Why do women have to wear Burkas?

oceanclub

Caverna wrote: »

Ok JAnnah look at it like this, from a religious perspective human beings and therefore men are made imperfect and will sin. God is the perfect one.

Using this logic it then is accepted that God has sent a messae to all the men of the world on how to deal with this anger that SOME men will feel.

What absolute bizarre logic. A minority of men are paedophiles who have sex with their own children. Do you also suggest also that rather saying this is wrong, full stop, that religion should also give men a cop-out clause - maybe let them feel their children up just a little?

2) Can you suggest a better alternative to islams way of dealing with enraged men who want to hit a woman?

Er, not hit women? Go out for a walk? If you really need to hit something go to the bedroom and punch a pillow? Go to a marriage guidance counsellor or anger management therapist?

One couldn't better illustrate the negative consequences of religion that to read your "logic".

P.

Jannah

Caverna wrote: »

Ok JAnnah look at it like this, from a religious perspective human beings and therefore men are made imperfect and will sin. God is the perfect one.

Using this logic it then is accepted that God has sent a messae to all the men of the world on how to deal with this anger that SOME men will feel.

( The anger that you seem to be suggesting is some sort of blind rage where the only thing a man can think of is to hit a woman and personally i haven't met any man friend, dad, brother, uncle, grandfather who wass actually so angry that they hit their loved one)

So God has sent a guideline of sorts for these minority of men who feel the urge to hit their women.

Islam deals with this ugly subject in a dignified respectful way.

So I have 2 questions for you to answer please:

1) Whats Christianitys official line on wife beating, and

2) Can you suggest a better alternative to islams way of dealing with enraged men who want to hit a woman?

I don't know Christianity's response to wife beating, because I am not a Christian, so perhaps you should research that yourself. However, my moral standards it is NEVER okay to lay your hand on another person in anger, whether it is to be some sort of "symbolism" or whatever, I just think that instead of leaving an opening allowing any form of hitting, be it a light slap or an all out punch. Aswell, I know myself that women get equally as angry as men during arguments- why didn't God give women permission to 'tap' men? Yes, they are stronger, but doesn't that mean that more concessions should be made for the woman?

My view of a man who wants to hit a woman is that he was obviously raised in a way that he has absolutely zero respect for women and that he should get a good firm kick in the balls for taking advantage of his obvious superiority in regards to strength. Allowing him leeway to touch a woman with any feelings of anger should be completely disallowed. God didn't allow Muslims to have a little bit of alchohol or a little bit of pork, or a little bit of sex outside marriage- it was completely not allowed. Why should domestic violence be any different?

irishconvert wrote: »

I am not a stalker, I do not follow you around every thread reading your posts. Therefore how am I supposed to know you are no longer a Muslim?

You should do a little more research before labelling me as some sort of hidden agenda freak, then, shouldn't you? :rolleyes:

wes

Jannah wrote: »

You should do a little more research before labelling me as some sort of hidden agenda freak, then, shouldn't you? :rolleyes:

To be fair the Roll Call thread is a sticky and its at the top of the page and there you say your a Muslim.

Perhaps you should edit it? Hopefully it will help with the confusion.

Jannah

I have tried to edit it and its impossible, but any mod would be more than welcome to delete it completely or whatever, I have no problem with that because I don't have any particular reason to need a prop to elevate my opinions

the_new_mr

You should have no problem editing your post. Don't you see the "edit" button there? I edited your post for you and took out the "practising Muslim" bit. Let me know if you'd like the post removed altogether or edited to something else.

WARNING to Princess Innocent Knickers. Sorry but next post like that will you get you a one month ban. Same goes for anyone else. Keep it civilised people.

Interesting link there hivizman. That translation looks interesting. I don't like the idea the currently being sold version isn't bilingual but I like the fact that the next edition will be. I myself have been a supporter of the idea of "leave them" interpretation ever since I read it on another website and it made sense to me. That interpretation is, in my humble opinion, the only way to reconcile the meanings of other verses in the Quran and various hadith on the subject.

The Quran is very clear on its view of anger:

Al-Imran:3
"Those who spend (in Allah’s cause) in prosperity and in adversity, who repress their anger, and who pardon men, verily, Allah loves the al-Muhsinun (the good-doers)"

And this hadith of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him):

"A strong person is not the person who throws his adversaries to the ground. A strong person is the person who contains himself when he is angry." [Al-Bukhari; Book 47, No. 47.3.12]

Jannah

the_new_mr wrote: »

You should have no problem editing your post. Don't you see the "edit" button there? I edited your post for you and took out the "practising Muslim" bit. Let me know if you'd like the post removed altogether or edited to something else.

Nope, there was no "edit" button on the post for me, just the usual quote, reply etc- but thank yer! Now I can live in peace and agnosticism! *sigh of relief!!*

Caverna

oceanclub wrote: »

What absolute bizarre logic. A minority of men are paedophiles who have sex with their own children. Do you also suggest also that rather saying this is wrong, full stop, that religion should also give men a cop-out clause - maybe let them feel their children up just a little?



Er, not hit women? Go out for a walk? If you really need to hit something go to the bedroom and punch a pillow? Go to a marriage guidance counsellor or anger management therapist?

One couldn't better illustrate the negative consequences of religion that to read your "logic".

P.

1) Men are not given a cop-out clause.

Look at it like this, Islam began dealing with the issue of domestic abuse 1400 years ago. Women only got their full rights in 20th Century in the non-Muslim world.

2) To quote you "er not hit women"....:rolleyes:

If that was that easy, If that was the solution we wouldn't be having this discussion-it seems that the minority of men who hit women are incapable of this and so a solution becomes preferable.

I completely agree with you. no person should be allowed to hit another.

OCEANCLUB i will reiterate my question-can you point me to one piece of Islamic documentation that permits the beating of women.

Islam does not permit wife beating. Do you seriously think it does?! Come on, you are smarter than that I hope.

oceanclub

Caverna wrote: »

1) Men are not given a cop-out clause.

The reasoning used behind it boils down to that.

Look at it like this, Islam began dealing with the issue of domestic abuse 1400 years ago. Women only got their full rights in 20th Century in the non-Muslim world.

Actually, it doesn't appear to be any better or worse than Irish law of the same period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon_Laws#Women_and_marriage

And even if was better, saying something was great 1400 years ago isn't a ringing endorsement. Time to play catch-ee up-ee.

2) To quote you "er not hit women"....:rolleyes:

If that was that easy, If that was the solution we wouldn't be having this discussion-it seems that the minority of men who hit women are incapable of this and so a solution becomes preferable.

I noticed you left the first part of my sentence in, but removed the parts offering modern solutions such as relationship councelling and anger management. Did you remove those because you can't deal with that argument? Yes, you did. That's called "dishonest debating".

So why don't you think those modern suggestions are relevant? Because they weren't conjured up 1400 years ago?

OCEANCLUB i will reiterate my question-can you point me to one piece of Islamic documentation that permits the beating of women.

I must be in Groundhog Day. I seem to recall Farrah already posting this, another person posting a quote as well, and also posting about Al-Qaradawi - the nearest that European Islam has to a central authority (based in Ireland) - issuing a recommendation that it is permitted.

As I pointed out, if he's being unIslamic, why has absolutely no one in the Irish community criticised him?

P.

farrahk52

Quote:
Originally Posted by farrahk52
So on the back of men cant control themselves (which is evident from the stats) if i was ever beaten, id rather be beaten by a toothbrush lightly than by a fist in the face, abit of light spanking never did anyone harm, lets not take it out of context!.

Believe it or not, all men don't beat women. A minority in fact. Your prejudices are distasteful.

The following excerpt is from the womensaid org in the UK :-

• One incident is reported to the police every minute. (Stanko, 2000)

• In any one year, there are 13 million separate incidents of physical violence or threats of violence against women from partners or former partners. (Walby and Allen, 2004)
Women are more likely than men to have experienced all types of intimate violence (partner abuse, family abuse, sexual assault and stalking) since the ages of 16. And nearly half the woman who had experienced intimate violence of any kind, were likely to have been victims of more than one kind of intimate abuse.

• 54% of UK rapes are committed by a woman’s current or former partner. (Walby and Allen, 2004)

• On average 2 women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner: this constitutes around one-third of all female homicide victims. (Povey, (ed.), 2004, 2005; Home Office, 1999; Department of Health, 2005.)

An analysis of 10 separate domestic violence prevalence studies by the Council of Europe showed consistent findings: experience domestic violence over their lifetimes, and between 6-10% of women suffer domestic violence in a given year. (Council of Europe, 2002).

• During 2006-7, the National Helpline answered an average of 387 calls PER day: 500 a day on weekdays, 250 on Saturdays and 200 on Sundays.

Since the age of 16, partner abuse (non-sexual) was the most commonly experienced type of intimate violence among both men and women. 28% of women and 17% of men reported having experienced such abuse. (Coleman et al. 2007)

• In the last 12 months stalking was the most commonly experienced type of intimate violence with 9% of women and 7% of men reported having experienced it in the last year. (Coleman et al. 2007)

• Nearly half of women (48%) who had experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 16 had experienced more than one type of intimate violence. Men were less likely to have experienced multiple forms of intimate violence (33%). (Coleman et al. 2007)

• Serious sexual assault was most likely to be committed by someone known to the victim (89% of female and 83% of male victims). Just over half (54%) of female victims reported that a partner or ex-partner had been the offender. (Coleman et al. 2007)

• Just under a quarter of women (23%) reported having experienced stalking since the age of 16. Obscene or threatening phone calls or letters were the most common types of stalking behaviour experienced. (Coleman et al. 2007)

• A study of 200 women’s experiences of domestic violence commissioned by Women’s Aid, found that 60% of the women had left because they feared that they or their children would be KILLED by the perpetrator. (Humphreys & Thiara, 2002).

• In the same study, 76% of separated women suffered post-separation violence. Of these women:

76% were subjected to continued verbal and emotional abuse;

41% were subjected to SERIOUS threats towards themselves or their children;

6% were subjected to sexual violence;

36% stated that this violence was ongoing.

• Women are at greatest risk of homicide at the point of separation or after leaving a violent partner. (Lees, 2000).

• 42% of all female homicide victims, compared with 4% of male homicide victims, were killed by current or former partners in England and Wales in the year 2000/01. This equates to 102 women, an average of 2 women each week (Home Office, 2001).

• Nearly 1 in 5 counselling sessions held in Relate Centres in England on 28/9/00 mentioned domestic violence as an issue in the marriage. (Stanko, 2000).

Police

Every minute in the UK, the police receive a call from the public for assistance for domestic violence. This leads to police receiving an estimated 1,300 calls each day or over 570,000 each year. (Stanko, 2000). Of these, 89% were calls by women being assaulted by men. However, according to the government National Delivery Plan, less than 24% of domestic violence crime is reported to the police (Walby and Allen, 2004).

• However, only a minority of incidents of domestic violence are reported to the police, varying between 23% (Walby and Allen, 2004) and 35% (Home Office, 2002; see also British Crime Survey, 1998; Dodd, et al., 2004).

Pregnancy and childbirth

• 30% of domestic violence in pregnancy. (Lewis and Drife, 2001, 2005; McWilliams and McKiernan, 1993

• Domestic violence has been identified as a prime cause of still-birth (Mezey, 1997), and of maternal deaths during childbirth (Lewis and Drife, 2001, 2005).

• Legally, if a miscarriage is caused by abuse, the assailant can be charged under S.58 of the Offences against the Person Act, "using an instrument with intent to cause a miscarriage1.

• If a baby is born prematurely as a result of an assault, and then dies, the assailant may be charged with manslaughter2.

Within the six weeks following birth, 11 new mothers were known to have been murdered by their male partners during 2000-02, and 14% of all the women who died during or immediately after pregnancy (43 women) had reported domestic violence to a health professional during the pregnancy. (Lewis and Drife, 2005) of the 378 women whose death was reported to the Confidential Enquiry on Maternal Deaths had voluntarily reported domestic violence to a healthcare professional during their pregnancy. (Lewis and Drife, 2001) None had routinely been asked about domestic violence so this is almost certainly an underestimate.

• In one study, 23% of women receiving care on antenatal and postnatal wards had a lifetime experience of domestic violence, and 3% had experienced violence in the current pregnancy. (Bacchus, 2004)

• Routine enquiry about domestic violence in maternity settings is provided it is conducted in a safe confidential environment. A pilot project in Leeds found that 92% of women questioned were in favour of routine enquiry. (Price 2004; Leeds Inter-agency Project, 2005).

PLS look at the stats before making baseless assumptions, CLEARLY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FEW MEN HERE.

Hitting with a miswak is ONLY a symbolic act and most men would probably not even bother going for the miswak because of the fact that it would not cause any physical pain!. Given the statistics and the fact that men are more stronger (and tend to have more testestrorone and perhaps therefore fill prisons more because of some type of violence) i would be greatful to be married to a man who would only use a miswak when in a fit of rage!. Its a sad state of affairs but its true, how many of us women would prefer a fist and broken bones over a miswak (considering the scale of abuse experienced by most women).

From what i know from personal experience and from freinds / colleagues MOST of us would want to marry a REAL man and not some docile creature with no real dominating skills or a walk over so to speak. Theres a reason why women are said to go after 'nasty' men!!. Its almost like a natural instinct to go for a man thats strong and somewhat dominating, ie the head of the household (aslong as he doesnt abuse it TOO MUCH, ie become a control freak and loses it 24/7). Just someone who can be the head of the household, look after us, love us but also protect us and occasionally discipline us when we get out of line.

Balancing the two ie having a man who has a little bit if the caveman mentality who VERY occasionally gets upset but cannot beat his wife is APPEALING. I know women who are walking all over men and are having affairs because the men are boring and docile (even though they dont beat them) and they are seeing slightly 'dominating/ perhaps violent' men who treat them mean and keep them keen and some have even left their (kind and loving) husbands for them. The question is how do you get a husband who is passionate, dominating, has the caveman mentality somewhat and is head of the household but is still kind, loving and only goes as far as disciplining with a light tap? Is there such as thing as having it ALL?

The key is having a balance and in MY OPINION islam addresses the balance very well.

According to the Qur'an the relationship between the husband and wife should be based on mutual love and kindness. Allah says:

'And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Ar-Rum: 21)

The Qur'an urges husbands to treat their wives with kindness. [In the event of a family dispute, the Qur'an exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not to overlook her positive aspects]. Allah says:

“Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (An-Nisa’: 19)

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word "beating" is used in the verse, but it does not mean "physical abuse". Scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

Generally, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

It is also important to note that even this "light strike" mentioned in the verse is not to be used to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of some serious moral misconduct when admonishing the wife fails, and avoiding from sleeping with her would not help.

The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction does not imply its desirability. In several hadiths, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) discouraged this measure. Here are some of his sayings in this regard:

"Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you."

True following of the Sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who never resorted to that measure, regardless of the circumstances.

Islamic teachings are universal in nature. They respond to the needs and circumstances of diverse times, cultures and circumstances. Some measures may work in some cases and cultures or with certain persons but may not be effective in others. By definition, a "permissible" act is neither required, encouraged or forbidden. In fact it may be to spell out the extent of permissibility, such as in the issue at hand, rather than leaving it unrestricted or unqualified, or ignoring it all together. In the absence of strict qualifiers, persons may interpret the matter in their own way, which can lead to excesses and real abuse.

Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any "Muslim" can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Qur'an or Hadith). Such excesses and violations are to be blamed on the person(s) himself, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet (saw)."

The Prophet (saw) explained the 'beating' as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence, " or "wife battering" in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.

Im not sure how we got to domestic violence from 'why do women wear a burka' esp when non muslim (western) men BEAT their wives on a regular basis...and actually kill them in some cases.

Rev Hellfire

farrahk52 wrote: »

Im not sure how we got to domestic violence from 'why do women wear a burka' esp when non muslim (western) men BEAT their wives on a regular basis...and actually kill them in some cases.

I'm not sure how that is relevant, the majority both Muslim and non-Muslim alike reject violence to women making that a non-issue. We can hardly condemn a whole demography by the actions of a few deviants.

farrahk52

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure how that is relevant, the majority both Muslim and non-Muslim alike reject violence to women making that a non-issue. We can hardly condemn a whole demography by the actions of a few deviants.

If there is a correlation between wife beating and islam its a positive one because true practising muslims will only 'tap' a wife with a miswak IN THE EXTREME because they FEAR ALLAH.

Even though most non muslim men may reject violence (OVERTLY) or pretend to, the evidence CLEARLY shows a different story. PLS DO NOT BELITTLE THE ISSUE, even if woman is killed its one woman too many and 2 are killed each week!, its not a few deviants, it affects ALOT of women and is actually a GROWING national concern in the UK (see stats).

To be honest i didnt actually know how EVIL western men could be to BEAT their wives with fists etc , esp when they are pregnant and infront of young children! until i read the stats. Pls dont tar us muslims with the same brush clearly you have a long way to go on learning how to respect women as a nation ...the stats speak for themselves.

Rev Hellfire

farrahk52 wrote: »

If there is a correlation between wife beating and islam its a positive one because true practising muslims will only 'tap' a wife with a miswak IN THE EXTREME (as a last resort) because they FEAR ALLAH.

Again how is this any different to a law abiding subject/citizen in the UK.
Taking the actions of those outside of norms of society and attempting to attribute their action to society in general is no better than the sort of negative slant opponents of Islam attempt to do by tarring all muslims by the actions of men who are acting against what I understand to be the 'laws' of Islam.

Surely you do Islam an injustice by resorting to such misdirection and deceit.

farrahk52

I am not going to hide or change the quran because a few people dont understand the meaning behind a verse. I see wisdom and goodness in the quran even when it chooses to highlight taboo issues.

At the end of the day everyone is free to choose what they believe in and if people aren't ok with lightly tapping a wife (as the last resort) they can choose not to do it, i have no problem with it and generally speaking MANY women all over the world are reverting to islam all the time so they dont either, its actually a national threat in france and germany so much so their intelligence services cannot keep up with it.

"The phenomenon is booming, and it worries us," the head of the French domestic intelligence agency, Pascal Mailhos, told the Paris-based newspaper Le Monde in a recent interview.

Converts are a tiny subset of the Muslim population in Europe, but their numbers are growing rapidly in some countries. In Germany, government officials estimated that 4,000 people converted to Islam last year, compared with an annual average of 300 in the late 1990s.

According to "The Plain Truth", February 1984, in its 50 Year Anniversary Issue, quoting from the "World Almanac and Book of Facts 1935" and "Reader's Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983", between 1934 and 1984.

Christianity increased 47%
World Population increased 136%
Islam increased 235%

100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam, 4 females convert to Islam.

Why would women convert to a barbaric religion that condones beating them?

oceanclub

farrahk52 wrote: »

To be honest i didnt actually know how EVIL western men could be to BEAT their wives with fists etc , esp when they are pregnant and infront of young children! until i read the stats.

Since your stats don't compare Muslims to non-Muslims, I've no idea what you're trying to prove.

P.

Jannah

farrahk52 wrote: »

PLS look at the stats before making baseless assumptions, CLEARLY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FEW MEN HERE.

What are you actually trying to even prove? We don't know what religion these men are and I sincerely doubt that it plays a role in whether or not they beat their wives. Your statistics mean nothing because they have no religious relevence whatsoever

farrahk52 wrote: »

i would be greatful to be married to a man who would only use a miswak when in a fit of rage!. Its a sad state of affairs but its true, how many of us women would prefer a fist and broken bones over a miswak (considering the scale of abuse experienced by most women).

Well PERSONALLY, I'd prefer to stick with the VAST MAJORITY of men who don't hit women AT ALL :rolleyes:

farrahk52 wrote: »

Just someone who can be the head of the household, look after us, love us but also protect us and occasionally discipline us when we get out of line.

Discipline you??!? Are you a 3 year old toddler??!?! How about when he gets out of line? Where is the Qur'anic text to show YOU what to do with HIM?

farrahk52 wrote: »

Im not sure how we got to domestic violence from 'why do women wear a burka' esp when non muslim (western) men BEAT their wives on a regular basis...and actually kill them in some cases.

Gee whiz, those evil goddam western men, eh? SINCE WHEN DO ALL NON MUSLIM MEN BEAT THEIR WIVES ON A REGULAR BASIS???? Your opinions are completely disturbing...

farrahk52 wrote: »

PLS DO NOT BELITTLE THE ISSUE, even if woman is killed its one woman too many and 2 are killed each week!

What the hell sort of crazy logic is that??????? "Oops, just killed her, ah well, we have too many women around here anyways...."!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT?????

farrahk52 wrote: »

To be honest i didnt actually know how EVIL western men could be to BEAT their wives with fists etc , esp when they are pregnant and infront of young children! until i read the stats. Pls dont tar us muslims with the same brush clearly you have a long way to go on learning how to respect women as a nation ...the stats speak for themselves.

YOU JUST SAY HOW EVIL WESTERN MEN ARE AND THAT THEY BEAT THEIR WIVES WHEN PREGNANT IN FRONT OF KIDS....
ONLY TO CONTINUE ON AND TELL US NOT TO TAR YOUR CULTURE WITH THE SAME BRUSH....
.........unbelivable......

I seriously urge the mods to clamp down on this extremist, completely ridiculious view of Islam that Farrah is presenting- it is both distastful for those of us who have an interest and respect for Islam and also for the Muslims here who are having their religion slandered by with extremist opinions- is this really what you want people to think Islam is about?!?

hivizman

Getting back onto the original topic "Why do women have to wear burkas?", did anyone see the news story in some of the papers today about the woman married to a French citizen, who was refused French citizenship for herself because it was considered that the fact that she wore the niqab (full face veil) and stayed at home meant that she was not integrated into French society.

The article in The Times that I've linked to discusses the French concept of secularism or laïcité, which led to a ban recently on the wearing of the hijab (head scarf) in schools. It's interesting that the country that seems to have adopted the laïcité principle most closely is Turkey, which also bans (or did so until quite recently) visible symbols such as the hijab in schools and universities.

What do people think? Was France right in denying citizenship to the wearer of the niqab?

Caverna

OceanClub:

".......I noticed you left the first part of my sentence in, but removed the parts offering modern solutions such as relationship councelling and anger management. Did you remove those because you can't deal with that argument? Yes, you did. That's called "dishonest debating...."

I didn't feel it necessary to break down each individual piece of your sentence but I dislike this assertion you have that I can't "deal" with your argument. Yeah yeah, okay, we'd all like to write our own reviews.

For the record I can deal with your argument. I did say that I agreed with you that the permitting of one person to hit another is wrong and I now add that I also agree that they should hit a pillow or seek professional guidance.

However we both know that the reality reflects a somewhat different prespective of things.

I would also like to add that OceanClub and all others out there seem to have jumped on the bandwagon that is Islam-bashing. I have never seen one religion mis-quoted, taken out of context, trivialised etc..
This has all begun since the September 11th attacks and it's horrible to see people slander and insult a religion for their own comfortable amusement.
Its horrible to see. The smallest of things taken and a huge deal created out of it.

Nobody seems to come on and discuss how Jews, in following the Old Testament, believe in a vindictive, blood thirsty, crazy, jealous God.( I'm not definitely saying that this is what Jewish people believe but this is my reading of the Old Testament)

Islam is an easy target with very few people in powerful media positions to present a fair and balanced perspective.






hivizman: No France wasn't right. I hate this "integration" expression. What does that mean? How do you integrate into French or any society?

ChocolateSauce

I have a problem with the burqa whether the woman is wearing it by choice or not.

If she's wearing it by choice, she is personally insulting me. She's saying I'm too impure, too uncivilised to see her. She's saying I might break into a mad rage and rape her if I could see her. Sorry, no dice. The same goes for all other kinds of headscarf, although much, much less so for the hijab, though the principle is the same.

As for the French case, I would say France was right except that she's married to a French citizen, and the law I believe states that being married to a citizen entitles you to citizenship. You can't suspend the law where you see fit, though I do agree if you aren't going to try to be French you should move back to your home country.

ChocolateSauce

farrahk52 wrote: »

MOST of us would want to marry a REAL man and not some docile creature with no real dominating skills or a walk over so to speak.

Have you tried BDSM?

Caverna

theozster wrote: »

I have a problem with the burqa whether the woman is wearing it by choice or not.

If she's wearing it by choice, she is personally insulting me. She's saying I'm too impure, too uncivilised to see her. She's saying I might break into a mad rage and rape her if I could see her. Sorry, no dice. The same goes for all other kinds of headscarf, although much, much less so for the hijab, though the principle is the same.

As for the French case, I would say France was right except that she's married to a French citizen, and the law I believe states that being married to a citizen entitles you to citizenship. You can't suspend the law where you see fit, though I do agree if you aren't going to try to be French you should move back to your home country.

What a load of nonsense.

If the woman is wearing the hijab through her own choice, deal with it. You're too easily offended and not the best at acceptance and tolerance.

Secondly.

What does "try to be French" mean?
Is there a prescribed way to behave?!!?

More nonsense..

oceanclub

Caverna wrote:

I didn't feel it necessary to break down each individual piece of your sentence but I dislike this assertion you have that I can't "deal" with your argument. Yeah yeah, okay, we'd all like to write our own reviews.

It's nothing to do with addressing individual sentences. It's about not responding to my argument.

Then you divert it into victimhood (also known as the "Would you hit me with the child in me arms?" gambit):

"I would also like to add that OceanClub and all others out there seem to have jumped on the bandwagon that is Islam-bashing. I have never seen one religion mis-quoted, taken out of context, trivialised etc.."

Well, you don't get out much then. Or, you're just particularly sensitive to criticism of your own religion, which is fair enough. I can only speak for myself; I'm an equal-opportunities "basher" - I'm proud to say that in the limited web browser which the Church of Scientology issues to their members - one which filters out any sites that criticise the religion - the IP address of my old college machine is there because of an old web page which they didn't like. (http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/07/15feature2.html) Also, based on some of my articles, a southern Baptist decided to become an atheist.

I've nothing particular against Islam; I consider mosques the most spiritual of religious buildings I've been in, and quite like waking to the sound of the local mosque call when staying with my in-laws in Malaysia. And I detest those (normally on the right) who are racist under the guise of criticising Islam - for example, those who only discovered gay rights when it suited them to. Conversely, I hate those on the left who defend Islam the religion in ways they would not defend other religions, and regard those who criticise it as racist, out of some misplaced notion of creating "anti-imperialist" alliances.

I don't know if you're from Ireland, or have lived here for the past 20 years, but the modern history of the country from the 1950s until the 1990s was an ideological battle between conservative Catholicism and liberalism, which the latter has mostly won. The idea that other religions haven't been criticised in the past here is ridiculous. I used to work for a satirical magazine here which, after one issue ridiculing yet another hypocritical bishop (Casey, in this instance), had a crowd of Catholic extremists outside burning issues (the editor didn't mind as long as they paid for them!).

My opinion of Islam is the same of all religions - I have no problem with people believing whatever they want - pink fairies at the end of your garden? Go for it. My problem is when religious belief enters the public realm to the extent of justifying restrictions or violence on others.

Also, I'm not sure why you're bringing up "mis-quoting" as a Muslim vs non-Muslim issue. What we're seen in this group are Muslims quoting the Qu'ran at each other but deriving different meanings, such as Farrah believing that beating your wife is allowed, while others say it's forbidden. You might want to take up the argument with her.

Nobody seems to come on and discuss how Jews,

Somehow, the Jews always come up, eh? There's less than 1,500 in Ireland these days - not even enough for a Boards forum - the vast majority of whom are secular; I believe there's only 200 or so actively involved in worship.

Anyway, I'll think you'll find it the Stickies who are the mythical dominators of the media here. Believe me, if there were Jews advocating that the Old Testament - the God of which is a loon - gave them a right to beat their wives, I'd say the exact same to them.

P.

Caverna

OceanClub

I'm not Muslim. Also, I am Irish.

Just to clear it up there.

A lot of what you say I would agree with (people believing in whatever they want etc...)

There is something I do take issue with, however:

I don't know what you are talking about when you say "somehow the Jews always come up". It's the first time I've ever mentioned Jews so Id be careful there if I were you. I'm not quite sure what you are insinuating by saying that. To add to that though, I must say that I hate this kind of moral high ground people assume over Jews-SO WHAT if Jews are mentioned??! It's almost as though they cannot be mentioned. I hate that attitude. This is a religious discussion, religions will be mentioned. I don't see where the problem is.

Actually if I may throw out one possible theory-it is because the Jews as a people and the Jews as a religion are so closely intertwined that people feel that criticizing the Jewish religion is akin to criticizing the people. And we all know how much of a social no-no that has been ever since WW2. But at what cost? Look at Palestine for example, you can't possibly attempt to contemplate to criticize Israel without the inevitable anti-semitic slur. Yet what Israel does is morally and ethically wrong. Yet it gets away with it. Its crap.

Again I must say that I am not Muslim and I don't agree with everything they say but at the same time I think they are getting such a rough ride from people who, lets be honest, generally read something in a tabloid which is taken out of context and they just roll with that idea. It's easier for them to stay uninformed then inform themselves and challenge their prejudiced perceptions.

oceanclub

Caverna wrote: »

OceanClub

I'm not Muslim. Also, I am Irish.

Just to clear it up there.

Right, so I don't have to remind you about recent history, and therefore I think you will understand that those who marched and campaigned for a secular Republic, of a nation with "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens", don't want to see those gains reverted out of misplaced political correctness.

A lot of what you say I would agree with (people believing in whatever they want etc...)

So why am I the baddie again, exactly?

There is something I do take issue with, however:

I don't know what you are talking about when you say "somehow the Jews always come up".

Sorry, not directed at you, I apologise; just a general utterance of annoyance that in the last few discussions I've had on Islam, there's always someone who tries to divert the whole conversation into Jews and Israel. If you want to do that, please feel free to set up a seperate thread.

(For the record, I'm for a strong, independent secular Palestine, hope to see it in my lifetime, am dismayed by the current support for Hamas, and am annoyed Israel's ability to keep digging itself into a bigger hole including contributing to the atmosphere which has led to the majority support of Hamas.)

P.

Caverna

I think this is the first time on boards.ie that I have found middle ground with a person I was having a discussion with.

Feels nice :cool:

techdiver

OK brace yourselves for this sweeping statement:

RELIGION SHOULD BE BANNED!

Causes nothing but conflict and is used as an excuse for aggression. Sick of people playing the religious card all the time as an excuse for everything.

farrahk52

Hi

I'm not an extremist i dont hate all jews - you cant catergorise jews (or veiled women) in one lump! they are of different opinions and some jews are quite nice and oppose ZIONISM, Its the settlers that continue to build on poor palestinians land that annoy me, some of them go and unearth their olive trees in spite, may Allah curse them!.

Anyway i just wanted to say i dont know why someone mentioned earlier that he feels uneasy about women wearing burkas because he would never rape a woman - WHICH IS GOOD FOR HIM, but the stats show that RAPE IS INCREASING...

According to the CER (campaign to end rape - a national coalition of feminist activists from Justice for Women, the Rape Crisis Movement, YWCA, and other individual activists, feminist lawyers and academics ) :-

In 2003/04 there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female, this represents an increase of eight per cent from the previous year.

1 in 4 women have experienced rape or attempted rape

1 in 7 women have been coerced into sex, rising to 1 in 3 among divorced and separated women

During 2001 it is estimated that 190,000 incidents of serious sexual assault and 47,000 female victims of rape/attempted rape

considering there are some women who dont come forward thats alot of indecent assaults and rapes - remember ONE IS TOO MANY!!!

Before you all have a go, that doesnt mean all men rape - but clearly quite a few do. They dont wear a sticker on their heads saying 'im a rapist' so how can you tell who they are?.

I think its very HONOURABLE for a woman to cover up and hide anything men might find stimulating, why should we walk around half dressed, with fake tans and makeup caked on in layers trying to please men, i mean who do they think they are to DESERVE for us to dress for them in such a way and why should they see us in all our glory when they mean NOTHING to us? My sis works for a private hospital and she comes home and tells us how over 80% of the male and female ENGLISH staff have affairs with each other and gloat about them they use cupboards and spare rooms - and the muslims there find it sick but the very people who have these affairs think the muslims are abnormal in not choosing to have affairs LOL. DISGUSTING what kind've morals do they have and they want us to integrate and behave like animals... NO THANKS

oceanclub

farrahk52 wrote: »

Hi

I'm not an extremist i dont hate all jews - you cant catergorise jews (or veiled women) in one lump! they are of different opinions and some jews are quite nice and oppose ZIONISM, Its the settlers that continue to build on poor palestinians land that annoy me, some of them go and unearth their olive trees in spite, may Allah curse them!.

Anyway i just wanted to say i dont know why someone mentioned earlier that he feels uneasy about women wearing burkas because he would never rape a woman - WHICH IS GOOD FOR HIM, but the stats show that RAPE IS INCREASING...

According to the CER (campaign to end rape - a national coalition of feminist activists from Justice for Women, the Rape Crisis Movement, YWCA, and other individual activists, feminist lawyers and academics ) :-

In 2003/04 there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female, this represents an increase of eight per cent from the previous year.

1 in 4 women have experienced rape or attempted rape

1 in 7 women have been coerced into sex, rising to 1 in 3 among divorced and separated women

During 2001 it is estimated that 190,000 incidents of serious sexual assault and 47,000 female victims of rape/attempted rape

considering there are some women who dont come forward thats alot of indecent assaults and rapes - remember ONE IS TOO MANY!!!

Before you all have a go, that doesnt mean all men rape - but clearly quite a few do. They dont wear a sticker on their heads saying 'im a rapist' so how can you tell who they are?.

I think its very HONOURABLE for a woman to cover up and hide anything men might find stimulating, why should we walk around half dressed, with fake tans and makeup caked on in layers trying to please men, i mean who do they think they are to DESERVE for us to dress for them in such a way and why should they see us in all our glory when they mean NOTHING to us? My sis works for a private hospital and she comes home and tells us how over 80% of the male and female ENGLISH staff have affairs with each other and gloat about them they use cupboards and spare rooms - and the muslims there find it sick but the very people who have these affairs think the muslims are abnormal in not choosing to have affairs LOL. DISGUSTING what kind've morals do they have and they want us to integrate and behave like animals... NO THANKS

I'm going to assume you're genuine and not a troll, so I'm going to attempt ro reply to you in a sensible manner.

It helps that when you attempt to base an argument on statistics, you add a hyperlink to a verifiable source. Otherwise, people might assume you are simply making them up.

Also, you cannot base the argument "RAPE IS INCREASING" on statistics for _one_ year. There's no way of knowing if that year was simply a statistical "blip".

Also, even if rape is increasing, you've no shown no evidence why is it increasing; for example, population increases.

You - presumably - think that in societies where women cover up, that rape statistics are lower? Therefore, I presume you can point us to _verifiable) statistics that show that in fundamentalist Islamics societies, the average rate is lower than in Western societies?

Otherwise, what you are doing is just half-baked ranting.

By coincidence, the British-Asian blog Pickled Politics today points to the following story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7514567.stm

Sexual harassment of women in Egypt is on the increase and observing Islamic dress code is no deterrent, according to a survey published this week.


The findings contradict the widely held belief in Egypt that unveiled women are more likely to suffer harassment than veiled ones.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EGYPT
Experienced by 98% of foreign women visitors
Experienced by 83% of Egyptian women
62% of Egyptian men admitted harassing women
53% of Egyptian men blame women for 'bringing it on'
Source: Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights

Participants in the survey were shown pictures of women wearing different kinds of dress - from the mini skirt to the niqab (full face veil) and asked which were more likely to be harassed.

More than 60% - including female respondents - suggested the scantily clad woman was most at risk. But in reality the study concluded the majority of the victims of harassment were modestly dressed women wearing Islamic headscarves.

ECWR head Nihad Abu El-Qoumsan said that even veiled women who were victims of harassment blamed themselves.

Western women who took part in the study demonstrated a strong belief in their entitlement to personal safety and freedom of movement, she says, but this was totally absent among Egyptian respondents.

No-one spoke about freedom of choice, freedom of movement or the right to legal protection. No-one showed any awareness that the harasser was a criminal, regardless of what clothes the victim was wearing.

As for this:

"My sis works for a private hospital and she comes home and tells us how over 80% of the male and female ENGLISH staff have affairs with each other and gloat about them they use cupboards and spare rooms - and the muslims there find it sick but the very people who have these affairs think the muslims are abnormal in not choosing to have affairs"

Personally I just thinking you're lying.

P.

Caverna

54% of all statistics are false

DinoBot

farrahk52 wrote: »

According to the CER (campaign to end rape - a national coalition of feminist activists from Justice for Women, the Rape Crisis Movement, YWCA, and other individual activists, feminist lawyers and academics ) :-

In 2003/04 there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female, this represents an increase of eight per cent from the previous year.

1 in 4 women have experienced rape or attempted rape

1 in 7 women have been coerced into sex, rising to 1 in 3 among divorced and separated women

During 2001 it is estimated that 190,000 incidents of serious sexual assault and 47,000 female victims of rape/attempted rape

I have nothing against women covering up but please dont assume the women who dont have loose or no morals.

The one thing that stands out in your post is the assumption that the rape is due to the woman not covering up "anything men might find stimulating". Thats plan crazy!

Do you think it is the fault of the women for being raped ?

Plus, in the quotes about rape you took from the website, you used all but 3, which would seem to show no amount of covering up in public would solve.

1) 97% of all callers to Rape Crisis lines knew their assailants prior to the assault.

2) The most common perpetrators of rape are husbands and partners.

3) The majority of perpetrators are known to the victim.

ChocolateSauce

Caverna wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

If the woman is wearing the hijab through her own choice, deal with it. You're too easily offended and not the best at acceptance and tolerance.

Actually, tolerant and accepting is exactly what I am. I don't think they should be forced to removed it, even though I don't like it. That is dictionary definition of tolerance. Is that not "dealing" with it?

Secondly.

Caverna wrote: »

What does "try to be French" mean?
Is there a prescribed way to behave?!!?

More nonsense..

Funny, I imagine you might think differently if this woman your next door neighbour. She's not wearing it by chioce, she's "In total submission to her male relatives". You'd want her to integrate at least a little, perhaps by leaving the house by herself or making her own choices.