The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Islamic Men Say, "There Is No God But My Genitals"

This post rather follows my last one in topic. I was thinking about the "covering women completely except their faces and hands to the wrist" idea mentioned in the video link (in the post below) and I realized that Islamic men are probably the most weak-minded people I've seen in a long time - by their own admission.

Hear me out. It's almost like John Ashcroft covering the breast of the justice statue, only worse. Are these guys just walking around, completely under the control of their twig-n-berries? Getting women to cover up for the dumb-ass reason that "men might do something rude (or even rape them!)" is just admitting that they are not responsible for their actions - those slutty women are.

It is putting the onus on women to dress "appropriately" so that men on the street, who they don't even know, will behave properly. Once the women are sufficiently oppressed and depersonalized, men will have nothing to tempt them (except more and more random/obscure things, like table "legs" and chicken "breasts").

Seriously, are they that weak-willed that if they see a women in a bikini, they'll just get a hard-on and have to go act all guido-ish? I don't believe that for a second. I think Muslim men do have control, they just don't want to admit it because they want to have an out when they do stupid shit.

Blame who? The non-person over there under the fucking blanket. Who cares about that?

Islam seems to say that men have control in society, but not in their bodies. That is a dangerous combination if you happen to not be a man and live your life with breasts and a vagina under a black sheet.

Dr. Naik in the video says that if a woman is covered as she should be under Islamic law and she still gets raped, the man gets capital punishment. That's how Shar'ia law is - it is "fair and encourages people to behave in a proper way".

Ew...do you smell that? It's almost...yeah, it's like driving past a farm on a hot day. Oh, it's the bullshit Naik is slinging. In Shar'ia, the woman bears the burdon of proof with respect to rape (keep the clowns in the tiny car but bring the paramedics, 'cause I'm going to die of not-surprise). She must first accuse the guilty man - who will deny it, of course; then she has to find four males who witnessed the rape and will back her - again, not so much likely; and then if she can't provide that, she is also charged with slander in addition to the crime against her and the potential pregnancy she now has to deal with from some asshat rapist.

Tell me again why this "legal system" should get more widely accepted? Let's see, if I leave your religion, I get the death penalty; any homosexual friends I have will be killed by stoning, being burnt, or being thrown from a tall building; and if your wife gets out of line, you can beat her (lightly), whatever the fuck "lightly" means. Don't believe me? Here's the "beat your wife" part:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them [first], [Next], refuse to share their beds, [And last] beat them [lightly]; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means [of annoyance]: For Allah is Most High, great [above you all]." Koran - Chap. 4, verse 34


It's true that some versions of the Koran use the word "chastise" in place of "beat". Miriam-Webster defines "chastise" as: to inflict punishment on (as by whipping), or to censure severely. It is reasonable to presume, given the history of "honor killings" (even though they are disapproved of by most clerics) and violence, that in this case, "chastise" can be taken to mean "beat".

Muslim men: meet me in the paragraph below for just a second, if you would...

Get your shit together, would you please? Take responsibility for your actions - if a woman wears a thong and shakes her junk two feet from you, that doesn't mean you have to look, touch, approve, or disapprove. It just means that's what she's doing, much like you choosing to wear a pillbox hat, grow a beard, and plan a haj. Live and let live, brother. If you want to follow Shar'ia law, go on with your bad self. Do not, however, expect that oppressive bullshit to fly in a free country.

5 Barbaric Yawps:

At 18/7/06 10:40 am, Anonymous sconzey said...

Ooooh... Good shot sir!

As soon as we start considering even for a moment that people may not be responsible for their actions, there can be no punishment for crime and society falls apart.

Even if it's not true, we have to act as though it was to maintain some semblance of civilisation.

 
At 18/7/06 7:15 pm, Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Well said.

It is repressive, oppressive and downright chauvinistic.

But then, the abrahamic religions have always been "clubs for the boys" anyway.

 
At 19/7/06 8:38 am, Blogger Hans Derycke said...

I love this line:
[quote] Muslim men: meet me in the paragraph below for just a second, if you would...[/quote]
Back on topic, this is reminiscent of the "she was asking for it" defense that apparently used to hold sway in Western societies.

 
At 21/7/06 11:56 am, Blogger Bronze Dog said...

I'm reminded of a History Channel show, "Superheroes Unmasked" that touched on the introduction of the Comics Code.

I'm also reminded of some of the people out there trying to censor/ban videogames. Why? Because they don't have the responsibility necessary to look at the ESRB label.

 
At 24/7/06 8:32 am, Anonymous Sean Kehoe said...

Good article.

It's like comparing some kind of kung-fu master with a guy who couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.

If they both refuse to fight someone it's very different. The kung-fu master is actually capable of beating someone up but he choses to exercise restraint and personal responsibility. This is admirable.

The second chap though is incapable of beating someone up - the decision was made for him and so his claim that he doesn't want to beat someone up is essentially meaningless.

Personal responsibility is sorely lacking in these societies and unfortunately also in too many non-muslim countries.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home