Malaysia imposes dress code for non-muslims, THE FRENCH WAY

[Proud_Muslim]

Malaysian City Imposes Islamic Dress Code On Women:

KUALA LUMPUR, January 10 (IslamOnline.net) - The Malaysian city of Kuala Terengganu, in the northern state of Terengganu where the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) is in power, has imposed its own dress code for non-Muslim women working in the private sector, creating havoc in some quarters of the largely Muslim country.

On Saturday, January 10, the PAS defended the Terengganu government’s imposition of a dress code for women workers, saying that provocative dressing by women has “a very close link” to murders, rapes, molest and sexual abuses.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-01/10/article04.shtml

GREAT, MUSLIMS ARE LEARNING GREAT DEAL FROM 'LIBERAL' FRANCE:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=6532

 

[okinrus]

What about the article do you want to discuss?
Is not forcing non-muslim women to wear specific dress-codes anti-islam?

 

[Proud_Muslim]

What about the article do you want to discuss?
Is not forcing non-muslim women to wear specific dress-codes anti-islam?

It is not Islamic to force anyone to do things they dont want to do, but in certain cases like in some Malaysian states where rape and crime are soaring due to 'lose' dress code, forcing dress code becomes necessity.

We are learning from the FRENCH a greal deal about 'forcing' certain dress code.

 

[Repo Man]

Yay, the religious nuts in control of Malaysia are passing a law based on a logical fallacy.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Description:


The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. The argument turns on the temporal ordering of the events: A comes before B, so A causes B. In fact, the temporal ordering of the two events is likely to have been merely coincidental, or the result of some further causal factor.



Examples:

"Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up. That rooster must be very powerful and important!"

"Nearly all heroin addicts used marijuana before they tried heroin. Clearly marijuana use leads to heroin addiction."

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/posthoc.asp

Just one more good reason to stay far away from Malaysia.

 

[Bells]

It is not Islamic to force anyone to do things they dont want to do, but in certain cases like in some Malaysian states where rape and crime are soaring due to 'lose' dress code, forcing dress code becomes necessity.

We are learning from the FRENCH a greal deal about 'forcing' certain dress code.

The reason a man rapes a woman is not because of the way she is dressed. That is just a pathetic reason by man to try to excuse his behaviour. Forcing these women to dress less 'loosely' won't curb the violence against them. A woman, in fact any individual, should be allowed to dress as they please without fear of persecution or violence.

 

[spookz]

but wait! there's more.....

PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub also blamed Jews for pioneering a 'provocative, seductive and branded dressing culture' which pandered to the ego of the dresser.

In a statement, Mr Salahuddin said that Kelantan Umno deputy chairman Zaid Ibrahim's protest over the ruling showed that he was anti-Islam and that Umno was a proxy of the Jews.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4386,229523,00.html

hadda give props to my jewish brethren.

*hey, this freak aint the syrian!

 

[spookz]

a quick point for the moslem tards....if you live in foreign countries, it is ok to abide by the rules of that particular place.

allah understands. allah will not strike you down

Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, the Grand Mufti of the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo and the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, said France had the right to pass a law banning all "conspicuous" religious symbols in state schools and institutions.

But, he added, that obligation only applied "if the woman lives in a Muslim country". He quoted verses from the Koran stipulating that any Muslim who conforms to the laws of a non-Muslim country need not fear divine punishment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...arf31.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=28831

umm, what this?

Earlier this week some 150 Islamic students threw tomatoes at the French embassy in Teheran to cries of "Death to France. Death to Chirac, the Zionist" after the Iranian president called on France to drop the ban.

pathetic. rabble rousing loudmouths! show some respect, punks@!%^#%#@&%$@

 

[candy]

I could suggest that the French learned the dress code thing from certain Islamic fundamentalist groups.

 

[Proud_Muslim]

The reason a man rapes a woman is not because of the way she is dressed. That is just a pathetic reason by man to try to excuse his behaviour. Forcing these women to dress less 'loosely' won't curb the violence against them. A woman, in fact any individual, should be allowed to dress as they please without fear of persecution or violence.

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

women who dress modestly dont generate LUST.

There is NO excuse for rapists whatsoever, but we should not always blame the man for the crime, it is the time for women to KEEP THEIR LEGS CLOSED AS WELL.

 

[Proud_Muslim]

I could suggest that the French learned the dress code thing from certain Islamic fundamentalist groups.

Since we Muslims are SICK AND TIRED hearing the west preaching their nonesense on us, this will be really great suggestion.

 

[spookz]

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

women who dress modestly dont generate LUST.

There is NO excuse for rapists whatsoever, but we should not always blame the man for the crime, it is the time for women to KEEP THEIR LEGS CLOSED AS WELL.

vomit.
perversions of a decent religion by mullahs....... blind obedience by sub humans

The theocracy of the mullahs of Iran, who for 16 years have ruled and issued decrees in the name of Islam and the Islamic Republic, is recognized throughout the world as history's most misogynist regime. For Khomeini and his retinue, gender is the primary distinction. The mullahs' God, like themselves, is a misogynist torturer, constantly calculating human beings' sexual offenses. They view woman as the embodiment of sexual desire, the source of sin, and the manifestation of Satan. She must be kept out of the public view at all times, reserving her for use, under the absolute domination of men, for sexual pleasure and reproduction. In this system of values, a woman is never considered a human being, although as a concession, she has been described on a par with children and the mentally imbalanced. At other times, to discredit her views and testimony, she is classified among thieves and "those who wage war on God."

In his most famous book, Tahrir-ol Vasileh (Instrument of Writing), a collection of his views and fatwas, Khomeini carefully degrades women to a level less than that of slaves, and bordering on that of animals. In the chapter on cleanliness, he declares women najes (filthy), meaning that if men need to wash only once to cleanse themselves, women must do so twice. In his view, the multitudes of women who gather for prayers cannot hold collective prayers unless a man leads them. Although Islam emphasizes praying collectively in the mosque, Khomeini recommends that women pray at home, and even there, it is better that they pray in the closet. Women do not have the right to leave home without the permission of their husbands. Men have to provide for their living expenses, but husbands are not required to pay for their wives' serious illnesses. Denied independent means, the wife must tolerate her condition, and await death.

http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/book_on_women/chapter3.html

 

[Greco]

I think most of us want to keep church and state separate. Theocratic governments tend to be dogmatic,uncompromising,obstinate,despotic and tyranical. Man can be a SOB to his fellow man in the name of religion.

People that chose to live in such countries have no one to blame but themselves for any discomfort.

Now in countries where the people want to keep church and state separate all efforts must be made to prevent the introduction of religious symbols in public property(public schools). It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out why. If my religion called for me to carry a sword in school it would encourage others to do the same or worse. What if I'm a KKK follower,should I be allowed to wear a hood and a cross bearing sheet? Should we allow JW's to pass out leaflets in the hall ways and preach to others that the end is coming? Or muslims interrupting class with their frequent prayers?

Anyone with common since would agree to keep the public areas religiously neutral to avoid confrontation and discrimination.

 

[Raithere]

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

It's not a matter of your personal butt-headed opinion it's a matter of evidence. There is no evidence linking how a woman dresses to sexual assault. Most women are not raped upon some spontaneous lustful urge but by someone they know in a premeditated fashion.

women who dress modestly dont generate LUST.

You are insistent upon proving that you're completely and utterly ignorant, aren't you? Rape isn't about LUST, it's about DOMINATION and HUMILIATION. I suggest you try doing a bit of research into the psychology and facts regarding rape. You clearly know shit about it.

There is NO excuse for rapists whatsoever, but we should not always blame the man for the crime

Rape is utterly and entirely the fault of the rapist. Or should we start blaming rich people for having stuff that can be stolen. If I shoot you in the head and take your wallet and watch it's obviously your fault for showing such things in public, isn't it?

~Raithere

 

[candy]

Xev,
Is it not nice to think that women are so powerful that a little bit of skin renders males incapable of controlling themselves. That would make them the weaker sex since we do not jump on them if we see their pects or what ever. Considering the quality of males seen on beaches women should be requiring them to cover up as neighborhood beautificaton project. Muslim males are the worst.

 

[okinrus]

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

Studies on this? Most rape victims in the US knew the perpetrator before he commited the rape. So it seems that in most cases there is something more pathological going on here.

 

[James R]

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

Do you have any evidence for that? Or just a prejudice?

women who dress modestly dont generate LUST.

Nobody generates lust. People lust after others according to their own whim. If they can't control their actions, that's their fault, not the fault of the person they are lusting after.

You have some really screwy ideas about women. They aren't the source of all evil, you know. Men who seek that source should look at little closer to home.

There is NO excuse for rapists whatsoever, but we should not always blame the man for the crime, it is the time for women to KEEP THEIR LEGS CLOSED AS WELL.

Maybe it's time for men who can't control their sexual urges to have themselves neutered. What do you think?

 

[Cowboy]

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

1. I'm guessing that people who dress provocatively don't get too many "unwanted" looks, but are instead dressing that way because they want people to check them out.
2. I don't know if fashion affects the chances of being raped, but there is no excuse for rape no matter how the victim is dressed.

women who dress modestly dont generate LUST.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And rape seems to be more an act of power than lust.

There is NO excuse for rapists whatsoever, but we should not always blame the man for the crime, it is the time for women to KEEP THEIR LEGS CLOSED AS WELL.

You say there is no excuse for rapists but then make an excuse for rapists. And, since rape is defined as forced (AKA involuntary) sexual intercourse, it's not an issue of women not keeping their legs closed. It's an issue of the woman (or man, in some cases) trying to keep her legs closed, but the other person/people involved not taking "no" for an answer.

 

[Bells]

I disagree, women who dress revealing dress are more likely to face unwanted looks and in some cases sexual assults.

women who dress modestly dont generate LUST.

There is NO excuse for rapists whatsoever, but we should not always blame the man for the crime, it is the time for women to KEEP THEIR LEGS CLOSED AS WELL.

Oh lordy, where to begin.

PM an unwanted look is not the same as a sexual assault. While that unwanted look can be as bad as the woman feeling extremelly uncomfortable and almost naked as the man 'perves' on her, it's not exactly the same as when the guy grabs her and molests her. A woman could be wearing a proverbial tent and still get an unwanted look and can still be sexually assaulted. And a tent wearing woman can also generate lust just as much as a woman who is not wearing a tent.

The issue of sexual assault and women's dress is an excuse given usually by the rapist in the 'she was asking for it' argument. It is not an excuse. The law does not recognise it as one. A woman should feel safe in whatever she chooses to wear. She should be and feel safe just walking around in her underwear. It is no excuse for a man to molest or harrass a woman. However she may be dressed has nothing to do with it. If you are looking at a woman who's wearing a mini skirt and thinking 'hmmmm I could screw her right now' and actually do so without her consent, then it is YOU who has the problem and not the woman for wearing the skirt. Why shouldn't she wear the skirt? Why should she have to change her manner of dress because YOU can't keep it in your pants? That is the whole of this argument. She could walk around naked and you could still not use the she asked for it argument. Why? Because if you rape someone, it is YOU who has the problems and issues. She is just the victim.

And now to your 'keep their legs closed' argument. You surely can't be serious? Having been victim of a sexual attack a couple of years ago, I feel sick at reading your argument. I was only lucky that I was able to fight and get away before a rape actually took place. Did I think it was my fault it happened? NO. Did I think that what I was wearing at the time had anything to do with it? NO. Did I ask for it in any way shape or form? NO. A woman does NOT ask for a sexual assault. A woman does NOT ask for a man to maul her and to molest her. A woman's dress sense has NOTHING to do with the man raping her. The way I was dressed had nothing to do with it and for you to suggest that it could galls me. Actually it just makes me want to vomit. A sexual attack on a woman goes to her most inner self. The feeling of helplessness can never be described. And to hear you try to excuse it as being something that the woman may have asked for because of the way she was dressed and that she should have kept her legs closed is just plain wrong. A man will rape a woman not because of her clothes but because he wants to feel in power and in control, he wants the woman to feel helpless and powerless over her own body. Therefore, a woman could be wearing a burkha and still be raped. Would you accept the man's excuse of 'she asked for it' or 'she should have kept her legs closed' or 'she shouldn't have been dressed that way' if he attacked either your wife or your daughter? Your whole argument has sickened me PM.

 

[spookz]

Would you accept the man's excuse of 'she asked for it' or 'she should have kept her legs closed' or 'she shouldn't have been dressed that way' if he attacked either your wife or your daughter? (bells)

ahh, an innocent
the subhuman's rep and honor is at stake. the wife/daughter is doused with gasoline and lit up.

 

[Bells]

Thank Christ the men in my life aren't sub-human. Or else I would have been set on fire by my dad, uncles, cousins and other half had we been together back then