I don't think I'll ever understand how a person, any person, think like this, assuming there was thinking involved.
I will never understand what can make a person become like that either.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Here I will post random thoughts of mine, for no reason whatsoever except that I can
17 comments:
Yet another terrorist...
who would've thunk!!!
yes there is a lot who thinks in the same way ... u don't live in egypt dear ...
antouk
Lelasaf ya Chris, a few "thousand" muslims (if we asy that fanatics are in the thousands) end up harming the image of "1.4 Billion" muslims :(
Fadfadation, it's worse than that. This is not just another fanatic/extremist/fucked up person.
It's a high profile persona who's supposedly in an authoritative position. That's a lot worse.
Not that I endorse or condone girls being rapped for whatever reason or for whatever they are wearing, because it is totally unacceptable, but the shiekh was simply making a totally valid statement that the provocative clothes wear sometimes does encourage ill-mannered guys to do ill-mannered things. This is a society fact, if you dont like it go blame or teach the ill-mannered guys, dont blame the shiekh for stating the obvious fact!!!!
So the obvious fact is that girls are like "el la7m el makshoof" and guys are like "the cats" and you can't blame the cats for eating el la7m el makshoof?
The obvious fact is that "9/11 is God's punishment to the unjust"?
The obvious fact is that the judge who sentences 60 years for rape "has no mercy"?
Please tell me these are not "obvious facts" to you.
No the obivous fact is that girls who dress in a provocative manner "are" like "elLa7m el makshoof" for the perverted guys who "are" like cats in some societies. Got it? I dont think two would disagree on this statement.
About his 9/11 comment, it also "could" be God's punishment to the unjust or some wacky guys who drove a plane in the WTC. May be the shiekh should have put a "could be" in his statment or reword it.
About the 60 yrs punishment for rape, its really subjective and bound to the society laws. Who decides what is merciless or mercifull? Is 60 yrs enough? Why not 100 or 120? Why not 20 or 30 or 40? Why not death sentence? Who decides? The shiekh decided 60 is merciless, its his personal opinion, I would go for 30 (like that makes a difference!!!!)
Point is, before calling somebody a terrorist, fanatical person some thinking about his statement and its context is due.
Wrong again, go see his statement.
"اذا وضعت لحما مكشوفا في مكان ثم جاءت القطط وأكلته، فخطأ من يكون هذا ؟ القطط أم اللحم المكشوف ؟ إن اللحم المكشوف هو المشكلة"
The statement explicity mentions that it's not the "cat's" mistake but rather that of the "meat", it doesn't stop at making a metaphor like you say.
That means the sheikh is excusing what you just described as the "perverted" guys. I believe and hope any sensible person will disagree with this statement.
For your 2nd argument, without delving into the correctness of the "could be" type statement (9/11 could be aliens sending their associate to take over humans, right? I said could be), the fact remains that he didn't say that. If you need rewording to make a statement "acceptable/correct" that means it wasn't acceptable or to begin with. Incorrect statements are not obvious facts.
As for the 3rd argument, if you're really suggesting that the sheikh meant 59 years is what it should be instead of 60 then I would be as bold as to say that this is not what he meant. Who's to decide, now that it's my speculation against yours? Again, qualifying a statement beyond ambiguity is necessary to make it "an obvious fact". Besides, the sheikh described the judge as merciless while the judge is applying the book of the law. If he's challenging the legislation then it's really not the judge's fault. The description of the judge is still blatantly false not an "obvious fact".
anti-blogger:
Not because the statement came from a sheikh that means it *HAS* to be correct, you have to be objective, and evaluate what the shiekh or any religion leader say, and judge it with *your* mind, unbiased, do not just follow blindly and try to come up with excuses like "may be he should have reword it" or claiming that he is stating "obvious" facts, just because the words came from a shiekh's mouth..
One of the major reasons we have terrorists in the world is because muslims with good intentions are following some twisted-mind leaders blindly, shutting down the voice of reasoning and logic inside their heads..
If you are really convinced in your heart with what the shiekh is saying then there is no point of having this argument in the first place, but if you are defending because you felt jealous for your religion seeing a shiekh criticized, then I'm sorry my friend but you will have to revise your thoughts and accept the "obvious fact" that not all Muslim/Christian/Jew leaders are correct in whatever they say.
Its me again :)
About the cats and meat, I was trying to explain the usage of the metaphor not the blame part. Now that you are ok with the metaphor and only the blame part is bothering you, let me try to explain or interpret the blame part too, may be you will also accept it this time. Now in an ideal world, yes cats are the first and only ones to blame for sexual harassment. But Alas!!! we are not in an ideal world. If a girl wears a bikini and walks in tahreer square in an ideal world no one should touch her. But in a non ideal world wouldn't you give her at least a little hint of blame if somebody did?:) Please try to be objective and realistic, instead of chanting idealistic slogans. I was very astonished when I saw your previous post about the sexual maniacs in the Egyptian public street and your call for action to girls to "be careful", why should the girls be careful, is it their fault? Who will your blame go to, wouldn't it be to the same ones you asked to take action? I think you are basically saying what the sheikh said, just in more politically correct terms. I hope you now see how this is an obvious statement.
About 9/11, I didn't say that's an obvious fact, you did!!!:) And even if the statement is false, which it could be not, still doesn't make him a terrorist/extremist/fucked up person as you called him.
About the merciless judge, yes of course judges come in all types, the lenient, the strict, the short tempered, the merciful and the merciless. All of this doesn't matter as long as they all JUST. And yes verdicts are bound to the law as well as the judge's discretion which should be in alignment with the law. With that law and justice 101 course out of the way, I think the sheikh is entitled to his own opinion about the judge. And yes not an obvious fact as YOU called it :)
Sorry if that was too long, just trying to cover your points. You are welcome to kick me out of your blog anytime:)
I never kick people out of my blog, everybody is more than welcome to voice their opinions, even if they're different than mine.
Now, first of all, I didn't call him anything, but now that you mention it, yes, I think he's a fucked up person.
For the cat thing, I am NOT ok with the metaphor, I was just pointing out flaws in your argument where you said he stopped at drawing a metaphor. I illustrated that not only did he draw a metaphor but also placed blame.
Comparing males to cats and females to meat is dehumanizing, rude, and plain stupid. I take it that you don't go licking your milk off a bowl or eat whatever you find in the trash.
I probably have misunderstood your initial statement about the sheikh's quotes and over generalized it. Now that you say you never said his other statements were obvious facts this is a moot point. We don't need to continue debating the other 2 points. You never said they were obvious facts, I don't think they're obvious facts, I think he's fucked up to have said them.
Entitlement to one's own opinion doesn't give you a carte blanche to twist facts and unjustifiably call people names. Does my entitlement to my own opinion guarantee me the right to walk up to someone on the street and call him a stupid son of a *****?
Chris,
Talking about "It's a high profile persona who's supposedly in an authoritative position. That's a lot worse." was felt by muslims too from what the pope said. So, i do understand your point about that one.
As for the part you mentioned:"The statement explicity mentions that it's not the "cat's" mistake but rather that of the "meat"...
i think it is wrong tab3an. It is the CAT, becuase i for instance see a lot of meat (if i may call it that) all over town... yet i never attack a single one.
At the same time there is a known fact that if you (a cat)are HUNGRY you'll start looking at meat and want to eat it. So if you're a crazy cat...you'll grab what is not yours.
GOD THAT SOUNDS AWFUL! lol
Anti-Blogger,
You have a point about...
"About the 60 yrs punishment for rape, its really subjective and bound to the society laws. Who decides what is merciless or mercifull? Is 60 yrs enough? Why not 100 or 120? Why not 20 or 30 or 40? Why not death sentence? Who decides? The shiekh decided 60 is merciless, its his personal opinion"
to tell you the truth, i think rape punishments should be extremely harsh on the rapist.
Marco,
I don't think anti-blogger is being non-objective. I think he's just looking at it from a differnt angle that's all.
Although i think he (the sheikh) as a high profile persona (as chris called him) should be very careful what he says.
To me (as i said before) it's the cat!
Oh come on Chris, he's not that influential, You're making it sound as if he's the pope :) ! No one ever knew this guy before this incident and I bet those 500 he preached to did no and are not going to change anything they do in their life after they listened to his speech.
Also, I think its an exaggeration that you say he's another fucked up/terrorist..I don’t agree with what he said but at the same time I don't see terrorism in what he said, he's not willing to kill any one or is he?
It's clear that his mistake is an inappropriate comparison, not terrorism. A lot will agree with his main idea which is, covering up is better, but he screwed up on the comparison.
Plus, this guy has apologized - just like the pop did- so I am wondering what’s the fuss about.
Comparison to any other action taken by anyone else is totally irrelevant.
Imagine somebody saying "come on, cut the bank robber some slack, it's not like he's a serial killer". Not that I'm drawing a metaphor, just illustrating what I mean by example.
And again, I never said terrorist. I don't think you or I could come up with a definition for terrorism in the first place so it's hard to describe a person as a terrorist. And although I never said fucked up, I agreed with Anti-blogger when he said it (claiming I did say it, which I hadn't at the time).
He's not promoting killing anyone, he's promoting raping anyone. Well, just the girls who are not veiled maybe at the moment, but what happens if all girls are veiled? The hungry cats has got to eat, don't they? They can be excused for raping veiled girls as well.
And it's not like he's speaking about a mathematical postulate where "a lot will agree with his idea". What exactly is covering up? How many people do you mean by a lot? Statistically speaking there are more non muslim people in the world than muslims. In Australia where he's preaching there is definitely more non muslims than muslims. I would argue that not a lot of people agree with his idea, and if you don't believe me go talk a walk in Seattle right now and let me know how many veiled girls you see.
This is not a way to promote a religious idea. Asking girls to cover up is something and threatening them with being raped is another.
My sisters are not veiled, they are not muslims. And if anyone offended any of them on the streets because of the fact, nobody will be able to hold me back from the moron. If anybody told me he's excusing the moron because it's my sister's fault I will give him a piece of my mind too.
"He's promoting raping anyone" !! That's an exaggeration itself. Not even the Australians understood so!! I think you're taking what he said to the extreme end, I find it too far for any religious figure – not just a muslim one- to call for raping any women. It’s a contradiction.
I am also sure that it is unlikely that anyone in his audience got the idea that they should harass unveiled non muslim women! This is also another exaggeration.
It’s like you're deriving a literal mathematical induction of his words & taking them out of context. If you consider the latest comments the ex British foreign minister said about the veil, you might realize why that guy was talking about the veil anyway.
Now when I said covering up, its not necessarily wearing a veil, its simply wearing more clothes than less. I think this is a simple concept and I am sure a lot of fathers at least are gonna agree on this irrespective of their religion. And guess what, especially in the US & believe me its so obvious if you compare to Europe. So I don’t see a reason to take what I said to the extent of analyzing it statistically and asking women in Seattle about the veil.
Finally, no need to complicate things & even go as far as comparing how many muslims and non muslims there are, simply that guy got an idea that a veil is better for women. That is his opinion he's entitled to and you cannot blame him on that as much no one should blame another woman that she’s not wearing a veil coz that’s her faith or belief or what ever. However, he explained his idea in a terrible way and that's what he should be blamed on. And again, that's what he apologized about.
Chris, you said that you're not convinced with the metaphor, OK, let me ask you a very simple question, if you're an ill-minded person, who's going to rape anyone right now, and you meet two women in your way, one of them is wearing clothes all over her body which is covering everything and the other one is wearing bikini, would you go for the first one?!!
I think not, because simply:
1- She may be very ugly.
2- She may be even a man inside women clothes who would kick your ass.
3- She may be burnt or something like that.
4- She may be very fat or very thin or even neither a female nor a male (she-male).
Why could you go in all these while the other one is clear for you, you see her face, her body and now you have all the info you need to go and rape her.
Answer this question and we'd be finished with the metaphor problem.
I think not, because simply:
1- She may be very ugly.
2- She may be even a man inside women clothes who would kick your ass.
3- She may be burnt or something like that.
4- She may be very fat or very thin or even not a female nor a male (she-male).
Why could you go in all these while the other one is clear for you, you see her face, her body and now you have all the info you need to go and rape her.
Answer this question and we'd be finished with the metaphor problem.
To Mohamed Meshref,
lol...
"2- She may be even a man inside women clothes who would kick your ass."
Made me really laugh.
Good one :)
Post a Comment