why then, do a lot of muslim coutries require that even western women must cover themselves up while visiting the country?
Printable View
why then, do a lot of muslim coutries require that even western women must cover themselves up while visiting the country?
Riiighhhtt.... :rolleyes:
The women have the deciding vote on this do they?... Bull****. Women get to decide **** as far as I can see. And you can quit with the religious crap as well. We were discussing the politcal implications and stupid laws passed by humans. No divine intervention, no religious crap to be inserted into this thread.
Kovan
I am not trying to get into a debate about what is required in Islamic faith. However,
Look, I realise that most muslim women cover themselves because they choose to. They are not the ones being abused. It is those who are being forced to (by threat of physical and emotional violence) whom are being abused.Quote:
hmmm, is it me or do MOST woman wear the cover because they want to, so it is the same case in afghanistan
where i am actually from there is no laws for putting this on
yet 90% of the muslims cover themselves,
Kovan
I know full well that many Islamic women choose to cover themselves volutarilly with no pressure from either the state, famillies or their husbands. The pressure comes only from a sense of wishing to conform to what they understand their religion requires of them. I know this because my cousin converted to Islam.
She has become very devout and, whilst she is married to a muslim, he is not strict attall (indeed, she is often infuriated by his lack of devoutness) but she covers herself in public all the time, even when in front of familly. I know she is not being forced into it and chose to live that way of life. Personally, I think it's sad but I respect her decision.
I therefore think it would be wrong if she were refused access to public buildings because of the clothes she wears. But, I do not believe that it would be as bad as being subject to violence (emotional or physical) for wearing those clothes in public.
if your not interested in this discussion, stop postingQuote:
Originally posted by Jamagei
Riiighhhtt.... :rolleyes:
The women have the deciding vote on this do they?... Bull****. Women get to decide **** as far as I can see. And you can quit with the religious crap as well. We were discussing the politcal implications and stupid laws passed by humans. No divine intervention, no religious crap to be inserted into this thread.
simonm, cool cool
look at thi this way though
if you let a western woman run around naked in a muslim society
doesnt that effect the society at a large?
while agree that forcing them to cover their hair is extreme
but making sure she is dressed "properly" is reasonable
by that i mean
if she is not showing her ass and tits, its fine
its like being at work, there is a dress code you must follow
i know some people that dress pratically with nothing other than a mini skirt and a sports bra in public (thats their choice, so cool)
but they cant come to work like that
so to sum this up
taleeban has gone too far in many issues, as far as dressesing
including the beard thing
beard is NOT required in islam, while they make it a requirement
1) I am intrested, you just aren't listening.
2)Do not tell me to stop posting. Ever.
3)I was making the point of saying about :
a)I do not believe women get to decide whether they cover up or not
b)You said 'it is between her and god' I was merely making the point that I didn't think entering God into the conversation is going to help. As it will just spark another debate as to whether exists or not.
4)What the women have to wear beards? That's a bit harsh :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
taleeban has gone too far in many issues, as far as dressesing
including the beard thing
beard is NOT required in islam, while they make it a requirement
Kovan
Well, It wouldn't be allowed for a woman to run around naked in a western country either! ;) As much as I think it should be allowed!Quote:
look at thi this way though
if you let a western woman run around naked in a muslim society
doesnt that effect the society at a large?
Well, what you are saying here could be argued (and I'm not saying it is) by the Turkish government. Most schools in England require a uniform. Presumably this is the case in Turkey as well.Quote:
its like being at work, there is a dress code you must follow
i know some people that dress pratically with nothing other than a mini skirt and a sports bra in public (thats their choice, so cool)
but they cant come to work like that
Now you could argue that exceptions should be made for those who need to dress differently for religous reasons (In the case of Turkey, it being a rather large exception) but the same could be argued for Western women going to a strict Islamic culture.
Why are western women being forced to dress in an Islamic style in muslim countries when muslim women expect to be able to wear what they like in western countries?
Only at the stonings of homosexuals :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Jamagei
What the women have to wear beards? That's a bit harsh :rolleyes:
Perhaps in Turkey it has become a problem politically for people to dress like that. A rather extreme analogy would be not allowing neo-nazis to goose-step around, covered in swastikas. Although they're not harming anyone, perhaps it causes political difficulty.
My personal opinion is that the head-scarf thing is oppressive, whether the women want to do it or not. The only reason they want to do it is because their religion tells them they should and they want to do as they're told. It's supposedly for their own protection to stop men from being aroused by the sight of their hair. That places the onus on women to essentially control men's emotions, rather than make men responsible for controlling their own emotions. It also suggests that if a woman doesn't cover herself 'adequately' and gets sexually assaulted, it's her fault. Which is, frankly, offensive.
because western women can dress how they like, and islamic women must dress with their head covered, etc.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
Why are western women being forced to dress in an Islamic style in muslim countries when muslim women expect to be able to wear what they like in western countries?
so when a women comes into a muslim country, they should conform to dressing properly, because it is required of islam and is not against their religion
for example if women is ireland had to always have a piece of green clothing on, then if islamic women went to ireland, they would maybe make their hajab green or sumthin, coz wearin green isnt against islam
you see??
no, not part of uniformQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
Well, It wouldn't be allowed for a woman to run around naked in a western country either! ;) As much as I think it should be allowed!
Well, what you are saying here could be argued (and I'm not saying it is) by the Turkish government. Most schools in England require a uniform. Presumably this is the case in Turkey as well.
Now you could argue that exceptions should be made for those who need to dress differently for religous reasons (In the case of Turkey, it being a rather large exception) but the same could be argued for Western women going to a strict Islamic culture.
Why are western women being forced to dress in an Islamic style in muslim countries when muslim women expect to be able to wear what they like in western countries?
Turkey is the only known country to openly put down the muslims right to do as required of them by their religion
the founder of Turkey was one of the worst enemies of Islam, he even tried to change everything to turkish.. but thats another story
also, people in the army are not allowed to pray or fast
i dont know how long it will be before Turkish gov't is over thrown
oh and about naked woman.. well the canadian law has just passed a bill, few years ago i guess..
allows woman to walk around topless
(now i know your thinking WOW, i wanna move to canada)
i wish they would amend that law with "woman are allowed to go topless if they are under age of 40
we went to the beach.
saw a 80+ year old, enough said
HarryW,
never been to one of those
but i would find that entertaining
if the women dresses properly, and men follow the law that says "lower your gazes"Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Perhaps in Turkey it has become a problem politically for people to dress like that. A rather extreme analogy would be not allowing neo-nazis to goose-step around, covered in swastikas. Although they're not harming anyone, perhaps it causes political difficulty.
My personal opinion is that the head-scarf thing is oppressive, whether the women want to do it or not. The only reason they want to do it is because their religion tells them they should and they want to do as they're told. It's supposedly for their own protection to stop men from being aroused by the sight of their hair. That places the onus on women to essentially control men's emotions, rather than make men responsible for controlling their own emotions. It also suggests that if a woman doesn't cover herself 'adequately' and gets sexually assaulted, it's her fault. Which is, frankly, offensive.
no one will be looking at the woman
so there for the women are contributing to the prevention of the men looking
men are as much required to follow that "lower your gazes" law as female are required to cover up
The fact is, is that if the UN does step in and Afganistan becomes a multi-ethnical country, it would not matter if a western woman went there and didn't cover up. It would not matter if a muslim woman wanted to cover up or not. No country, town, city, street, should be force into doing something. If Afgan becomes multi-ethnical, it does not mean that women (and men for that matter) can't practice thier faith. It just means that a christian and a muslim could live next door to each other without fear of reprecussions. Muslims in the US are still allowed to cover their hair and face if they want to. It should be no different else where.Quote:
Originally posted by ghost ryder
because western women can dress how they like, and islamic women must dress with their head covered, etc.
so when a women comes into a muslim country, they should conform to dressing properly, because it is required of islam and is not against their religion
for example if women is ireland had to always have a piece of green clothing on, then if islamic women went to ireland, they would maybe make their hajab green or sumthin, coz wearin green isnt against islam
you see??
Harry
I happen to agree with you that the Islamic laws that say women should cover themselves are repressive but I didn't want to turn this debate into an attack on Islamic scripture.
Kovan & Ghost Ryder
Since I find the laws in Western countries regarding nakedness draconian and wrong, I am bound to find the Islamic laws (which are even stricter) wrong aswell.
In the west, public nakedness is outlawed because it is considered obscene. This, to me, just doesn't make sense. How can the human body, in it's natural form, be obscene? The problem is that we have become so used to seeing each other covered up all the time that to suddenly see people walking around naked is shocking and we wouls feel embarressed if we did the same.
The problem is that the more society covers up nakedness, the more unusual and shocking it becomes when you actuall see someone naked. If everyone walked around naked all the time, noone would think anything of it.
In Holland, the swimming baths have unisex changing rooms. The Dutch people think nothing of men and women changing together but to us in England (and much of the rest of the world) it would be humilating and embarrassing. But, this is only down to social conditioning. Had we not been brought up to feel ashamed of our naked bodies and be told that it is wrong to look at others, we would not think this way.
This, I think, applies to Islamic women. They have become socially conditioned to such a state that they feel humilated when they are not covered. Consequantly, they feel more comfortable when they can cover up. Thus they are repressed, not by any particular individuals, but by the society which they have grown up in (or adopted).
Should society pander to this obsession with covering our nakedness or should it make to bold and difficult leap to attempt to erradicate our repressive state of mind?
You one of those people on the latest Freeserve ad simon?
No, unfortunately, I admit to being too repressed to feel comfortable with my own nakedness (and that of others) in social groups. :oQuote:
You one of those people on the latest Freeserve ad simon?
I wish it were not so, however. :D
Quote:
Originally posted by rossim
The fact is, is that if the UN does step in and Afganistan becomes a multi-ethnical country, it would not matter if a western woman went there and didn't cover up. It would not matter if a muslim woman wanted to cover up or not. No country, town, city, street, should be force into doing something. If Afgan becomes multi-ethnical, it does not mean that women (and men for that matter) can't practice thier faith. It just means that a christian and a muslim could live next door to each other without fear of reprecussions. Muslims in the US are still allowed to cover their hair and face if they want to. It should be no different else where.
the UN shouldnt go and force people to live there in order to make it an "ethnically-diverse" nation, if people choose 2 live there, it will be coz they want to
they should help appoint an afghani government, or at least a democratic system, they should NOT go and place a non-afghani in charge or even an afghani who is just following their instructions, they should point afghanistan in the right direction, then let them be (of course monitor them to ensure the taleban and the NA dont come back)
and in all muslim nations, ANY woman is required 2 dress appropriatly, out of respect for islam, just like i said earlier, if people visiting ireland had 2 wear green clothes out of respect for ireland, they would do it, coz it doesnt go against any religious beliefs, you see my point??
There seems to be a trend here. People who are saying there should be no dress code are talking about laws from a non-religious point of view. People who are defending the dress code are talking from a religious point of view. I personally think strong links between religious bodies and the state are a really bad idea. Religious bodies shouldn't be making laws, because they end up making really stupid ones like the Taleban did. Lawmaking should be up to a democratically elected body of representatives of the people, who make laws according to the wishes of the people. If those people want the laws to conform to any particular religious rules then fine, pass the laws and be happy. If the majority don't want to stick to the rules of a religion then they shouldn't have to. They should be able to make different laws.
If the state gets too involved with religious bodies, and religious bodies start having a significant impact on the law-making process through undemocratic means, you end up with the oppression of the people and the enforcement of religion. Religion isn't something that should be enforced. It should be chosen. There is no point in forcing someone to lie about what they believe just so they don't get executed.
So, in short, anyone going anywhere shouldn't be bound to respect Islam or any other religion, what they should be bound to do is follow the laws of that country. If there are democratically passed laws stating that the rules of the religion should be observed then they should be observed by foreigners just like anyone else, but the religious bodies themselves shouldn't have the power to legally enforce their own rules.
harry: furry muff, good points, im a lil tired 2 argue anything i think diff about, although there may not be much (i am REALLY tired!!)
anyways, whatcha think of me sig?? u like the banner?? go 2 the site, have a look around
itll be fun, we'll go bowling :D
Yeah not bad mate :) I've been to your site before - not much there yet huh? ;)
Where's that quote from? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before....
its said by scorpio, from the simpsons :D
homer sez his faimly wants 2 go back 2 springfield, so he says
:DQuote:
let them go
you'll stay here with me
itll be fun
we'll go bowling
u should sign my guestbook fool :)
right, im off 2 bed now, majorly tired
Kovan
Islam may not change but mankind does.
I don't know much about the Islamic religion but you have quoted some pretty black and white examples of rules that shouldn't change. But, I'm sure there are some "grey" ones that aren't so obviously static.
For examples I can only quote from the Christian and Jewish religion through which I have some degree of familiarity but I think they both apply to Islam as well.
1) In Jewdaism, you must not eat pork. It is considered an un-clean animal. Now, perhaps in ancient times, it was dangerous to eat pork as, without the technology and knowlege of bacteria we have today, a lot more people would have got food poisening from it. But, knowing what we do today, pork can be eaten with as much safety as any other meat.
2) Christianity and Jewdaism both prohibit sex before marridge. In the time these religions were both founded, contraception was impossible and any sexual encounter had a high risk of leading to children. Since, nowadays, contraception is widespread and the act of sex itself is not necssarilly associated with having children, is there not room for change here?
Still, I understand why you see rigidity and refusal to change as a good thing. Perhaps the other religions have changed to much. All I'm saying is that change is sometimes innevitable, else you become out of touch with reality.
Harry
I'm not sure I agree with this. Why should a minority in a society have religous rules thrust upon it, even if they are laws passed buy the majority of the population?Quote:
Lawmaking should be up to a democratically elected body of representatives of the people, who make laws according to the wishes of the people. If those people want the laws to conform to any particular religious rules then fine, pass the laws and be happy
Simon, the same goes for any kind of laws, not just religious ones. Besides, you are living in a country whose laws were fundamentally based on Christianity. Thou shalt not kill etc.
In any system of government, not everyone can be made happy. At least with democracy, most people can be made happy. Not only that, but if the People's opinion changes, the laws can be changed to reflect that, rather than being written in stone.
Harry
True, not everyone can be happy with the laws but there I would categorise laws into two groups (for the purposes of this discussion).
1) Passive laws - I consider a law to be passive if it only prevents people from performing actions that would cause harm or discomfort (or in any way infringe on the civil rights) of another individual.
2) Aggressive laws - Laws are aggressive if they force an individual either to perform an aciton or not perform an action that does not affect another individual.
i.e.
Murder, assult and theft would fall into the first category.
Laws that prevented one from smoking cannabis, walking abou naked or, indeed, being forced to wear a beard would all fall under category 2.
I don't think the people who make those laws (your category 2) think they aren't affecting anyone else. I am sure they would argue that they actually fall into category 1, and are harmful to the population. I don't necessarily agree with them.
It's more or less the same argument about whether abortion or euthanasia should be legal or illegal. Some people think it's purely personal (and they think it should be legal), while others think it affects others for various reasons (and they think it should be illegal).
Democracy isn't perfect, but I don't see a better alternative.
Harry
I'm not saying it is always black and white and there's going to be grey areas but it is still an ideal that should be worked towards.
Not always the case. Many people believe believe that it is right for the state to intervene into the lives of the individual as an individual doesn't always know what's "best" for itself. Many laws in a democracy are passed according to this basis.Quote:
I don't think the people who make those laws (your category 2) think they aren't affecting anyone else. I am sure they would argue that they actually fall into category 1, and are harmful to the population.
Many people also like to see other people around them adhering to the same moral standards as they do themselves. Not because someone else's behaviour necessarilly directly affects anyone else but because they believe people should be forced to do what's "right". Or they believe that just being exposed to immoral behviour can have a damaging effect on one's own morals.
It is the bigoted attitude of some people that really annoys me.
What are you suggesting as a solution?
Harry
You want solutions? Getting people to recognise there is a problem is hard enough.
I think we've got to start by getting in place some sort of "Bill of Rights" whereby the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals and the state are layed out.
Once we have some sort of concreate basis, we can use that to judge all laws and reject the ones that fall foul of it. It's going to be a long arduous process and would involve a case by case analysis of each law in turn.
I know we have touched apon this subject in the past and that you are not to keen on the idea but I don't think we should let the American model put us off trying.
simonm, i give up
i dont think i can make you undrestand why islam doesnt change :)
ok ok one more shot at it
When Islam came, it wasnt for 6th century,
it was for to the end of time
so when it states dont eat pork,
it means DONT EAT PORK (and even with todays technology, pork meat is still filthy)
so you cant say "well we have good technology and we will eat pork cus its clean"
one you let few things change in a religion, there will be a lot
yes mankind does change, but not necessarily for the bad
so in short
we as muslims believe that if it was upto humans, the religion would have been changed like the others by now
but there is a statement in the Qur'an that states
"We have perfected your religion for you, and we shall protect"
so as we muslims believe, God will protect Qur'an from change
Islamic Law cannot be bent to meet the wants of human being
ok enough, i am spending way too much time on this
there is a kurdish saying that goes like this
"I am telling you its a male, your telling me to milk it"
Explain. I don't see any reason it would be filthy. Well, no filthier than any other kind of meat.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
even with todays technology, pork meat is still filthy
Kovan
I can understand why many followers of Islam don't think it should change. I just think they're wrong! :pQuote:
i dont think i can make you undrestand why islam doesnt change
Pigs are not, contrary to the public misconception, filthy animals. They actually have a greater sense of personal hygene than do most other animals that we eat.Quote:
even with todays technology, pork meat is still filthy
And as for the safety of the meat, that is no longer a problem. Pigs, these days, are so pumped full of anti-biotics that you can even serve pork rare if you want to.
The point being that there are no longer hygene reasons for not eating pork.
All I am suggesting is that the original intent behind that commandment was based on hygene reasons. If you remove the hygene problems (as we have done), surely that commandment should no longer apply?
Still, I can understand why you would fear change in your religion. It would be open to corruption.
Best we just agree to differ as I don't want to cause offense.
Harry
What is there for him to explain. You can be sure that is verdict is not based on scientific enquiry. It says it in a book of universal and unchanging truths so it must be true.Quote:
Explain. I don't see any reason it would be filthy. Well, no filthier than any other kind of meat.
:)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
I can
Best we just agree to differ as I don't want to cause offense.
http://www.webziner.com/islam/whypork.htm (dont really feel like typing)
one more thing i would like to add to that..
pig is one of, IF NOT THE ONLY
animal that does not fight for his partner
so if you screw his partner, he will pretend nothing has happened
where as other animals fight
"you are what you eat"
[size]
.
[/size]
I want to revisit this if I can, as I never got a chance to put my opinion of Taleban vs NA across.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
1. They dont take prisoners of war (either the enemy must surrender before they are captured, or die when they are captured). When they captured Mazar I Sareef, thats exactly what they did, they truely believe in revenge killing. And another proof of this is when they entered Kabul. They were kicking and beating the men who were still in kabul when they entered it. You could see dead bodies on the roads and in the ditches. One cant really argue that these are dead from the war, because there was NO war as taleeban just packed up without much of a fight
2. I believe majority of afghanistan are pishtuns, and Northan Alliance hate pisthuns, NA represent a small number of aghani population, they are tajiks.
3. They broke the promise they made with the exiled king
4. They dont really want to share power with anyone else, (even though they say they would)
5. They have very good relations with India which creates a problem for Pakistan
do the math, pakistan pissed more than it is already, india pissed more than it is already
we got nukes flying in the air..
From people i have talked to say that Taleeban follow a VERY strict law of Islam (go too far such as letting not letting women to go to school, etc)
where as NA dont really care about religion all that much
and most people say that taleeban is some what better for them because they have at least some religious rules that follow Islam
I didnt see many people dance in the streets when NA entered Kabul, infact there were few, who were being shown over and over
same thing as when some palestinians were dancing on sep 11, who were being shown over and over
Kovan, your first point is a valid one (if true). The other points give no weight to your argument that NA are going to be any better than Taleban. I don't see the breaking of promises (3), nor the expulsion of Kings (3), nor the lack of power sharing (4) being in any way comparable to the suffering undergone by Afgani women under the Taleban.
Please read this
Wether I am right or not will have to be seen, but inital impressions are that any other option other than Taleban rule is a good option.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Today, I feel like:
telling you I'll be in Holland this evening...
mmmm... Holland;)
'You are what you eat' .... yeah right :rolleyes:
Yup, leaving tonight for 3 days. *sigh *****, innit ;)Quote:
Originally posted by RSINGH
mmmm... Holland;)
im goin 2 holland sometime, got a girl in arnheim ;) :D
Kovan
Do me a favour! I read most of the site your link refered me to and whilst being very entertaining, it wasn't very informative.
Not biased in the least! :rolleyes:Quote:
Pig eats almost anything dirty and they
are very lazy animals.
It does not change the facts that Pork, in this day and age is as healthy as any other meat. If your religion dicates that you shouldn't eat it then fine, don't eat it.
But don't try and pretend there's anything more unsavoury about pigs than there is any other type of meat.