Are veiled women a threat to the world?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Janz

Of course this survey included 35 nations so only 5 nations wanted the Sharia as the only source of legislation. But most wanted democracy with religious values..their religious values. Isn't that a theocracy?

I would say no, because the implementation of Sharia-derived legal concepts and laws is not specifically a religious matter. It is principally a legal matter.

[Janz]

^ I think you need to read this article by M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., the founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Getting Real On Shariah:

The Islamic state is a nation-state based upon the premise that the rule of law of the nation is guided by the legal constructs of Shariah. Shariah is the body of laws of Islamic jurisprudence as interpreted and enacted by clerics and scholars (ulemaa) of Islamic law. To Islamists, societies like ours in the United States based in "one law" derived from reason and a human document are an anathema and represent the ideology of "Godlessness."

Muslims living in the west may have modernized our interpretations of Shariah (God's law) by living here and picking and choosing our own interpretations of how we may practice "God's law." But that is only of personal relevance.

There must be a clear demarcation between the domain of the cleric's laws and the domain of our government's laws -- i.e. our Establishment Clause. The American Establishment clause is incompatible with any form of Shariah.....
It is no longer "God's law" when it is interpreted into any manifestation of human law. "God's law" is only "God's law" within the personal relationship of an individual with God. Once a human collective interprets law if it is done in the name of religion, it is theocracy, not God's law.

A common Muslim legal text sold at large Muslim bookstores and conventions -- The Reliance of the Traveler -- is a widely held treatise on Islamic law which contains a plethora of legal rulings at odds with all principles of western morality and equality. There is no modern text of Islamic law to counter this."

I think that from what I have researched the Sharia is God's Law according to Islam. Some countries, such as Tunisia, have hybrid systems, rejecting Sharia law in most instances yet relying it in others, such as in the area of divorce and family law, inheritance, contracts and banking. To some Sharia jurists, the Sharia applies only to Muslims and does not technically apply to non-Muslims such as Christians (eg. Malaysia and Indonesia as of 2008).

In Refash Party v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights adopted these words: “It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from values (of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts...."

Secular Democratic principles such as political pluralism and the constant tug towards expanding individual freedoms are incompatible with Sharia. IMO.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste farhan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by farhan

@ Vajra

Well the whole exchange between you & me comes down to one thing. Your definition of democracy.

and yours, of course

You say laws should be made by people. OK. I am the people. I am in majority (For example there was a recent poll in Pakistan according to which 89% of people wanted some form of Sharia ruling the country.....May I remind you Sharia=/=Taliban.....Since majority of Pakistanis call them American Taliban)

rather than thinking that i'm like everyone else you can simply dialog with me directly... i'm well aware of what Sharia is and what the Taliban were and how they are not the same.

the idea of democracy being people making the laws and choosing their leaders isn't my idea, though i'd be pleased to take credit for it.

And I using my democratic right, want my legislaters to make laws that are in accordance with Islamic ideals, regardlss of what west, western morality, western sensitivities, western world view think of it. Why isnt this democracy? Why does it have to be secular to be democratic? I am not gonna givein to man made ideals, so where is my right of self determination?

the idea of "legislators" is a man made ideal as is the idea of "self determination".

i don't care if a populace requires guidance from an ancient text to form a democracy or if it applies 21st century a-political theory to create a democracy. a democracy doesn't have to have western values though the idea of democracy is, inherently, a western ideal.

"ruling body of clerics" was the will of Iran back then (I think still now, other that some urban secularized elites).

none of the Iranians that i know agree with that...but then they fled the country when they were able to do so. the ruling body of clerics was actually opposed by another ruling body of clerics that said that getting Islam mixed into the idea of a republic would tarnish Islam...they didn't come to power during the 1979 revolution, however, and history hasn't heard much from them until this most recent political turmoil.

There arnt a lot of people who are killed for wrong interpretation. You can see this from the very beginning. Ummayads & Hashimites had a pre-Islamic rivalery. It flowered into Shia-Sunni rift. Persians & Arabs had animosities. There were rivaleries between different tribes of Oguz turks & sons of Genghis Khan. Iran-Iraq war & now the Iraqi civil war continues the tradition. none of it is "because of" wrong interpretation. Its for politico-economic reasons.

i must presume that you hold this view due to the information that you've had a chance to consume regarding these historical events. i hold the position that i do due to the information which i've consumed regarding these historical events. there is, daily, violence by one Muslim sect against another for no other reason than they are of the wrong sect. you may not want this to be the case yet it is.

that does not mean, of course, that there are not other reasons for wars and organized violence against other humans.. there certainly are. it seems disingenuous to suggest that holding the wrong view has not played an equal role.

They dont have to. Divine law provides enough margin for human jurisprudence to make laws according to local needs. As long as they dont contradict divine law, they are all Islamic.

if that were the case then we wouldn't see the sectarian violence in Islam that we see. i think that you are speaking of theoretical ideals rather than wanting to acknowledge the realities of the aforementioned situations.

I was talking about the defacto situation there. I was recently watching an interview by a Dalit activist there, who gave a view of India that is quite opposite to the usually marketed one. Its alomst a tokenist Brahmin Raj . A few cities are prosperous, 80% live under poverty. 20% are still "untouchable". In some places rape is a "religious ritual". 40% of area is "defacto" controlled by Maoist rebels.

Yes elections do happen, even in places like Assam & Kashmir where people dont want to be with India. But I am not talking about the India that Wiki, CNN, BBC show you.

what makes you think that the Dalit activist didn't have an agenda that he/she was selling? that a country still has social issues does not change the fact that it is, in this case, a secular democracy.

Thats classical stuff, before Industrialisation, information age, economic massacres, WMDs etc. It cant help in 21st century. For example traditional Fiqah would ban WMDs, but in todays world, thats suicide (which too is banned by Shariah).

which part is suicide... banning the use of weapons of mass destruction or not banning their use?

by the by.. democracy is classical stuff.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are unveiled women a threat to the world?

apparently to the Muslim male world they are.

metta,

~v

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Algeria, (Egypt - in brackets because it was anything but free or fair), Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, UAE and Yemen have all had elections of their governments.

I don't remember how long ago it was, but are you old enough to recall how the first Algerian elections went? There was an argument over whether women should be allowed to vote, so as a "compromise", married men and those who were guardians for unmarried women of age were given extra votes so they could vote FOR their women. Under these circumstances, the Islamist parties won, and Le Pouvoir (as they call their establishment) declared the results null and void. This started a murky civil war: pro-Islamist and pro-government villages would be massacred from time to time, by a bomb or a clutch of machine guns suddenly appearing in a marketplace. These bombs and guns would of course be smuggled in by women in burkas, or men disguised as women in burkas, who could tell which? As someone (Netti Netti I think?) reminded us recently, the burka only became popular in Algeria to start with because of its usefulness for weapons smuggling.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

When is hell due to freeze over?

About the time veiling becomes socially acceptable in the US.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Ok list me the countries where the niqab is worn by over 50% of women (ie a majority) ... I'll start you off:

Saudi Arabia

Noted for public beheadings and mutilations, religious police that beat people on the street and chase little girls into burning buildings, and for exporting people who like to blow up random strangers.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Do you honestly believe that by banning the niqab these women would be free to nip down the disco in their mini-skirts or tribal warlords would start looking at the world in a secular way?

Do you even bother to read what I say to you? I answered No to your question in a sentence which you even included in your quote, but apparently without looking at: "Abolishing the veil by itself would not, of course, be enough to heal the fractured societies of places like Pakistan".
In any case, we were not talking about whether to abolish veiling in your countries (what you do in your own countries is your own affair, as I have said repeatedly), but about whether to start allowing it in mine.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

and yet you are one of the first to insist that your culture be forced onto other countries

See now, this is why I call you an implacable enemy: you do not seem to have it in you to talk to me as one human to another. You do not listen to anything that I say, but instead have the unmitigated arrogance to tell me what is in my own head, although I, who actually do know what is in my head, keep telling you that you are 180 degrees off from truth.
If you had paid any attention at all, you would know that I am one of THE LAST to endorse interventions in other countries. The only wish I have expressed about your country is that I stay far away from it. It might please me if your country evolved into a place that I could consider voluntarily visiting, but I would not expect it, or think that any good could come from trying to force it to happen.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

The odd story about a nutty father or fanatic killing someone for not dressing properly will not do

Why not? I do not want such nuts or fanatics in my country, ever.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Western women cause much confusion over here because they will generally go out dressed to the nines

Actually, women around here generally go out dressed for comfort.

[Muslimwoman]

Wow all this time I've been away Bob and you still haven't offered an ounce of proof.

[Nick the Pilot]

Are unveiled women a threat to the world?

apparently to the Muslim male world they are.

--> I think that is a great answer.

[shawn]

Actually, with all the surveillance cameras popping up everywhere I think everyone should start wearing a veil, or maybe a george bush mask just to show the big snoops what people think about the world being turned into a zoo.
Also, given that most fluorescent lights give off carcinogenic UV-A and C radiation a burkha would provide one with adequate protection without wearing toxic sunscreen.
Bagism for everyone.

[Netti-Netti]

Question: "Are unveiled women a threat to the world?"
Vajradhara answers: "Apparently to the Muslim male world they are."

If that were true, unless there is a complete noncommunication between men and women, Muslim women would likely have a sense of a dress code being imposed. This would relate to the sense that veiling is forced on them as a necessary way of dealing with males who feel threatened by unveiled women.

In the absence of any evidence of how women feel, Vaj's argument by implication is dead in the water. Nevertheless, Nick the Pilot says of Vaj's remark: "--> I think that is a great answer."

Unfortunately, Vaj's answer is just a little misleading and out of touch with the facts.

Muslim Women Don't See Themselves as Oppressed, Survey Finds

Article Tools Sponsored By
By HELENA ANDREWS
Published: June 8, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 7 — Muslim women do not think they are conditioned to accept second-class status or view themselves as oppressed, according to a survey released Tuesday by The Gallup Organization.

The hijab, or head scarf, and burqa, the garment covering face and body, seen by some Westerners as tools of oppression, were never mentioned in the women's answers to the open-ended questions (about concerns or causes of resentment) ...

The poll also indicated that Muslim women don't necessarily see themselves as politically ineffectual. That means they haven't bought into a view of political society as being male dominated:

At 97 percent, Lebanon had the highest percentage of women who said they believed they should be able to make their own voting decisions, followed by Egypt and Morocco at 95 percent. Pakistan was lowest, at 68 percent.

Muslim Women Don't See Themselves as Oppressed, Survey Finds - New York Times


You know what they always say: if you want to know something about Muslims and Islam, just ask a a Westerner.

[Nick the Pilot]

"Muslim Women Don't See Themselves as Oppressed...."

--> How would they see themselves if they suddenly walked down the road for first time without a veil?

[Avi]

Nick, did you really relocate to Yiwa, China ?

[Ramaraksha]

First of all, no one cares what laws muslim nations pass within their own borders. We may not like it, but we are forced to respect your right to do so.

But bringing those views to the outside world is another matter.

First let me ask why should a muslim women be forced to wear the Burkha? Because then the men will get dirty thoughts? What does this say about muslim men? They can only see women as sex objects? They see a woman, all they think of is sex?

Secondly why shouldn’t this law apply to men? What, women don’t get sexual thoughts? How 16th century! Old and backward, indeed.

And there is the matter of how men will conduct themselves outside the muslim world. How do they interact with women of the outside world? Which woman would want to work with one of these pigs who can only think of them sexually? What if a woman was this muslim man’s boss, how is he going to work with her?

There is a great saying – Every problem contains its own solution.

If a country were to ban all textbooks and declare that learning the Koran would be enough, what will happen? That country would be unable to compete with others, and will fall behind.

And this party explains the world today. By clinging to 16th century laws and values, muslim countries continue to fall behind the rest of the world. When a country does not use half of its resources, that country is not able to compete with the rest of the world. They are already behind the west, wait till they fall behind Asia too.

I say let them do what they want within their own borders. In the end, they will only end up hurting themselves.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Ramaraksha

muslim countries continue to fall behind the rest of the world. . They are already behind the west.

Who is falling behind?
In 2008 the United Arab Emirates GDP was 23%. While they were enjoying continued growth, the US saw the beginning of economic collapse, with a a recession verging on depression that has destroyed million of of jobs that will never come back. And this after 8 years of the slowest job growth since the Great Depression.

When a country does not use half of its resources, that country is not able to compete with the rest of the world

How is this relevant to the US trade deficit? To me it suggests that the US either doesn't have certain resources or is unwilling to use them. Based on your reasoning, the US is not competing with the rest of the world.

[Ramaraksha]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Who is falling behind?
In 2008 the United Arab Emirates GDP was 23%. While they were enjoying continued growth, the US saw the beginning of economic collapse, with a a recession verging on depression that has destroyed million of of jobs that will never come back. And this after 8 years of the slowest job growth since the Great Depression.


How is this relevant to the US trade deficit? To me it suggests that the US either doesn't have certain resources or is unwilling to use them. Based on your reasoning, the US is not competing with the rest of the world.

You must have heard of something called oil. How much did it go upto recently? $140 a barrel or something. These countries are one trick ponies. If they ever run out of oil or enough oil is found somewhere else or alternatives are found, these countries will be in serious trouble. This is not just me saying, these countries realize it too. Some of them are already doing something about it, turning their countries into tourist havens and financial centers.

And then there are countries like Iraq and Iran - talk about misuse of the oil bounty. Instead of using it to better their countrymen, they use it to buy fancy weapons and wage stupid wars.

When did i say anything about the US? And how did you deduce that the US was not competing with the rest of the world? I don't think you have much support there.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Ramaraksha

These countries are one trick ponies.

Whatever you say:

Dubai Group, the financial services arm of Dubai World, the Dubai government's investment company, has acquired a 40 percent stake in leading Indian wind turbine manufacturer Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd (CWEL).

In January 2006, Dubai Financial acquired Thomas Cook International Markets, UK, which gave it a controlling interest in Thomas Cook India, Mauritius and Sri Lanka and licences to operate in Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh.

A global ports operator owned by the government of Dubai, has acquired the London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Dubai International Capital LLC ('DIC'), the international investment arm of Dubai Holding, today announced that it has signed an agreement to acquire UK-based Doncasters Group Limited ('Doncasters') for AED 4.5 Billion from Royal Bank of Scotland Equity Finance (RBEF).

The last one is especially ironic because the company make parts essential to a major US industry -- war. Doncasters make parts for planes and military equipment and they even have plants in the US. Somewhat ironic that a US industry is in effect being controlled from a Gulf nation.

When did i say anything about the US?

You didn't. That's why I mentioned it. The same point you were making about all the supposedly backward Muslim nations applies to the US.

And how did you deduce that the US was not competing with the rest of the world? .

I was using your line of reasoning.