Posted on 04/13/2005 4:15:06 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Some disturbing views on women run counter to multiculturalism, writes Pamela Bone.
'Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world," Sheikh Feiz Muhammad told a packed public meeting in the Bankstown Town Hall last month. "Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
There was pressure on Muslim women to unveil, the sheikh said, and this was because "they want you to be available for their gross, disgusting, filthy abomination! They want you to be a sex symbol!" The woman who wore the hijab was hiding her beauty from the eyes of "lustful, hungry wolves", he said.
Sheikh Feiz Muhammad teaches at the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, NSW. His long, ranting speech, damning and ridiculing Western culture (if you allow your wife to watch the "devil" of daytime television, he advised men, you will come home from work and find she is being "negative" towards you) was greeted with frequent applause.
Somewhat more moderately, Dr Amirudin Ahamed wrote in last week's Sunday Age (10/4) that a woman who wears a short skirt and gets drunk "would definitely be at higher risk of sexual violation than, say, a sober Muslim woman at home".
What should be the response to such comments? Ignore them, remembering that in times past Italian and Greek migrants wanted to lock up their daughters too? Reflect that as the majority, non-Muslims ought to be robust enough to take criticisms of their culture in our stride? Remember too that good old Aussie-born men can hold not dissimilar views about women (a state government effort to change the culture of male team sports cited a survey that found nearly 10 per cent of young men thought it was OK to force a woman to have sex if she was wearing revealing clothing). And that feminists have traditionally railed against women as sex objects.
There are, however, some "issues" here. Leave aside the use of a public venue to make a speech clearly derogatory towards the wider culture: at its worst the sheikh's speech can be seen as at least a justification for rape. A non-Muslim religious leader making public comments far milder than the above would be forced to resign. If a Muslim leader's words are to be simply overlooked (perhaps nothing better can be expected?) is this itself not a kind of racism?
My first conclusion is that multiculturalism is valuable and worth protecting. We are, irrevocably, a multicultural society, and most people like it that way and want it to continue to work. There is also, despite some disgraceful attacks on mosques and on individuals, a lot of goodwill towards Muslims. There are many Muslim leaders who are preaching moderation, and who would likely be embarrassed by the sheikh's speech. We want a society in which people of all religions and cultures can get on together. But there also have to be some core values, and - notwithstanding the views of a minority of unreconstructed football players - one of those values is the equality of women.
The second is that laws against religious vilification are a mistake. Yes, laws against racial hatred, because no one has any choice about their race. But unless we are to accept that human beings are incapable of overcoming their social conditioning, we do have a choice about what we believe. Beliefs are about ideas, and ideas must be open to debate, to criticism and even ridicule. We are entitled to find some beliefs of any religion absurd and to say that we do.
The third conclusion is that Feiz Muhammad and Ahamed are simply wrong. There is no evidence that women in societies where they are forced to cover are less subject to violence, sexual or otherwise. There may be less reporting of rape (when the word of four honest Muslim men is required to prove the rape and if it is not proved the woman is then liable to be punished for adultery, it is rather less likely to be reported); but there is overwhelming evidence across the Muslim world of violence against women, in the form of honour killings, stonings, or beatings for minor infringements of religious codes.
The home, where Ahamed claims Muslim women are safe, is exactly where women in any society are most likely to be assaulted. But a British study of family violence (reported by Geraldine Brooks in her book about Islamic women, Nine Parts of Desire) found that women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their husbands than any other women in Britain.
What is really angering the fundamentalists is that Muslim women not only in the West but across the Muslim world are coming out, challenging male interpretations of their religion, demanding an end to their oppression.
Yes, these women are still a minority, and they have a far harder struggle ahead of them than Western feminists ever did; but they are making gains (Morocco has brought in family law reforms; in Saudi Arabia it has just been announced that women may apply for driving licences).
The argument of some moderate Muslims and well-meaning cultural relativists is that non-Muslim feminists have no business criticising the treatment of Muslim women, and that any change must come from within. As Emma Bonino, a member of the European Parliament, said recently: "I remember how important it was for those of us fighting for basic rights and equality in Italy to receive support from women in other European countries who were further ahead in the same fight."
Is that why they have "pack rape" by Arab gangs on
Australian girls 'cause they deserve it from the
way they dressed ("sleeveless, strapless, backless.
mini-skirts)?
No, I think it's because they have a shortage of goats on Arab Street these days. :-)
and I hope someone throws one for them.
So9
Any concept that gets chewed on by a Muslim cleric will end up to be a prelude to something fatal.
Hiding one's own beauty is very evil.
"all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
These men have never heard of self control or personal responsibility?
No it is because they do not repect women, especially if she is non-Muslim.
If theu can not rape a woman they will rape a male just as easily.
Of course women don't have any obligations for self-control and personal responsibility when it comes to how they dress.
The sheiks may be nuts, but the fact remains that there is some obvious truths to some of the observations about the way women dress. Women expect men to behave responsibly when they do whatever they want? Reminds me of Nicholson's line in "As Good As it Gets":
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
Moderation, however, is just fine. The veils and robes are cultural, symbols of desert nomad ancestry. We have every right to accept those.
I can see that. Mark Shepherd, the martyr of the gay movement, was gang raped by some Arabs in Egypt. Supposedly, that's what turned him gay.
You forget that Melvin Udall was nuts in that movie.
Geraldine Brooks had best watch her back. The ROP doesn't take kindly to criticism, even when it's backed up by statistics.
Their idea of personal responsibility is to kill the woman that they just raped.
You forget that the legions of fans who thought his female characters were spot on were not nuts.
"Of course women don't have any obligations for self-control and personal responsibility when it comes to how they dress."
You're so right about inappropriate dress being an invitation to rape. Why just last week I passed a construction site. The men were working on the roof, no shirts, tight jeans, shaking their shingles around in the most wanton way. It was all I could do to keep from climbing up there and sodomizing them with a caulking gun. They were just asking for it. Construction sluts.
"Women expect men to behave responsibly when they do whatever they want?"
She gets to wear a tube top, so why don't I get to rape? It's just not fair!!!
Nothing but the truth there.
We are, irrevocably, a multicultural society, and most people like it that way and want it to continue to work.
Most people, even in a democracy, are sheep and do what they are told to do by the elite. I dare say multiculturalism isn't as dear to the average Australians heart as the writer believes, though the irrevocably part is probably correct.
The attitude of some of the men on this thread really surprises me. I hate that phrase "she was asking for it". No woman ever asks to be raped!
These imams sound like they're sight-reading the script for a new movie - "The First Temptation of Mohammed".
My 5 year old daughter has more sense than to try and say she did something wrong because "somebody made her". When does "it's not my fault" cease to be a viable excuse for the islamicists?
Ya, MonaMars, that's exactly what I said! Um, not...
I just pointed out the absurdity of demanding self-control and personal responsibility from men whilst not demanding ANY from women, or assuming women were simply incapable of it. Not exactly a subtle distinction!
It doesn't take a genius to realize the truth of the observations regarding the way women dress in the West today, a way that is deliberately designed to attract attention from men, and indeed to provoke them sexually. Does that mean it's ok for men to act out those urges like cavemen? No. Does it mean that women are irresponsible, immature, and hypocritical? Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.