Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Thats an ignorant question... don`t get culture and religion mixed up...And if you do think its all Mulsim women, go to your local mosque and ask them for yourself, rather then making an assumption to people who aren`t educated on their subject. I`ve never, EVER, met any female Muslim who has felt forced to wear anything they didn`t want to.
You`ll notice most countries, even in the mid east, the discussion is around the headscarf ban, not the headscarf enforcement.
the idea that it is "obviously forced" because no-one would want to wear it voluntarily, is only viable as an argument for social coercion, which then applies to (as I said) high heels, corsets, and many other impractical things people do for fashion.
You`re seriously saying women wouldn`t wear a particular type of hat if it was fashionable because it was silly?
Well I guess I can`t argue with that...
I have read both of your arguments and you are genuinely clutching at straws.
Additionally: 1) All punishments in the Quran are the maximum allowable, not the minimum as you seem to suggest. The Quran also suggests imprisonment for adulterers, and furthermore suggests that all punishments can be waved by the victim of any crime, or the family of the victim. Thus negating entirely your claims of "requirement", but the drama was spectacular.
2) Given the choice of a federal prison, for oh, say 5 years, and flogging, which would you choose?
Your deterrent for crime is not lack of freedom, it is the threat of constant rape and violence in an enclosed space with other criminals.
Would you like to see some pictures of "home made" prison weapons? I assure you they`re more severe than the flogging.
It is exactly the same. My sister wears the veil voluntarily and has no problems. My other sister wears the veil not at all and has no problems.
I`m not condoning forcing anyone to do anything.
The veil is therefore comparable to stupid fashions worldwide, which are socially enforced. Your insertion of extra criteria which you have a problem with is a separate issue. You are combining the two and then trying to defeat the veil on it`s own.
Considering most veiling debates of recent note are the banning of the garment in France and Holland, I`d say if anything, NOT wearing the veil is a sign of oppression. Not vice versa in those countries.
But hey, beat the everliving poo out of that point, go nuts. Coercion is bad. Hell, even pretend I disagree. Just don`t pretend you`ve touched upon the issue of veiling yet.
Either way the coverage matches Niqab most closely. It is a Niqab. That`s what it is. That is the definition. Does it cover the eyes with a METAL GRATE? No? Not a Burqa. Never will be a Burqa, please read the respondents who answered me with "Of course it`s not a burqa".
drat, it even has descriptions with the pictures: "The niqab is a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes clear." Say what you see.
The Burqa: "covers the entire face and body, leaving just a mesh screen to see through".
How about just trusting the middle easterner on middle eastern terms?
You are clearly incompetent at even basic visual recognition when it comes to your prejudices. It`s astounding. Seriously, just read the text and look at the picture.
It. Isn`t. A. Burqa. You lose x1000.
None of those are *required*. A woman in this country doesn`t have to worry about being jailed, beaten or whipped if she doesn`t conform to the things you refer to. She doesn`t even have to worry about being ostracised, or even about people disapproving of her for not dressing that way, having botox and breast implants.
Does that make sense to anyone? Does anyone know any woman who has been criticised at all, let alone jailed or beaten, for not wearing a miniskirt in all weathers, not always wearing high heals, not having breast implants and/or not having botox?
So it isn`t the same at all. You`re grasping comically at straws.
Now look at the photo and look at the images you have decided are accurate (above, the link you gave).
And the closest match in terms of coverage is?
It is required, even the precise type and quantity is specified. Try Sura 24:2, for example.
Would you like to see videos of examples? This is not something made up. It is Islam. It`s right there in the Quran, so you`re on very dodgy ground objecting to it. But congratulations anyway - you`re the first Muslim I`ve encountered who has objected to it and I`ve been looking for a couple of years know, ever since a Muslim opened my eyes to the reality behind the pretty facade.
The only thing I`m not sure on is what happens if the victims dies during the flogging - is that enough or is the corpse flogged to get to the mandatory 100 strokes?
Also, bear in mind that is the *lesser* penalty. Stoning to death is favoured by some Muslims, but the Islamic basis for that is much less clear.
im not religious, but i dont find this funny.
If I told you, you had nice pants. It doesn`t matter that you call them trousers. You would still get the concept. If I called them Lederhosen , it`s just wrong.
"It`s kinda like what you westerners wear though" is ignorant, but an honest mistake.
"THEY`RE LEDERHOSEN! Lots of my friends call them lederhosen! I MUST WIN THIS!" is just willful deliberate forced ignorance. It`s vomit worthy. It`s what you`re doing.
The Burqa is a very specific cultural dress. It is not what 99.7% of Muslim women wear. Only 10% wear any Niqab at all. 30% wear full Abaya.
60% wear the Hijab, Sheilah or other replacement.
I know this. You do not. How about just admitting your mistake instead of fighting the lederhosen battle like an idiot?
Angilion, your post only demonstrates my point... Islam Online does not refer to the Niqab as a Burka. They use the word Burka to refer to a Burka, and even in the picture refer to it as a head to toe covering, and differentiate between the Burka wore by the lady in the article, and the Hijab ruling in schools earlier.
Additionally: Common ignorance is not knowledge. It doesn`t matter if 4Chan doesn`t know what a Burka is.
Also, torture is not required. I do object. I know my religion, I know it better than you do. Your conclusions, as they have always been, are not logical conclusions from argument. They are your starting points, your prejudices, and you will never, despite evidence presented, diverge from them.
If you want us to be comic book villains, fair enough, but don`t pretend to be doing so from some enlightened standpoint.
"Radical Muslim" is not a race. Any society that coerces women into wearing these preposterous garbs deserves to be laughed at.
Nothing comic book about it. For example, torture is required in Islam. You`re not allowed to object, because it`s very clear in the Qu`ran. You may not like it personally, but you can`t object and you wouldn`t be in charge. The people in charge of a theocracy are usually the people who most want power and they`re rarely nice. When you have an entire religion built on obedience, it`s a godsend for tyrants.
Also, there is nothing hidden about the goal. Many religions incorporate wanting to take over ("convert") the world and Islam is one of them.
Incidentally, niqab refers specifically to a face covering and describing the complete clothing pictured as a burkha is commonplace, including from Muslims:
It`s cultural advertising ad best, social conditioning at worst.
The thing you clearly don`t get is that those factors play into it, and that your concept of what people want won`t necessarily be the same to people who haven`t had your upbringing.
And as for burqa`s, after Afghanistan, their version of the burqa combined with the niqab is the only one that will come to mind when the term is used.
Surely, a society in which men chose what women wear would look like this:
Though maybe a compromise could be reached?
It`s strange that many unnamed English-speaking secular sources would be wrong on foreign terminology of a religious topic?
You`re, at the very least in the case of Islam Online, wrong, a quick search will pull up that they use the proper word Niqab, and differentiate between the two in at least most of their articles.
Their question and answer section on the ban in France also deals briefly with the unfortunate confusions in Media between the Hijab, Niqab and the Afghan Burqa.
Also, to your conclusion: You`re right, we`re comic book villains and we`re trying to take over the world. Damnit, might as well give up the ruse.
Why you racist IAB?
*clap clap clap clap...
If you think they are Bhurkas, maybe your knowledge of the culture you`re talking about is low enough that your comments aren`t really worthwhile?"
Strange that Islamic sources such as Islam Online, as well as secular sources, would count those as burkhas.
"Furthermore: Anyone able to tell me the dress code for men? Anyone actually know there was one?"
Essentially, modest dress. Which is also essentially the dress code for women. The dress code for both sexes varies from place to place, probably because it isn`t actually defined in Islam.
"Anyone know the origins of the coverings? Noble women trying to demonstrate they were more religious than their neighbours, not angry men in a secret bid to depersonalize them."
The origin is of historical interest to scholars. The result is of practical interest to everyone, and the result is depersonalisation and isolation. Which I think is the purpose of the garments.
Also, I agree, these are not Burqas. Who said they were?
Which is pretty much the same ratio as western decency laws, just stricter overall. It isn`t to prevent male rape, it isn`t to dehumanize men, it isn`t to make them Kandoora fillers.
Additionally, whilst I normally think Saudi sucks (Seriously for all you Americans in the Audience, please stop allying with them on every front even though they are in every metric worse than Iran. Women in Iran can vote, not Saudi, women in Iran can drive, not Saudi. The list is endless. Also why do your newspapers call them "one of the more moderate Islamic states"? Nobody who knows them thinks that.)
But I digress: More than burqa stuffing.
If you think they are Bhurkas, maybe your knowledge of the culture you`re talking about is low enough that your comments aren`t really worthwhile?
Goalie: As I said before, in 6 years of Islamic education, the first time I heard of the 70 virgins was on debate forums from Americans. There is a reason for that, you`ve latched on to some obscure verse and are pretending you know something about Islamic cutlure. It isn`t the case.
Furthermore: Anyone able to tell me the dress code for men? Anyone actually know there was one?
Anyone know the origins of the coverings? Noble women trying to demonstrate they were more religious than their neighbours, not angry men in a secret bid to depersonalize them.
Well, liberal critics (I`m talking liberal as in liberal political philosophy, of which American "Conservatism" is a part, which may crudely be described as "western," or in other words respectful of individual rights) might add that it is symptomatic of a chauvinistic theocratic society to address male sexual aggression, NOT by educating or punishing males, but rather making ALL women cover up.
See? If women weren`t so attractive, men wouldn`t rape them all the time. Its THEIR fault, so they NEED to stay hidden.
There is an interesting argument that Islamic polygamy leads to terrorism, since most women can find a wealthy man and join his group of wives. (And they DO - they can live a rich life). This leaves a huge population of poor, uneducated males, who have no chance of getting SEX, because casual sex is a CRIME. Thus, 70 virgins seems quite appealing to NO SEX or MASTURBATION.
God Bless America.
I`m pretty sure a lady in south australia was granted to do that for her drivers license. thats just not right to me
Yes, there is. They depersonalise the wearers, which makes them easier to ignore as people. Because they aren`t people, they`re just burkha filling. Could be anything in there and it doesn`t matter.
It`s a very ugly point, but it is a point.
They even try to get their driver license photos taken like that.
You can`t be racist by mocking a religion. You may be xenophobic, but not racist.
Stop calling everyone a racist. Your devaluing the word.
That made my day for some reason... :D
"1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one`s own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Don`t see that here.
"2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination."Don`t see that here either.
"3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."Nope, not here.
It`s not racist, stop being so PC people.
I am on the same page with Shtiv, I have not nor will I ever condone the use of Burkhas.
If catholics wore Burkha`s, that would suck. If Jews wore Burkha`s, that would suck. Yes, some Muslims wear Burkha`s but guess what? It doesn`t matter what religion is an advocate of them, Burkha`s still SUCK.
...and what is `racist` about this?
And on topic, they are all hot !!!
:| sorry. I just had to say that.