<< LIBERALS OOT? ~ MAIN ~ HEAT BLAMED >>
WORK SAFE
“Our garments are designed with respect to Islamic values and are aimed at today’s modern Muslim girl,” claims Australian-owned swimwear company Ahiida. “We are constantly striving to develop our collection with new colours, designs and fabrics that focus on today’s society.”
“Today’s society” apparently requires only two swimwear styles: the Modest-fit Design and the daring Slim-fit Design. Try picking the difference, infidel swine!
pffft can’t you guys tell the diff between straight leg & boot leg pants?
what i particularly like is the bag arrangement at the back of the hood to hold the long hair that can’t ever be given more than a 2cm trim because allah says so
How cool. With a gunny sack and some dye I can make Muslim swinwear.
Posted by swassociates on 2006 01 22 at 11:13 AM • permalinkThe hair covering is very important because it protects men from the dreaded effects of hair rays, as described by Amir Taheriin a 2002 Wall Street Journal article. Key quote:
In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that “scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane.” To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.
Sounds to me like the Capellians have a claim for copyright infringement.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 22 at 11:53 AM • permalinkCor, guv! A saucy little number. If you’ll all excuse me, I’ve suddenly been struck down by a bad case of the vapours.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 22 at 12:20 PM • permalinkThere’s nothing like reinventing the wheel.
Perhaps we are merely seeing the clock being turned back to 1858. This is “progressive”?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 22 at 12:32 PM • permalinkno wonder muslim girls are getting rickets a former middle ages disease
Posted by Astonished on 2006 01 22 at 12:33 PM • permalinkIt is designed to make woman look like sheep so the Muslim men are more relaxed and comfortable copulating with them.
Posted by perfectsense on 2006 01 22 at 12:55 PM • permalinkThey look like HazMat suits.
But if you run this through EquivalencyBot 2.0, you get
“Yeah but, like, Western bikinis and thongs are, like, manifestations of the, umm, expectations forced upon women by, like, male-dominated society. So, this shows, like, how much respect Islam has for women, because, like, they’re not turned into, like, sex objects ‘n stuff, whine, whine, whine, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah . . .”
I think that the “modest-fit” one is just a larger-size one, and then shown in different colours, than the “slim-fit” one. Not too much incentive to call one “slim-fit” and the other “fat-fit” if you want to help sales. Still, I understand they had to stop selling the “michael-moore-fit” ones when Greenpeace members kept on trying to push the swimmers wearing them back out into the ocean.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 01 22 at 02:32 PM • permalinkcosmo — But the actual effect of the burqah, as evidenced by Islamic societies that embrace it themselves, is that it turns EVERY woman into a sex object. I mean, you never know, ANY ONE of them could look like Monica Belluci under there…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 22 at 03:31 PM • permalinkDave S.:
Technically, it’s not any religious police, but religious vigilanties, that did the enforcement in the school case. And under the standard madhhabs, the vigilanties were violating Islamic law when they did it. The deaths were due to Saudi culture, not strictly-speaking Islam.
Yeah, small consolation if you lost your life, but it is a distinction.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2006 01 22 at 03:38 PM • permalinkRichard is right. The burqa feeds the imagination in a way that showing everything cannot.
See the movie, Osama, for a chilling look at how pathological sexuality drives fundamentalism.
The connection between, ummm, confused or hateful sexuality and extreme variants of religion forcing people to dress a certain way is well-established.
It seems in such countries they go too far one way and sometimes in western countries women go too far the other. Of course, at least in nations like Australia we have a choice.
Posted by Major Anya on 2006 01 22 at 03:39 PM • permalinkHmmmm.
Frankly that’s nothing. I was reading an interview with this one Jihadist, who gave up on jihad in Iraq when Iraqis turned him in for the reward, and this schmuck was telling how he has never seen his mother’s *FACE*.
I.e. the modesty rules in his father’s house were so all-encompassing strict that his mother wore a veil all the time even indoors.
What a crazy thing.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 01 22 at 04:14 PM • permalinkOn the slim-fit the hem of the tunic comes down only to the mid-thigh, while on the modest-fit one it comes to the knees. How daring!
“There are those who disparage the female form divine. Sex is too good for them, they should have been born oysters.” Robert Heinlein, Glory Road.
I love that nonsense about women’s hair emitting radiation that drives men insane with lust. There is nothing that shows better the ignorance, stupidity, and mendacious bad faith inherent in radical Islamism. There is no compositional difference between women’s hair and men’s. What fantasists and liars these Islamist radicals are.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 22 at 05:03 PM • permalinkBlerp 18
I thought Islam forbids depictions of the human body. So already these pictures aren’t Kosher.
But the pictures are photos of manniquins, i.e., depictions OF depictions of the human body. That’s kosher, right?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 22 at 05:40 PM • permalinkRebeccaH — Yes, it does… but ours fire down through the roots…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 22 at 06:04 PM • permalinkRebeccaH — Yes, it does… but ours fire down through the roots…
No doubt this is why Aussies have a different meaning for “to root”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 22 at 07:16 PM • permalinkand there are people who think Wicked Weasel http://wickedweasel.com/ have a chance in a competitive marketplace…
Quick, sell Weasel - buy Ahiida!!
Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 01 22 at 08:45 PM • permalinkHas anyone thought to look to see if there have been any significant donations from the textile industry to Al Quaeda and the Taliban? Forget Oil it’s all about textiles.
Posted by the nailgun on 2006 01 22 at 08:46 PM • permalinkHubba hubba! Anyone think of a way we can convince hirsute hippy nudists to salufism?
How come there’s no face veil? Perhaps it’s ok as long as they swim with this accessory.
Oops- should read CONVERT to salufism.
My pc has gone in search for it’s reward of 72 virgin CPUs, and i’ve lost all my presets and logins.
I think Bill Gates is an Al Que’da plant, his aim to make communications so haphazard, unreliable and incoherrent that we infidels will welcome the new caliphate and it’s punctual camelmail.
I was in London during the northern summer and for some reason,whilst on a trip to Regents Park Zoo came across a lot of women dressed like this and accompanied by a large, scowling, swarthy man.
I wondered, what was the big deal about the zoo? Did it have special ‘Muslim Monday’ prices? It was no problem as such, however, my blood pressure started to rise when I got the filthiest of looks as I walked past these couples. It was wierd, it was if they thought I was a freak. I really wanted to say something but held my tongue. The irony.
These do look very sunsafe. How long before the Cancer Council finds a way to start recommending that we should all be wearing these at the beach for health reasons.
A bit OT but I just heard on Canberra radio ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope complain that the proposal by NSW premier Iemma to teach values in schools had a touch of racism to it as it was suggesting that Australia had values superior to other countries/cultures (paraphrased but i think that was the gist).
I think this puts John in the early lead for the Cultural Relativist of 2006 award.
I wonder what swimming togs are proscribed for Muslim men??? or are they free to parade around in their posing pouches and what not…
frankly most of them seem quite at east wearing around their dresses/robes covering their ample girth and so it would probably save quite a few appetites of beach goers if these products were sold as unisex outfits…
No wonder I love this blog.
$175 for that outfit? (I’m not sure what to call it, “togs” or “swimmers” doesn’t cut it)
Isn’t there some sort of fatwa against ripping off the faithful of their hard earned?
It’s OK to rip off the infidel, though, the Imam sez.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 01 23 at 05:56 AM • permalinkSorry, but I am all for this. You should look apon this as a first step to the emancipation of molsem women. Just think, in a mere eighty years, young moslem girls will be wearing bikinis just like everyone else…..you have to start somewhere!
But seriously, this company should be applauded, not ridiculed. They are trying to find a solution to a problem. Good on them. I hope they make a motza.
“They are trying to find a solution to a problem”
The problem = the morals and belief systems are barbaric and are lifted from the 4th century.
In 2006, the solution is not to force women to cover up the ‘lust inducing hair rays’ and every other part of their bodies.
Frankly, I suspect the real solution is to provide muslim women with handguns.
Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 01 23 at 07:51 AM • permalinkIslam isn’t the only religion that sees the inherent danger in women’s hair.
Both Christianity and Judaism also had problems with it. Catholic women until fairly recently had to wear a head covering in church (ever notice how much nun’s habits look like burqas) and Orthodox Jewish women must shave their heads and wear wigs after they get married.
Islam isn’t the only religion that sees the inherent danger in women’s hair.Both Christianity and Judaism also had problems with it. Catholic women until fairly recently had to wear a head covering in church (ever notice how much nun’s habits look like burqas) and Orthodox Jewish women must shave their heads and wear wigs after they get married.
These oppressive rules go back to the ignorance and superstition of the dark ages and continue to this day because blaming women for their weakness is much easier than getting men to behave like adults.
pjw—Yes. Kosher is a Jewish term. It was my feeble attempt at jocularity.
34 pjw
Isn’t Kosher a Jewish term?
35 lingus4
So already these pictures aren’t Halal.
Y’gotcher Kosher, y’gotcher Halal, WHUDDEVVAH! If your supernatural mandatory wardrobe instructions come from an ancient book, and THAT comes from a part of the world where folks don’t surf, you’ve got the same problem in two different languages.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 23 at 11:33 AM • permalinkBlerp, nuns wear what they wear by choice and they don’t have to become nuns. If they like, they can just as readily become pot-smoking bass players in rock ‘n’ roll bands - all without being honour-killed. They’re also free to enter a convent or abbey and they’re free to leave.
Most religious congregations of Catholic women - who are not “nuns”, by the way - were also empowered to make their own decisions on dress decades ago and almost every one of them in Western societies has now embraced something approximating secular dress. Their governing chapters also have complete autonomous control over sartorial matters.
The argument is not about whether women were once victims of sexism by all religions. It is that the two major religions with which you compare Islam are inherently developmental and have changed. Islam has not, will not and cannot.
And the dress of “nuns” was not principally derived from the “ignorance and superstition of the dark ages.” It was simply how women dressed in the climates of Europe when and where almost all the founding religious orders had their origins. (Note the attire of rich and powerful women even in Renaissance art).
The costume came to represent modesty only when people became conscious that there was a sartorial reality for women that was somehow immodest or daring. That occurred only in relatively recent times. What followed was traditionalism for its own sake coupled with a sense that - whatever the origin of habits - they usefully symbolised an ‘otherness’ from secular society.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) - anticipated before that, in fact, in the reign of Pius XII in the early 1950s - the modern sartorial reality was formally acknowledged for women religious (not nuns) whose vocations were community based: teachers, nurses, professional women etc. Their dress had already been modernised and eventually it was modernised entirely. The Council Fathers merely ratified and approved what powerful women religious had themselves decided in congress and chapter.
Most nuns - properly so called - have maintained a habit closer to what they had traditionally worn, although some allowed for variations and sensible modernisations. They believe that traditional dress still usefully symbolises their status as women apart who are contemplative Brides of Christ. They aren’t concerned about the lustful jealousy of their menfolk because they don’t have any menfolk.
C.L. Why so defensive?
I merely noted that women’s hair seemed very problematic for all of the three major monotheistic religions. While Christianity and Judaism have changed to accommodate modern mores, Islam has stayed mired in the dark ages.
BTW - Young women didn’t always enter the nunnery voluntarily.
Not defensive blerp, just engaging the historical theme that you initiated. European women’s headress and/or veils were not exclusively to do with hair. They originally had as much to do with living in a freezing, pre-electronic climate. The oft-repeated orthodoxy that it was always and everywhere an imposed sexuality-related measure imposed by men is not true. Men - including monks (with their prescribed cowls) - frequently covered their heads for the same reason.
By the way, in the era of women’s rock ‘n’ roll bands that I cited, there aren’t too many women forced into convents.
I think the point here is that CL is generally talking about now and blerp has to talk about the dark ages to get even a slight comparison - the problem is that Christianity had a reformation and Islam can’t - the Koran is the direct revealed word of god and Mohammed is specifically stated to be the final prophet.
Any reinterpretation of the Koran is, by definition, heresy.
Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 01 24 at 01:23 AM • permalinkAchillea,
Yeah, but he didn’t refer us to a peer-reviewed paper, as good scientific practice would demand. Now if the Muslim “Religious Sciences” have made such a portentous discovery as the emission of Lustradiation from women’s hair they ought to publish the scientific evidence, not to mention the design of their lustradiation detector, in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal. Just think of how such a discovery would help convince people of the superiority of Islam; it made scientific predictions and they were confirmed by actual experimental evidence! Top that Christianity.Incidentally, the Wahhabists claim the same thing, and I fear we may have a dispute here over priority of discovery of this so important scientific finding. How will the Nobel Prize Committee know whom to give the prize to?
/mock-serious
Science does not work by consensus. It was once the consensus that the Four-humours theory was true, and no highly educated medical doctor of the time doubted it, although some were inclined to put a larger degree of faith in astrology for diagnostic purposes than in the arraignment of urines.
I see that this comment has become overly serious in response to your light-hearted jest. Aaaarrrgh! That’s the danger of being a nerd.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 24 at 02:32 AM • permalinkHabib 44
Perhaps it’s ok as long as they swim with this accessory.
Well I don’t KNOW. That pink paint IS a bit provocative, don’t you think?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 24 at 12:12 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I was scuba diving off of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when I saw a muslim woman in the water, also scuba diving, in a full abbaya. She looked like a large black jellyfish as her abbaya floated all around her in the water.
Now, when she got out of the water, woo hoo. Not quite a wet t-shirt, but damn close.
She was probably beheaded later on that day after her husband saw us all checking her out as she walked along the pier back to the beach.