Promiscuous women cause earthquakes...

homer911

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8631775.stm

Do you agree with this or do you think this discredits the Islamic faith? (Christian poster)

hivizman

Didn't Christian evangelist preachers claim that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the promiscuity of the population of New Orleans?

Although this sort of argument is an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy (because A comes before B, A is assumed fallaciously to be the cause of , both the Bible and the Qu'ran refer to cities and nations that were destroyed by God because of the behaviour of their inhabitants. For example, in the Qu'ran, Surat Al-Qamar (Surah 54) includes a version of the story of Noah's flood ("And so We caused the gates of heaven to open with water pouring down in torrents, and caused the earth to burst forth with springs, so that the waters met for a purpose pre-ordained" - ayat 10-11). The Surah also includes the destruction of the people of 'Ad: "Behold, We let loose upon them a raging stormwind on a day of bitter misfortune: it swept the people away as though they were palm-trunks uprooted: for, how severe is the suffering which I inflict when My warnings are disregarded!" (ayat 20-22), the destruction of the people of Thamud, and the destruction of the people of Lut (the inhabitants of Sodom).

So while the Iranian cleric quoted in the article about the cause of earthquakes has no warrant for claiming that recent earthquakes in Iran are God's punishment for promiscuous women (anyway, unless there has been a sudden outbreak of Lesbianism in Iran, what about the promiscuous men?), the notion that sinful deeds may be punished in this life, not just in the hereafter, is, I understand, a common Muslim belief.

oncevotedff

hivizman wrote: »

Didn't Christian evangelist preachers claim that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the promiscuity of the population of New Orleans?

And homsexuality is the cause of paedophilia. Apparently all religions are equally nutty.

homer911

Good responses - all sorts of faiths get a bad rap due to a few nuts! ..and the media loves to make a big story out of it!

irishconvert

Bear in mind that this report comes from the BBC who are the British Government's propaganda machine and have a clear agenda to topple the Iranian government. I wouldn't rely on their intrepretation of what Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi actually said.

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Bear in mind that this report comes from the BBC who are the British Government's propaganda machine and have a clear agenda to topple the Iranian government. I wouldn't rely on their intrepretation of what Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi actually said.

Sediqi is part of the Iranian government?

wes

Yeah, it was a silly thing to say, and this kind of things comes from the ME from time to time.

Also, I don't think it propoganda from the BBC, considering they covered a similar story from Israel:

Israeli MP blames quakes on gays

hivizman

And US political commentator Rush Limbaugh has apparently blamed the Icelandic volcano on the recent US health care reforms:

limbaugh-volcano-is-gods-response-to-health-care-reform

KamiKazi

A religious figure publicly saying something retarded??!

Shock! Horror!

irishconvert

KamiKazi wrote: »

A religious figure publicly saying something retarded??!

Shock! Horror!

If you don't have anything constructive to add then don't bother posting here

KamiKazi

irishconvert wrote: »

If you don't have anything constructive to add then don't bother posting here

I added my opinion that what he said was retarded.

The Recliner

KamiKazi wrote: »

I added my opinion that what he said was retarded.

Banned for arguing with Moderation on thread

hivizman

Getting back to the topic, the news article quoted contains a classic case of double standards on the part of the Iranian preacher: "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes." So it's all the fault of women!

The preacher went on to describe the violence following last year's disputed presidential election in Iran - the result of which prompted thousands of people to hold mass protests - as a "political earthquake". If earthquakes are sent by God as signs of God's displeasure, with whom is God displeased when we have a "political" earthquake?

In any event, how does a claim that events in the natural world have in some sense been caused by God as a reaction to displeasing human behaviour fit in with the fundamental Muslim belief in qadar or destiny?

Freiheit

I feel sorry for the women of Iran...and the Islamic concept of women in general saddens me...where it's the obligation of the woman not to stimulate sexual desires in men...why should it not be the obligation of men to control their lustful desires?.....I don't see men in hijab....should it not be an equal obligation of them to cover up and not stimulate lust in women?...Hijab should be for all or not at all.... This is not intended to offend Islam,it's merely something which I cannot help question. I respect Islam and bear no ill towards Islam or Muslims.

hivizman

I've posted this verse before, but it needs to be repeated that the Qu'ran is very clear that men are responsible for controlling their desires. Surat an-Nur (24:30 - Yusuf Ali version): "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." In theory, it shouldn't matter how women dress, because men shouldn't be looking at them in the first place (unless they are married or closely related).

irishconvert

Freiheit wrote: »

the Islamic concept of women in general saddens me...where it's the obligation of the woman not to stimulate sexual desires in men...why should it not be the obligation of men to control their lustful desires?

There is an obligation on man. We are told in the Qur'an to lower our gaze when we see women.

Freiheit wrote: »

.....I don't see men in hijab....should it not be an equal obligation of them to cover up and not stimulate lust in women?

There is. We are supposed to wear non-revealing clothing and we have to have a bushy beard. Doesn't really stimulate lust in women I'm sure you agree

Freiheit wrote: »

...Hijab should be for all or not at all....

Women have beautiful hair, I don't think the same can be said for men. How many women do you know who will tell you thel fell in love with a man bacause of his hair?

Freiheit wrote: »

This is not intended to offend Islam,it's merely something which I cannot help question. I respect Islam and bear no ill towards Islam or Muslims.

I think you should do a little more research on the rules of modesty in Islam and the reasons behind them before you come to your conclusions.

Freiheit

I don't believe that a woman could not be sexually attracted to a man's uncovered hair....there is a huge disparity in the presentation of Islamic men and women.....

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Women have beautiful hair, I don't think the same can be said for men. How many women do you know who will tell you thel fell in love with a man bacause of his hair?

I'm not sure I would go as far as fell in love with, but I'm sure you will agree women often find a man's hair and facial hair sexually arousing.

I'm not quite sure how Islam deals with this? Are you told to keep your hair in a particularly unflattering fashion?

If so, what do you do when you are actual around your wife? The woman, if I understand, can remove her head dress for her husband, because it is ok to be beautiful and appealing to your husband.

If Islamic men are told to ensure their face and hair is unappealing to women, so as not to arose their desires, what do they do around their wives?

old hippy

irishconvert wrote: »

Bear in mind that this report comes from the BBC who are the British Government's propaganda machine and have a clear agenda to topple the Iranian government. I wouldn't rely on their intrepretation of what Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi actually said.

LOL, the beeb are most def not the British Government's propaganda machine.

Let's see this clear agenda to topple the Iranian Govt, then.

Freiheit

Sounds like men governing the lives of women, men making judgments about how women feel....without having experienced being women themselves....so how can they know? if they have never lived in a female body? Is there any scientific studies to support this theory? Is there any women here who can explain whether a mans hair or beard are sexually stimulating?

irishconvert

Freiheit wrote: »

Sounds like men governing the lives of women, men making judgments about how women feel....without having experienced being women themselves....so how can they know? if they have never lived in a female body? Is there any scientific studies to support this theory? Is there any women here who can explain whether a mans hair or beard are sexually stimulating?

Until a sister answers I did a quick google and found this link
http://www.artofseductions.com/top-100-things-that-attract-women-to-men/

Hair comes in 40th place. A beard is not even on the list of 100 items so it is safe to assume a beard has a negative affect on attraction.

Freiheit

That's actually an interesting link...thanks irish convert!:)

donaghs

Can the pro-clerical posters or fellow-travellers just come clean, and tell the rest of us if women's imodest behaviour and appearance could in fact have any affect on seismic activity? Or that we can't rule out the possibility?

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Bear in mind that this report comes from the BBC who are the British Government's propaganda machine and have a clear agenda to topple the Iranian government. I wouldn't rely on their intrepretation of what Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi actually said.

Well, the original source is Iran’s Student News Agency ISNA:

http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2010/apr/17/1693

http://isna.ir/ISNA/Default.aspx?Lang=E

According to Wikipedia, this site itself is part-funded by the Iranian government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Students_News_Agency

The conclusion is clear: the Iranian government has been taken over by the BBC and is briefing against itself.

P.

Tom Dunne

I think it's the same old story - selectively pick a "wacky" quote from some loon in a far off country while ignoring whackjobs on this side of the world.

Limbaugh is regularly parodied on The Daly Show (on E4) for the things he says. That show is worth tuning in for to see equally out there comments from ill-informed Fox News commentators.

oceanclub

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think it's the same old story - selectively pick a "wacky" quote from some loon in a far off country while ignoring whackjobs on this side of the world.

Yes, indeed; BBC News never mentions the Catholic hierarchy, for example:

http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?q=vatican&tab=ns&order=date&scope=all

P.

Freiheit

Iran is a parody...a land where homosexuals are forced to have sex changes or face execution..doesn't surprise me that such people reign there...I feel sorry for the women though.

The Chessplayer

homer911 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8631775.stm

Do you agree with this or do you think this discredits the Islamic faith? (Christian poster)

I think this hypothesis is entirely plausible.

The Recliner

Ok I have edited and deleted some posts

Can we stay on topic, the discussion of the realness or otherwise of Tom Dunne is not for here

ChocolateSauce

This particular statement doesn't discredit Islam, it merely discredits the guy who said it. Science have proven than earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates, not by immorality. That anyone even needs to say this......well, I lol'd when I read the story, and not in a nice way.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This particular statement doesn't discredit Islam, it merely discredits the guy who said it.

Look, the Sheikh was trying to make a point, but I think he made it in the wrong way. There are lots of stories in the Qur'an (and Bible) of Allah destroying people because they were doing evil. The Sheikh was making the point that sins committed by humans could be the cause of so many natural disasters nowadays.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Science have proven than earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates, not by immorality

The Sheikh's point is Allah caused the earthquake to happen, it doesn't matter about the dynamics behind how it actually happened.

We don't know if Allah is causing these natural disasters in response to what humans are doing. But Allah created this world and everything in it, so he is more than capable of making an earthquake happen.

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

Look, the Sheikh was trying to make a point, but I think he made it in the wrong way. There are lots of stories in the Qur'an (and Bible) of Allah destroying people because they were doing evil. The Sheikh was making the point that sins committed by humans could be the cause of so many natural disasters nowadays.


The Sheikh's point is Allah caused the earthquake to happen, it doesn't matter about the dynamics behind how it actually happened.

We don't know if Allah is causing these natural disasters in response to what humans are doing. But Allah created this world and everything in it, so he is more than capable of making an earthquake happen.

If god cared about the evil men do, why didn't he send a natural disaster to stop Hitler? Why does he make earthquakes in areas where humans don't live? To keep us guessing?

A more likely explanation is that this Sheikh is trying to capitalise on the fact that some people believe that god punishes people in this life with natural disasters, to try and make them behave in a manner he approves of.

Freiheit

Why does Allah not target bad people on an individual basis rather than punish vast numbers of innocent people as well as the sinners?, as has happened during biblical punishments too.

oceanclub

The cleric's words have led to an interesting scientific experiment being proposed:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=116336578385346

I have a modest proposal.

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically. You all remember the homeopathy overdose?

Time for a Boobqauke.

On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that's your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I'm sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn't rumble. And if we really get through to him, maybe it'll be one involving plate tectonics

P.

Splendour

irishconvert wrote: »

There is. We are supposed to wear non-revealing clothing and we have to have a bushy beard. Doesn't really stimulate lust in women I'm sure you agree

Well, do you?

Splendour

Freiheit wrote: »

Is there any women here who can explain whether a mans hair or beard are sexually stimulating?

I'm female and find beards on some guys extremely appealing...

irishconvert

Splendour wrote: »

Well, do you?

I don't have a beard.

donaghs

I people believe this nonsense, they'll take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, and punish women of "guilty" appearances for causing all this death and destruction.

Splendour

irishconvert wrote: »

I don't have a beard.

Why not? You said you are 'supposed to wear a bushy beard and non revealing clothing'. Why don't you do this? Is this written in the Koran that a man should do this?

g5fd6ow0hseima

The Holy Quran. Sura Nur , Chapter: The Light". Verse 31

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful

I struggle to see how this could possibly be viewed upon as relevant in the 21st century. The world changes quite substantially in years, never mind centuries.

I would like to hear the thoughts of devout muslims on the importance of such verse in today's world, given all the advances over recent decades and centuries in the area of women's liberation etc...

Freiheit

Brenda Power wrote a good article in todays Sunday Times, stating that it's not Hunky Dorys and Breasts that oppress women, it's the concept that femininity is something which should be hidden, that is oppression and the verse quoted mandates this. Totally anachronistic.

irishconvert

Willow Rough Windbreak wrote: »

The Holy Quran. Sura Nur , Chapter: The Light". Verse 31

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful

I struggle to see how this could possibly be viewed upon as relevant in the 21st century.

Of course it's relevant. Are you telling me you would be happy for your mother/sister/daughter to walk down the street exposing their private parts? Why do people think that women taking their clothes off = equality? I view it as the opposite, in this era women seem to have to take off their clothes to achieve anything men do. Look at hollywood if you need any evidence of this. The most famous actresses have to take off their clothes in movies.

Willow Rough Windbreak wrote: »

I would like to hear the thoughts of devout muslims on the importance of such verse in today's world, given all the advances over recent decades and centuries in the area of women's liberation etc...

THey are as relevant now as when they were first revealed. Answer me this, would you be happy with your mother, wife or sister appearing on the cover of playboy?

irishconvert

Freiheit wrote: »

Brenda Power wrote a good article in todays Sunday Times, stating that it's not Hunky Dorys and Breasts that oppress women, it's the concept that femininity is something which should be hidden, that is oppression and the verse quoted mandates this. Totally anachronistic.

Is women taking clothes off = equality for women? If so, why do men not have to do the same then?

hivizman

Freiheit wrote: »

Brenda Power wrote a good article in todays Sunday Times, stating that it's not Hunky Dorys and Breasts that oppress women, it's the concept that femininity is something which should be hidden, that is oppression and the verse quoted mandates this. Totally anachronistic.

Here's a link to Brenda Power's article.

I think that the core to her argument is this: "Women’s rights activists might protest that it was a toss-up, since neither the model nor the Muslim woman embodies any great feminist ideal. But that’s not true; one of them does. It’s called liberty. It is the freedom to wear what you like, to dress as you want without seeking permission, to make a holy show of yourself, to annoy people who think you should cover up. If the church or the law can’t tell us how to dress any more, why should feminism?"

Brenda Power, earlier in the article, draws the inference that the woman in the face veil is dressed in this way because she is being forced to do so by her husband. However, she is just making an assumption here, and such an assumption is open to question. If the woman in the face veil has chosen to dress this way outside the home because she believes that such clothing is pleasing to Allah, then surely she should be as free to dress in this way as the models in the Hunky Dorys advertisements are to "make a holy show" of themselves.

irishconvert

hivizman wrote: »

Here's a link to Brenda Power's article.

Just read the article. She talks about the burqa clad women and makes assumptions about why she is wearing it. But why in God's name didn't she talk to the woman and ask her? Why does nobody ever ask the woman wearing the burqa why she is wearing it?

g5fd6ow0hseima

irishconvert wrote: »

Of course it's relevant. Are you telling me you would be happy for your mother/sister/daughter to walk down the street exposing their private parts? Why do people think that women taking their clothes off = equality? I view it as the opposite, in this era women seem to have to take off their clothes to achieve anything men do. Look at hollywood if you need any evidence of this. The most famous actresses have to take off their clothes in movies.

Yeah, but going by what your interpretation of the verse in question, this isnt something particular to islam whatsoever, in fact, it's universal. There are not many people on this earth who would wish for everybody to be naked in daily life. In fact, I would expect every police force in the world to reprimand me for walking down the street in the nude - even the most liberal societies on this earth do not condone this pointless, attention seeking behaviour. Please give me an example of where gross indecency is not a crime.

Please correct me on this, but you seem to equate gross indecency with lack of clothing.

And stemming from this, do you feel that this verse in any way relates to the contemporary practise of islamic women wearing veils? Perhaps you could find the correct verse for me.

Now, Can you answer me this: where in the world do women openly flaunt their nakedness? The first thing that will come to your mind is that of pornography. Now, pornography is not something which is pushed in our faces. I see nothing wrong with pronography in the sense that I am not exposed to it, however, if I wanted to access it, I could. But then again, a love scene in a film bay be seen as pornography in your eyes - but not in my eyes. Those scenes are usually quiet fitting - given that we're humans and all

irishconvert wrote: »

They are as relevant now as when they were first revealed. Answer me this, would you be happy with your mother, wife or sister appearing on the cover of playboy?

Norms arrise, develop and evolve over time. I fail to see how social norms from the 6th century can still hold relevant in today's world without a harsly repressive society upholding them for the sake of 'tradition'.

My mother appearing on playboy? Well, she is a bit old for that. If I had a wife, I would feel very inadequate to be honest. It would demonstrate to me that I am unable to fulfill her desires - possibly proof that im not the 'one' for her and the relationship would most likely crumble. However, to hold the opinion that a women can not show her naked body as a result of her own clearly thought, conscious decision is the essence of intolerant.

I must say that I do see nakedness as quite tastless at times (FHM magazines etc), but a world where a women could not dress according to her own desires, such as wearing a bikini on a warm summers day, is not one in which I would want to live. Plain and simple.

For those who believe women should 'totally cover up', there's nothing I can say. My mind is baffled as to how people can think like that.

Splendour

irishconvert wrote: »

Is women taking clothes off = equality for women? If so, why do men not have to do the same then?

I agree with that women being free to take their clothes off does not equate to equality for women. IMO, it actually shows women as second class citizens as, have you've pointed out, men, in general, are not expected to take their clothes off. How many Page 3 Male pinups are there? Would there be a national outrage if men appeared in tabloids showing all their bits n bobs :rolleyes:? You can bet your bottom dollar there would be!

Equally, if as you say Irishconvert, you're supposed to wear a bushy beard and loose clothing and you don't, this then too is unfair and hypocritical don't you think?

Splendour

hivizman wrote: »

If the woman in the face veil has chosen to dress this way outside the home because she believes that such clothing is pleasing to Allah, then surely she should be as free to dress in this way as the models in the Hunky Dorys advertisements are to "make a holy show" of themselves.

What makes a woman think that wearing a veil is pleasing to Allah?

Piste

irishconvert wrote: »

Until a sister answers I did a quick google and found this link
http://www.artofseductions.com/top-100-things-that-attract-women-to-men/

Hair comes in 40th place. A beard is not even on the list of 100 items so it is safe to assume a beard has a negative affect on attraction.

Does it say in the Koran that you have to wear a bushy beard?

Willow Rough Windbreak wrote: »

Yeah, but going by what your interpretation of the verse in question, this isnt something particular to islam whatsoever, in fact, it's universal. There are not many people on this earth who would wish for everybody to be naked in daily life. In fact, I would expect every police force in the world to reprimand me for walking down the street in the nude - even the most liberal societies on this earth do not condone this pointless, attention seeking behaviour. Please give me an example of where gross indecency is not a crime.

Please correct me on this, but you seem to equate gross indecency with lack of clothing.

And stemming from this, do you feel that this verse in any way relates to the contemporary practise of islamic women wearing veils? Perhaps you could find the correct verse for me.

Now, Can you answer me this: where in the world do women openly flaunt their nakedness? The first thing that will come to your mind is that of pornography. Now, pornography is not something which is pushed in our faces. I see nothing wrong with pronography in the sense that I am not exposed to it, however, if I wanted to access it, I could. But then again, a love scene in a film bay be seen as pornography in your eyes - but not in my eyes. Those scenes are usually quiet fitting - given that we're humans and all



Norms arrise, develop and evolve over time. I fail to see how social norms from the 6th century can still hold relevant in today's world without a harsly repressive society upholding them for the sake of 'tradition'.

My mother appearing on playboy? Well, she is a bit old for that. If I had a wife, I would feel very inadequate to be honest. It would demonstrate to me that I am unable to fulfill her desires - possibly proof that im not the 'one' for her and the relationship would most likely crumble. However, to hold the opinion that a women can not show her naked body as a result of her own clearly thought, conscious decision is the essence of intolerant.

I must say that I do see nakedness as quite tastless at times (FHM magazines etc), but a world where a women could not dress according to her own desires, such as wearing a bikini on a warm summers day, is not one in which I would want to live. Plain and simple.

For those who believe women should 'totally cover up', there's nothing I can say. My mind is baffled as to how people can think like that.

I'd say most Muslim women want to wear the Hijab. In Ireland certainly they have a choice (well I'm sure there are some who'd be ostrasised by their community) whether to wear it or not and are perfectly happy to. Any Muslim girls I know seem happy enough to wear it. Sometimes I envy them- no bad hair days.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Piste wrote: »

I'd say most Muslim women want to wear the Hijab. In Ireland certainly they have a choice (well I'm sure there are some who'd be ostrasised by their community) whether to wear it or not and are perfectly happy to. Any Muslim girls I know seem happy enough to wear it. Sometimes I envy them- no bad hair days.

You're missing the whole point. The discussion is not abour coercion or free choice.

Piste

You were the one making the point about free choice.