Printable View
Extremist version of what, interaction between an unrelated man and woman is 'discouraged' in the islam, in Saudi Arabia rather harshly. Just because there are more interpetations doesn't mean it's not an islamic law. Protestants and catholics are both christians.
Yeah but if it's 'discouraged' does that mean there has to be a law for that ? What about women can't drive and all that, they did'nt even have an ID card until recently. This is just BS (IMHO with all due respect to the culture).
They must think there must be, it's the principle around which the law is built, and it's not just Saudi Arabia, also in Iran and parts of Nigeria, Afghanistan, it all comes from the same source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
I see your point.
IMO it's their culture that's the source. Women can drive, have IDs, work, ****, etc in other countries too, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Brunei, Maldives, Egypt, Jordan, Syria (HOTTIES!), Morocco, Tunisia, in fact in all the other Muslim majority states bar Saudi, Afghanistan (under Taliban), Iran (even Iran is more liberal than Saudi), and the Nigerians seem to want to be in the same boat as the Saudis.
So I don't think it's fair to say that because these guys are doing it, it's Islamic (as a generalisation). IMO that's their culture that is influencing their law.
Of course Islam was born there, and naturally the Arabs spread Islam and a good deal of their culture with it. So now everyone thinks that ALL Muslim states are like this, which is not true ofc. It does'nt help that a lot of Muslims happily follow the Arab culture, donning the hijab and all that. Even though they are NOT Arab, e.g the Turks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/126000...7_saudi300.jpg
See this image, this is how the Saudis want the women to dress. If you look in the Koran it does'nt say dress like this. It says dress modestly and be covered i.e don't walk around like a slut. They make their women dress like this because of their own reasons, & their cultural influence which essentially dictates that the women have to behave ultra loyal and conservative. Look at the men, that dress is not "Islamic", it's Arab.
Not everyone has been missing it don , there have been some very good posts . Though unrelated to that the best posts by far in this topic have been by Andres .Quote:
Look, Tribesman has a point you've all been intentionally missing... on the off chance you haven't, please allow me to spell it out for you....
But anyhow enough of that so back onto the teddy story Lemur posted ...does anyone get the notion that there is a bit more behind that story than first appears ? Does anyone get the idea that there is a hell of a lot more behind that story than first appears ?
They've already said there's a lot more behind it. There's some sort of import-tariff negotiation upcoming between Sudan and the UK, and the UK ambassadors all but said whipping the teacher is a bargaining chip... i.e. 'give us the better half of the deal and we won't whip your citizen'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Personally, I say let them whip her. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the Sudan has a law that naming Teddy Bears after the prophet is worthy of 80 lashes, and you're dumb enough to go there in the first place, let alone naming Teddy Bears after Mohammed, you pretty much deserve what you have coming to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Does it matter? A woman may still be whipped for naming a teddy bear... of course if lashing rape victims doesn't bother you, this surely won't. ~:wacko:
It doesn't, that is what I meant with sharia courts that act independatily earlier in this thread, they are an authority of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
And more , the local authority that runs the local courts is in financial dispute with this womans employers , also local businessmen who are linked to the local authority have ben trying to obtain the land that the school owns , and of course the national government are very pissed at having to cede jurisdiction in certain areas to foriegn bodies , plus of course the ongoing threat of sanctions and the pipedream about military intervention .Quote:
They've already said there's a lot more behind it. There's some sort of import-tariff negotiation upcoming between Sudan and the UK, and the UK ambassadors all but said whipping the teacher is a bargaining chip... i.e. 'give us the better half of the deal and we won't whip your citizen'.
well its been said before and doubtless will be said again , when one reads a post like that then "what a muppet: " is all the content is worth .Quote:
Does it matter? A woman may still be whipped for naming a teddy bear... of course if lashing rape victims doesn't bother you, this surely won't.
Im wondering how that colon managed to work itself in there. :magnify:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I expect the outrage is being selectively applied. What about those hundreds of thousands of boys named Mohammed? Are they all blaspheming as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Nonsense. The teacher picked the most common boys' names and had the class vote on it. She is undeserving of any punishment whatsoever. I expect the government is more offended by the concept of "voting" than any name.
You're arguing theory of law, and whether or not the Sudanese government has the right to make such a law in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm arguing that regardless of what laws they pass, its incumbent on the teacher to be aware of them and to avoid travel to the place if they don't like the laws.
The Sultan of Brunei has a standing order in his kingdom that he can sleep with any woman in his domain at his choosing. Regardless of you feel about it, should Mrs. Lemur travel to Brunei one day, she would be subject to this fiat as well. While I think it's a bad law (as is 40 lashes for naming a Teddy Bear Mohammed), it doesn't matter. Brunei has their laws, Sudan has theirs. If we don't agree with them, we should stay the heck out of there.
For the love of God, relax...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I'm not saying you can't criticize, I'm saying you need to look at both sides before you do so. While you can just dive into the debate thinking of only your side, the smart option is to at least look at both.
In addition, while the rich are, of course, happy, the poorer married women (where they cannot afford servants) still live fairly well. We're talking here about schoolteachers, wives of ordinary workers, etc. They are also quite content with their lives, and still have their women friends over, love being around family, and have what they see as fairly decent lives.
One of my points. I brought up the example of Oman to show this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
What makes you think I haven't? Just because I find the "other side" of the argument absolutely ridiculous and beyond comprehension for any sane, rational human being, it doesn't mean I haven't looked at it. I see where you are coming from, and I whole heartedly disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
You know they are content... how exactly?Quote:
In addition, while the rich are, of course, happy, the poorer married women (where they cannot afford servants) still live fairly well. We're talking here about schoolteachers, wives of ordinary workers, etc. They are also quite content with their lives, and still have their women friends over, love being around family, and have what they see as fairly decent lives.
I don't think he's making that argument at all. The law as outlined is about insulting Islam. Mohammed is a common name and was chosen by classmates from among a list of other common names. Does using the name constitute an insult in itself? What of all the other children that have the same name- are they an insult to Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Had she tried to suggest that the teddy bear was someone representative of the prophet Mohammed, then yes, I could see their enforcing of their ridiculous and immoral law. However, I don't see the insult in using Mohammed, as a secular name, for a teddy bear.
Very selectively applied , since the school has taken legal advice (like you do )from people whose job it is to deal with Sudans version of Sharia law (mixed with English common law) and they say that no crime has been committed .Quote:
I expect the outrage is being selectively applied.
Strangely enough all of the parents of the children in the class have stated that they didn't report anything to anyone and cannot see what the crime issue is .
So perhaps instead of Dons...It should be ....don't go somewhere with a dodgy government if the local authorities have issues with your employer and the national authorities have big problems with your country or you may find yourself being used as a bargaining chip based on trumped up charges .Quote:
I'm arguing that regardless of what laws they pass, its incumbent on the teacher to be aware of them and to avoid travel to the place if they don't like the laws.
Ahhh, there is a bunch of BS politics behind it. That makes more sense:idea2:
**** Sudan
Precisely what my first thought was. Plenty of Muslims are called Mohammed, or variations on that theme, and to my knowledge not even the teacher made any link between the bear and their Prophet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm not arguing for the Sudan's right to have kooky laws like whipping a teacher for naming a Teddy Bear, or Saudi Arabia's right to have a law about whipping women who allow themselves to be in the presence of unrelated men.
I'm saying that if you have a problem with laws like that, stay the hell out of of Sudan and Saudi Arabia. Personally, I would never go to either country, because by their laws, I cannot testify against a muslim, since I'm not a muslim. So if a muslim were to attack me, I couldn't file a police report against them.
DC and Tribesy could you give your sources about the politics behind this. I have an English project where we have to parallel the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, and a modern event. I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Woad
Edited for spelling ironically enough
Woad wouldn't the witch hunt theme be better covered by the Libyan HIV infection story ?
Alright, you've looked at it. Great. But do you actually, really, understand the issue? I don't. I doubt anyone here does. But I'm trying to be as objective as I can, and look at both sides of the issue fairly. That's all I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
To my knowledge, I've explained that quite clearly, but I am basing my opinion on a very good friend of mine, also a teacher, who lived in Oman with his wife (who also taught in Oman), his son (a friend of mine), and his daughters. They, or some of them, were often invited into the homes of these women, sometimes when men were not present, and saw whatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ice
happened on the inside.
The rich women were quite content, with opulent clothing, chambers, servants, and so on. The middle-class women were also doing quite well for themselves. They were all happy. If a western woman lived like that, I doubt she would enjoy it. My point is that they were raised that way, that's how they're used to it, and it's generally not a problem for them.
I haven't heard about that story yet. I'll have to look into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
How would I go about doing that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I know you are, I can read. I was asking that more to be a smart ass because you seem to be generalizing all the women (this was Oman, not even Saudi Arabia) based on the second hand information you came across from your friend who met a few families.Quote:
To my knowledge, I've explained that quite clearly, but I am basing my opinion on a very good friend of mine, also a teacher, who lived in Oman with his wife (who also taught in Oman), his son (a friend of mine), and his daughters. They, or some of them, were often invited into the homes of these women, sometimes when men were not present, and saw what
happened on the inside.
I'm sure it would be a problem if they knew how women lived in developed countries, eh?Quote:
The rich women were quite content, with opulent clothing, chambers, servants, and so on. The middle-class women were also doing quite well for themselves. They were all happy. If a western woman lived like that, I doubt she would enjoy it. My point is that they were raised that way, that's how they're used to it, and it's generally not a problem for them.
However, this doesn't matter because you haven't really shown me proof that all women in Saudi Arabia, be they middle or upper class, really love the current system and aren't just going through the motions.
To adapt something from a possible parallel; "they pretend that they treat women fairly, women pretend that they acquiesce". It's a matter of time before modern technology catches up, mainly a matter of how long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I know it's Oman and not Saudi Arabia, that was one of the points I was trying to make, and quoted and agreed to, in one of my earlier posts. The point is that this is firstly Saudi law, and not Islamic law, and that the women in most Islamic countries do not have it altogether bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Who knows? They already have some western comforts. Perhaps they would view Western women as decadent. Then there was a family from some Islamic country in the Middle East that I saw taking some cousins to Legoland - a man with all of his wives and daughters. He obviously had money, and the women were strolling around, dressed in very fine clothing, independent (away from their husband most of the time), and generally having fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Well, seeing that it's just a different point of view, and that they're not "monsters", is probably a good place to start...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I think slavery of the mind is worse then that of the body.
Which is partially based off of Islamic law, yes I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
You haven't really proved or demonstrated that point.Quote:
and that the women in most Islamic countries do not have it altogether bad.
I can't really agree there. Anyone who punishes the victim of a gang raping is indeed a monster.Quote:
Well, seeing that it's just a different point of view, and that they're not "monsters", is probably a good place to start...
But I have offered an eyewitness opinion (remember, this was his wife that was invited into the home as well as he, usually just her with the women, no men around. Being curious about the culture, she of course asked. They didn't have a problem with their lifestyle whatsoever.) I suppose "bad" is relative, so we'll have to agree to disagree, unless you have another opinon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
It was for another crime than the rape itself. If you committed a minor offence, like public drunkeness, and then were shot, would you still expect to be charged for the offense you committed? I would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice