Comply or be fined up to RM500! Applies to women only of course, all (male) patrons of seedy joints can go home and keep up the pretense of a being pious family men. Read The Star report for more.
Can’t say that I don’t agree with the idea of modest dressing inpublic , though in my opinion it’s one’s personal decision not to dress like a stumbling block (albeit a very curvy block).
After all, what if some guys find ankle-length garbs a real turn-on? Their imagination runs wild when they wonder what lurvely vistas are hidden away underneath.
So of course, groups like Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), Wanita MCA and The All-Women’s Action Society (Awam) are protesting. To paraphrase them: “Oh sure, punish the women for men’s lechery… AGAIN!”
Since from pragmatic and practical experience (some call it cynicism), what will probably happen is: Men will go around with their leering gazes on women’s bodies, intent on ‘making sure that they aren’t immodestly dressed’. And then the women get blamed for it.
Don’t think it will happen? Here’s a personal account: Two girls whom I know well visited KB and walked around on foot. They were very decently dressed, all of you who know the girls I’m talking about will agree.
And what happens? Men from all walks of life gaze, stare, LEER as they pass the girls. Even married, middle-aged men driving a car full of wife and children poke their head out and OGLE! Uh-huh, women smear the reputation of Kota Baru all right…
Maybe that’s how non-official morality watchdogs get their kicks – by barging in on private affairs on the pretext on ‘justice and decency.’ It’s like all-boys schools, where the naughtiest boys become the prefects in order to play the system to their advantage.
So do the ends ever justify the means? What if the end is never achieved, how then are the means justified? And the means are definitely NOT justified, when they don’t even address the right problem.
“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch! Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body… But they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence!” - Colossians 2:21,23
UPDATE 25 JUNE 2008: Compare also Kota Bharu Bans Lipstick & High Heels? Jed Yoong Says No!
June 25, 08 at 4:14 am
Would you open your wallet or safe and start showing it off to strangers? I thought not! Muslim women are more precious than gold or money to be shown to strangers. If non-Muslims want to reveal themselves to others, then they should not complain when they get harassed and in worst cases, sexually assaulted.
June 25, 08 at 8:33 am
Agreed with you. A fool who walks about a dark alley gold around his neck is inviting trouble.
However, when a robber breaks into a person’s house to steal – despite the gold being hidden away – then is the victim at fault?
Either way, the robber will be punished.
Same goes for women – they may be making it easier to end up a rape victim by how they dress or where to walk around, but it is still a crime committed by the rapist.
But I take objection with this:
The ‘aurat’ for Muslims is much wider than for non-Muslims. Even women’s hair must be covered.
So does this mean that if a non-Muslim has free hair, she is ‘asking to be raped’ by a Muslim man?
Put it another way: What if there is a religion where even a woman being in public is considered ‘provocative’? Then when a Muslim woman dressed in black burqa and face-mask is raped, was she inviting rape upon herself?
Always put yourself in the other’s shoes and see it from their point of view.
June 25, 08 at 12:57 pm
So does this mean that if a non-Muslim has free hair, she is ‘asking to be raped’ by a Muslim man?
That is what Zaki means. That poor policeman who got arrested for raping a 17 year old girl should get Zaki to represent him.
June 25, 08 at 1:01 pm
Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, which aired on LBC TV on June 19, 2008:
The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took ‘Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.
Interviewer: When she was six…
Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi: He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model.
Interviewer: My question to you is whether the marriage of a 12-year-old boy with an 11-year-old girl is a logical marriage, which is permitted by Islamic law.
Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi: If the guardian is the father… There are two different types of guardianship. If the guardian is the father, and he marries his daughter off to a man of appropriate standing, the marriage is obviously valid.
[...]
People find themselves in all kinds of circumstances. Take, for example, a man who has two, three, or four daughters. He does not have any wives, but he needs to go on a trip. Isn’t it better to marry his daughter to a man, who will protect and sustain her, and when she reaches the proper age, he will have sex with her? Who says all men are ferocious wolves?
June 25, 08 at 1:02 pm
And having sex with a 9-year old girl is ‘normal?’ You’ve got to be kidding.