all about absurd rules, it strains gnats while it swallows camels.

Posted by: rocky at October 28, 2006 1:53 PM

Concerned Citizen: "Women should consider wearing more for their own protection"

NO WAY!
If those men can't act civilised let them go back to their caves.

Glad to know there are less of them ......
Watch this video:
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1295wmv&ak=null

Posted by: miep at October 28, 2006 1:58 PM

“As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.”

Yep, that is why he said what he said, welcome to Islam.
I keep saying it, this religion is bad for the girls.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 28, 2006 2:19 PM

"it turns women into visual whores and men into horny voyeurs."

hey don't project your family's fault's and personal fault's onto others.

If I hit you in the head can I blame you for not wearing an helmet?

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 28, 2006 2:25 PM

"If I hit you in the head can I blame you for not wearing an helmet?"
Posted by: StillFedUp

Only if you're a Muslim. That taunting, uncovered head provoked your defensive act.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 28, 2006 2:27 PM

NO WAY!
If those men can't act civilised let them go back to their caves.
Posted by: miep

I agree (but would prefer "make them go"). Until they do, if they try to rape someone, fatal retaliatory force is allowed in many jurisdictions.

Afterthought: Is there a fiqh that dying during execution of rape of an infidel is jihad fi sabil Allah?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 28, 2006 2:39 PM

From the front page of today's (Oct. 28) Arab News:
"Hilali Message Lost in Translation"

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=87323&d=28&m=10&y=2006

Nothing new here.

In an article DIRECTLY below:
"Teenagers Get 5-Year Jail for Rape"

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=81493&d=28&m=10&y=2006

Excerpts:

"JEDDAH, 28 October 2006 — Three teenagers, who gang-raped a Saudi girl about three months ago, have each been sentenced to five years in jail by a summary court in Jeddah.
...
The court rejected the plea of relatives for a softer sentence to the teenagers considering their age and insisted on its verdict as the young men carried out the crime after thorough planning."

I doubt if the placement of the second article is a coincidence.

Posted by: jay at October 28, 2006 3:00 PM

Everyone needs to go back to Miep's post of 1:28pm and play that Memri video. Holy shiz-a!! So women who don't have a man, because women make up over 50% of the population, are considered in the enlightened world of Islam, to be public property? Well, this piece of "meat" isn't going to take that one lying down!

The truly disturbing part is that all my low-cut-top-wearing, mini-skirt-loving, tight-jeans & spike heal extoling girlfriends are helping these Islamo-Orks to help them out of those clothes they love and into the nearest Hefty bag! Because they won't take their heads out of the sand to find out what Islam is all about and how it threatens their well being and their chosen lifestyles, they will be the first to suffer when the choice is obliterated and they will wonder what the hell hit them.

I think you guys need to back off a little bit on BB's post. I think he used a poor choice of words with the "I have to make sure my own women...don't fall into that..." line. But listen to what he is saying.

I have some beautiful daughters in my family who tried to pull the trash look during their high school years. I told them NO, in no uncertain terms, not because I thought they'd get raped but because I knew they were better than that. I reinforced the idea that they were valuable and worthy of the highest self-respect, and that just because everybody else was doing it, they didn't have to, AND that their clothes should reflect who they are. Since then I've heard them complain about how you can't get anything in the stores that isn't too tight, too low cut or shows off a lot of stomach. When I suggest they try in the Misses section I never hear the end of the howling about how they'll look like a bunch of old ladies! My girls just want to dress cute but have had difficulty finding fashionable clothing that doesn't let it all hang out.

There is also a difference between dressing like a slut and dressing like an idiot. Many of the teenagers that have been to my house over the last five years just look plain ridiculous. I feel sorry for the heavy set girls who still insist on wearing the low cut jeans while their spare tire hangs out in a 360 degree radius. I just want to tell them, honey, there's a better way. And don't get me started on the boys who insisted on wearing those jeans of there's down past their bottoms, with eight inches of boxers sticking out...good luck if they get into a fight where they need to hightail it outta there. I also have two young female relatives who are quite overweight and yet the one that weighs about 250 lbs insists on wearing bikinis, low-rider jeans and cleavage popping tops, while the other large chested one never saw a lowcut top she didn't like. Neither one of them looks attractive; they look pathetic and the sentiment that comes to mind is not one of admiration but one of empathy. I don't think that was what they were going for.

The point is, there has to be some common sense used in the way some people dress nowadays and while I think the Islamists should shut the hell up about it, (yeah, good luck,) they use the way we dress as a focal point to make themselves look good and us look bad. After all, they are just so family oriented, concerned about the well being of the females in their families and, what did one Muslim guy tell me? They put women on a pedestal. Yadayadayada!

American and European women can dress how they want. However, I've often been told by men friends, and I think even have read it here before, that leaving a little to the imagination is a much sexier option.T

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 28, 2006 3:31 PM

"Just like a cat who can't control his urge to eat the uncovered meat. (What a high opinion he has of humanity.)"

He might have a sober and accurate estimation of the typical Muslim male.

Posted by: remote_control at October 28, 2006 3:44 PM

Also from the text of al-Hilali's sermon:

Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians] and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful".

I'd like to see him wiggle out of that "context".

Posted by: remote_control at October 28, 2006 3:51 PM

Here's your context:

98:6
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 28, 2006 3:58 PM

Accurate translation of the Imam's remarks:

"All Muslim men are rabid animals incapable of self control".

Truth will out.

Posted by: treehugger at October 28, 2006 4:14 PM

To ovidius_naso (O_N): concerning your take on my post---

No Ma'am, I am not at all agreeing with al-Hilali and I say RAPE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED--EVER in any case. I said that at the beginning and basically said that at the end of my post (I reject the jihadi line) --

Sorry for not parsing my language more closely on "my women." No Ma'am, I don't own them like property. I do have to be responibility to fulfill my role as a husband and father to protect their purity and honor--

(no I am not from the Mid-east or a Muslim--has a call for modesty become that "hostile" to us?). My wife and my daughters (I hope that is not offensive, how about "the wife of me and the daughters of me")do honor modesty in their dress--but I have had to discuss the issue--the problem is everywhere--even in relatives and neighbors, even in the church.

I don't mean to offend you, "O_N" but, it seems like you might be the kind that can't accept any criticism at all, even if it is constructive. You could ask for clarification before branding me --- you posted--

"You secretly approve and cheer Al-Hilali."

Ah no Ma'am again--I surely don't. Deal with what I said in my post--do you and you other critics not see that. Here is the point I wrote:

"We need to clean up our own act on this. How can we stand with any credibilty (before the Muslims) and say we don't have a problem here? ....
With the erosion of standards is there any wonder that that we see the levels of promiscuity and teen pregnancy, mothers of kids with multible fathers, etc that we do? Howard Stern and M-TV and the media in general today are leading our culture into becoming a modern Babylon or Roman orgy."

Finally Folks, you should all know that when the judgment rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah--NO ONE COULD SEE THE DANGER OF WHAT WAS GOING ON--EVEN LOT OFFERED THE PERVERTS HIS own VIRGIN DAUGHTERS. IN DANIEL'S DAY, NO ONE COULD READ THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL AT THE BABYLONIAN ORGY---

Do you honestly think the true God is happy with the race to Babylon we are running in the west?

Posted by: BB at October 28, 2006 4:38 PM

Writing in her 'Letters from Constantinople' in 1708 (the first account of an islamic sociey written by a sophisticated western woman) Lady Wortley Montagu was quite in favour of the veil, which was then universally worn by Turkish women. It meant that a woman could walk, unrecognised by her own husband, down the street to shops, owned by Jews or Lebanese christians, which had back rooms where they could spend an hour or two with their lovers. Of course, as the wife of an ambassador, she enjoyed courtier status, and was writing from the point of view of a rich woman. in her own right, who would have had much greater difficulty effecting such assignations in London (you get the distinct impression that she was jealous of Turkish women about this).

Posted by: wallyUK at October 28, 2006 7:06 PM

BB -

I try not to call out one of our own but your posts disturb me.
It's a dangerous precedent to say clothing turns women into "visual whores." I knew a guy that thought Victorian costumes were sexy. My point is you never know what some idiot is going to decide is an invitation.

I also don't think we're turning into another Sodom. It's been a while since I've read the story but I remember the Sodomites getting very belligerent, demanding the men be handed over to them. Were they in fact rapists too? (And is anyone else here horrified that Lot offered his daughters up like a tray of canapes?)

I have to agree with you about Howard Stern and MTV. No taste or talent there.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 28, 2006 7:49 PM

Look for the girls on The View, as liberated women, to grab this story and really tear it up. Not.

610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

Eid ul-fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting observed by millions of Muslims across the world.

A fast held to commemorate & celebrate the Battle of Badr, which occured when the pagans got pissed at the "expedition" to Naklah, wherein a platoon of Moslems pulled off a caravan robbery-murder-kidnapping operation at Mohammed's orders. Naklah was the first blood for Islam, a seminal moment for this budding religion, and a source of great pride to hundreds of millions of Moslems. After all, the 4 caravaners who were attacked had been persecuting the Moslems by... being Infidels, by not worshipping Allah.

The pagan caravaners naturally sought to avenge the Naklah felony, but were defeated by the Moslems at Badr. The Battle of Badr was Islam's first military victory, and is viewed as the confirmation of Mohammed's prophethood, and a miracle delivered from the hand of God.

This is what the UK gov't has arranged to be celebrated in Trafalgar Square.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 28, 2006 9:18 PM

GoldieLox--

I am sorry my posts "disturb you."

when you wrote:

"It's a dangerous precedent to say clothing turns women into "visual whores." I knew a guy that thought Victorian costumes were sexy. My point is you never know what some idiot is going to decide is an invitation."

response:
I am not justifying perversion of any kind. It is not "clothing" that can turn a female into a "visual whore," rather it is the LACK of clothing that does that.

I realize most of us never even think anything is wrong no matter how scant the clothing is these days. No, I am not against co-ed swimming and all that--but even there when you see string thong bikinis with buns hanging right out there or like we see and the Europeans (French I'm sure) enlightened topless at the public beach approach--we have lost our way.

Regarding the comment on Sodom the link is here for you to read the account from Genesis--I put some of it here for those who care to go to the real Book:

Gen 18:20 Then the LORD said (to Abrahan), "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." .........

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten (righteous persons)can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of (only) ten, I will not destroy it." ........

Gen 19:4 Before they had gone to bed, ALL the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."...

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have TWO DAUGHTERS WHO HAVE NEVER SLEPT WITH A MAN Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.

LIVING IN SODOM, EVEN "RIGHTEOUS" LOT COULD NOT SEE HOW SICK THIS WAS--TO GIVE AWAY THE PURITY OF HIS OWN DAUGHTERS. READ FOR YOURSELF, THE REST OF THE STORY.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31

WE ARE TOLD IT WILL BE AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

Luke 17:24For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

26"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28"It was the same in the DAYS OF LOT. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left SODOM, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30"It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed

These words are a great comfort to many and fearful to many. To many, they sound like foolishness, just like the Sodomites thought.

Posted by: BB at October 28, 2006 10:47 PM

BB,

I welcome you, a new poster, to the site (not in any official capacity, of course). For identification purposes, I am a Christian. And I have made a lot of screw-ups posting here as well.

"LIVING IN SODOM, EVEN "RIGHTEOUS" LOT COULD NOT SEE HOW SICK THIS WAS--TO GIVE AWAY THE PURITY OF HIS OWN DAUGHTERS. READ FOR YOURSELF, THE REST OF THE STORY."

There are many theologians that post here, some far superior to my own rants, but you need to read that story yourself again. Back up to Genesis 18. Who were these three "visitors"/"men"? Are you sure? Get into the Hebrew. What does 19:1 say about who the two were that went to Lot? What would YOU do to protect someone HOLY to the Lord?

"Post-Christian" Western civilization is a myth. (Ditto the great "Awakenings" in America.) There is no declension into Babylon, because our society had not attained the height from which to fall. What you perceive as such is an unmasking of no longer professing false believers, who have not taught their children their duplicity. Study the Christian doctrine of perseverance.

JihadWatch is NOT a Christian site. You are not preaching to the choir trying to get them to stop backsliding. Christian moralizing to non-Christians is nonsensical, because even the Christian scriptures predominately give admonitions to believers, and are non-specific, at best.

You are surrounded in your own town by a mix of gays, atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc., and are in the same mix here.
I have refined (not changed) my religious views on many topics here, trying to discover what is important. There are many posters here I would like to think I would die for, who do not share my religious beliefs. We need each other. We all may deserve to die as Sinners in the Hands of an Angry G-d (ala Johnathan Edwards), but I personally intend to keep as many as I can from dying at the hands of Islamists.

I suggest you direct any observation of duplicity in modesty to the girl you saw at the discount warehouse in the skin tight top and jeans, but with the hair carefully tucked into a hijab, because I bet she is more likely to know someone who would like to kill you.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 28, 2006 10:58 PM

Hiali's logic is the ultimate in Islamo-victimization: Even when an islamic man is raping a woman HE is considered the victim. In our Western culture, it's an insult to manhood and honor to assume that a real man can't control himself...at least it used to be. I'll take my culture any day. I like a cuture with real men and not whiny insecure wusses who are afraid of their own lusts.

Posted by: never_submit at October 28, 2006 11:40 PM

Hey ConcernedCitizen:

Your question is unclear to me--

you ask:
Who were these three "visitors"/"men"? Are you sure? Get into the Hebrew. What does 19:1 say about who the two were that went to Lot? What would YOU do to protect someone HOLY to the Lord?

my response:
Christians should know what I wrote is right and is quoted from the Bible. We know the 2 visitors were angels--but the point is--look at what had happened to Lot--don't you see? This is why it had to be destroyed--even the righteous were being "sodomized" (turning the same way). And see the parallel warning to us all from Christ about the last days--if you don't think things are sliding that direction, you need to open your eyes. Sorry, I won't back down, like you have chosen to do I guess.

What I would do:
And for your comments about those here who are not Christians, I think that at least now one who may be interested has a place to check in the Bible. The CONTEXT in our world of where this jihad stuff is coming from (not without G-d's plan) and with Israel regathered back in the land and with its neighbor states all desiring its destruction--what I wrote is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I HAVE TO SAY. I am glad you care enought to die for any that post here. I hope I would too.

The first beheading I recall was John the Baptist and though he was speaking "stop taking your brothers wife" to a wicked king who wouldn't hear, he still spoke the word and didn't back down. Ironic isn't it? A slut named Salome called for his head after her strut for this wicked king.

Posted by: BB at October 28, 2006 11:41 PM

My company has a booth at the local woman's fair sponsored by a local radio statio. At the last one a couple of women came by dressed in hijabs. There was a difference in the rest of their outfits. Stiletto heels, very short skirts and a brief top. Actually they were absolute knockouts. I figured that these girls looked ok in a car if they were seen by another Muslim. Inside the woman's fair, they wouldn't worry about being seen by a male Muslim.

The aussie "rapist Iman" has a pretty long history of these sorts of actions. I love it when Muslims do stuff like this. They do it in the absolute arrogance that their religion has taught them. It however will take a lot more of this talk and actions however before the leftists will come out of their land of OZ to recognize the evil that is staring them in the face.

Please remember if a muslim offers you "conversion" kill him. That is precisely the offer he is making to you. I figure that is why George Bush never replied to A-nut.

God willing, of cours

Posted by: credit man at October 28, 2006 11:57 PM

BB,

"Your question is unclear to me--"
Posted above

I know. Lot was righteous, not "righteous.

"And see the parallel warning to us all from Christ about the last days"
Posted above

"WE ARE TOLD IT WILL BE AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH."
Posted above.

Really? Will be? As in still to come?

Matthew 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

What does it mean when Jesus spoke aletheia?

I cannot on this site convince you to abandon premillenial dispensationalist views for partial preterism. But before you become the street cryer bemoaning the coming apocalypse before unbelievers I humbly ask you take a pause to reflect on the above, and study the history of the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in AD 70, read Josephus, etc. Don't miss the fulfillment one of the greatest prophecies of all time because of Scofield and Ryrie.

Please work on alliance building. Many of the people you say you also would like to "save" are strong anti-Jihadists. How they dress is something to address on another site, or better, in person. If they are still around, and you are as well, what a great time for witnessing...in person or on a Christian website. Quite honestly, I'll be saving what I've already written, because I fully expect both of our posts will be deleted soon. And should be. Plus I don't want to see you banned (or me). So...

Redirecting, the only prophecy of Mohammad that was fulfilled that I am aware of is such as the fall of Constantinople which his bloodthirsty, vicious followers were able to effect. Thus, I do not give him the moral authority to tell ANYONE how to dress. And given he raped Aiesha with only the provocation of being a child, dress wasn't really that important to him either. Except for when he broke the Levitical codes he claimed to respect by marrying his daughter in law after he overheated from seeing her in a state of undress. Maybe this is what they are hoping to emulate. Uswa hosana. Pah!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 29, 2006 12:08 AM

I don't care if he did mean prostitutes. No woman, including sex workers, deserves to be raped. People who can't get that through their thick skulls don't deserve to live in a civilised country. And I don't mean just muslims, either.

Now, about how people dress: I like to see fit, beautiful people of either sex dress nicely, or show the beauty of their bodies in a swimsuit. Doesn't bother me. Doesn't get me excited. Just shows the beauty of the human form. Sure, it's not so lovely with spare tyres and flab, but people can dress how they like, if there is no security risk (i.e. veils). In regard to sexual attack, it's completely irrelevant whether somebody thought I looked attractive, unattractive, like 'a whore', like a 'lady' or whatever in shorts and a crop top (some years ago, LOL). The point is that nobody has the right to attack someone because they consider them 'attractive'. And the second point, of course, that sexual abuse is not based on appearance anyway.

Posted by: Lili at October 29, 2006 12:12 AM

BB - our standards *these days*?? Have you seen any 1950s movies lately? Corseted wasp waists, high heels, bare shoulders, crop tops over tight pants! 1970s? Wow, form-hugging pants and tops, tight jeans. 1920s? Oh, those wicked ankles, flimsy dresses, mysterious dark eye make-up! Victorian women? Phwooor, those cleavages and sexy exposed necks! Classical paintings? Phew, nudity or lightly draped lusciousness.

Face it: women are beautiful. Men are beautiful. (I'm talking about the fit and healthy varieties here). Unless they cover themselves in sacks, the other sex and some of the same sex will find them attractive in pretty much any outfit. So what?

Most people just enjoy the show and aren't particularly turned on by it. Those who are turned on control it and let of steam where they can, by legal means. Otherwise, they are not fit to be human.

Posted by: Lili at October 29, 2006 12:23 AM

The first ever celebration in Trafalgar Square to mark the Muslim festival of Eid ul-fitr will take place on Saturday 28 October from 1pm to 5pm. Eid ul-fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting observed by millions of Muslims across the world, including London. The phrase literally means 'breaking of fast', with celebrations taking place that bring communities, families and friends together.

Posted by Voyager

Voyager, will the mayor be sponsoring a big Christmas celebration in Trafalgar Square also, or would that offend muslims?

Posted by: Susanp at October 29, 2006 12:32 AM

The analogy has one terrible flaw: Humans have a reasoning ability beyond that of mere animals. A man, if his favorite food is placed before him and he is told that it has been poisoned, will not eat it. A cat would.

While the desire to procreate is strong, if I were in Amsterdam's Red Light District and the most gorgeous girl in scanty clothing walked by, I would most likely avert my eyes while wishing all the while to look. Humans can act contrary to impulse.

If I am in terrible debt and find myself in an unguarded bank vault I still will not take even one pence. For humans, need does not cause action.

Perhaps these Muslim scholars are trying to say that muslims are mere beasts acting on instinct and not humans who can resist urges.

Beasts belong in the wilderness or in cages.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at October 29, 2006 12:57 AM

First of all, there have been some interesting developments in this sage. There is a power struggle going on amongst Australia's Muslims. Ameer Ali (who was recently attacked and shunned by al-Hilaly over his own comments)has come out against al-Hilaly. I think that this issue is "watch this space".

Second, even though I have a conflict with the dispensationalist theology, I do agree in part with BB. Perhaps it is because I am now in middle age that I see things differently. Modest dress does not mean wearing a veil. However, women do need to be aware that if they wear tight and see-through clothing that they are sending out the wrong signals to the men. It is common sense to dress with care.

However, back to the girls who were raped by the Muslims here in Sydney, these girls were not dressed immodestly. One of them was dressed for a job interview when she was followed from the train, kidnapped and raped. There is no way that any girl or woman can know the mind of a rapist. It is not as if the granny rapist and killer was seeking out older women who were dressed in a scantily clad way.

I agree with BB that the West in general needs to clean up their act. If we want to combat the Muslim propaganda then we need to show ordinary Muslims that the impression that they have gained about Western women is wrong, and that the majority of women are dressed modestly. However, women like Paris Hilton send out the wrong signals to men in general.

It is true that most men are easily aroused when they see a beautiful woman. If that woman is dressed in a suggestive fashion, then that arousal can get out of hand. What passes for date rape can in fact be partially the fault of the woman (and that is not excusing the rape to make that statement, it is just recognizing that it takes two to tango), but there are those times when the woman has not behaved in a suggestive manner, and she has been dating what is known as a "wolf". A naive girl can get it very wrong, and can end up being raped because she has dated the wrong man.

My partial support for the comments made by BB comes from the fact that western women do need to have a good look at how they are clothing themselves. The mini-skirt has definitely been a bad thing for western women. Personally, I prefer to wear either trousers or a long skirt. My reasons are not religiously motivated. It is a personal and practical choice - and I can avoid wearing panty hose if I am wearing a longer skirt ;-).

Rape cannot be excused, and the victim must never be blamed for the rape.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at October 29, 2006 2:58 AM

"Sex is one of the most searched words in the Internet, but it may come as an embarrassment to many Muslim countries that their citizens are the world's most frequent digital sex searchers; in particular North Africans."
http://www.afrol.com/articles/19438

Posted by: miep at October 29, 2006 3:50 AM

"The mini-skirt has definitely been a bad thing for western women. "

Maggie, I don't know where to start on your comments, which seem completely wrong to me. The mini skirt has, for me, been a comfortable way of dressing in summer. It's been a very good thing for this western woman on a hot day! As it was for Roman soldiers! If my legs look good in it - great. So do the legs of some men in shorts and sarongs here in the New Zealand summer.

Your statements about 'modest' dressing just back up the sheikh's attitudes. All your backpedalling about rape not being the woman's fault is undermined when you 'partially' blame the way women dress for date rape. Wake up: date rape doesn't happen because of the way women dress. You need to talk to some Rape Crisis workers.

The whole concept of 'modesty' assumes that there is something fundamentally dangerous and provocative about female beauty. In a civilised society, there is no such thing as 'sending out the wrong signals to men', unless you actually say 'yes, let's have sex' without meaning it. Men who are decent and in control of themselves will know that sex will happen only by clear, unforced mutual agreement.

Throughout the ages, all kinds of women's dress has been considered erotic, provocative, tempting. What you might consider 'modest' would be highly inflammatory in Saudi Arabia. What I consider comfortable summer clothing, you clearly consider 'immodest'.

The only civilised view is that women need to have full control over their own bodies, and that men respect this.

Whatever our Dress, wherever we go: Yes means Yes and No means No!

Posted by: Lili at October 29, 2006 4:21 AM

I'm SHOCKED that the MCB has backed this man! More than just shocked, in fact. I'm stunned, staggered, amazed and nonplussed.

I really am.

I suppose we'll just have to include the MCB among the 'misunderstanders of Islam' from now on.

That's the only possible explanation, isn't it?

Posted by: enemyofislam at October 29, 2006 5:29 AM

"What passes for date rape can in fact be partially the fault of the woman (and that is not excusing the rape to make that statement, it is just recognizing that it takes two to tango)"

Maggie4Life, I don't know what to say to that except....how 'bout NO! Once the woman opens up her mouth and says NO, it's over. And what you wrote about the poor woman getting raped while going to a job interview should tell you that. That's what this idiot sheikh is banging his gums about. It is about PUNISHING WOMEN. Plain and simple.

BTW - the only time I ever had a "wolf" give me a hard time was when I was wearing a nice, boring, boxy grey SUIT. I too was looking for a job. Luckily nothing happened, but what does this tell you?

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 29, 2006 7:47 AM

Lili, American & Goldilox,

We can all agree or disagree, (which is more likely,) with what passes for tasteful dress in our respective societies. One point that needs to be made though, is that there are a lot of Muslims rolling around our cities and countryside and they have this mentality. They are outbreeding us daily so it won't be long if we continue on the course we are on, before the gang rapes start over here in the U.S.

By all means, wear your minis and whatever you like. But also, get yourself a gun, go to the local NRA and learn how to shoot it; get yourself a permit to carry a concealed weapon, because all the "I am woman, hear me roar!!" rhetoric will not save you, or stop them, when one of these Islamo-animals decides your his piece of meat and he's going to have you for lunch.

Maggie, I hear you on the pantyhose. I wouldn't be caught dead in them in the summertime around here.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 29, 2006 9:54 AM

Lili said:"I don't care if he did mean prostitutes. No woman, including sex workers, deserves to be raped. People who can't get that through their thick skulls don't deserve to live in a civilised country."
Spot on Lili. Sex workers are doing an honest job (or at least are as honest or not as any other profession). To say it's OK to rape a sex worker is like saying it's OK to punch a boxer when he is out for a drink, i.e. not OK at all.
I live in a major city and in my experience the sex workers are generally a lot less loose (when they are not working) than many of the others who are not sex workers.
We can all have our own opinions as to what dress looks good, silly, horrid, nice, etc. - and we all get it wrong sometimes! The point is that men do not have the right to rape.
Another point is that these Muslim beliefs are about power, politics and control more than anything else.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 29, 2006 10:06 AM

The issues as to what dress is appropriate for an individual and/or a specific occasion are separable issues from those of justification of rape or Islamic politics/oppresion. We can discuss appropriateness of dress without justifying rape and without listening to 'Islamic scholars'' (oxymoron alert)power plays and issues.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 29, 2006 11:02 AM

American,

Unfortunately, you're right about it being more difficult in Germany, especially when we read here what goes on over there.

I think we should adopt the same mentality when dealing with Muslims, i.e., be nice to them to their faces but watch our backs for any sudden movements. The story about the girl that was pushed in front of the train is sobering. I don't ever want to become so desensitized to that sort of thing that I say to myself, "Oh that's just what Muslims do".

I was watching Clint Eastwood the other night in The Outlaw Josie Wales, and there is a scene where the lives of all the people in his entourage are threatened and he tells them that if they are in the middle of the battle to protect themselves and they start to doubt their survival, they need to get real mean. I've been thinking about that line and realize that we need to get real mean if we are to survive this Islamic swarm of hornets. I'm not saying be nasty to them on an everyday basis. I'm saying make it clear by the way we carry ourselves that we will tolerate no B.S. when it comes to them imposing their so called obligations on us. Perhaps it's time to take a page out of the old west, and like Texican who posts here sometimes says, be armed, be ready. Maybe you can't be armed with a gun, but you could be armed with knowing where the escape routes are where you live and have to walk; having guy friends accompany you if you are in a situation that doesn't smell right, and above all, trusting your gut. It took me a long time to learn that one in my own life but I've found that I stay out of a lot of trouble by listening to that little ole' thing.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 29, 2006 5:46 PM

I think we all agree that it's going to get worse before it gets better. No matter what any of you ladies are wearing, if you get any trouble for it, I'll get your back if I'm around. I believe in what Isabellathecrusader says about listening to that inner voice. When I'm going alone esp. in unfamiliar turf I'm partial to tough khakis and nice, heavy Harley boots myself. I think a nice, strategic kick with a heavy boot could be a deterrent. (I'm still looking for a pair of real army boots in my size.) And yes, I want other deterrents too. Does anyone know if pepper spray is effective?

I don't mean to sound harsh in my posts. I just get angry thinking of any of us, man or woman, having our rights eroded because of some idiot.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 29, 2006 6:10 PM

There are a few people who seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I had to say. I am not surprised that a New Zealander is one of those who is having a hard time understanding the need to consider more carefully how we dress.

When I said that the mini-skirt was a bad thing for women, I am looking back over a period of time that stems from the 1960s when Jean Shrimpton first shocked race goers with her very modest dress.

Honestly, if a woman is wearing a skirt that barely covers her bottom, then that attire can be considered to be very suggestive. It is hard for some men to put on the breaks. Yes, there are also non-Muslim men who do not know how to treat women in a decent manner.

In summer, I find it is better to wear shorts, rather than a mini skirt, and these days I prefer a longer pair of shorts. The problem with the mini-skirt is that most women do not have the legs to wear them. A mini-skirt on a large women looks terrible. It also looks terrible on middle-aged women.

Goldi-lox you just did not understand what I was getting at, because you have not understood that if a woman is on a date, and she is flirting with the man, to the point that he gets aroused, and then she says "NO", yes, technically that is rape, but.... her behaviour could be seen in the frame of "making the invitation". In a court of law, a woman who has been guilty of heavy flirting, and then she says no, could end up looking silly, and a jury could decide not to convict, even though a rape has taken place. Women do have to take some responsibility for their actions. I did not even begin to expand upon my own thoughts when it comes to this subject. For starters, I really do think that there needs to be a taking of responsibility by both parties. Date rape, where a date rape drug has been used is really very bad. Plying a woman with alcohol with the intention of having sex with her should be sufficient to see a rape conviction. However, if the jury decides that the woman has to bear responsibility for leading the man on, then she will be the one who loses even when she has been raped.

I do not agree with the Muslim position. In fact I feel totally disgusted by al-Hilaly's statement. What he said is that the woman is akin to being uncovered meat if she does not wear a hijjab. The covering of one's hair does not make a woman more modest. What makes a woman modest is the wearing of elegant clothing, which does not totally accentuate her body in the wrong way.

A slim woman who is elegantly dressed can wear a dress with a hemline at the knees, and she will be the picture of modesty. It is all in the bearing.

If you have read my other posts on this same subject you would get a better idea of my position. The fact is, I do not see why even a prostitute should be denied justice if she has been raped. Yet, men like al-Hilaly would say that prostitutes deserve to be raped because of the way that they are dressed etc. etc. The fact is that al-Hilaly is effectively disguising his own thoughts on how he sees us Australian women as nothing more than prostitutes. His comments, in the light of the Sydney rapes were totally disgusting because he was in effect excusing that miserable excuse of a male called Bilal Skaffe, who, with his 14 companions repeatedly raped a young girl, who was decently dressed when she was kidnapped after leaving the railway station.

What I am on about happens to be that we should take more responsibility, and if the Muslims see our form of dress as a reason to criticize us, then we should dress with style and elegance, and with modesty to prove that they have no idea about western women. I am talking about the image that western women portray, and the fact that Muslims such as al-Hilaly are into tarring all of us with the same brush.

BTW, there are many reasons that I abandoned the wearing of a miniskirt, including: heavier thighs, panty-hose do not fit, shaving my legs can be difficult due to a low back problem, the nylon in the panty hose tends to chafe my skin etc. In summer I like to wear the T-shirts as well as the new singlet style. There are times when I wear a top that has the built-in support.

I believe that if you do not want a man to be aroused by your appearance, then dress sensibly, and modestly. I also believe that men need to practise self-discipline, and they need to respect women like they used to respect them when I was growing up. I do not agree with the attitudes of the fundamentalists (of any persuasion). I do not appreciate someone saying that I am backpedalling when I have not in fact supported Hilaly. I supported a portion of the statement by BB because he made a point that some refuse to accept as being applicable to their own situation. Yes, it really does take two to tango, and women should stop being so naive when it comes to their dating habits. If you throw out the wrong signals and then end up in a bad situation, then you have to take some responsibility for your own behaviour.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at October 29, 2006 6:12 PM

Goldielox,

No worries girlfriend. I get so angry here sometimes when I read what is being foisted on us and often can't get otherwise intelligent women friends to believe it is happening at all. I had a friend tell me today, (and she's a very sharp cookie,) that I don't honestly believe that it could ever happen over here, could I? Then I heard what she was really saying. "It couldn't possibly happen here because I don't have time to deal with it and besides, I don't want to." Then I just go and hit my head against the wall for a while and I feel better. : (

Maggie,

I know where you are coming from. Being raised Catholic, the girls in my family were not allowed to wear mini-skirts, jeans or bikinis when we were growing up. Once I was out of the house, the first thing I did was buy a bunch of jeans. The bikini thing was never a big deal, but the the mini-skirt...ahh! After I got my baby weight off after my last child, minis were big, so I got me one of the jean skirt type. I think I looked pretty darn good when I was walking through an O-club bar one time. In fact, I was propositioned by a randy navigator, who asked me to go see his etchings in his room and when I pointed out my husband who was talking a few tables away, he told me, that's okay, we wouldn't be gone that long. But I digress. The main thing I remember about that mini-skirt, which I probably only wore three times before I had enough, was that when sitting in it, I had to be very careful how I sat, spent most of the evening silently cursing the thing, since I had to keep pulling it down on either side and made a mental note that this was for the birds. The point being, it was a pain in the you-know-what to wear that thing, I did not enjoy myself in it and decided it just wasn't worth it. Now that I am single again, middle-aged and enjoy living my life on my own, I wouldn't be caught dead in the thing because it's not who I am and there are plenty of other things I like to wear that make me feel attractive and that I get compliments on, even though I would probably have to describe my clothes as somewhat conservative. I think the biggest difference nowadays is that I don't care what others think about how I look or dress, and that's the rub. I in no way try to attract men's attention at this stage in the game because I am not interested in dating or remarrying. But I still get looks sometimes, so dressing conservatively has not eradicated those from guys completely.

I think what Maggie is getting at is that there are lots of young women who dress inappropriately for a specific reason, because our standards have gone way down in the past few decades. But worse than that is many young men in our society have not been brought up with a chivalrous mentality and are all for it when a girl dresses suggestively. The other thing is that so many girls that my kids work with or see at parties have gotten the wrong message and think that you have to dress sleezy to get a man. I've met a lot of guys in my life who are happy to oblige and take advantage of a naive girl who thinks she's dressing to attract true love but ends up being a sperm receptacle for a night or a few months and then he's on his way and she's left with a broken heart.

I'm all for empowering women to be the best they can be, to realize their inherent uniqueness and to use their femininity to tame the wild beast in a lot of men. If they don't understand their power, they can end up getting very hurt. The Islamists understand this power in women and they should be afraid, very afraid. Unfortunately for the world, Islamists have to hurt and destroy whatever they don't understand, in the name of their religion. That's why they keep their women in Hefty bags, ready to toss in the trash on Tuesday or Friday, if she gets out of line, by daring to yearn for a life.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 29, 2006 7:04 PM

No matter what any of us ladies wear - if one of us is threatened I'll fight for us. And yes it's maddening, Isabella - I told a friend about some schools requiring courses in Islam, and she looked at me funny and changed the subject. It is to tear out the hair...

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 29, 2006 7:40 PM

Bottom line (pun intended): the choice should be up to the woman, and a rational and healthy society knows more or less (sans occasional flaws that are part of accepting imperfection) how to navigate the awesome and irksome adventure of Progress by which the legal limits -- that limit personal choice -- reflect a Moveable Feast.

Posted by: remote_control at October 29, 2006 8:10 PM

Whether or not [insert issue "A"] is appropriate for an individual and/or a specific occasion is a separable issue from that of justification of [insert parallel Islamic issue "B"] by Islamic jurisprudence. We can discuss the appropriateness of [A] without justifying [B], and without inadvertantly legitimizing Islamic 'scholars' or texts. The discussion of [A] would be best concluded at [another website].

Sort of posted above by: EnglishBlondie (heavily redacted)

I hope you don't mind the revision. It was a very astute observation, and I wanted to try to make something that was applicable to a variety of moral and other discussions engendered here. I'm going to make myself memorize it.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 29, 2006 9:31 PM

Hi Concerned Citizen! I don't mind at all, I like what you wrote.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 29, 2006 10:01 PM

Hi Concerned Citizen, you extracted a good general rule from what I said, but just to stress specifically to this thread: there is never a justification for rape.
The difference is that if a woman is dressed inappropriately for herself or the situation, then there are various things that could legitimately be said or done- rape is not one of them. For example, if a friend of mine turns up at my house to go out and she is very fat and in hot pants, I may have a quiet word with her, a bit of friendly advice. If a woman turns up for work in her club wear it would be legitimate for her boss to ask her to change her outfit. Lots of things to be said regarding how some very young girls dress too. Also things to be said to women who do not seem to understand the signals men take, women who imagine men are thinking other than they are - all this comes under friendly advice and concern and morality. Lots of situations where one would say or do something. No situations where one would rape. Totally different thing. I would not criticse someone for caringly and legitimately advising another, even for a boss or someone else for asking a woman to change in some circumstances. I would never excuse a man for rape. Neither should anyone else - that's you al-Hilali if you're reading this.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 29, 2006 10:55 PM

"I am not surprised that a New Zealander is one of those who is having a hard time understanding the need to consider more carefully how we dress."

Is this supposed to be an insult? Or perhaps you just mean that NZ men are generally very calm and relaxed, and we all just wear what we want without problems. I hope so. Over here, Aussies are generally considered the more flashy dressers (my visits to Australia have confirmed this, and there's nothing wrong with it).

Isabella, of course I know that there are vicious creeps out there who will use anything, including attire or flirtatious behaviour as an excuse for rape. That's what weapons, self-defence techniques, the 'inner voice' etc are for. But dressing what Maggie thinks is 'modestly' is not going to stop a rapist. Nor is a burkha, for that matter!

But both you and Maggie (with her unbelievable 'short skirts are too tempting/most women don't have the legs for them' double-think) need to get it clear and make it clear to any young men you have influence over: any blaming of the woman is a feeble excuse. NO means NO. A simple concept. Much simpler than trying to gauge what someone might consider too immodest, too flirtatious.

And I don't buy the 'hard to put on the breaks' story! Every man I've ever met in a 'flirtatious' situation knows the limits perfectly well. I'm worried about people like Maggie and the sheikh having influence over young people, basically telling girls that rape could ever somehow be their fault, and young men that they don't have control over their own urges.

In the west, we've come a long way in a short time on this issue, and people like Maggie show that there is still a way to go. This fragile situation can only be worsened by islam.

Posted by: Lili at October 30, 2006 12:56 AM

American,

I feel your pain. That good friend I mentioned in the post above gave me the feeling that she was patting me on the head, tsk tsking about my silly little concern about this. But I also noticed something else. To accept that this is happening requires one to do something about it, and many people are in denial because they can't or don't want to face this kind of music. When I think back over the smug, condescending looks I get when discussing this with certain folks, I picture what their faces will look like when their daughter is gang raped in front of them or when someone else dear to them is blown up at the supermarket. Do you think then that they will believe me?

No listen, girlfriend, we ARE in the same community, even if it is thousands of miles away. Ideas matter and goodwill can be transported across cable lines as well as hearts and minds. The fact that you resist and that I resist puts the evil in this world on notice that we will not take this lying down. If only one person says, no, what you are doing is wrong and I won't stand for it, even if they get mowed down, that one person changes the dynamics of the fight forever. They and their memory and all trace of them can be dead and buried but the world will know that this person stood up and said no. It's got to be imprinted somewhere. And like pingpong balls under water, truth always comes up. It cannot be held down forever.

A big hug sent out to you! We are in this together.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 30, 2006 7:40 AM

; )

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 30, 2006 6:29 PM