There is a rule in ethics … an act out of malice is worse than an act not out of malice. The man was clearly wearing something he usually wears … the T-shirt was not meant to offend a specific person and probably did not intend to offend womankind although does objectify women - making it inherently wrong but compared to what the woman did to the man and singling him out and getting him to make an apology for something he probably does out of mindlessness is a tad unfair … She should have approached him directly and complained rather than declaring her thoughts out to the world.
The reason why they are not arguing against him is because he was clearly wrong footed … He was doing something that was deemed acceptable in society - although we can see that not everything acceptable in society is necessarily the right thing … on the flip side the person who called him out on that basis didn’t think about his personal life or feelings or intent in this matter. And as a result any person naturally would incline to feel sorta sorry for him and they may not know why … It is because our deepest parts of our hearts knows justice and when we see things like this we can see that the man got given a punch in return for his poke … and that is not justice.
As a woman (esp as one in science) I fail to see how this shirt was demeaning to women. It depicts women in various states of undress … yes. In my part of the world … women wear such clothing (bikinis, crop tops, tank tops, handkerchief tops, mini skirts, short shorts, spandex leggings with short top) openly and expect no judgment for it … its considered empowerment. So whats wrong in drawing a woman as she is (curvacious) or as she is sometimes dressed (scantily). Art imitates reality.
the depiction is cartoonist and as is customary in the world of cartooning … body parts/facial features are exaggerated be it man or woman… shrug
if the offense is at sexualized depiction of women … then i’d like to point out …
woman are sexual beings (I hope that not a surprise!) just like men. I would find it demeaning if that fact was being suppressed. it becomes hypocritical if a woman says … “I have big breasts. its my body …given to me by god … im proud of it and not ashamed to show it” …and we all cheer and say … yay for empowerment. comes along a man … who says … “you have big breasts, it is as god made them. you are not ashamed of them. you show them and I see them” … we all get up on our highest pulpit and boo the man or being a misogynist! what hypocrisy!
vast majority of women have been depicted in some sort of state of undress since the beginning of time … remember the naked voluptuous fertility goddesses? … female/female figures have been worshiped, admired, desired through out time … when did worship, admiration, desire become demeaning? …
women go to great length to make themselves look like the cartoon figures they are taking offense at. lets see … many many women wear special bras or stuff socks or undergo surgery for bigger breasts. you may/maynot know this but there are butt implants for rounder behinds … liposuction for smaller waists … cheek implants for higher cheeks, various cosmetic/chemical ways to make lips fuller … list goes on n on n on … so whats the problem? women want to look like that … great. its their choice. and if they look like that … their photographs/paintings/cartoons are going to capture that and gasp men AND women are going to acknowledge that.
woman are insulted not when they are recognized for their sexuality/beauty etc … they are insulted when they are reduced only to it.
So if a person wore something demeaning Islam as a “poke”, would you be OK with it? They may not have malice in their heart.
How do you know he usually wear such clothes. Even if he did, did this special occasion not call for more decorum? And if he did, does this not make the point of the woman or women who took him to task ( I didn’t watch video). In your own words he objectified women. If his shirt “objectified” some figures (pun may or may not be intended) in your faith, would you be so nonchalant about it?
Finally, if someone got offended, who are we to say they shouldn’t be offended. Common sense dictates this dress was inappropriate for the occasion. The fact that Hindu goddesses were worshipped while naked - the analogy made by a poster here - is irrelevant. Women showing their armpits is off limits for some people, for crying out loud.
No I would not be okay with it … The difference is that certain things can be done without malice - for example wearing that shirt … however, can you imagine a situation where someone would do something anti-Islamic without malice? Do you seriously read what you write?
I didn’t say don’t get offended - I said deal with the issue in comparative ways … The response was more malignant than the initial issue. The feminists have a huge task - this society is far off the mark and this individual lady’s response is hurting their cause. IMO.
You see, for some, women’s issues are religion. They are passionate about it. If they took this as an affront to women, who are you (or am I) to say they shouldn’t. So yes, I seriously read what I write. What is clear to me is this : you get offended at any poke on religion. But you don’t extend others the right to get offended at any poke on the issue dear to them. I do have a word for that.
Let me ask you a simple question: will it be OK for someone to wear this shirt inside a mosque? A simple yes or no will do.
It would not be acceptable to wear this T-Shirt inside a mosque. That is because the rules for mosques are clear and understood. You see the feminists are trying to bend society to a position which is better for women … so that means what the man is doing is symptom of the society. He is not solely to blame … Whereas there is no culture or society that makes it acceptable to be purposely mocking another religion - although even that seems to be up for grabs … I still say the reaction was not in parity to the action and she should have first sent a private request to him if she felt offended by it.
And in a similar vein I would not go publicising an act of disregard in the media if a person walked in to the mosque with images on his top … I would just provide him another top or ask kindly and discretely for him to leave. No need to make a big deal.
Ok. So you may not publicize this if someone goes to a mosque wearing such a shirt. But others might. And they would be well within their rights, morally and legally. Especially if it was a public figure doing so.
This gentleman is a public figure. He wore this shirt on an important public occasion. So calling him out publicly was entirely appropriate.
lol…
The women wearing bikinis etc are wearing it out of their choice. Wearing make up etc their choice. Being depicted and scrutinized as being sexual beings is not their choice. The Kardashians shouldn’t ever really be mentioned because they aren’t real people… they became famous for nothing. Even the latest photoshoot was a publicity stunt and even then it was highly racist.
Her want and need to be in the spot light no matter the cost is a mental illness. Its not because she’s a woman, but because it makes her more relevant.
The guy like Southie said was at a formal event… he didn’t dress appropriately. His shirt was sexist and why would anyone want him as a role model?
I like how your stabbing the women who fought for the bare minimum rights you have now… and the women who are continuing to make the world safer for you. These shirts do nothing, but objectify women… and as you are women you should understand this.
I think it is presumptuous of you to assert that my last sentence or post was unwittingly/unintentionally written … just as it is presumptuous for anyone to claim that the shirt worn was meant to reduce women down to their sexuality.
I say it celebrates women/their sexuality …
its a matter of opinion … the person (s) who thought/said the shirt or the man demeaned 50% of the population (ie women) and demanded an apology are in essence proclaiming to be representative for ALL women. Now thats offensive.
How does a man wearing a shirt with naked women who all happened to be blonde celebrate women…? He isn’t a representative for any women. He was right to have apologized, but that will not change his ways.
Also, do you know why I mentioned the women being blonde? Because since “the beginning of time” women who are blonde and blue eyed were considered to be dumb and promiscuous.
I circled a brunette for you on part of his shirt that is visible to me. I can not tell the eye color for any of the women … can you? and why is a naked woman/scantily dressed woman not a celebration of women/female body/female empowerment … esp when feminists claim that choice of dress/undress is symbolic of female empowerment?
I agree. whats your point. are only representatives of women allowed to wear clothing that depict women? and why?
No i dont know why you brought up blond vs brunette … esp since there is at least one brunette on the shirt. Also you are being presumptuous (and snarky in quoting an out of context excerpt from my post) in claiming that blond/blue eyed women were considered dumb/promiscuous … by whom (outside of popular media stereotypes)? … what percentage of population would that be?
additionally … if a blond/blue eyed woman CHOOSES to be promiscuous as opposed to a man … why is that a problem or considered portrayal in negative light?
The shirt was designed by a woman! … so there you have at least one woman who didn’t think her portrayal of her own gender was demeaning and you have another in me and possibly a 3rd in @Sara516. Now you can continue to see things that arnt there (all naked (? I guess you do not see superhero costumes as I do?) blond/blue eyed women) but I see none of the proponents of “demeaning theory” have come up with a logical or convincing argument for how/why it is so. it is because you “feel” it is. This bores me … but plz do carry on.
It is presumptuous of you to assume that the person represented ALL women.
As.for the unwittingly reference, your last sentence, as I read it, did make a case for the woman criticizing him. And surely that was not your intent! Hence the use of the word unwittingly!!
The European Space Agency is funded by taxpayers. They work for the people. And have to meet certain dress code decency standards. Their bosses, the people, have every right to take them to task if they fail to do so.
As for the fact that it was a woman who designed the shirt, it don’t matter if an Orangutan designed it.
As for the fact that “three women” here don’t think this was demeaning to women, that is what makes this world. We are not “boring” monoliths. In that posters mind, if ANY woman didn’t find it offensive, the lady criticizing the dress is out of line. Sorry. That ain’t the litmus test. I thought that would be obvious! Oh well.
This was a teaching moment. Good for the lady who brought it up.
So you could not simply come out and say the criticizm against this man based on something different, which is wearing a shirt with pictures of women half naked or revealing?
Something which Islam does not approve also? Really?
Is your account being hacked time after time? Seriously!
STOP acting as the defender of Islam now. Muslims and Islam don’t need your consistent misinterpretation of Islamic values.
Please add this post of yours in the list of my ‘misunderstanding’ of your ‘good’ intention.
As to the call for the Fatwa:
Wearing shirt like this is wrong regardless what was the occasion and regardless what he did.
He was rightfully criticized. He cried. Crocodile tears or not. He deserves it for showing women in in this kind of manner. No sympathy here.
Hope the trend continues to criticize anyone who displaces half naked women on their T-shirts.
Mufti diwana.
P.S. I did not go further in reading other posts, but that should not matter.
I think the T-Shirt was bad taste … It is a symptom of a bad society … If you want to sort it out then blame society not a single fall guy … That is the point I was trying to make. You can like that or dislike that … It’s interesting that your stance is very aggressive and now more so towards me … Again this is not what Islam is about.
Oh and I think it might be prudent of me to start giving you the reasons why my stance is as so … I think giving evidences might contextualise what I write sometimes …
Please read this …
Anas Ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Whilst we were in the Mosque with the Messenger of Allah a Bedouin came and stood urinating in the Mosque. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah said, ‘Stop it! Stop it!’ and were about to attack him. But the Messenger of Allah said, ‘Do not interrupt him; leave him alone.’ So they left him until he had finished urinating, then the Messenger of Allah called him and said to him, ‘In these Mosques it is not right to do anything like urinating or defecating; they are only for remembering Allaah, praying and reading Qur’aan,’ or words to that effect. Then he commanded a man who was there to bring a bucket of water and throw it over the (urine), and he did so.” (Muslim)
The principle which the Prophet followed in dealing with this mistake was to treat the man gently, not to be harsh with him.
The Prophet was thinking of the likely consequences of the two options - stopping him or leaving him alone. If they tried to stop him, forcing a man to suppress his urination could do him harm, and if he was unable to stop but moved away because he was afraid of them, the impurity would be spread over a wider area of the Mosque and on the man’s body and clothing. The Prophet had the farsightedness to see that leaving the man alone until he had finished urinating was the lesser of two evils, especially since the man had already started doing it, and it was a problem that they would be able to do something about by cleaning it afterwards. So he told his companions to leave him alone and not to interrupt him.
Ibn Hajar mentioned in his commentary a number of things we learn from the hadith about the Bedouin, among which are the following:
We should be gentle when dealing with one who is ignorant and teach him what he needs to know without rebuking him, so long as he is not acting out of stubbornness, especially if he is one who needs to be won over.
The Prophet was kind and he dealt nicely with him.
The idea of taking precautions against impurity was established well in the minds of the Sahabah (Prophet’s companions), which is why they hastened to denounce it in the presence of the Prophet without first asking his permission. The idea of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil was also well established in their minds.
We should also hasten to remove anything objectionable when there is nothing to stop us from doing so, because when the man had finished urinating, the Prophet issued instructions that the place should be cleaned with water.
… so there you have at least one woman who didn’t think her portrayal of her own gender was demeaning and you have another in me and possibly a 3rd in @
