Printable View
Really wish you hadn't said that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Hunley
Mazhur> The non-Muslim women who go to Muslim countries are expected to cover their heads even if just for the sake of appearance. Why cannot non-muslim countries ask Muslim women not to cover their heads when they are in the West?
I was under the similar assumption that men like to compare their members. O, why must society burden me with these fabrics!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Hunley
A very intelligent question put by Scheherzade which I sincerely appreciate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
In most of the Muslim countries including Pakistan ( excluding monarchies which have their own rules) I never saw a foreign woman clad in a burqa or anything of that sort. I also remember Western women moving around the city and busy market places in their usual western dresses. I also remember my fellow Muslim and western female classmates attending school in school uniform which consisted of shirt and skirt. But this was until mid 80's only . thereafter the situation changed critically so much so that now no Western woman , even if she is a Muslim, can expect to roam about the city without hiding behind a veil or a burqa. This does not seem to have a purely cultural or religious reason; infact this change has much to do with international politics and mainly due to unpopular foreign policies of the West, especially the Americans, towards the Muslim countries. People ask where are the WMD's?? Where is Osama, the terrorist? Why is US bent on invading other Muslim countries? What is war on terror? The US is waging war against an abstract enemy on the pretext of 'war on terror'! Given all this the Muslim world is wary of the West and it thinks the West, including America, is trying to exploit, bully and harm them. This sentiment has been embedded so strongly in the hearts of Muslims in Muslim countries such as Pakistan that a Western/ American woman (and even a man) would be playing with death going out in the city without some sort of security or 'disguise' . So, you can see how a change in minds of the Muslims as well as the West has provided reason for all this chaos and turmoil.
As regards remarks by Hunley I may say that even a woman clad in a burqa is a woman and she enjoys the pleasures of life like all other women. It's only bad when a woman is forced to wear it.
Thank you for your detailed reply (let's not get into current politics, though :)).
What you are suggesting is that because of the recent American/Western policies there is an anti-Western sentiment which results in the intolerance/resentment towards anyone who does not wear Islamic clothings or follow an Islamic way of life. Is that?
What if we turn the coin, then? Can we not say that because of this intolerant (and very aggressive) attitude (in the East) towards the West and anything non-Muslim that the West is is wary of the Islam and does not want the consistent reminder of their fundementalist attitudes towards themselves in the form of burkas and other religious displays?
I think Islam has enjoyed an everlasting freedom in the West. I cannot imagine any chruches or synanogues in Muslim countries having anti-Islamic meetings and broadcasting anti-Islamic propaganda only to get away with it on the grounds of equality or human rights. However, these things happen here in the UK almost daily.
I am not suggesting that Muslims who live in the West should not practise their religion but when they demand these freedoms, they should also do a little soul searching to see whether they actually offer the same kind of understanding towards others who do not share their own point of views.
In truth, Franz Fannon wrote a famous essay on the subject, in which he equates the veil as a) an act of shame from a colonial perspective, and b) an act of pride in order to hinder the colonial perspective (this is in talking about Algeria).
The irony, I would argue, is that the dialectic is all off - yes, it is a counter to a colonial perspective, but merely enforces other binaries that are perhaps more important - I'm not wanting to get banned here, but keep in mind, women with big feet in China for a while were considered undesirable - it was said that once someone saw an unbound foot their appreciation for a foot's beauty would be lost forever - on what grounds then, can we justify a burka as anything other than a bound foot? We think of it somehow better because of political correctness, but I'm of the mind that if women still bound their feet, we would still have the need to criticize such an act - so where do we draw the line?
OK, I can't think of anyone defending female genital cutting - that would probably be the most deplorable cultural act that is still prevelent in this world (it is estimated that the % of women in Egypt for the women, who have undergone a clitoridechtomy is in the 90%s, with high figures throughout the region, and more serious cutting in certain areas) but that is a traditional practice, is it politically correct to say that it is acceptable? On moral grounds these days, I think we can safely say it is.
By extension, I don't think anybody today would make any case for a barbaric practice like foot binding - we all know that that clearly was a barbaric cultural practice that was allowed to flourish.
But somehow, when it comes to iconography, rather than physical body motification, we cannot say anything - what then is acceptable and what is not? We already have proof that some cultural practices are, by our standards, inhumane. When does it become islamophobic, or in general, bigoted to comment, and when is it justified? Would someone, for instance, like me, commenting on female genital cutting be labeled culturally bigoted? Am I to be taken for a racist, for denouncing the practice, or for a rational person?
By that token, we now have a problem - what is the line between morality and cultural sensitivity? We must also keep in mind, that some of the greatest protesters to the unbinding of women's feet were women - how does that factor into the equation? Can we take them as rational? Are we supposed, on a major scale, to accept that, and let it continue? What is the line between justified to comment, important to take a stand, and bigotry?
For instance, in certain world conflicts people like to take stands (I am deliberately being vague as to avoid current politics in keeping with the site's rules). I for instance, could go to such and such rally, could sign such and such petition, and wouldn't be considered adequately informed or a functional part of society if I did not take stands on issues - but how can someone from Canada make a comment on another country's foreign policy? Is that right, or is that merely failing to understand the cultural differences?
What is the line between criticism and bigotry? Is criticism now only reserved for people within the system? Can I not say that the indoctrination into a set of values is immoral if I think it is, or does that just make me a bigot? But who knows - I'm sure if I was to try and remove a veil, the woman wearing it would scream the loudest.
As far as I am concerned, the only way to defeat such a system - the same way footbinding was defeated - is to implement a law, forbidding it - there will always be countries complaining, but, as far as I am concerned, if they do not wish to play by the rules, they might as well not come to a new country - everyone is entitled, in my eyes to a chance at a new life and a successful future, but that does not come without some sort of cultural responsibility to the host country.
Take the issue of, for instance, women wearing headscarves not being allowed to play soccer in certain leagues in Canada. It was deemed that, in terms of safety, wearing them would prove too much of a liability. Despite the protests, and the fighting, the ruling was upheld - if you can't play by the rules, don't play. That's how I see the whole issue - if you can't accept your new home as your home, than don't bother coming - multiculturalism is one thing, directly allowing things deemed immoral to continue because someone happens to hold them in high regard is another. It's not the west's responsibility to cater to the demands of people wishing to be accepted by it - it is the job of the society to ensure equality between all citizens - likewise, equality comes with the responsibility of respecting, and sacrificing for the sake of others - the Burka does not, and cannot function compatibly with the values of the host society, and, if it is too big a sacrifice to not wear it, people need not come as far as I am concerned.
I'd note - I am equally as critical of similar "modesty" practices amongst other communities, such as Orthodox Judaism - this isn't a nitpick of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
No, it's not like that. The anti-Western sentiment has nothing to do with dress. Most of the people here prefer to wear Western dress, in fact even I rarely wear local costume. This attitude is obvious in many other spheres of life. People here like many aspects of Western/American culture and are not prejudiced against the Western/American people. It's the policies of their leaders they hate.
If an American woman moves around the city here in her usual dress she would at once be noticed as a foreigner notwithstanding whether she is a Muslim or Non-Muslim. It would be the same with an American man due to his features and color. Therefore to escape from the 'wrath' of a 'dissident' who may try to harm her/him, it would be advisable for them not to go about in public, not even under a different garb as he may be found out from language etc. When the general trend is against something it's better not to display it. You will recall one burqa-clad woman been killed by a fanatic in France recently? There are fanatics everywhere....Pakistan not being an exception.
Non-Muslims enjoy full liberty and infact some privileges over resident Muslims in some matters. For example, in government services they enjoy an age relaxation of 3 years! Every Non-Muslim is as free as a Muslim here and enjoys the same benefits as us. However, the problem arises when some non_muslim mischievous elements try to incite anger among the Muslims by publicly mocking, abusing and disparaging their elders and peers or committing hateful atrocities against their prophet or the Hoy Quran through instigational means and measures. however, such incidences are occasional and obviously incite anger among Muslims. Other wise we, Muslims eat and drink in the same bowl as the non Muslims. No differentiation at socio-economic level except some restrictions imposed by the Constitution on their election to the premier post.
Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality
Naomi Wolfe
August 30, 2008
Advertisement
A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?
keep on reading....
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/b...e#contentSwap1
As far as I know, Naomi Wolf isn't without intense criticism - even from within the Muslim community. You would note, that the loudest voices coming against the Burka tend to come from Muslim Women - Ms. Wolf's opinions are hardly a general consensus - in truth, academic feminists, from my understanding, absolutely loathe her and don't take her seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
'foot binding' is mainly restricted to China where it is a customary adoption.
'Circumcision of women' is restricted to some parts of the world-again this is customary.
'Veiling' is NOT restricted to any particular region-it is a universal 'phenomena' with those women opting to wear it. 'Veiling' is not a custom or part of any culture, it is also has socio-religious implications. Muslim women are commanded by their faith to 'cover up their bosoms' and to 'avoid showing their meat' and displaying their 'feminine ornamentation' to public. To do this any type of garb is okay, not necessarily the burqa.
Why should one have objection to it when Sikh men are allowed to wear turbans in the West? That would be sheer discrimination against women.
you loathe her because she doesn't suit your 'taste', ha!
Let's set aside our prejudices and let no one 'loathe' anyone for his/her point of view!
Urm...I don't think anyone is covering up because they think they are 'disgusting'!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I remember once at school my Religious Studies teacher remarked then men aren't going to go wild if they a strip of a women's hair.
But she missed the point.
More than anything it is a sign of obedience/submission to God, a willingness to listen to him. It is no different in concept to what nun's wear as a sign of - not just modesty, but piety.
There is the concern that criminals may abuse it but I find this concept far-stretched - that a bank robber, a rapist, is going to go to all the trouble of wearing one to carry out his crime, if anything it will hinder his performance! :)
There is of course the opposite angle no? That many women are saved from e.g sexual harassment. I had a self-defence class for women and the policewomen who presented it wasn't a Muslim but she picked out a Muslim women dressed in full burka/hijab and said if you're going out late night this is the way to go. There is nothing least tempting about you, in fact apparently stalkers/rapists will be put off because they want someone 'easy' and you're not worth the hassle and the final thing she mentioned was that underneath this burka this women has lovely jewelery on - but no one else would know or be any wiser, its a complete protection from the perverts in our society.
Every society/culture has some form of cultural pressure - take for example the pressure to lose your virginity at a young age. This is no different
edit: I've just remember Yvonne Ridley. Countless western women, the epitome of the free no? have embraced Islam and wear the Burka - what pressure did they have? I'm not ruling it out but you can't generalise either that women wear this out of cultural pressure.
Bottom line: we tolerate pink hair and tattoo, piercings left right and centre which I personally find distasteful, youth gang in hoodies, practically nude twelve year olds....and we're up in arms about the burka? Where is tolerance here? Young girls parading half naked, no one bats an eye, two women walking down the road in a burka - oh no! panic button.
If we sacrifice one religion's idiosyncrasies than prepare to sacrifice yours too. That's fairness and equality and democracy which so so many people have died for. Don't let it be in vain.
You can't justify a practice just because it is widely practiced - that is a false argument - abuse against women, for instance, is a universal issue, ingrained in many cultures; are we to say that it is alright now, because it is culturally significant, or widespread? I think the fact that it is so widespread is cause enough to comment more, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
A seak man bundling his hair into a turban is one thing; someone being denied the freedom, through either coercion, or indoctrination from a young age, to be essentially seen in public is a completely other thing. The Burka has only one effect - it denies a woman an identity outside of the realm of daughter, wife, and mother.
Naomi Wolf cannot justify it, nor was she trying to - she was talking, as you would note, about headscarves and Hijab, a completely different issue. Covering one's hair to show modesty is another - denying any part of the body exposure to the outside world, and then telling one's daughter that if she is seen by a man, she will be impure, and be a sinner in the face of God (a double, for causing, gasp, a man to think her beautiful that isn't her husband) is a completely different issue. Justify it however you want, like I said before, you cannot justify a practice because it is widespread, and you cannot justify it anymore because of its cultural relevence, the same you cannot justify female genital cutting, which, by extension, has seen world wide distribution as well, by immigrants foregoing shunning their cultural identities, and taking the liberty of brutally sexually assaulting their daughters, and either preforming the procedure themselves, or shipping their daughters back to the mother country for a quicky, before marital age.
All these arguments for simply are arguments that consider the subversion of identity to be somehow beneficial for society - if a girl is in a burka, she can't be any less desirable, or whatever, so it is a good thing, because it is reducing their chance of being raped. That isn't an argument for a Burka, it is an argument for increasing in awareness and prevention of sexual assault. You said it yourself - the Burka specifically makes her less desirable - it denies her that right, by reducing the sexuality of the woman to something reserved for, and only for, a husband - but of course, you guys argue that is a good thing - of course, if we look in retrospect, we can see counter examples.
For instance, if I was to tie a giant ball and chain to a girl's ankle, I hypothetically could do the same thing, by denying mobility - hell, I could do better - within a few weeks, the girl wouldn't even want to leave, and I could remove the ball and chain, such is the way the human mind adapts to survive - the caged animal after some time, will be more reluctant to leave its cage, especially if its "benefactor" keeps hammering in how they will be a sinner in the eyes of god if they do.
Quite frankly, if denying a woman an identity is an obedience to god, than perhaps the practices as a foundation need to be rethought. There is no shame in modesty, but as you put it, the Burka is taking things passed the level a nun (I assume you meant Catholic nun) would go, and even now, the bulk of Catholic nuns seem to have modernized their garb to a partial head covering, and do not wear something that denies even the right to have one's eyes looked into.
As I have stated before, the biggest protests against the stopping of a) female genital cutting, b) footbinding were generally coming from the practitioners themselves - it took a widespread law, making it drastically illegal to bind one's feet to stop the procedure - likewise, the Burka gathers tons of support from the women who wear them - but, to what extent is someone caught up in the issue conscious of anything but what they are brought up with? For instance, a woman brought up to believe that something is right, and that God will punish her for doing otherwise, is likely not going to break the habit - there are other factors too - for instance, some women are told people who don't practice certain things are disgusting - the very act of the Burka speaks about this.
Take for instance, the religious rational behind it. By basic extension, the teaching is also addressing not wearing the Burka - if anything, it is conditioning a sort of self-superiority, and a disdain for the non-practitioner, as they are reduced to a somehow impure, somehow dirty, unfilial state, by the exact rational that causes the wearing of the Burka - if someone who is not wearing it is looked at by a man, they, according to the logic, must be taken as being a sinner (a double, since they may have been thought of as beautiful). Does that condition women to view other women differently? Isn't that a disrespect of my cultural beliefs, to have a system which decrees that my sister is somehow impure, because she isn't "modest". It equates, does it not, the Unveiled woman as essentially whore.
Thereby, in order for that justification to work, you must admit, that the rational for it, can also, by extension, be used to reduce those who don't practice it - someone brought up with that notion from a young age, for instance, isn't easily going to be able to give up the practice, and assume the role as whore - others relish the experience, it gives a sort of "cultural superiority" through Burka identity by equating oneself with the "clean" side.
@ Optimisticnad
you seem to have forget about the liberties granted to gays!! Are gays better than women, burqa-clad or other wise?? No.
@ JBI
<<<<<The Burka has only one effect - it denies a woman an identity outside of the realm of daughter, wife, and mother.>>>>>
Obviously you do not seem to have any idea about the status of women, on particular the one held by Islam.
Woman is a mother....she is superior to her son.(man)
Woman is sister.....may or may not be superior to her brother depending on her age and qualifications.
Father(man) is superior to his son (man) or daughter (woman)
Wife Woman) is equal to her husband (man) depending on character.
Husabnd (man) is superior to his wife (woman) depending on his character.
Islam grants the greatest respect and dignity to women so much so that she is not made a 'public commodity' to be seen and enjoyed by all!
<<<<<<<<<<<,,
You can't justify a practice just because it is widely practiced >>>>>>>>>>>..
If this is false, as you surmise, then your democracy is also a sham for being wide spread, all great religions of the world are sham because they are 'wide spread'; all doctrines, all schools of thought, beliefs, attitudes are fake because they are 'wide spread; all stars and galaxies and the cosmos are false because they are 'wide spread.
Conversely, all is sham that is not wide spread, eh?
You do not have a case!
I told you circumcision of women may be a custom in some African countries but it is not what Islam tells them to do. I never heard of it in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
I think it is also not practiced in the Far East or South East India.
You aspersions as to <<<<immigrants foregoing shunning their cultural identities, and taking the liberty of brutally sexually assaulting their daughters, and either preforming the procedure themselves, or shipping their daughters back to the mother country for a quicky, before marital age. >>>>>>is totally false, frivolous nonsense, skuttlebutting!
Quote:
I told you circumcision of women may be a custom in some African countries but it is not what Islam tells them to do. I never heard of it in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
I think it is also not practiced in the Far East or South East India.
When did I say it was a Muslim custom? I said it was a traditional cultural practice, which it is in many parts of the world. It just so happens, for the most part, those countries, such as Egypt, which has a rate in the 90%s, happen to be predominantly Muslim.
As for your refuting of my notion about wide-spread practices and criticism, your argument lacks the logical coherency necessary for me to make a response, given that it is completely irrelevant, and uses a rhetoric gimmick of making the argument seem absurd as a purposeful way of sideswiping the major question.
Good, thank you for clearing it up - woman is mother, sister, wife, but where is woman as woman? Where is woman as individual? Where is woman as something outside of these spheres? Who cares if scripture calls her equal, clearly the Burka is denying any sort of equality outside of these perimeters - she can be equal as wife, she can be equal as sister, and as mother, but what about as person? Or is she too impure to be anything but these things? Where is the personal identity? You deny the self, and then praise the decision.Quote:
Woman is a mother....she is superior to her son.(man)
Woman is sister.....may or may not be superior to her brother depending on her age and qualifications.
Father(man) is superior to his son (man) or daughter (woman)
Wife Woman) is equal to her husband (man) depending on character.
Husabnd (man) is superior to his wife (woman) depending on his character.
Your post is quite absurd - you seem to be trying to contradict my arguments by offering me proofs as to how they are right - I know perfectly well about the position of women in Islam, and, as you quite simply put it, Mother, Sister, Daughter, Wife - the Burka protects all these things, perhaps, but what about something else? Could you go up to a human being, and reduce them to such fixes? Is that normal?
F i n a l___W a r n i n g
Please do not discuss each other.
Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without any further notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
PS: sorry I have to clarify that all human beings are equal, including women.:angel:
Of course, we all accept that coercion to wear the burka is abhorent, but even as a Westerner, the anti-Muslim bias - a cultural blindness - in many of the posts is blatant. We should see that the West's perspective is just one among many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saladin
From thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/burqa-principle-prejudice-and-preference/:
Quote:
...Bertrand Russell’s observations on the tyranny of the majority (from Political Ideals, 1917) where he discusses “matters of passionate interest to certain sections of the community, but of very little interest to the great majority. If they are decided according to the wishes of the numerical majority, the intense desires of a minority will be overborne by the very slight and uninformed whims of the indifferent remainder…. The tyranny of the majority is a very real danger.
While I understand your 21st century Western perspective, JBI, I know that other perspectives, perhaps more valid, are also held. And worldwide, this Western perspective is probably in the minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As you suggest, Optimisticnad, a subtle double-standard is evident in those that would ban the burka outright. Nevertheless, I would argue that in selected situations, of employment and otherwise, the wearing of a burka may well be prohibited.Quote:
Originally Posted by optimisticnad
That doesn't justify it, and, quite simply, if a family is wanting to become part of the West, as immigrants are want (just take a look at Europe in general as an example), then why should the West put up with something that goes against it? Who is fighting for the rights of the home team here? If they don't want to remove it, what business does someone have going into a country where it is deemed abhorrent?Quote:
While I understand your 21st century Western perspective, JBI, I know that other perspectives, perhaps more valid, are also held. And worldwide, this Western perspective is probably in the minority.
But I have said it before, the most vocal criticism against the Burka comes not from Western countries, but from Muslims themselves - the bulk of the public planning to have it stopped as a cultural practice is not restricted to just a Western perspective - Turkey is a good example, of a country in transition in that regard - but even from within the most traditional areas, one constantly hears a voice going against such practices - to what extent then can we accept this as only a Western bigoted downplay on Muslims? Is nit now Muslims selling themselves out to the West to? Fannon would argued it could at times be seen that way, but what if it is something else that is the cause, perhaps a general want of progress, of better life.
JBI> What is your definition of a country? And nation?
All people living in the same country need to share same religious beliefs to be part of that nation?
In 1969 I visted Kabul and found all Afghan women, muslims or non-muslims, there clad in shirt/blouse and skirt in compliance to an Imperial edict by the then King of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah. As soon as the King was overthrown the same women switched over to their national dress of shalwar-qameez and burqa! This shows that any attempt to bring a 'forced cultural change' is not effective at all!
Burqa faded out in urban Pakistan some 20 years ago but the trend for it has mysteriously picked up again! I recall people deeming a burqa clad women as whores or women of dubious character...rightfully or wrongfully. But nowadays the burqa is regarded as a symbol of chastity by the same people who shunned it! What brought this change has yet to be studied. Educated women are opting for it in greater numbers voluntarily as compared to women in rural or backward areas where women is bound to cover herself from the imperatives of prevailing environment there. Since men are responsible for the safety and security of women in Islam (there is no 'genuine Islamic state' in the world to take up this responsibility....and even if it there like Saudi Arabia it stands second) their women have to take 'precautionary' measures to conceal their charm lest trouble starts. Feuds over women inherently extend to generations in a feudal society and there is hardly any end to blood shed.thus in a weak state women feel secure by wearing burqa or anything of the sort to stay away from sowing the seeds of a vendetta. Moreover, in tribal areas girls are wedded at an early age so that the responsibility passes on to her husband and kinsmen.
The reverence given to the status of women is also evident in Baluchistan where the bloodiest feud would come to an end if any woman from the opposing groups steps in and asks for 'ceasefire'! Of course no one would listen to a man!
I think Burka is something that degrades womanhood or it belittles their existences.
I think Islam is a great religion, and represents a great mass of people and it engendered great art, literature and music. I am really moved by Sufism for it was through Islam it got its birth and culminated in something that is above religious divisions.
But when it comes to belittling womanhood with a Burka I feel really sad and it is something subdues humanity. '
It is of course fundamentalism, and fundamentalists are also simple humans and I feel equanimity. These fundamentalists need to be pitied fr they were programmed or indoctrinated.
Free will ? No it does not work mostly. We are victims and we cannot undo anything. We are specs blown by the wind of time and space.
I really am against Burka with due respect for Islam.
There are countries that describe themselves as Muslim countries - is it wrong now to call them that? Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, essentially all of the middle east (Israel included) - those are all States with a State religion in place - it is no crime to call them what they describe themselves as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Likewise, Canada, virtually all of Europe, and the vast Majority of Asia, China included, are secular countries. Why then should their citizens not recognize the secular values of their society.
I don't like nation labels, as you know, but nationalism is totally tied to this issue - it has been since the early 20th century, with the fall of the Ottomans.
As many of you know, I am somewhat of a Canadian Nationalist (if such a thing isn't an oxymoron), and am prudent in my desire to establish Canada as an entity beyond a curiosity, or "America's Hat". But that has nothing to do with my moral responsibility, and I willingly criticize my country when I do not agree with policy, as is normal in a democracy. There is no reason why self determination, and a sense of self cannot be cultivated within the sphere of secularism, and acceptance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
It is actually quite possible to bring a force cultural change, and quite easier than one suspects - foot binding was abolished in essentially one generation, Martin Luther shook the church's foundation to the core, and destroyed it - social change can happen quickly.
As for these proofs, I thank you for the support to my arguments. Women needing to conceal their charms and be married off early lest they start a feud is clearly backward beyond belief by my reckoning, and I challenge any woman here to state that they would support their current country becoming culturally like that, where women are married off at a very young age, and denied exposure to anyone who isn't their husband. I stand by, and await someone to say, and justify, why this is somehow tolerable, and to say that they, as a woman keep in mind, that they believe this system is not only justifiable, but is one in which they would like to live.
You cannot compare the culture of the rich countries with those of poor countries. Both types of cultures have their own implications, socially, anthropologically and economically. Can someone in America or the West imagine to live in a place where families live under one dollar a day ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
If you study the social and cultural history of the West or the Americas you will be shocked to see how they used to live. It took centuries to bring a social change...whereas places like Pakistan have a short history of 62 years, out of which 33 years went to Martial Laws!
Notwithstanding above, veiling has minimal concern with society or culture and perhaps this is the reason that educated and civilized Muslim women in the West are fastly opting for some sort of 'veiling, be it hijab, naqab, scarf or burqa. By suppressing their rights I think we would be entering yet another age of social and psychological oppression to women for ages to come.
As for Shehrzade's question, <<<<<<<<,
All people living in the same country need to share same religious beliefs to be part of that nation?<<<<<<<<<<<<<my answer is No. People in a country can share different beliefs and faiths and yet try to live in harmony as far as possible. Have a look at India where multi-religious population exists.....generally peacefully allowing grievances and fights to occasion at times. Why?? Simply because of unfortunate manifest
'loathings' by some for others
<<<<<What is your definition of a country? And nation?<<<<<<<<<
I do not think religions goes in the making of a nation in a territorial premise. Pakistan was created in the name of a separate homeland for Muslims of India and originally consisted on East Pakistan (present Bangla Desh) and West Pakistan (athe existing Pakistan) . This ideology failed in 1972 only after 22 years of its creation! Apart from other reasons, the underlying reasons were language, ethnic , cultural, social and economic differences and (alleged) oppression of one by the other wing.
Situations may be different elsewhere but this is what actually happened is recorded by modern history!
Wearing the burkha or the yamalke or a pectoral cross is simply none of my damn business. Nor is it the schools business or the state's business (as in France). Tax supported religious symbols are banned in the USA. Personal symbols are not.
Of course, I think it's demeaning to women. It's still none of my business.
If you're going to walk around naked, I'll be right over.:banana:
Quote:
If you're going to walk around naked, I'll be right over.
If 'walking around naked' was a universal custom I would. Because it isn't I doubt if you will be able to do that in places other than the West. Even there people will watch you with awe!:santasmil
Women with a Burka on are really suppressed. No educated persons think this is right. If they do I think they are oppressors.
@ Blaze
It's really not like that.
Veiling with a burqa, hijab, scarf or a gown is a woman's choice to dress up, why should someone have objection to her 'natural' right to choose?
Of course, enforcing burqa or scarf on women isn't fair....as done in some Middle Eastern Kingdoms through the instrument of regal edicts.
You are partly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
But all I can say is women are conditioned to have a burga on themselves
I don't want to see the day when men would ask women to strip down and reveal themselves just because any dress they wear is unpleasant, disagreeable or obnoxious to them (the men!). :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Is this generalisation or universal truth? Just suppose one solitary woman wears the burka in the USA for reasons other than suppression or conditioning - say, as a protest or for protection. Should we compel her to desist in the name of liberation?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
I just stumbled across this article on Purdah and the Status of Women In Islam and am posting it here for the general information of all those who may be interested.
This however does not imply my complete concordance with the views of the author mentioned.
http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=...icp=1&.intl=us
Yes, for the simple reason that a woman shouldn't need to cover herself up in order not to be raped - it is the responsibility of men to not rape a woman, not of a woman to make herself undesirable and therefore not entice men - the whole psychology is out of whack - woman should be able to wear whatever they want without fear of being violated - this whole notion of suppressing male violence by denying oneself sexual identity is backward and puts the blame of these acts onto the women themselves, for being "enticing" and "immodest" - in other words, for being human, and being beautiful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
The excuse of needing protection, or needing to not stop men fighting over women is completely immoral in itself - any man worth marrying will naturally be one who will respect the decision of a woman to determine who she wishes to marry for herself - the actual shifting of the burden onto the woman, forcing her to sacrifice identity for the sake of maintaining a sort of peace between men is unjustifiable under a system that respects the rights of women in self-determination.
If you look at traditional practices though, in non-Western countries, you will find that nudism isn't in itself a shameful act - in truth, in Bali Indonesia, for instance, up until recently (that is, the last 30 years), women normally did not cover their chests. In artwork, in traditional garb, women, of all ages, are shown in nonproductive ways while remaining topless - the question of needing to cover up, as a means of maintaining a sort of modesty of a set of "family values" is a mere construction based on misinterpretation of the Bible, and a sense of shame resulting from such unconnected things as geography (weather in this case determining the necessity for clothing), as well as traditional misogyny, in the sense of not wanting anybody else to have a view of one's own "property".Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
The act of concealment is an act of, essentially suppression - the act of total concealment, in the case of the Burka is as close as one can get to total concealment of identity outside of a limited sphere - the bedroom.
I kind of juts want to say hear hear! people need to think before they open their mouths. But I do have to say something, its just gone 4 islamic years since the flare up of the anti veil debate in the UK, and just have to say if there was ever a stupider pice of timing than when that started I have yet to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Morality is both relative and subjective, though. Take Kosher and Halal meat ( i mean the butchering technique) alot of people concider it to be both inhumane and immoral, but I for one have no problem with it. I think meat tastes better that way ( and the differnce in taste is certainly palable).Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Ok with all that but you are forgetting the western muslims, people like my mum who converted but are as english as manchester rain. Or are what about people who are born in a country and never lived anywhere different or are you saying ( and I know you are not what I am tryiong to point out here is the way you have gone about saying it leaves this massive great gapping hole in your argument) that anyone who doesnt conforme is acutomatcally an 'alien' and interloper Id revise the statment if I were you JBI or tighten it up somehoe you are running the risk of coming across as xenophobic.Quote:
That's how I see the whole issue - if you can't accept your new home as your home, than don't bother coming - multiculturalism is one thing, directly allowing things deemed immoral to continue because someone happens to hold them in high regard is another. It's not the west's responsibility to cater to the demands of people wishing to be accepted by it - it is the job of the society to ensure equality between all citizens - likewise, equality comes with the responsibility of respecting, and sacrificing for the sake of others - the Burka does not, and cannot function compatibly with the values of the host society, and, if it is too big a sacrifice to not wear it, people need not come as far as I am concerned.
.
Having said all that I do agree that it is ridiculous to move to a new country and just excpetc to carry on as if you were back where you just left. In which case why did you leave? But at the same time we all have to dmit its not just the case of th muslim communities doing this, all sorts of migrant communties ( and really the majority of muslims in western countries are not migrants themselves but like most ( if not lets face practically all the people in certain coutries) decendant from migrants.
Now I want to say something here, I was born and spent a big chunk of my 'formative' years in Suadi Arabia and it is probably as I direct result of this that I find abayah the epitme of eleagance and Im kind of addicted to checking out the latest abayah/jilbab fashions. Ive even been known to cross the road and stop someone to gush over her abayah. But I don't own one, a) because I figureit will only cause me undue hassle and b) I know they would never look as good on me as they do on other people. But one day I may well crack and buy myself a pretty one just to hang in my cupboard and go ooooh look at my pretty abayah. But that is just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Next time you go out go tossing your dollars and diamonds on your hand in Manhattan or down town or where ever you are! No need to conceal yourself in a locked 'house' for fear of thieves, weather and other social factors.
Man, women are like hearts to be 'concealed' inside the breasts of men!
In this age of 'cyber sex' let's do some travel and universally positive thinking!
JBI, I wish everyone thought like this. What a beautiful statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
eh never mind... Ive said it all before. Its neither good or bad in itself but can and is used to opress some people at the same time for other it can be used as an expression of freedom or defiance.
I was standing on the corner of the street outside my home earlier today watching the faces of the women struggling by. I think burkas should be compulsory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
I'm not an American, nor was I alive when Jackson was president (150 years ago), so that is none of my business, but all this talk is kind of silly, no?Quote:
Prevention is better than cure.
It's natural for men to get enticed even by unsuspecting women; Cain and Abel faced the same problem with a woman; more recently an American President (Jackson, perhaps) had to fight a 'duel' for the sake of a woman!
Women are the greatest gifts of God to men, more precious than the Koh-e-noor; they have to be protected from the evil designs of men, men without humanistic scruples, men who think women worth pebbles to sexually play with and seek pleasure; men who are enticed by diamonds lying in the open unlocked, uncovered, unprotected. Valuables such as diamonds need to be 'kept' at a safer 'place' so as not to entice thieves.
So, if you don't and someone steals them it's not the fault of the 'diamonds' but the 'thief'!
Isn't it the responsibility of the government, and the justice system to protect women? and beyond that, isn't it the responsibility of men to not commit offenses against women? As far as I know, women weren't part of the Cain and Abel narrative, but perhaps you are reading a different version, or choosing to interpret it that way.
I think the whole mentality of protecting women in this sort of way both cheapens men and women - when I walk down the street, even if I were to see the most beautiful woman imaginable, I would still have no desire to violate her, as I have no desire to violate any woman, as no respectable person would ever violate anybody - it's as simple as that, men are born with the capacity to be equal to women, in terms of morality, by denying women expression, you aren't fixing or preventing a problem, you aren't enforcing an equality, merely reducing both man and women to filthy beasts.
The rights of women do need to protected, and woman's right to not be violated must be ensured by the government, the law, and men in general - you don't prevent a problem by simply reducing the female for the sake of making them less attractive - anybody who has studied criminology will tell you that the act of rape isn't generally committed for "the sex", but rather for psychological reasons, mostly having to do with dominance.
Beyond that too, it should be noted, that the vast majority (something like 91%) of rapes occur between people who know each other. Are you suggesting that the Burka is going to remove domestic violence as well? Is it going to make a woman so undesirable to her partner that she isn't subject to spousal rape, which just recently was made legal in several countries where Burka wearing is popular?
Canada, statistically, has one of the highest rape rates in the world - does that mean more women are raped in Canada though, or that more people are willing to seek justice? Is there any proof that violence against women is avoided by locking them up, and if so, isn't the act of locking women up a violence in and of itself?
It's not as if countries that feature such "chaste laws" are really, in terms of violence against women, any better. The UAE, for instance, is one of the most notorious importers of sexual slaves - the gulf itself is a region where a disturbing amount of sexual traffic occurs - Saudi Arabia imports women by the hundreds of thousands - the Iraq war has caused the emergence of untold sexual crimes, while Syria, a predominantly Muslim country, has reaped all the benefits of tourism as a result.
But there are historic precedents to consider as well - the infamous Arab Sex Trade, which ran for centuries was hardly any more humane than anything else - the rates of sexual violence today in areas where Burkas are prevalent are hardly any different.
So where is the justification? Like I said, Canada has a high rate of sexual abuse - does that mean that Canadians are more rape-crazy, or that we merely don't turn a blind eye to it?
Where is the proof then, that the Burka has any effect of reducing sexual crimes against women? Where is the proof that it is having any of those effects?
As for your bit about men having no right to things they don't own, I'm of the mind that no man can own a woman, which, historically, has not been the case in prodominantly Muslim countries (as seen by, again, the notorious Arab Sex trade, and contemporary human trafficking especially around the Gulf). In what sense then, is the Burka needed - it is the role of the citizens of countries who respect human rights, and the rights of women to maintain a standard which enables women to not be violated - not the responsibility of women to degrade themselves, in an ineffective (clearly) way of making themselves undesirable.
No man can own a woman, so why then must a woman sell herself to a man for security?
Of course it's silly to think of being alive today after Jackson, ain't it?Quote:
I'm not an American, nor was I alive when Jackson was president (150 years ago), so that is none of my business, but all this talk is kind of silly, no?
If you are not an American then you are not something out of this world who shuts his eyes to history and refuses to learn lesson from it.
No doubt about it but again it is conditional upon true enforcement of law and justice.Quote:
Isn't it the responsibility of the government, and the justice system to protect women?
again it is but both men (and women) commit offenses despite laws. Can you tell why?Quote:
isn't it the responsibility of men to not commit offenses against women?
this is a new theory I ever heard! On the one hand you say state laws should protect women and men should not molest them but in the same breath you also say protection of the weaker and fairer sex makes men cheaper! This is amazing! Why do you 'insult' women by saying they cannot protect themselves the way they wanted within the laws and general and universal code of moral and ethics?Quote:
I think the whole mentality of protecting women in this sort of way both cheapens men and women
YOu are not an exception and you can't violate a woman like that without facing the music!Quote:
- when I walk down the street, even if I were to see the most beautiful woman imaginable, I would still have no desire to violate her, as I have no desire to violate any woman,
However, if the beauty of a woman doesn't impress you than I doubt something is wrong with you.
Quote:
men are born with the capacity to be equal to women, in terms of morality, by denying women expression, you aren't fixing or preventing a problem, you aren't enforcing an equality, merely reducing both man and women to filthy beasts.
How does a hijab, a scarf or a burqa 'enforce' equality (or inequality )between genders when as a matter of fact both genders are differently built
but for one another? Why should men over-demand from women to satiate their own selfish pleasure?? Why don't women think about women the way you, as a man, think about them?? Men and women are equal in Qualities but unequal physically yet perhaps stronger than men in various other emotional and spiritual aspects.
this would then apply equally to women with and without burqa, depnding upon the first opportunity the rapist gets to lay his hands on a woman! This is why women have to be protected against men as you never know what's in their hearts after seeing a lovely chic!Quote:
anybody who has studied criminology will tell you that the act of rape isn't generally committed for "the sex", but rather for psychological reasons, mostly having to do with dominance.
Have another look at criminology to know if women have also been accused of 'raping' men and committing crimes against men.
not here in Pakistan, at least.Quote:
Beyond that too, it should be noted, that the vast majority (something like 91%) of rapes occur between people who know each other.
domestic violence is a different issue....not linked with burqa. If it were there would have been no such violence.Quote:
Are you suggesting that the Burka is going to remove domestic violence as well?
Quote:
Is it going to make a woman so undesirable to her partner that she isn't subject to spousal rape, which just recently was made legal in several countries where Burka wearing is popular?
O man! as over-eating may lead to indigestion or choking too much exposure of feminine 'surface' also tends to lessen and sicken the appetite (or libido, as you may like to call it)! Fed up with over-sighting nudity and semi-nudity men go (to the 42nd st NY) for 'peep shows'! How sweet it is to sight a girl for a while when suddenly the automatic shutter drops down to cut the view and you have to insert coin after coin just to have another 'peep'! just like 'stolen kisses are the sweetest' the burqa-clad women 'pulls' her man's heart out as she 'unravels' her stocked beauty! Ah, how could you know!
WE have the lowest rate of rape, divorce and illegal children in Pakistan.Quote:
Canada, statistically, has one of the highest rape rates in the world - does that mean more women are raped in Canada though, or that more people are willing to seek justice?
YOu live in Canada you can judge the factors for such offenses there for yourself
Quote:
Is there any proof that violence against women is avoided by locking them up, and if so, isn't the act of locking women up a violence in and of itself?
Who 'locks' up women?? At least no body does here.
As for burqa it is for the women to choose....however, there are some tribal and ethnic communities which demand women to wear burqa or some sort of covering for reasons of environmental and customary reasons.
The enforcement of so-called 'chaste laws' by absolute Kings is beyond comment as imperial laws are no less than tyranny. However, some women there accept that tyranny while others 'aspire' for it under the Western Influence. But one thing is sure...if there is a complaint by a woman against a man that man, a molester or a rapist , loses his head 'in due earnest!'Quote:
It's not as if countries that feature such "chaste laws" are really, in terms of violence against women, any better.
At least the harsh punishments there prevent crimes against women and others more than at any other place.
True, the UAE is replete with blatant 'prostitution' and all things Muslim regard as 'evil'. But since UAE is ruled by Princes they make their own laws,,,,Quote:
The UAE, for instance, is one of the most notorious importers of sexual slaves - the gulf itself is a region where a disturbing amount of sexual traffic occurs - Saudi Arabia imports women by the hundreds of thousands - the Iraq war has caused the emergence of untold sexual crimes, while Syria, a predominantly Muslim country, has reaped all the benefits of tourism as a result.
Saudis are different. they are rich and spoiled and are said to indulge in human trafficking such as small children for camel races and 'purchasing' women from poorer countries whom they keep as wives,mistresses or concubines ! But all this has nothing to do with 'burqa' or the injunctions of Islam! Syrians and who isn't violating the divine laws? The rich are the tourists who visit poor countries where women are their main target of exploitation through pelf! Shame on such men!
As far as Iraq is concerned I will not comment as much worse could be expected in a war-ridden place. In the long run it's the fairer women who suffer the most, and children! I wish the war get over soon!
In UAE or Saudi Arabia action upon a woman's complaint is immediate and the rapist will surely have his throat cut and body thrown to dogs at once!
Have you ever thought why justice is not imparted so quickly in other countries??
this is not true but a mere propaganda.Quote:
- the rates of sexual violence to day in areas where Burkas are prevalent are hardly any different.
This should be a food for thought for you!Quote:
So where is the justification? Like I said, Canada has a high rate of sexual abuse - does that mean that Canadians are more rape-crazy, or that we merely don't turn a blind eye to it?
We don't have this problem in Pakistan ---burqa or no burqa!
Make a trip to Saudia and find out after teasing a woman in the street!Quote:
Where is the proof then, that the Burka has any effect of reducing sexual crimes against women? Where is the proof that it is having any of those effects?
By 'owning' I meant in the same sense as owning and disowning! Your family owns you, you own or disown your family, don't you?Quote:
As for your bit about men having no right to things they don't own, I'm of the mind that no man can own a woman,
You are witnessing against yourself by first stating the deplorable condition in Canada, your home country, where no burqa is worn. You should ask yourself how 'women molestation' could be eradicated in your own burqa-less country before you criticize others. However, in the going I may write to say that gender crime will never end but has a tendency to decrease with women not intermixing and not exposing their charms and adornments to public! The lesser the thing greater the demand!Quote:
In what sense then, is the Burka needed - it is the role of the citizens of countries who respect human rights, and the rights of women to maintain a standard which enables women to not be violated - not the responsibility of women to degrade themselves, in an ineffective (clearly) way of making themselves undesirable.
I am my wife's slave, any objections??Quote:
No man can own a woman, so why then must a woman sell herself to a man for security?
I know that was aimed at JBI, but you have made some points which seem either blatantly or naively wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Your comment was in response to JBI's point about 90% of rapes being committed by someone they know.
You say Pakistan is different and that isn't the case there.
I flatly refute that.
In most cases of rape by a family member or close friend in Pakistan, the victim is discouraged - or worse - to report it by society, tradition and fear.
This is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
You are making generalisations (and incorrect linkage) on the basis of an extremely small minority of men who visit peep shows. Reality doesn't work anything like you suggest.
Reported crime does not reflect actual crime in your society. Need I mention the completely wrongly-named "honour killings"?Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
What are "illegal children"?
Your claims are a bit like Ahmadinejad's claims that there is no homophobia or laws against homosexuality in Iran because there are no homosexuals.
This is assertion without basis. On the evidence of women who have been stoned for adultery after claiming rape, I'm very sceptical of how Saudis in particular deal with rape allegations.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
There is a difference between rape and fornication. Yes, if rape or fornication is proved, there is death penalty for it in Saudia. for you enlightenment I must add that there is NO imprisonment for women in Islam for any criminal offense and it is nearly impossible in normal cases to prove rape as well because you need 4 adult upright people as eye witnesses of the act. That has never happened and not a SINGLE Muslim woman has thus been punished for rape...that being none of her fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If there are incidences otherwise that's not Islamic but Imperial or political act of men!
Eh wait WHAT? Umm MazHur Im fairly certain you got that the wrong way round, its only fornication or adultury ( and especially adultury) and thus stones/whips if the act itself is seen by 4 witnesses of good chachater and all four witness statments match up.
rape doesnt have to be obsevred to be proven.