Burqa's in Walking Street

[atlas2 4,329]

When you do, can you please provide some reference to these girls burning to death and the actions of the religious police being directly responsible for that outcome. That's what you have stated, and are asking folk to accept as the basis for the rest of your argument.

 

 

 

Here's the link to one of the pages on wiki. There are other external links from that page.

 

From that page you can navigate to further information.

 

 

My link

 

 

 

 

 

You decide for yourself.

[joekicker 53]

Maybe a leap of kindergarten standard.

 

Stop putting yourself down.

 

It's not credible anyhow.

 

.

[joekicker 53]

You decide for yourself.

 

Well.... Your source starts out by saying that 15 (14 actually) girls did NOT die because of the dress-code problem/controversy.

 

The majority of the deaths occurred when a staircase collapsed ...

 

Oh, and I'll be darned. The public criticised the old men, no one in the religion or the state apparatus defended them, AND there was a public inquiry where these actions were excoriated. Or so your article states, no room for me to decide about it. Is there some other article about the religion or the religious people defending them that you were using? I can't find any reference or inference about Islam or Muslims at all, actually.

 

You have more than that, right?

 

.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Here's the link to one of the pages on wiki. There are other external links from that page.

 

From that page you can navigate to further information.

 

 

My link

 

 

 

 

 

You decide for yourself.

 

The first external link specifically states "No one was burned to death. The girls rushed to the gate to escape, and the victims were trampled on," the official added", followed by, "The official Saudi Press Agency said the fire was caused by an electric short circuit. Relatives said that the school — a three-story building — was overcrowded and lacked proper safety facilities. This is the second time fires have broken out at the school's rented building."

That's a bit of a contradiction from what you're stating as fact.

Edited October 19, 2011 by CheshireTom

[nidnoyham 30]

I still don't think Martin would encourage a Muslim themed party, as keenly as a Catholic Nun's and Priests one.

[Siam Sam 964]

Post 121 was brilliant stuff atlas2 but you let yourself down with the Wikipedia link.

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

 

It's true that not all Muslims are Arabs; in fact, the majority of the world's Muslims aren't Arabs. And not all Arabs are Muslims, just like not all Thais are Buddhists; not all Indians are Hindu; not all Irish are Catholics; not all Israelis are Jews; not all Swedes are Lutherans and not all Alabamans are Baptists. What does that prove, other than there is almost no hegemony in terms of ethnicity, nationality and religion?

 

The one exception might be Malaysia, where, according to the constitution, all Malays are by definition Muslim and conversion to another religion by Malays is impossible except under very rare circumstances.

 

Evil

 

nope your first statement was correct. Even for Malaysia. 24% are chinese and 7% are indians so not all Malaysians are malays

[joekicker 53]

nope your first statement was correct. Even for Malaysia. 24% are chinese and 7% are indians so not all Malaysians are malays

 

I didn't catch that, I admit I barely skimmed the post.

 

Malaysia has no such rules for conversion. Lots and lots of Malaysians are Buddhist and Tamil, plus other religions. All of them are protected by the state. In fact, no country in Asia has ANY such rule at all.

 

.

[atlas2 4,329]

Post 121 was brilliant stuff atlas2 but you let yourself down with the Wikipedia link.

 

Thank you.....But I'm trying to be even-handed in this. (Not easy).....The page on Wiki has many links to external sources and accounts.

 

The first link I offered I believed was a fair round up. Then the Wiki link .....with more than the one link that Tom explored. Though even that one read through offers.."Al-Nadwah quoted one survivor...The Civil Defence and the CPVP.(Mutaween) kept arguing over jurisdiction. Commision men stopped passersby entering with buckets."

 

This link to a Newsweek article gets over the courage of some of the Saudi press and others and probably (my opinion) gives a fair account of events.

 

I'll get back to Tom and Joe personally but I thought you and others might appreciate this direct link......You can make your own mind up about the truth.

 

Note that in the linked article it states that when the regular police arrived, "they subdued the Muttawa leader, confisgated his ID and dragged him away."

 

 

 

 

My link

 

The link to the newsweek site won't work but this is the article in full.

Edited October 20, 2011 by atlas2

[atlas2 4,329]

The first external link specifically states "No one was burned to death. The girls rushed to the gate to escape, and the victims were trampled on," the official added", followed by, "The official Saudi Press Agency said the fire was caused by an electric short circuit. Relatives said that the school — a three-story building — was overcrowded and lacked proper safety facilities. This is the second time fires have broken out at the school's rented building."

That's a bit of a contradiction from what you're stating as fact.

 

 

To Tom and to Joe.

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

The eyewitness accounts, and press coverage at the time conflict in many ways with the official report. On balance I have to accept that the details of how the majority of the girls died was due to a mass panic instilled by the smoke leading them to be crushed and that I was wrong to say or to suggest that they died from burning. I apologise.

 

That some without headscarfs were denied exit, or were thrown back into a burning building, and that the help on hand were denied entrance on religious grounds I still firmly beleive to be true. I believe this, even though the official reports states that the Mutaween just, 'stood by' to protect the girls. I don't believe that!

 

I'm not clinging to this belief out of stubbornness. The many eyewitness accounts ring true. The outrage and courage of the Arab and English language Saudi press knowing the stir it would cause both nationally and internationally...ring true. Subsequent advice to eyewitnesses and a wink to the government sponsored press that the Mutaween would not be hung out to dry on this occasion and here's the official report...'Report it' Is not beyond belief in Saudi.

 

In terms of the behaviour of the Mutaween we have the eyewitness reports..And we have the official report.

 

On the one hand the Mutaween stood by and did nothing. True or false?

 

On the other hand the Mutaween prevented help from going into the building and denied exit to the girls not correctly dressed. True or false?

 

 

I wouldn't want my life to depend upon a judgement between the 2 possibilities.....Give me a 50/50 choice and there's a 90% chance I'd make the wrong one!

 

But here, if my life did depend upon it, I'd only need a Pattaya millisecond to decide on the second option being true and the first a lie.

 

 

Out of interest , and being completely honest.....If your life depended on being right..........Which would you both choose?

 

 

 

I enclose another link to help you decide.

 

My link

Edited October 20, 2011 by atlas2

[CheshireTom 1,377]

To Tom and to Joe.

 

 

Yes, it is. Etc, etc ...

 

Thanks.

The many eyewitness accounts ring true

Such as those reported in The Arab News - "According to eyewitnesses, the main gate of the intermediate school, located in the Hindawiya District, could not be opened immediately because the key was with the male guard, who was away".

In terms of the behaviour of the Mutaween ...

I haven't disputed the actions of the religious police, only what their actions/inactions led to/didn't lead to.

 

I enclose another link to help you decide.

I'd already read your link.

[jacko 8,813]

 

 

Malaysia has no such rules for conversion.

In fact, no country in Asia has ANY such rule at all.

Tell that to Lina Joy.

What continent is Afghanistan in? (Abdul Rahman).

[joekicker 53]

Tell that to Lina Joy.

 

Why? Was he a non-Muslim forced by the law of Afghanistan to be Muslim as Evil wrote is mandatory in Malaysia? (Answer: No, and then no, and then, finally, no again.)

 

FWIW, since you raised this DIFFERENT subject from Evil, *Islamic* authorities in Malaysia can be very uppity about Muslims converting to non-Muslim. But that wasn't what Evil wrote about. AND he was very, very wrong that the government (the law) is involved in the issue in Malaysia, which it is not. Which is the reason *I* wrote that the national *law* is not involved anywhere in Asia, at least what we think of Asia, including Afghanistan.

 

Evil didn't mention Islamic strictures on conversion. He also didn't mention converting FROM Islam. Neither did I.

 

In fact, there was a serious and long court case about a Muslim converting FROM Islam in Malaysia that still rankles and brews. But that, again, had nothing, absolutely totally completely nothing to do with what Evil wrote. He wrote that non-Muslims must convert TO Islam BY THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY, which doesn't happen by the law in Malaysia ... or, Afghanistan.

 

You could have mentioned the very, very famous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who had a spot of trouble converting FROM Islam in Europe (Dutch land) - but of course European law was not involved in creating her troubles, as Evil claimed very wrongly that Malaysian law is involved.

 

But since you brought up the different subject of conversion (apostasy) *by* Muslims -- it certainly can bring all sorts of trouble to them in Asia, including in very, very "non-Muslim" countries, including, say, in Pattaya, Thailand - but not, in any of them, from the government of the country.

 

I'm surprised, in your nit-picking spreee, that you didn't point out in a nit-picking way that Saudi Arabia is in Asia!!! How did you miss that one, jacko? I actually cringed when I wrote that about "Asia", figuring someone would nit-pick it. Slipping? Or did you just know/realise/accept what I meant, and go with the flow like reasonable people so often do?

 

.

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

Why? Was he a non-Muslim forced by the law of Afghanistan to be Muslim as Evil wrote is mandatory in Malaysia? (Answer: No, and then no, and then, finally, no again.)

 

I never wrote any such thing, nor do I believe it. I'm well aware there are citizens of Malaysia who aren't Malay and aren't Muslim. I'm also aware no one in Malaysia is forced to convert to Islam. The sentence which maaark quoted and it to which you refer is limited to Malaysians who are legally defined as ethnic Malays, not all Malaysian citizens. It had nothing to do WHATSOEVER with forced conversion to Islam.

 

Ethnic Malays are born into Islam. The difficulty is they can't change their status except in extremely rare circumstances. Therefore, the ethnic Malay group in Malaysia has a level of religious hegemony that is close to 100%. By definition, under the constitution of Malaysia, Malays must be Muslim. It is one of the legal "tests" of anyone who claims the special status afforded to Malays. In Malaysia, the ethnic Malay group enjoys a type of affirmative action on steroids.

 

Here is what I wrote, repeated for the third time. How joe could construe that to mean I was referring to forced conversion TO Islam is difficult to fathom. Maybe you better start reading posts before you answer, not just look at the pictures.

 

It's true that not all Muslims are Arabs; in fact, the majority of the world's Muslims aren't Arabs. And not all Arabs are Muslims, just like not all Thais are Buddhists; not all Indians are Hindu; not all Irish are Catholics; not all Israelis are Jews; not all Swedes are Lutherans and not all Alabamans are Baptists. What does that prove, other than there is almost no hegemony in terms of ethnicity, nationality and religion? The one exception might be Malaysia, where, according to the constitution, all Malays are by definition Muslim and conversion to another religion by Malays is impossible except under very rare circumstances.

 

The following has to be an orgy of "straw man" arguments. Joe is attempting to refute my position by claiming I said things I never did. I never mentioned conversion TO Islam in my post; I mentioned in one sentence the difficulties of Malay Muslims in LEAVING Islam.

 

FWIW, since you raised this DIFFERENT subject from Evil, *Islamic* authorities in Malaysia can be very uppity about Muslims converting to non-Muslim. But that wasn't what Evil wrote about. AND he was very, very wrong that the government (the law) is involved in the issue in Malaysia, which it is not. Which is the reason *I* wrote that the national *law* is not involved anywhere in Asia, at least what we think of Asia, including Afghanistan.

 

It is exactly the same subject as I raised. The law is very much much involved in the conversion of ethnic Malays TO another religion. Sharia courts must give their approval to an application by an ethnic Malay to change their religion as recognized under Malaysian law (religion is noted on national ID cards in Malaysia). Sharia courts virtually never approved such applications. Also, non-Muslims must convert to Islam to marry a Muslim. The marriage is not recognized otherwise.

 

You can read more about it here: Lina Joy's despair This was a benchmark case, involving a ruling by the highest court in the country that effectively disallowed Lina Joy to change her legal status to Christian.

 

Evil didn't mention Islamic strictures on conversion. He also didn't mention converting FROM Islam.

 

Absolutely wrong. I was referring to conversion by ethnic Malays AWAY FROM Islam.

 

In fact, there was a serious and long court case about a Muslim converting FROM Islam in Malaysia that still rankles and brews. But that, again, had nothing, absolutely totally completely nothing to do with what Evil wrote. He wrote that non-Muslims must convert TO Islam BY THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY, which doesn't happen by the law in Malaysia ... or, Afghanistan.

 

I never wrote any such thing. Can you quote the sentence that supports that assertion?

 

- but of course European law was not involved in creating her troubles, as Evil claimed very wrongly that Malaysian law is involved.

 

Malaysian law is very much involved in the conversion of Muslims TO another religion, as Sharia courts must approve such applications.

.

Evil

Edited October 20, 2011 by Evil Penevil

[joekicker 53]

Malaysian law is very much involved in the conversion of Muslims TO another religion, as Sharia courts must approve such applications.

 

Yes, Islamic courts and Islamic non-courts can get very involved in apostasy, in Malaysia -- but not JUST in Malaysia, there's no reason to emphasise that at all. That's about what I wrote, including the fact that Islamic law can sometimes drag national law into it, as I wrote it has IN Malaysia, quite recently. Seems we now agree, at least on the main points.

 

I think we disagree on the one point of a legal (constitutional) necessity of a "Malay" having to convert INTO Islam. But I believe (for now) that it's a moot point in the real world, untested to MY knowledge for certain.

 

One other thing for clarification, Sharia has a certain standing in many, many countries including Malaysia and even Thailand, but "a certain standing" is not part of the "common" constitutional law enforced by heavily armed state agents. There are lots of traditions and the like INCLUDING Sharia that have a standing in law almost everywhere, but police won't kill you over it like, say, they might kill you for making an illegal U-turn. Malaysian POLICE for example won't kill you over religious conversion - although mobs might. Legally and constitutionally, it's kind of like cheering for the Liverpool opponent - you won't be harmed by POLICE over it.

 

.

[jacko 8,813]

Why? Was he a non-Muslim forced

 

.

Nah, he is a she.

[jacko 8,813]

 

I'm surprised, in your nit-picking spreee, that you didn't point out in a nit-picking way that Saudi Arabia is in Asia!!! How did you miss that one, jacko? I actually cringed when I wrote that about "Asia", figuring someone would nit-pick it. Slipping? Or did you just know/realise/accept what I meant, and go with the flow like reasonable people so often do?

 

.

Afghanistan is in Asia, why did I need to bring KSA into the mix?

It is an (un)reasonable enough example.

If you recall, I actually lived in KSA for quite some time so there is no point in you telling me which continent it is in.

If you do not want nit picking, stop making erroneous statements full of holes.

If you do, carry on.

[atlas2 4,329]

But let's just look at this briefly.

 

In essence I'm saying that a religion consists of 3 parts.

 

The Word

The clergy

The congregation.

 

 

Let's start with the Clergy. For them religion is partly about power. The religion is run to their advantage and to advance their beliefs over other religions. In increasing their numbers and the power of their 'church' they are doing God's work.

 

The congregations of all beliefs contain the pious, the lip-service believers,the godly, and also the hypocrites and frankly the bloody evil.

 

I'll come back to this later today.

 

The day I started this, the restaurant I use to post in over breakfast had, along with the rest of Jomtien, the power switched off for the day.

 

So to finish this?

 

.......we're left with the 'Word'

 

The 'Word' of most religions I know anything about seem to have lots of similarities.

 

The 'Word' usually says something about the Faith's Rules.

 

How we should treat each other.

How God wants us to behave.

 

What the pious and godly get for their obedience and adherence.......... A heaven.... a better re-incarnation until they avoid re-birth etc.

 

What happens to the un-godly,the evil.......or the believers of another faith...........The bad boys will go to Hell......Which many 'T' shirts proclaim is Pattaya in any case!

 

There are often some some small, but important details of diet or dress that distinguish followers of this God from another.

 

But also there are words of comfort. Words that countless over thousands of years have clung to in the chaos around them.......And I suspect that even the most godless of us have whispered them when that's all that's left that we 'can' do.

 

Now while its pretty easy to accept the likelihood of corrupt clergy and lip-service congregations in every faith, EVEN one's own.........Questioning the 'Word' is a different matter.

Here one must be careful of treading on belief. And doing so by applying the double standards of a belief about a belief.

 

So let me let me contextulise the spirit in which I want to frame these comments.

 

There is a well know paradox about Belief.

 

"To believe something is to believe that it is true; therefore a reasonable person believes each of his beliefs to be true; yet experience has taught him to expect that some of his beliefs, he knows not which, will turn out to be false."

 

Therefore a reasonable man believes that each of his beliefs are true and some of them are false.

 

I'm not saying I don't believe in a God but I don't believe in the purity of the 'Word' of any religion. Or hold it above criticism I don't believe God's words were scrawled on tablets of stone in perfect Hebrew by lightning.......or sent in dreams to the pens of Prophets. I don't 'know' but I see man's imperfect input in this. And we know that corrupt man has always managed to take God's word and find the devil in in the detail.

 

I give all religions credit where it's due but I don't absolve any or any part of 'any' for their tolerance of abuses carried out in their name against a rival Faith when it suits. Nor do I turn a blind eye to violent repression of their own flocks and pretend it didn't or doesn't happen.

 

 

My comments have been aimed mainly at the Mutaween.

 

The Mutaween in Saudi Arabia and the equivalent in Iran and up until the US invasion the Taliban in Afghanistan are the only current or recent religious police. (Add a Christian or other police to the list to the list by all means and I'll condemn them as well..) Their abuses 'have' been tolerated by their religion, suiting the conservative clerics and the ruling family alike..........My opinion.

 

A Saudi married couple I met a few years back told me about the Mutaween and the fire discussed above.....They began that part of the conversation by describing how they had been celebrating her birthday in a restaurant. They hadn't held hands or kissed but they had been attentive to each other and been absorbed in conversation. When they left the restaurant someone had phoned the Mutaween and reported that they didn't look like a married couple. The Mutaween were waiting.They were arrested and questioned for 3 hours separately. They knew they were innocent but they didn't know how far their captors would go and admitted to being angry but also very scared....The fear of the 'Witch-finder'

 

Now Gawd Elpus' comments earlier in the thread were about the Burqa'd ladies rights to wear the Burqa in Walking St and that's true. But it's the ladies right not to wear the burqa if they don't want that in some cases is missing.

 

The opening poster of this thread had a reaction...maybe an over-reaction to seeing Burqa'd ladies in a place like Walking St. But the Burqa causes a re-action. It's a statement of Religion and a symbol of many things including subordination.

 

I'll only speak for myself and you can judge your own responses.

 

Where I see a Burqa in the Rolex store I think, "well they've got the money" When however, I'm on a plane or at an airport I cannot control the thought stirring up into my consciousness of potential danger. It's like members of my generation hearing the William Tell Overture and not thinking of the Lone Ranger...impossible.

 

I'm sure there are as many or more good Muslims as there are Christians,Jews, Buddhists etc............ I just thank God for Darwin.

 

Lesson for the day was read by Rev Atlas2

Edited October 22, 2011 by atlas2

[joekicker 53]

The 'Word' of most religions I know anything about seem to have lots of similarities.

 

The 'Word' usually says something about the Faith's Rules.

 

How we should treat each other.

How God wants us to behave.

 

I'm largely self-taught and there are most certainly huge black holes of ignorance, but overall I am IMPRESSED with the similarity of the three great unideity religions. I am so often DEPRESSED by those who emphasise and exploit the differences. In a very different life from the one I live(d), I'd maybe embark on a bit of a campaign or Obsession to emphasise the HUGE similarities in these three big religions. Just for a small example, it mystifies me how Muslims can so DETEST Jews for example, they are so close on so much. I "get" the Mideast geopolitical thing, but Muslims really detest Jews at a much more basic level.

 

The four books of the three major religions are so similar. And what you call the "Faith's Rules" are pretty much indistinguishable.

 

The opening poster of this thread had a reaction...maybe an over-reaction to seeing Burqa'd ladies in a place like Walking St. But the Burqa causes a re-action. It's a statement of Religion

 

Well. Mostly "no" mostly it's a statement of "this is what we wear in my country" or in Bangkok, say, "what those people in Iran wear that I'm trying to emulate". Arabs (first and foremost) make a big deal about dress, none of which is backed up by the religion.

 

and a symbol of many things including subordination.

 

This is true, but it's also true for the hijab (the scarf around the hair) and it's true for the long dress in Christian church on Sunday and it's true for the beard and black suit on that Jewish guy and it's true for the white shirt and tie on that Mormon guy in Pattaya and it's true for the horse and carriage in Pennsylvania....

 

"Islam" means "submission" (to God) but all the uni-deity religions have precisely the same. Again, I am struck NOT by the differences here but the similarities. I believe most people don't even SEE the Mormon missionary in his very conservative and copycat uniform, while they ogle and claim to be disgusted by the (probably) Iranian woman on Walking Street in her chosen uniform of the (probably) chador. Yet that black-uniformed Jew and that white-uniformed all-American boy probably SHARE the OP's disgust -- that's what's amazing to me.

 

.

Edited October 22, 2011 by joekicker

[nidnoyham 30]

One of the many splinter groups at St Paul's today, was an anti Iran group of young women.

One of their posters said - " Full face covering. A sign of female subjugation ! "

 

But the fun started when the Sex Workers rep, (Just because we suck cock for a living) clashed with the Muslim girl, calling for the non exploitation of women in Lap Dancing clubs.

 

St Paul's today, was a very broad church indeed.

[jacko 8,813]

One of the many splinter groups at St Paul's today, was an anti Iran group of young women.

One of their posters said - " Full face covering. A sign of female subjugation ! "

 

But the fun started when the Sex Workers rep, (Just because we suck cock for a living) clashed with the Muslim girl, calling for the non exploitation of women in Lap Dancing clubs.

 

St Paul's today, was a very broad church indeed.

Yes I blame all that on the banks too!

[atlas2 4,329]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is true, but it's also true for the hijab (the scarf around the hair) and it's true for the long dress in Christian church on Sunday and it's true for the beard and black suit on that Jewish guy and it's true for the white shirt and tie on that Mormon guy in Pattaya and it's true for the horse and carriage in Pennsylvania....

 

"Islam" means "submission" (to God) but all the uni-deity religions have precisely the same. Again, I am struck NOT by the differences here but the similarities. I believe most people don't even SEE the Mormon missionary in his very conservative and copycat uniform, while they ogle and claim to be disgusted by the (probably) Iranian woman on Walking Street in her chosen uniform of the (probably) chador. Yet that black-uniformed Jew and that white-uniformed all-American boy probably SHARE the OP's disgust -- that's what's amazing to me.

 

.

 

 

Yes there are lots of, 'distinguishing uniforms'...........Worn by practically any religion....or cult you care to name........Not long after the beatle hair-cut.....flowers in the hair and a cow-bell round the neck were de-rigor too. Not compulsory, but there was pressure to conform....I've burned all the photos of course!.....Except for the one of me in a red military jacket....Funny how the sixties peace fashions collided without our noticing.

 

But you're spot on with religious dress. When I was a kid growing up in London I remember thinking only posh people could go to church......

 

"Sunday best" was/is a sign of respect...I think. Pressure to conform but some leeway. It's still the case today in Christian church, Synagoge.....or Thai Temple. And the consequences of not being deemed to be dressed appropriately range from a severe 'tutting' to being barred entry.

 

But I think even the Catholics have stopped using the whip.!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hami123456 7]

OMG, over 120 replies and 2000 watch for "Burqa's in Walking Street"

[nidnoyham 30]

Yes I blame all that on the banks too!

 

There was an open mike for anyone to comment for 2 minutes. It's called democracy. ! Most comments were about the banks. The reason I posted the above, was because it was relevant to the subject of this thread.

Edited October 23, 2011 by nidnoyham

[jacko 8,813]

There was an open mike for anyone to comment for 2 minutes. It's called democracy. ! Most comments were about the banks. The reason I posted the above, was because it was relevant to the subject of this thread.

Then they should fuck off to Hyde park where there is a place specifically for that purpose.

And not get in the way of tourists who have perhaps travelled thousands of miles and have this one opportunity to see St Pauls.

Where are they getting their electricity from?