2nd Reply to Zia

Submitted by ex paratrooper (Australia), Jan 15, 2007 at 22:03

Zia,

First I would like to say that you do seem rather switched on and would seem to really believe what you say. Unfortunately your reply was somewhat confusing in its content and you contradicted yourself on occasion.

The first one was you said "That guy who said that women invite their own rape by the way they dress, is wrong yet makes sense into why he would say that. " Yes he is wrong. however it makes no sense as to why he would say that. Does that mean I would deserve to be robbed just because someone saw that I had money in my wallet?

Secondly, "Women, who were revealing clothes are ovbiously doing it to attract men. And, men who can't control their desires will just consider it as an oppourtunity to fufill them." Not true. Some women like to dress that way because of the freedom it engenders or just due to comfort. You can't tell me that a burqua would be more comfortable on a hot day than a singlet and shorts? Furthermore, if a person cannot control their desires or actions the onus of responsibility lies completely with them. They are responsible for their actions, no one else.

Thirdly, "Anyways, most of the sin would go on the man and partly on the girl, it's hard to explain! " Yes that would be hard to explain. How can the victim of such a heinous act be held in any way responsible? In Australia the blame, indeed crime, is wholly attributable to the perpetrator and is so in every Western Country. It can't be any other way if the legal system is to function properly. It goes back to what I said about individuals being responsible for their own actions.

Lastly, "In Islam, its not even allowed to hit a girl as well as rape her." then you said,"In Islam, hurting women is not allowed unless its for highly good reason." Which one is it? It can't be both. What is a highly good reason?

In Australia it is considered that only cowards hurt women. It's quite common knowledge that women beaters very rarely have the courage to take on another man. They only hit people they know have very little chance of hurting them. Their is NO good reason for ever hitting a woman unless she's armed and attempting to kill you. That's self defence and a very different story.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".