Burqa's in Walking Street

[joekicker 53]

No, I wouldn't. But that is beside the point. As I keep saying, it is how religious admonitions are applied that is important. If questions of dress are only matters of personal piety, I have no problem with that.

 

I have no idea any more what if anything you have a problem with or what IS the point. I've lost track of your claims, and I suspect so have you. Let's try this. If you don't have a problem with the OP, then why do you think it's right to be somehow.... interested let alone concerned about it?

 

If it's not the OP (I think it's one of the sillier OPs of the month and I'm glad it diverged quickly) then what is it, or who is it you are arguing with? For reference: I don't think men should slap women around, literally or figuratively, over their dress or anything else. But it seems to me that with every post, you are criticising the country of Saudi Arabia for its particular method of enforcing the dress code. Well, so do I, and have said so all kinds of times, so again: Who, or what are you arguing against - or for?

 

Many religious groups have strict standards of dress. But the "Islamic dress code" for women (and men) as it exists in some modern Muslim societies (those that practice Sharia law) forces those standards on all adherents under its jurisdiction.

 

All kinds of places with sharia law do no such thing. In fact, I can only think of one place that does. I think it's ridiculous, I certainly oppose the use of force involved, but I don't, won't and never will live there, so it's not too high on my priority list. Even if you insist to include some other places that have LOCAL dress codes, I (One) agree and (Two) won't be living there. So again, who or what are you arguing against/for?

 

It is the transformation of the revealed word into secular law that is wrong. If people were punished by authorities solely for violating Jewish Halakha law or Amish standards of behavior or Catholic doctrines, I would consider that equally wrong.

 

How about getting shot for having a bottle of beer in, say, Kentucky, USA? Equally wrong with your wife being forced to wear an over-garment in Saudi Arabia? Worse? Different? The same?

 

This goes back to the issue of what is "true" religion.

 

Ah. An opinion I can grasp. You're wrong. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with control. As you say, these people (alleged people) are INTERPRETING the word. To THEM their interpretation is "true". They are idjits. They hear voices. They ANSWER the voices they hear. They are ridiculous -- so far as the religion goes, anyhow. Saying that dress codes are rooted in the true religion is like saying rape is rooted in sex.

 

Did you ever notice how the "correct and true interpretation" favours the rulemakers so much? I sure do.

 

As I've said before, very few people indict Islam on purely theological grounds.

 

In this forum? That's a joke, right? See? I recognise humour when its pitched at me and framed correctly.

 

It is the real-world manifestations of Islam that cause grief. What needs to happen is for every Muslim to reject Sharia as anything but a guide to personal salvation and affirm the superiority of man-made law in dealing with secular matters.

 

Now, just how phuocking fortunate is Islam that you have come along at its time of need to INTERPRET the religion for the believers!?

 

Once again, to use an example I've already given: At one point in time, the Christian Bible was used to justify the burning of heretics. The last execution for blasphemy in the U.K. took place in 1697. But that changed a long time ago.

 

Islam is less than 1,500 years old. Hey, it's your time line, you brought it up, not me! By that standard, Islam is a hell of a lot more advanced than Christianity, eh?

 

It is both the theory and practice of Sharia

 

Sharia is not a theory. No matter what you (and I) think of interpretation and revelation, matters like Islamic banking and civil law are not theory. Example: The Koran does NOT say wear a chador and cover your face - but it DOES say you can't make interest on a loan. No theory about it.

 

.

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

I have no idea any more what if anything you have a problem with or what IS the point. I've lost track of your claims, and I suspect so have you. Let's try this. If you don't have a problem with the OP, then why do you think it's right to be somehow.... interested let alone concerned about it?

 

If it's not the OP (I think it's one of the sillier OPs of the month and I'm glad it diverged quickly) then what is it, or who is it you are arguing with? For reference: I don't think men should slap women around, literally or figuratively, over their dress or anything else. But it seems to me that with every post, you are criticising the country of Saudi Arabia for its particular method of enforcing the dress code. Well, so do I, and have said so all kinds of times, so again: Who, or what are you arguing against - or for?

 

I haven't lost track of anything, but from your answers, it is indeed possible you have. I am not concerned about three or 30 or 300 women wearing burqas on Walking Street. I am opposed to Sharia law because it is inherently oppressive when used for anything but personal guidance. As is common in forum threads, the discussion moved beyond the OP.

 

All kinds of places with sharia law do no such thing. In fact, I can only think of one place that does. I think it's ridiculous, I certainly oppose the use of force involved, but I don't, won't and never will live there, so it's not too high on my priority list. Even if you insist to include some other places that have LOCAL dress codes, I (One) agree and (Two) won't be living there. So again, who or what are you arguing against/for?

 

I am arguing against any country or region that enforces Sharia law (and I don't just mean dress codes). That happens in many more places than Saudi Arabia.

 

How about getting shot for having a bottle of beer in, say, Kentucky, USA? Equally wrong with your wife being forced to wear an over-garment in Saudi Arabia? Worse? Different? The same?

 

I don't know of any cases where a person was shot for merely drinking a beer in Kentucky, but if that really happened, the shooter should be punished to the full extent of the law. I would say the same if a person was shot for drinking a cup of tea or any beverage anywhere. Shooting people without justification is a crime under secular law, so of course it's wrong, wherever it happens. Not adhering to a specific dress code based on religious tradition isn't a crime or offense in Western countries.

 

Ah. An opinion I can grasp. You're wrong. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with control. As you say, these people (alleged people) are INTERPRETING the word. To THEM their interpretation is "true". They are idjits. They hear voices. They ANSWER the voices they hear. They are ridiculous -- so far as the religion goes, anyhow. Saying that dress codes are rooted in the true religion is like saying rape is rooted in sex.

 

Did you ever notice how the "correct and true interpretation" favours the rulemakers so much? I sure do.

 

Yes, it is indeed a form of control, but control that is based on religion. Veiling and covering are traditions that pre-date both Islam and Christianity. But common-sense (for the time and place) restrictions on behavior, whether in terms of diet, dress, sexual activity or consumption of alcohol, gained much more impact when ordered by the Supreme Being. Muslims believe the Quranic prohibitions were ordered by Allah, which made the Prophet's followers easier to control. It's a lot riskier to piss off the Supreme Being than a former rug merchant who heard voices.

 

To state dress codes are rooted in religion isn't at all the same as saying rape is rooted in sex. Dress codes are intended to keep the believer on the path of righteousness. If you believe that public displays of the human body are an offense to God, Allah or whatever name you use for the Supreme Being, then it would be natural to obscure the body. Rape has to do with an individual inflicting him or herself on another without the victim's consent.

 

In this forum? That's a joke, right? See? I recognise humour when its pitched at me and framed correctly.

 

I've never read a post on this forum that opposed Islam on theological grounds, i.e., Islam denies the divinity of Jesus or holds that Mohammed was the ultimate prophet or that the Quran supersedes earlier scripture. The criticisms I've read on this forum have concerned the actions of some adherents of Islam who claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

 

Now, just how phuocking fortunate is Islam that you have come along at its time of need to INTERPRET the religion for the believers!?

 

I'm not interpreting anything for Muslims; I'm explaining certain things to you and any other BM who reads this thread.

 

Islam is less than 1,500 years old. Hey, it's your time line, you brought it up, not me! By that standard, Islam is a hell of a lot more advanced than Christianity, eh?

 

I don't know why you would say that. The problem is that Islam hasn't kept pace with developments in the world. Sharia law is based on commands that were originally intended to keep desert tribes in order. Mohammed was a secular as well as a religious leader. But times have changed since Muslim armies swept across the Middle East and other areas. Sharia law hasn't.

 

 

Sharia is not a theory. No matter what you (and I) think of interpretation and revelation, matters like Islamic banking and civil law are not theory. Example: The Koran does NOT say wear a chador and cover your face - but it DOES say you can't make interest on a loan. No theory about it.

 

 

Prof. Wael Hallaq of Columbia University, regarded in academic circles as an expert on Islamic law, might disagree with you about no theory of Sharia law. Here are the titles of some of the books he has written:

 

• Shari'a: theory, practice, transformations (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

• Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed? The Early Essays on the History of Islamic Legal Theories by Wael B. Hallaq / ed. and trans. Atsushi Okuda (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2003; in Japanese, containing translations of a number of the below articles).

• A history of Islamic legal theories : an introduction to Sunnī uṣūl al-fiqh (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

• Law and legal theory in classical and medieval Islam (Aldershot, UK; Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995; containing reprints of twelve articles published between 1984 and 1993).

Evil

[joekicker 53]

I don't know of any cases where a person was shot for merely drinking a beer in Kentucky,

 

I guess it was ambiguous, but I didn't mean "drinking". As I wrote, "having" as in possessing.

 

but if that really happened, the shooter should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

You would punish a Kentucky policeman for shooting a felon in commission of a crime? How droll.

 

Look. It's against the law to HAVE the beer. The cop tries to detain you. You resist. You get dead. Just like any other ridiculous law enforced by a ridiculous cop. You think it hasn't happened? Really?

 

I'll be back. Probably. Posts are getting too long to absorb in a quick stop, but consider the above just a tad.

 

.

[atlas2 4,329]

How about getting shot for having a bottle of beer in, say, Kentucky, USA? Equally wrong with your wife being forced to wear an over-garment in Saudi Arabia? Worse? Different? The same?

 

.

 

Saudi Arabia......* 'Al Huaraisi' Arrested for drinking beer ......at home!!

 

He was beaten.............His skull split open............eyeball dislodged from it's socket... Died in the custody of........Mutaween Religious Police. Absolutely nothing to do with Religion of course. A comforting thought for Ms Al-Huaraisi and her children.

 

"It's not the religion Ms Huariasi. Oh absolutely not.....How could you even connect the two? Silly goose! ....OK, we are the Religious police Ms Huaraisi.........But think of us as the Islam's Health and Safety police. You know anything could happen if you have beer at home. Dangerous stuff beer.............people die you know. No. No need to thank us Ms Huaraisi all part of the service....as long as you understand.......You DO understand Ms Huaraisi.......... Just to be sure that you DO ....it's important for YOUR future health......Once again, absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Why there was a man in Kentucky...Absolutely exactly the same thing happened there. Can happen when beer is invoved, nasty stuff......So nothing to do with Islam.

 

Good night........Allah be with you!!"

 

 

 

*Edited name change.

Edited October 26, 2011 by atlas2

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Saudi Arabia.......'Mather Al Hamizi' Arrested for drinking beer ......at home!!

 

C'mon, get a grip! Again, in your rush to sensationalise your post to try and drive home your point, you've got your facts all arse about face. Al-Hamizi wasn't arrested by anyone, let alone for drinking beer. He's a lawyer.

 

 

 

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

Dont you guys have a life outside the forum?

 

 

 

 

[joekicker 53]

Dont you guys have a life outside the forum? clueless

 

Enjoying the read are you?

 

.

[atlas2 4,329]

C'mon, get a grip! Again, in your rush to sensationalise your post to try and drive home your point, you've got your facts all arse about face. Al-Hamizi wasn't arrested by anyone, let alone for drinking beer. He's a lawyer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry....I should have said.......Al Huraisi...........Not Al Hamizi.........I was translating from the original Arabic.........bit rusty!! Thankyou.

Edited October 25, 2011 by atlas2

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Sorry....I should have said.......Al Huraisi...........Not Hamizi.........I was translating from the original Arabic.........bit rusty!!

 

 

Don't worry, for many years I thought Al Baker at Qatar Airlines was a Yank.

 

 

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

I guess it was ambiguous, but I didn't mean "drinking". As I wrote, "having" as in possessing.

 

 

 

You would punish a Kentucky policeman for shooting a felon in commission of a crime? How droll.

 

Look. It's against the law to HAVE the beer. The cop tries to detain you. You resist. You get dead. Just like any other ridiculous law enforced by a ridiculous cop. You think it hasn't happened? Really?

 

I'll be back. Probably. Posts are getting too long to absorb in a quick stop, but consider the above just a tad.

 

.

 

Once again, you are quibbling. If it is a justified shoot, done to protect the policeman's life or the lives of others, then the cop shouldn't be punished. It doesn't matter what touched off the incident. If the cop shot someone solely for possessing a beer, that wouldn't be a justified shoot and he should be punished. You are inventing imaginary scenarios and then quibbling about details. Carrying a badge doesn't give a policeman the right to commit murder, or at least it shouldn't. Just like Quranic prohibitions shouldn't give police or other authorities the right to harass, detain, arrest, whatever, a person because they are wearing capri pants or aren't wearing socks.

 

Take your time, Joe. I'm going to be traveling and probably won't be able to reply for several days.

 

Evil

 

 

 

[Obsession 571]

Are you from Glasgow, or thereabouts?

 

Yes. Glasgow. Why?

[joekicker 53]

Once again, you are quibbling.

 

Seems everyone who doesn't see things your ways does a lot of that. Or so you charge them. Saves addressing the points, eh?

 

.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Yes. Glasgow. Why?

 

Nowt. I was just reminded of the "Are you a Kafflik?" joke.

 

 

 

[Obsession 571]

Nowt. I was just reminded of the "Are you a Kafflik?" joke.

 

I don't know it. Has it got anything to do with children being abused and taught the kind of stuff being taught in UK madrasses and the evidence put forward regarding young women being forced/ brainwashed into wearing headscarves in modern Britain etc?

 

I am always disappointed in the opposing sides lack of critisism for utterly unacceptable behaviour in modern Britain. It's bare faced denial. Somebody please tell me if any of them have actually said the oppression of women is wrong. Maybe I missed it. Hopefully they don't think these teachings in the madrasses is ok.

[LocalYokul 214]

that cowboy is hardly naked  

 

boots, briefs, hat  

 

Maybe someone should tell him what really NAKED means !

Edited October 26, 2011 by LocalYokul

[joekicker 53]

Yes, it is indeed a form of control, but control that is based on religion.

 

Yes, well, you say so, and I quibble. Here's my view: These people hear voices. If their religion somehow sanctions or is responsible for their actions, then Christianity is responsible for killing abortion doctors and Hinduism is behind massacres of thousands of Muslims. *I* think that is the wrong view. I also think, strongly, that the major religions, certainly including Islam, *are* responsible for terrible actions, but taking away women's drivers' licences isn't one.

 

Muslims believe the Quranic prohibitions were ordered by Allah

 

"Muslims" believe no such thing. If "Muslims" believed such a thing, you'd know the difference between Muslims and non-Muslims in Pattaya, Jakarta, Karachi and Tulsa, Oklahoma. But you don't generally know any such thing, because "Muslims" don't think as you claim they think, believe as you claim they believe. "They" simply don't.

 

Some, of course, definitely do, just like -- and just as strongly as -- some Christians believe they are instructed not to eat crabs and some Buddhists believe they should not step on cockroaches. But claiming you know what "Muslims" believe about alleged, non-existent Koranic instructions about clothing is a little over the top. Any entranceway to any mosque in and around Pattaya would quickly disprove your statement.

 

I've never read a post on this forum that opposed Islam on theological grounds,

 

I'll accept your word on that. I have, quite a few. Your post, for example, opposes what YOU claim are the Koranic clothing instructions. It's a bit of a libel, really, since there are no such instructins - and yet you claim their are quite theological.

 

I'm not interpreting anything for Muslims; I'm explaining certain things to you and any other BM who reads this thread.

 

Now, just how phuocking fortunate is this forum that you have come along at its time of need to INTERPRET the religion for the readers!? I do agree with this: You are definitely interpreting, because you simply can't produce the non-existent dress code in the Koran. You and the mean old men with the sticks, you KNOW what the Koran SHOULD say, even though it doesn't say it. Even consider that maybe, just maybe, those people down at the entrance of the main Pattaya mosque might be right about it?

 

I don't know why you would say that. The problem is that Islam hasn't kept pace with developments in the world.

 

Like I wrote, you brought up the time line. When Christianity was 1,400 years old, it was one heck of a lot more barbaric than you and your BM friends in this forum believe Islam is today.

 

Prof. Wael Hallaq of Columbia University, regarded in academic circles as an expert on Islamic law, might disagree with you about no theory of Sharia law.

And here you are quibbling again. I did not write that no one has theories about Sharia law (it would be pretty dumb to say such a thing). I said that Sharia law is not theory

 

.

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

opps

Edited October 27, 2011 by mmaaarrrkkk

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

Enjoying the read are you?

 

.

 

555555 anything more than 5 sentences are too much for my blains!

Edited October 27, 2011 by mmaaarrrkkk

[Hami123456 7]

Just to make you happy, I’ll start a campaign on all Arab Travel forums to convince them to switch to Indonesia or Malaysia instead, And already the Saudi government banned travelling to Thailand, just couple stories and everybody will panic, nobody need to take chances when going on a holidays.

[Obsession 571]

Just to make you happy, I’ll start a campaign on all Arab Travel forums to convince them to switch to Indonesia or Malaysia instead, And already the Saudi government banned travelling to Thailand, just couple stories and everybody will panic, nobody need to take chances when going on a holidays.

 

No need mate. Nobody has said Arabs shouldn't go to Patts, just that we don't like female oppression , segregation, intolerance, child abuse etc. But to return the offer, I will write to world leaders and try to get criticism of female oppression banned or any other criticism of intolerance and segregation. And maybe even reward over exaggerating and putting words in peoples mouths that some seem to do when muslims are mentioned

[Hami123456 7]

Holly crap, all fox news stereotyping shit, you didn’t miss any, LOOOOL

But ya, there are more suitable places for them close by and they can afford it, why bother with being treated like that.

 

Indonesia & Malaysia is better for them since its Islamic countries so they won’t feel out of the place.

 

I might actually use a link to your comments to show them by example what are they getting themselves into.

[joekicker 53]

Indonesia & Malaysia is better for them since its Islamic countries so they won’t feel out of the place.

 

You mean the way you feel so terribly out of place in a Buddhist country?

 

.

[Hami123456 7]

It’s more of a problem with arrogant uneducated racist rather than a certain religion, And I don’t know what is bothering you; you should help me to stop them from going since they are that bad.

[joekicker 53]

It’s more of a problem with arrogant uneducated racist rather than a certain religion, And I don’t know what is bothering you; you should help me to stop them from going since they are that bad. rolleyes

 

Why are they bad? It's "bothering" me that I'm curious why you think "they" are uncomfortable - or any more uncomfortable than you in an alien place. (Assuming it's alien to you, that is, as to most BMs.)

 

.

[Hami123456 7]

Its seems you didn't even read this topic title.

 

Anyway, my word for the topic owner, I promise you will see less Muslims going to Thailand even in the high season, you know the arab area by titanic, so, have a walk every couple days and let me know if it’s working. I’m actually getting a very good feedback from their forums.