Burka

[blazeofglory]

@ 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.

But all I can say is women are conditioned to have a burga on themselves

[mazHur]

You are partly right.

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!).

[Gladys]

But all I can say is women are conditioned to have a burga on themselves

Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?

Women with a Burka on are really suppressed.

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?

[mazHur]

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

[JBI]

Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?



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?

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

[Nightshade]

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.

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.

By that token, we now have a problem - what is the line between morality and cultural sensitivity?

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).

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.
.

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.

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.

Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?

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.

[mazHur]

it is the responsibility of men to not rape a woman, not of a woman to make herself undesirable and therefore not entice men

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'!

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.

Men have no right to something which they don't own....
If the moon doesn't appear or is hidden behind the clouds, men have no right to cuss her! Why should ' feminine beauty' be made so open and cheaper for men's selfish pleasure??

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.

havn't you heard the old adage,WOMEN FIRST!!
In times of peace or war, it has always been Women (and children by extension) FIRST. That's the human motto, that's the historical rule since the beginning of time!

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".

absurd!
Nobody is expected to follow someone else against his will.
there might still be remnants of cannibalism in some parts of Africa or South America, but we cannot compare that with universal custom and practices. In indian you can't slaughter a cow, in Muslim countries you won't get pigs,
in Korea dogs are eaten---all this doesn't mean that we should also follow any one of them for their notions or practices.

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.

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!

[TheFifthElement]

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.

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.

JBI, I wish everyone thought like this. What a beautiful statement.

[Nightshade]

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.

[Bergbau]

Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion?

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.

[JBI]

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'!

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?

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?

[mazHur]

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?

Of course it's silly to think of being alive today after Jackson, ain't it?
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.

Isn't it the responsibility of the government, and the justice system to protect women?

No doubt about it but again it is conditional upon true enforcement of law and justice.

isn't it the responsibility of men to not commit offenses against women?

again it is but both men (and women) commit offenses despite laws. Can you tell why?

I think the whole mentality of protecting women in this sort of way both cheapens men and 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?

- 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,

YOu are not an exception and you can't violate a woman like that without facing the music!
However, if the beauty of a woman doesn't impress you than I doubt something is wrong with you.

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.

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.

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!

Have another look at criminology to know if women have also been accused of 'raping' men and committing crimes against men.

Beyond that too, it should be noted, that the vast majority (something like 91%) of rapes occur between people who know each other.

not here in Pakistan, at least.

Are you suggesting that the Burka is going to remove domestic violence as well?

domestic violence is a different issue....not linked with burqa. If it were there would have been no such violence.

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!

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?

WE have the lowest rate of rape, divorce and illegal children in Pakistan.
YOu live in Canada you can judge the factors for such offenses there for yourself

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.

It's not as if countries that feature such "chaste laws" are really, in terms of violence against women, any better.

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!'
At least the harsh punishments there prevent crimes against women and others more than at any other place.

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.

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,,,,
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??

- the rates of sexual violence to day in areas where Burkas are prevalent are hardly any different.

this is not true but a mere propaganda.

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?

This should be a food for thought for you!
We don't have this problem in Pakistan ---burqa or no burqa!

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?

Make a trip to Saudia and find out after teasing a woman in the street!

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,

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?

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.

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!

No man can own a woman, so why then must a woman sell herself to a man for security?

I am my wife's slave, any objections??

[The Atheist]

not here in Pakistan, at least.

I know that was aimed at JBI, but you have made some points which seem either blatantly or naively wrong.

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.

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!

This is absurd.

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.

WE have the lowest rate of rape, divorce and illegal children in Pakistan.
YOu live in Canada you can judge the factors for such offenses there for yourself

Reported crime does not reflect actual crime in your society. Need I mention the completely wrongly-named "honour killings"?

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.

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 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.

[mazHur]

I know that was aimed at JBI, but you have made some points which seem either blatantly or naively wrong.

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.


You are mistaken. If the cases are not reported how have you come to discover?
Yes, Pakistan is different. I live in Pakistan not you. Keep believing in propaganda and a few oddities if you want but situation is Pakistan is 95 % better than the West in this regard.

This is absurd.

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.

Why absurd? don't men enjoy peep shows ( given the first opportunity)??

Reported crime does not reflect actual crime in your society. Need I mention the completely wrongly-named "honour killings"?

the so-called 'honor killings' have no bearing with burqa and is off topic.
Honor killing is a tribal and feudal custom in a few areas of Pakistan, already under controversy. There are a few more terrible tribal practices but they have nothing to do with burqa or Islam. Crime has many faces....not burqa!

What are "illegal children"?

I tried to be 'neat' but as you insist 'illegal children' are nullius fillius or simply 'bastards'.

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.

I have nothing to do with nejad...and this topic is restricted to Burqa only.
Homosexuals usually do not declare themselves as such in the first instance
(check out history) but later in years. I won't say homosexuality isn't there in Iran or Pakistan but that's a covert affair there and you never know. And if they are caught ..............swish...there goes their neck or they might be stoned to death, at least in Saudia!

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

.

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.
If there are incidences otherwise that's not Islamic but Imperial or political act of men!

[Nightshade]

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.