Why do women have to wear Burkas?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. I believe that Noah did a righteous thing in building the Ark, but only a half wit would claim that means it advises us all to build big wooden boats.

That is some what disingenous PDN. It would certainly be advisable to build a wooden boat if there as a flood coming, in the same way that it is relatively easy to take from the story of Lot the idea that it is better that an angry mob rape your daughters that you give to them than attack you or your male guests.

PDN wrote: »

BTW, the Bible doesn't say that Lot did a righteous thing with his daughters. That is, sorry to say, a figment of someone's imagination.

I know, I already said that (did you imagine otherwise :P)

The issue comes down to how what Lot did with his daughters relates to other passages that talk of him as a righteous man and how one interprets that.

There certainly seems to be nothing to suggest that the Bible is in anyway disapproving of what Lot was prepared to do. The angels don't say anything, God doesn't say anything, the Bible doesn't comment on the morality of what he was doing either way.

So then you have to think well what is the point of the details in this story and the reference to Lot as righteous throughout if what he did is to be taken as wrong immoral or inadvisable.

How does one square this action, which is note worthy enough to get specifically mentioned in the Bible, with the claims that he was righteous. Surely if this was such a terrible thing that we would consider it as now that mean Lot was not a righteous man? So why is he referred through as such. What is the point of that?

The idea that this is just a recounting of history doesn't wash because the Bible is making moral judgements off Lot throughout.

Abed

getz wrote: »

as the islamic law is the same for both man and woman,why isent the islamic male covering his face ? anyway i find it very strange that the same western islamic girl that has on the burka [we are told its for modesty ] most likely has on high heels or her toe nails painted.most strange

Getz, your lack of knowledge once again is exceptional! referring to Islamic law in the case of face covering is utter nonsense. there is not a single country with Muslim majority (the term "Islamic countries" is ignorant and hateful and the only group that I know about who uses its equivalent "Christian countries" is Al-Qaeda) that enforces face covering burkas. even in the most conservative sates which applies Islamic sharia law "very few countries" Burka wearing women are a minority.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what disingenous PDN. It would certainly be advisable to build a wooden boat if there as a flood coming,

No it wouldn't. It would be advisable to move to higher ground. Building a boat would only be advisable if you were expecting a flood that was going to cover the entire earth.

in the same way that it is relatively easy to take from the story of Lot the idea that it is better that an angry mob rape your daughters that you give to them than attack you or your male guests.

So Midlandsmissus is outraged because she thinks the Bible advises you to let your daughters be raped if you ever find yourself in the situation of being visited by multiple angels while a mob hammers at your door wanting to rape them? OK, since that scenario occurs fairly often in County Louth I'll have my daughters ready and waiting by the front door.

The issue comes down to how what Lot did with his daughters relates to other passages that talk of him as a righteous man and how one interprets that.

The interpretation is hardly complicated to anyone with a basic knowledge of the New Testament. Righteousness by faith.

There certainly seems to be nothing to suggest that the Bible is in anyway disapproving of what Lot was prepared to do. The angels don't say anything, God doesn't say anything, the Bible doesn't comment on the morality of what he was doing either way.

So, if the Bible doesn't comment on the morality of the act, any attempt to represent it as advising similar actions is either ignorance or dishonesty.

Surely if this was such a terrible thing that we would consider it as now that mean Lot was not a righteous man? So why is he referred through as such. What is the point of that?

For the same reason that Noah (a drunk), Abraham (a liar), David (an adulterer) etc are referred to as righteous. Because of faith. The New Testament declares that righteousness is by faith, not that these people had an unblemished life.

igotone

Hobbes wrote: »

I've moved your post out of the other thread as it is a seperate topic that is certainly worth having discussion about.



I believe that is freedom of religon? Although I'd like to hear a breakdown on how it is handled at airports. I believe there are allowances made (similar to doctors).



America has more Irish then Ireland. There are areas in America more *Irish* then the Irish.



So we have laws that strictly forbid the use of facewear in public? News to me.

You could certainly chance your arm at refusing them into shops/banks but there are already Muslim banks/shops or there will always be another shop that will take the money.

Also you talk about immigrants? What has that to do with it? What about Irish people who are already Muslim (both of Irish + forigen decent?).

With all due respect, I think you are completely missing the point of the original point made by the OP

midlandsmissus

PDN wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would be advisable to move to higher ground. Building a boat would only be advisable if you were expecting a flood that was going to cover the entire earth.

So Midlandsmissus is outraged because she thinks the Bible advises you to let your daughters be raped if you ever find yourself in the situation of being visited by multiple angels while a mob hammers at your door wanting to rape them? OK, since that scenario occurs fairly often in County Louth I'll have my daughters ready and waiting by the front door.

The interpretation is hardly complicated to anyone with a basic knowledge of the New Testament. Righteousness by faith.

So, if the Bible doesn't comment on the morality of the act, any attempt to represent it as advising similar actions is either ignorance or dishonesty.


For the same reason that Noah (a drunk), Abraham (a liar), David (an adulterer) etc are referred to as righteous. Because of faith. The New Testament declares that righteousness is by faith, not that these people had an unblemished life.

Hi PDN,

You said I was spreading an untruth,that wasn't my intention. I read the bible,and I just have a huge problem with the Lot bit, to be honest it makes me question the whole thing.
I just can't get my head around it - visitors come to Lot's house,the mob outside wants them,he says take my virgin daughters and do as you wish to them, and then he was the only man saved from the village. I know you might think it stupid, but that passage, and the passage saying we get punished for all eternity, (how many men work in fields) for what eve did, just makes me feel bad as a woman reading the bible. It's like women mean nothing. So if you could explain the Lot thing to me that would be great.

PDN

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi PDN,

You said I was spreading an untruth,that wasn't my intention. I read the bible,and I just have a huge problem with the Lot bit, to be honest it makes me question the whole thing.
I just can't get my head around it - visitors come to Lot's house,the mob outside wants them,he says take my virgin daughters and do as you wish to them, and then he was the only man saved from the village. I know you might think it stupid, but that passage, and the passage saying we get punished for all eternity, (how many men work in fields) for what eve did, just makes me feel bad as a woman reading the bible. It's like women mean nothing. So if you could explain the Lot thing to me that would be great.

The 'Lot thing' is that he was living in a wicked city. God rescued him. The Bible records (without approval, and certainly without advising others to do likewise) that Lot, rather than have visitors sexually assaulted, offered his own daughters to the mob. That, in my opinion, makes him one of the worst fathers that ever lived. Nevertheless, he believed God and, by faith, obeyed God's instructions and escaped the destruction of Sodom.

Btw, the Genesis story, and the New Testament, says that mankind suffers because of the sin of Adam rather than Eve. Eve was deceived - but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open and so was the one who was morally guilty.

Apologies to the mods for being off topic in the Islam forum.

Sonic_exyouth

PDN wrote: »

The 'Lot thing' is that he was living in a wicked city. God rescued him. The Bible records (without approval, and certainly without advising others to do likewise) that Lot, rather than have visitors sexually assaulted, offered his own daughters to the mob. That, in my opinion, makes him one of the worst fathers that ever lived. Nevertheless, he believed God and, by faith, obeyed God's instructions and escaped the destruction of Sodom.

Btw, the Genesis story, and the New Testament, says that mankind suffers because of the sin of Adam rather than Eve. Eve was deceived - but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open and so was the one who was morally guilty.

Apologies to the mods for being off topic in the Islam forum.

Thats not how i read it..

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Cocoh

I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic - there was so many posts i didn't read them all. But this is related to muslim women and i have a question,
Why is it that Muslim men are allowed have more than one wife, but muslim women are only allowed one husband? I don't see how this is fair..

I asked a muslim friend of mine this question and she replied that if the woman had more than one husband and she became pregnant she wouldnt know who the father of the child was, but if all these women have the same husband, he's obviously the father.

Surely in this day and age DNA tests could be used?
I find this a bit sexist, please excuse me if i offend anyone!

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

BTW, the Bible doesn't say that Lot did a righteous thing with his daughters. That is, sorry to say, a figment of someone's imagination.

Maybe it didn't explicitly say it, but it said Lot was a righteous man intrinsically, and it describes the rape of the angels a wicked thing. The fact that a man who had the approval of heaven deemed it a greater sin to allow his male guests to be raped than to give up his virgin daughters, and actually encourage the mob to do as they wished, says enough. Anyway, your justification that it was god's will rings hollow with me. If god wanted me to do something so wicked, I would tell god I will not obey a tyrant and, well, give him the finger. That he created me does not automatically qualify him for worship, anymore than are parents owed the worship of their children.

ChocolateSauce

Cocoh wrote: »

I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic - there was so many posts i didn't read them all. But this is related to muslim women and i have a question,
Why is it that Muslim men are allowed have more than one wife, but muslim women are only allowed one husband? I don't see how this is fair..

I asked a muslim friend of mine this question and she replied that if the woman had more than one husband and she became pregnant she wouldnt know who the father of the child was, but if all these women have the same husband, he's obviously the father.

Surely in this day and age DNA tests could be used?
I find this a bit sexist, please excuse me if i offend anyone!

In most mainstream schools of Islam, a man is only allowed a second wife if the purpose of the marriage is to rescue her (and her children) from, for example, poverty brought on by the death of her husband. As far as I know, the first wife is considered to have primacy in all matters.

It's really a noble clause, particularly in a time when life was much harsher and death was something every population lived with far more than we do today.

Cocoh

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

In most mainstream schools of Islam, a man is only allowed a second wife if the purpose of the marriage is to rescue her (and her children) from, for example, poverty brought on by the death of her husband. As far as I know, the first wife is considered to have primacy in all matters.

It's really a noble clause, particularly in a time when life was much harsher and death was something every population lived with far more than we do today.

Why is it the woman has to be rescued, like you said?
This is, as i said, not what i was told by any muslim, is there anyone else who could add to this? You seem biased towards muslims (sorry if i'm being presumptuous!) by calling it a 'noble clause' when i've heard so many horrible things from muslim women about this..

Sonic_exyouth

Cocoh wrote: »

Why is it the woman has to be rescued, like you said?
This is, as i said, not what i was told by any muslim, is there anyone else who could add to this? You seem biased towards muslims (sorry if i'm being presumptuous!) by calling it a 'noble clause' when i've heard so many horrible things from muslim women about this..

Multi-wives?

A second wife can only, or should only, be allowed with the permission of the other spouse.

In places like Morocco, Tunisia and amoung the Bedoin, the second wife tends to be the widowed sister of the first, or some family friend etc.

the "rescue" stems from the old Muslim tradional family roles. It tended to be the woman who tended to the home and family while the husband earned the household income. In the absense of the husband the widow could become destitute and impoverished - Marrying her brother in law solved this.
Its just another culture.. in the west the widow tended to move in with the Children.

ChocolateSauce

Cocoh wrote: »

You seem biased towards muslims (sorry if i'm being presumptuous!) by calling it a 'noble clause' when i've heard so many horrible things from muslim women about this..

Oh god....I'm sure anyone who's seen my posts about Islam laughed when they saw this, I know I did.;) No, I just give credit where it's due. In a society where a woman is virtually the property of her husband, losing him puts a downer on her situation, especially if she has kids who need food and she isn't wealthy, like the vast majority of people throughout world history.

imported_guy

UU wrote: »

I not being anti-Muslim or anything, ok? But it is in my opinion that the whole wearing of the berka (the whole veil for the body) is quite disturbing and un-natural. Why don't males wear this so other women can't have attraction and impure thoughts? I think it is possible that many of the males they are sexist.

Also, how come Muslim women in berkas can walk into shops and banks when people wearing motorbike helmets have to take them off due to sercurity purposes. What about in airports, court, etc. also?

I believe that Muslims and others should have to integrate into Irish society. There is no other country in the world with Irish culture so I think Ireland should change only little bit regarding religion but not totally so I don't believe that Muslim women should be allowed to wear berkas in public places. If a non-Muslim Irish female were to go over to a strict Arabic country like Iraq and not cover up, she'd be in big trouble and may be arrested so I think that immigrants coming here should have to adjust to our way of life like we would have to if we went to their country.

dont want to start another debate/keyboard jihad/keyboard warriorism battle. so heres the one line answer.

same reasons that nuns have to cover their heads, and yes some even consider it a fashion accesory. (i know of christian women in UAE outside KSA who do it)

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Oh god....I'm sure anyone who's seen my posts about Islam laughed when they saw this, I know I did.;) No, I just give credit where it's due. In a society where a woman is virtually the property of her husband, losing him puts a downer on her situation, especially if she has kids who need food and she isn't wealthy, like the vast majority of people throughout world history.

I'm glad you used the word "society" as you are referring to a cultural treatment of women, not the teachings of Islam. My wife certainly is not my property and she could survive very comfortably without me, God forbid we were to split up.

Abdalhakim

Did anyone see this story (from the BBC website):

Egypt's highest Muslim authority has said he will issue a religious edict against the growing trend for full women's veils, known as the niqab. Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.
Although most Muslim women in Egypt wear the Islamic headscarf, increasing numbers are adopting the niqab as well.
The practice is widely associated with more radical trends of Islam.
The niqab question reportedly arose when Sheikh Tantawi was visiting a girls' school in Cairo at the weekend and asked one of the students to remove her niqab.
The Egyptian newspaper al-Masri al-Yom quoted him expressing surprise at the girl's attire and telling her it was merely a tradition, with no connection to religion or the Koran.

May Almighty Allah (swt) guide the Shaykh back onto the straight path.

irishconvert

Abdalhakim wrote: »

Did anyone see this story (from the BBC website):



May Almighty Allah (swt) guide the Shaykh back onto the straight path.

Can you elaborate on what part of this disagree with? I am not aware of anywhere in the Qur'an or reliable hadith that says woman should cover their face.

mickol

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Multi-wives?

A second wife can only, or should only, be allowed with the permission of the other spouse.

In places like Morocco, Tunisia and amoung the Bedoin, the second wife tends to be the widowed sister of the first, or some family friend etc.

the "rescue" stems from the old Muslim tradional family roles. It tended to be the woman who tended to the home and family while the husband earned the household income. In the absense of the husband the widow could become destitute and impoverished - Marrying her brother in law solved this.
Its just another culture.. in the west the widow tended to move in with the Children.

True... but for the most part she didnt start shagging the son in law ...

Sonic_exyouth

mickol wrote: »

True... but for the most part she didnt start shagging the son in law ...

Likewise, the second wife in most instances doesn't shag the husband either.
There is no obligation (fard) on consummation (zifaf) of marraige, it can be 'postponed' forever.

mickol

sure wheres the fun in that ?