Burka

[mazHur]

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.

Thanks Shade for correction. in my attempt to escape details I got the wrong way round. yes, punishment for adultery for unmarried and married Muslims is different, more severe for the married.

The condition of 4 eye witness of high esteem and concurrence between their statements is such a great burden of proof to condemn a women of adultery that Islam ensures women the greatest respect and honor of all!

It also goes without saying that Islam lays severe punishment for falsely accusing a woman of adultery.



What else does a woman need to live an honorable life in this world??
the total liability of maintaining his wife and children and providing them safety and security lies on the man!!

[Nightshade]

right, just to be clear though rape is completly different from adultury or fornication.

[JBI]

You missed my points entirely, but I'll just address one now, as I am a little tired of arguing.

Canada doesn't have a higher occurrence of rape than other countries, it has a higher occurrence of people seeking justice for sexual abuses committed against them - as such, our rate is more than double that of the United States, but I would argue the frequency of the crime being committed is hardly different at all - likewise, our reported rates of spousal abuse are higher, but I would wager the occurrence is roughly the same in most developed countries.

When we consider the data, we notice that certain countries have dismally low rates. Japan for instance has a dismally low rate, but arguably the frequency is similar to that of other countries - the culture itself shuns the reporting of such crimes.

Saudi Arabia has a rate of 0.27/100 000 people. Does this mean that there is that much less rape occurring there than the 77.64/100 000 in Canada, or that merely the culture is prohibitive of social justice? The vast importation of sexual slaves to the country would suggest quite a different picture all together, yet the rates can't lie, right?

I guess Pakistan is the exception though right? If people are so fundamentally driven with these repulsive sexual drives, how it is that they are suppressed in your country exactly? I'm with The Atheist in thinking you are playing into the Ahmadinejad argument of "it doesn't exist here".

right, just to be clear though rape is completly different from adultury or fornication.

In a sense, but in countries that have legalized spousal rape, in the sense that a man is allowed to demand sex from his wife(s) whenever he wants it, the line is blurred, as is the case in many countries, perhaps significantly in one poster's country where "rape doesn't occur", Pakistan, which essentially makes it completely legal. To what extent then, can we define the difference between "consent", and "rape"? Is an old man marrying a prepubescent girl, for instance, "rape", or merely a good time? Depends on the country. Saudi Arabia, I hear, is recently changing their law to consider it illegal (after I believe it was a 60 year old man married something like an 8 year old), but is that rape?

The actual conceptualization of violence against women is not agreed upon by all countries (though, most Western countries adhere to a similar code, as pointed out by UN Charters against women). The actual frequency of sexual slavery in some countries discredits any real argument of "rape not occurring in my country", or "rape doesn't exist in Pakistan", or "the Burka stops women from being raped".

Just googling for a second, I found this article http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/23...und-World.html

[Scheherazade]

A reminder of the OP:

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?

If there are any other burning issues you would like to discuss, please start another thread.

Further off-topic posts will be removed.

[mazHur]

just received these comments from an American lady Psychologist the contents of which are self-explanatory and serve as good ‘food for thought’

“……perhaps the major reasons the West hates the veils (any type) so much is that:

1. It prevents women’s bodies from being displayed like pieces of meat to the public.
(The US has an incredibly high incidence of sexual assault — one in four women)

2. Westerners think that veiled women might not spend so much money on cosmetics, clothes, fashion accessories, etc.
(In the US, more money is spent on cosmetics alone than on public education. Big, big business.)”

another point of view....


''One more notion that just hit my head is that “burqa also serves as a ‘uniform’–an overall— for a community such as the Muslim women the same way as a ’sari’ is generally understood to be a Hindu dress though some Indian Muslim women also wear it.''

[JBI]

It has a connection, because you justified the Burka as a preventative rape measure - if you can prove that it is used as a justifiable mechanism against sexual assault, than you have an argument, otherwise, you will, arguably, need to withdraw your comments, as they don't hold to the evidence - show me, from a credible source, proof that the burka is directly responsible for improving the quality of life for women, and reducing both violence in general, as well as domestic violence, and I will agree with you, but until you can show such things, you are, arguably, merely clouding your head with fallacy. Saying rape doesn't exist in Pakistan isn't good enough - in fact, it probably isn't fair to a) the victims of the crime, and b) the offenders who should be brought to justice.

[mazHur]

It has a connection, because you justified the Burka as a preventative rape measure - if you can prove that it is used as a justifiable mechanism against sexual assault, than you have an argument, otherwise, you will, arguably, need to withdraw your comments, as they don't hold to the evidence - show me, from a credible source, proof that the burka is directly responsible for improving the quality of life for women, and reducing both violence in general, as well as domestic violence, and I will agree with you, but until you can show such things, you are, arguably, merely clouding your head with fallacy. Saying rape doesn't exist in Pakistan isn't good enough - in fact, it probably isn't fair to a) the victims of the crime, and b) the offenders who should be brought to justice.

Only English law is enforced in the country. The so-called Huddood Laws 1979 drawn by a tyrant ,who vainly tried to 'test' them to 'shut the people up' , now only exist on paper. Hence there is no gain in discussing them.
Yes, I can bet that if Islamic punishments are truly enforced and burqa is adopted by women as in Saudia there would hardly be any mentionable incident of rape (forced assault). Let not your mind waver with the redundant hand-picked wordings of the late Ordinance drafted to suit the rule of an ex tyrant---that's now history!

[JBI]

Only English law is enforced in the country. The so-called Huddood Laws 1979 drawn by a tyrant ,who vainly tried to 'test' them to 'shut the people up' , now only exist on paper. Hence there is no gain in discussing them.
Yes, I can bet that if Islamic punishments are truly enforced and burqa is adopted by women as in Saudia there would hardly be any mentionable incident of rape (forced assault). Let not your mind waver with the redundant hand-picked wordings of the late Ordinance drafted to suit the rule of an ex tyrant---that's now history!

Footnote please? Prove it - as far as I have read, you have posted no proof to back up your claims in the effectiveness of the Burka as a preventative measure against sexual assault, nor have you justified that there is any correlation between the Burka, and women's rights. Ahmadinejad claims aren't going to convince anyone here, hate to break it to you, so if you wish to go about convincing people, please deliver some statistical information to give credit to what you have said - preferably something credible.

[mazHur]

Footnote please? Prove it - as far as I have read, you have posted no proof to back up your claims in the effectiveness of the Burka as a preventative measure against sexual assault, nor have you justified that there is any correlation between the Burka, and women's rights. Ahmadinejad claims aren't going to convince anyone here, hate to break it to you, so if you wish to go about convincing people, please deliver some statistical information to give credit to what you have said - preferably something credible.

You are free to google stats....if stats. satisfy you.

The proof of the Burqa in preventing rape could be evidenced in places where it is worn or practiced and human rights are protected by Islamic laws. Such an example is Saudi Arabia and perhaps Maldives. By extension, burqa is common in the Northern Frontier parts of Pakistan where rape cases are rare not mainly due to religious protection but by the typical tribal societal and social structure of the locality.

It is very unwise of someone to lay the protection of women rights and elimination of possibility of rape merely on the burqa or hijab. We live in a world of humans and are not free from good and evil human urges towards one another. Burqa or no burqa, the basics lie in the enforcement of law and justice. If Islamic penal code is applied there would be an end to almost all crimes in the world (by Islamic standards). But this is not possible, I realize, without the establishment of a true Islamic Welfare State which doesn't exist anywhere so far.

The bad Talibans are tribal people who want to enforce Islamic laws as they interpret them according to themselves. This was oppressive of them which most Muslims also detested and they got into trouble with the west as well. However, you cannot cite one example of women raped by them during their short 'rule' in Afghanistan!!! This is also a proof that burqa plus Islamic laws kill crime!

I am not Ahmadinijad's brothers keeper. He may be having his own views and assertions, I am telling you what i know to the best of my experience, belief and knowledge. Take it or leave it.

If you still insist on being 'convinced' i may suggest you visit some countries including Iran, Saudia and Pakistan for a better understanding of 'burqa, 'women rights' and allied factors (such as enforcement of law and justice).

[The Atheist]

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!

Bolding mine.

That's exactly what I meant in terms of how the crime is viewed in Pakistan.

Have you ever wondered why islamic law says that if a woman allows herself to be alone with a non-relative male, it is the woman who's punished?

If protection of women from the roving eyes and bodies of hormone-crazy men, surely it would be the men who are punished and not the women?

Instead of women wearing burqa, should all men be blindfolded in public?

[JBI]

You are free to google stats....if stats. satisfy you.

The proof of the Burqa in preventing rape could be evidenced in places where it is worn or practiced and human rights are protected by Islamic laws. Such an example is Saudi Arabia and perhaps Maldives. By extension, burqa is common in the Northern Frontier parts of Pakistan where rape cases are rare not mainly due to religious protection but by the typical tribal societal and social structure of the locality.

It is very unwise of someone to lay the protection of women rights and elimination of possibility of rape merely on the burqa or hijab. We live in a world of humans and are not free from good and evil human urges towards one another. Burqa or no burqa, the basics lie in the enforcement of law and justice. If Islamic penal code is applied there would be an end to almost all crimes in the world (by Islamic standards). But this is not possible, I realize, without the establishment of a true Islamic Welfare State which doesn't exist anywhere so far.

The bad Talibans are tribal people who want to enforce Islamic laws as they interpret them according to themselves. This was oppressive of them which most Muslims also detested and they got into trouble with the west as well. However, you cannot cite one example of women raped by them during their short 'rule' in Afghanistan!!! This is also a proof that burqa plus Islamic laws kill crime!

I am not Ahmadinijad's brothers keeper. He may be having his own views and assertions, I am telling you what i know to the best of my experience, belief and knowledge. Take it or leave it.

If you still insist on being 'convinced' i may suggest you visit some countries including Iran, Saudia and Pakistan for a better understanding of 'burqa, 'women rights' and allied factors (such as enforcement of law and justice).

Well, since you are reluctant to back your claims up with anything substantial besides your "the best of [your] experience, belief and knowledge," I guess I might as well just dismiss everything you say as anecdotal and unproven.

It's not my job to try and prove your exaggerated claims - the fact that I asked for evidence is proof enough that I don't believe much of what you say - it is your job to back up what you say, otherwise your arguments fold for lack of credibility.

Bolding mine.

That's exactly what I meant in terms of how the crime is viewed in Pakistan.

Have you ever wondered why islamic law says that if a woman allows herself to be alone with a non-relative male, it is the woman who's punished?

If protection of women from the roving eyes and bodies of hormone-crazy men, surely it would be the men who are punished and not the women?

Instead of women wearing burqa, should all men be blindfolded in public?

Why bother - most men can control themselves, and as said before, most sexual assault occurs between people who know each other - usually intimately - it's degrading to both men and women to suggest that unless a woman is essentially invisible (besides perhaps her hands) that she is going to get violated when she walks down the street.

[mazHur]

Bolding mine.

That's exactly what I meant in terms of how the crime is viewed in Pakistan.

Have you ever wondered why islamic law says that if a woman allows herself to be alone with a non-relative male, it is the woman who's punished?

If protection of women from the roving eyes and bodies of hormone-crazy men, surely it would be the men who are punished and not the women?

Instead of women wearing burqa, should all men be blindfolded in public?

You are wrong! Women are not dumb or like little babies in the cradle who would not complain after being raped. Alleging rape is other than 'proving rape' which is open for every victim to do but rape cases are not as heinously gross here as in the US (one in four women).


No woman is punished if she goes out to do shopping, attend office etc without a relative male. However, unlike the West NO stranger can come to her house and ask her to join in for a dinner or date. There is absolutely no concept of 'dating' in our culture...and if any woman dares do it and is caught she is liable not only at law but for a greater trouble on the family and social level.

There is no need for us to follow the West in many cultural and social matters.
For example if you kissed your wife in public you would be jailed! That's the law of the place!

A day will come when those who do not believe in God would insist that God believed in them!! It's like your saying that all men should be blinded.... why not, if they cast evil look at women! It's for ' personal safety and security' from the dirty gaze of men that women are demanding burqa.

Well, since you are reluctant to back your claims up with anything substantial besides your "the best of [your] experience, belief and knowledge," I guess I might as well just dismiss everything you say as anecdotal and unproven.

It's not my job to try and prove your exaggerated claims - the fact that I asked for evidence is proof enough that I don't believe much of what you say - it is your job to back up what you say, otherwise your arguments fold for lack of credibility.

the internet is full of information. Google and take the trouble to collect stats.

Take it or leave it...I have given the facts while you are just conjecturing and surmising....about your manly notions!

Why bother - most men can control themselves,

That's why 1 in 4 women are assaulted in the US!

and as said before, most sexual assault occurs between people who know each other - usually intimately

-

this is more the reason for women to stay aloof from 'hawks' and hide behind hijab!

it's degrading to both men and women to suggest that unless a woman is essentially invisible (besides perhaps her hands) that she is going to get violated when she walks down the street

.

Why should men feel degraded unless they suffer from some 'inferiority complex'? Most Delicate flowers have to protect themselves from burning heat of the 'sun'!

Burqa or no burqa, it's not only the 'fear' of getting violated by dirty men there is some feminine fashion involved therein. What right do men have to snatch away that right from women?

[The Atheist]

You are wrong! Women are not dumb or like little babies in the cradle who would not complain after being raped. Alleging rape is other than 'proving rape' which is open for every victim to do but rape cases are not as heinously gross here as in the US (one in four women).

You appear to be afiling to acknowledge the difference between statistical crime and actual crime. That, and the wide gulf in how the justice systems treat rape.

No woman is punished if she goes out to do shopping, attend office etc without a relative male. However, unlike the West NO stranger can come to her house and ask her to join in for a dinner or date. There is absolutely no concept of 'dating' in our culture...and if any woman dares do it and is caught she is liable not only at law but for a greater trouble on the family and social level.

I didn't say she had to have a male relative with her, but you've hit the nail on the head with the second part.

A woman dating will be punished, yet you claim the laws are to protect women from unscrupulous men. Your claim falls to bits, because if the object was to protect rather than control, the men would be punished instead.

There is no need for us to follow the West in many cultural and social matters.
For example if you kissed your wife in public you would be jailed! That's the law of the place!

My word yes; kissing my wife in public would be a sin. It would be awful for kids to see a family where the mother and father still love and respect each other. We can't allow kids to grow up thinking that kind of behaviour is normal.

A day will come when those who do not believe in God would insist that God believed in them!! It's like your saying that all men should be blinded.... why not, if they cast evil look at women! It's for ' personal safety and security' from the dirty gaze of men that women are demanding burqa.

See above; who is protecting whom?

[mazHur]

You appear to be afiling to acknowledge the difference between statistical crime and actual crime. That, and the wide gulf in how the justice systems treat rape.

I didn't say she had to have a male relative with her, but you've hit the nail on the head with the second part.

Caught dating or involved in adultery would be hell for the male as well. Try to understand, without viewing the topic through your own 'lens' only.

A woman dating will be punished, yet you claim the laws are to protect women from unscrupulous men. Your claim falls to bits, because if the object was to protect rather than control, the men would be punished instead.

Dating is unlawful. It is culturally and socially wrong. How could you imagine someone 'protecting' a 'thief' against the law? How could you unilaterally try to superimpose the liberality of your culture and laws on others? As the old adage goes, The Meat of one is poison for the other!

My word yes; kissing my wife in public would be a sin. It would be awful for kids to see a family where the mother and father still love and respect each other. We can't allow kids to grow up thinking that kind of behaviour is normal.

Instead of the word 'wife' read 'woman'.
I know how many 'girlfriends' have to be 'tried' by 'boys' before getting married and how any young girl who doesn't have a boy friend is looked down upon in the West society by men! Good girls are not that 'cheap' here to offer their cherries for trial to men without the marriage contract.

See above; who is protecting whom?

What disturbs you if women want to protect themselves in their own way from demeaning men who exploit them for their 'flesh' only! Disgracing a woman is a disgrace to humanity!

[JBI]

What disturbs you if women want to protect themselves in their own way from demeaning men who exploit them for their 'flesh' only! Disgracing a woman is a disgrace to humanity!

What if women wish to, as is normal, gain physical gratification from sexual relations with men they aren't seriously involved with? How is that a disgrace to humanity - you act as if human sexuality is such a repulsive thing, but the drastically high birthrate in such countries shows that sex is clearly occuring - the difference is, it is being restricted, thereby limited to the sphere of married life - a woman loses the control of her sexuality, due to it being subject to the whim of her husband - the actual disgrace then is artificially created, as a means of ensuring sexually liberal acts, such as consensual pre-marital/cohabital/casual sexual relations are deemed filthy, as apposed to what they really are, perhaps pleasureful (we should hope that women in such countries receive pleasure from sex). You seem to put the emphasis too highly on sex as a form of reproduction, in contrast to the concept of sex for the practice of having an orgasm, which generally would seem to be the sexually natural form of fornication - the removal of the orgasm from this equation then, restricts the sexual practice, in the woman's case, as a mere means of perpetuating blood-lines - it is no wonder than, that you cannot understand the notion of sex-for-pleasure, when quite simply, you have completely removed pleasure, on the woman's part at least, from the equation.