Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
glorybebe

Muslim woman's bra photo sparks controversy

26 posts in this topic

A photo of a Muslim woman wearing full Islamic dress and holding up a bra as she sorts laundry is stirring controversy in Kamloops, B.C., and the Saudi Arabian Embassy is now involved.

The photo, taken by Thompson Rivers University fine arts student Sooraya Graham, features one of Graham's friends wearing a niqab, a veil covering the face, and abaya, a full-body cloak.

The picture was a class assignment and was originally displayed with other student photos, until some students complained and a staff member tore it down.

Link

Wow! The Saudi Embassy is involved? I'm sorry, where is this taking place? In Canada?

Now, the Saudi Education Centre in Kamloops, which is funded by the Saudi Arabian government and provides support to Saudi students and their families, is taking issue with the photo.
Seriously? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first comment nails it.

To me the most offensive part of the story is not what the Saudi Education Centre thinks becasue we are in Canada and everyone has the right to say what they want. The most offensive part of the story is the staff member who tore the photograph down from the wall. This person should be fired. Graham is right her rights as an artist have been violated.

The heck with Saudi government it's a school for pete'sake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's ok to behead them, or rape them, or beat them with a stick.

It's not OK to let them out of the house unescorted or photograph them holding undergarments.

Makes sense to me.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ok to behead them, or rape them, or beat them with a stick.

It's not OK to let them out of the house unescorted or photograph them holding undergarments.

Makes sense to me.

BUT a major issue for me is that this was taken for a class project in Canada-what makes them think they can get involved in this? It's not their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT a major issue for me is that this was taken for a class project in Canada-what makes them think they can get involved in this? It's not their country.

I'm a bit confused over some of the reporting in the article. According to it, the protest/controversy came from a Saudi Education Centre, not the Saudi Embassy or the Saudi Government. The Centre is funded by the Saudi Govt, but that does not suggest the protest by them is as the Saudi Govts' insistence.

Or is the Centre a part of the Saudi Embassy in Canada?

As for the photo itself, I applaud it. It signifies to me the futility of the tradition of covering women, enforced in some Islamic societies. In making women 'different', through demanding they cover themselves, the Islamic authorities enforcing this tradition only draw to attention that which they wish to cover up. They actually make an issue of women's sexuality, which just serves to reinforce that sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused over some of the reporting in the article. According to it, the protest/controversy came from a Saudi Education Centre, not the Saudi Embassy or the Saudi Government. The Centre is funded by the Saudi Govt, but that does not suggest the protest by them is as the Saudi Govts' insistence.

Or is the Centre a part of the Saudi Embassy in Canada?

As for the photo itself, I applaud it. It signifies to me the futility of the tradition of covering women, enforced in some Islamic societies. In making women 'different', through demanding they cover themselves, the Islamic authorities enforcing this tradition only draw to attention that which they wish to cover up. They actually make an issue of women's sexuality, which just serves to reinforce that sexuality.

As far as I understand, it is a part of the Embassy as Kamloops is city in the interior of BC, which is quite a ways away form the emabassy. This University has a lot of ESL students going to it, so there are a lot of countries who make sure they can offer support to the students studying outside of their own countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The first comment nails it.

The heck with Saudi government it's a school for pete'sake

Look at it this way: The Saudis themselves, particularly the ruling class, are not exactly popular people in this world.

Saudi princes funded the events of 9-11. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis. When someone shot at a Saudi diplomat in the USA, the US public simply didn't care, didn't feel protective of the Saudi.

The Saudi government is NOT a democracy. Yet our democracy-pushing country feels no inclination whatsoever to force it on the Saudis. Why do you suppose that is?

I support this art.It has long been known that many Muslim women dress in fancy lingerie for other woman, not for the men. Underneath, they are wearing things that please other women, not men. They have parties where they dress for each other. So the Saudi repressiveness is not shutting down alternative lifestyles. It is merely sending it underground, where it will grow and grow.

BTW, I roomed with a Muslim female once, then recently converted to Christianity, while in college. I know the stories they tell.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another Western misconception: that Muslim women are forced to cover up. In most cases they aren't, and cover up by choice. Generally speaking, Muslim women are at least as devout as Muslim men, usually more so. Both men and women are responsible for perpetuating the sexual repression.

As for lesbianism and wearing fancy underwear beneath a burqa, that is unlikely to be true in any Muslim group other than young women in countries where gender segregation is ruthlessly enforced, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another Western misconception: that Muslim women are forced to cover up. In most cases they aren't, and cover up by choice. Generally speaking, Muslim women are at least as devout as Muslim men, usually more so. Both men and women are responsible for perpetuating the sexual repression.

As for lesbianism and wearing fancy underwear beneath a burqa, that is unlikely to be true in any Muslim group other than young women in countries where gender segregation is ruthlessly enforced, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

How much of a choice is it when you have centuries of tradition, plus various authorities, encouraging the covering-up of women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT a major issue for me is that this was taken for a class project in Canada-what makes them think they can get involved in this? It's not their country.

They've killed people in other countries for cartoon and such,so this is just more or the same.

They have no leverage politically,but those people need to fear for their lives,from extremists,as those ppl are nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many times , when travelling between the UK and Thailand I have had a stop over in an Arab state. I find it funny that all the ladies board the plane completely covered up , as their custom/law in their country dictates. However, by the time we arrive in Bangkok or London there are a large number who have changed in the toilets and are now wearing jeans and T Shirts etc. I agree with another poster here that some women follow the code of dress because they are happy to. There are many who are not happy, but have no choice. Therein lies the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would understand if she was wearing the bra. The saying, mountain out of a mole hill, pops to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll arrive in the twentieth century in about 500 years time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT a major issue for me is that this was taken for a class project in Canada-what makes them think they can get involved in this? It's not their country.

That is the first thing that flashed into my head. What Saudi Law is enforcable in Canada. Even if it is a private school? Doesn't the national Rights override individual organizational rules? You can't override someones right to Expression. Not in a Western nation.

I support this art.It has long been known that many Muslim women dress in fancy lingerie for other woman, not for the men. Underneath, they are wearing things that please other women, not men. They have parties where they dress for each other. So the Saudi repressiveness is not shutting down alternative lifestyles. It is merely sending it underground, where it will grow and grow.

BTW, I roomed with a Muslim female once, then recently converted to Christianity, while in college. I know the stories they tell.

I am really pained... but I agree with regeneratia. Don't almost all women, especially in the US and Europe dress nice for other women. As a guy, I could care less (more?), and would be fine if ladies only wore flats, white Ts and jeans.

This was art, and should be protected as such.

This is another Western misconception: that Muslim women are forced to cover up. In most cases they aren't, and cover up by choice. Generally speaking, Muslim women are at least as devout as Muslim men, usually more so. Both men and women are responsible for perpetuating the sexual repression.

As for lesbianism and wearing fancy underwear beneath a burqa, that is unlikely to be true in any Muslim group other than young women in countries where gender segregation is ruthlessly enforced, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

I don't think that is a misconception in countries that enforce strict Sharia Law. Maybe in Pakistan and Indonesia, women can dress however they like and generally get away with it, but those are not Sharia nations. I also think that women who claim to cover up as their own choice are just saying that. Because if they did not, there would be consequences. Just as when you are interviewing for a job, even if it is cleaning urinals, you have to say that you would love this job, and that you'd be the hardest urinal cleaner around. Just as when your Manager comes over and asks how things are doing, you say, "GREAT!", even though 5 minutes ago you were complaining about how the company was heading down hill and how your thinking about quiting.

Is the fancy underwear thing unlikely due to a desire for simplicity, like the Amish? That excessive decoration and unnecessary extras are detremental to the lifestyle where you should be thinking and living for God? Or is it because of a overbearing culture that would enforce punishments if they did?

How much of a choice is it when you have centuries of tradition, plus various authorities, encouraging the covering-up of women?

I'd say... No choice at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that is a misconception in countries that enforce strict Sharia Law.

In how many countries is covering up mandatory?

I also think that women who claim to cover up as their own choice are just saying that. Because if they did not, there would be consequences.

There are no legal consequences. At most your family would strongly disapprove. It is no different from a Western family disapproving of their daughter becoming a porn actress. This does not mean that Western women want to be porn actresses but are forced by their families or societies not to do it.

Just as when you are interviewing for a job, even if it is cleaning urinals, you have to say that you would love this job, and that you'd be the hardest urinal cleaner around. Just as when your Manager comes over and asks how things are doing, you say, "GREAT!", even though 5 minutes ago you were complaining about how the company was heading down hill and how your thinking about quiting.

Covering up is considered both cultural and a religious duty. It's the women who teach their daughters from a young age to cover up. They're the ones in charge of raising children and turning them into Muslims. In most middle-class families in modern countries, hardly any Muslim woman is forced to cover up. I can imagine this being the case in poor third-world nations, but go to any mall in most modern Muslim countries and you'll see everything from burqas to mini-skirts.

This is the Western liberation mentality. You fail to realize that some people simply don't want to be freed from their cultures and become Western. Muslim women are completely fine with hiding their hair and bodies.

Is the fancy underwear thing unlikely due to a desire for simplicity, like the Amish? That excessive decoration and unnecessary extras are detremental to the lifestyle where you should be thinking and living for God? Or is it because of a overbearing culture that would enforce punishments if they did?

Depending on several factors, it could be one, two or all of the above. But #3 is unlikely in most modern Muslim countries.

I'd say... No choice at all.

This is a terrible argument. I could just as easily claim that every woman in Switzerland secretly wants to be a murderer, but due to centuries of cultural brainwashing and legal punishments women are forced not to murder anyone.

What exactly do you find difficult to believe about a woman being a devout Muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In how many countries is covering up mandatory?

In all the ones where there is a consequence to not covering up. If a woman gets a hard time from her family, religion or legal authorities, legally or Illegitimately, then she is being compelled to cover up.

There are no legal consequences. At most your family would strongly disapprove. It is no different from a Western family disapproving of their daughter becoming a porn actress. This does not mean that Western women want to be porn actresses but are forced by their families or societies not to do it.

So not wearing a full covering in a Sharia nation is the equal to a US girl becoming a porn actress? Exposing skin there, equals full nudity with graphic sex here. I can see why those Sharia men would disapprove.

It does not matter if there are no legal consequences if there are social and religious consequences. The woman still is being coerced.

Covering up is considered both cultural and a religious duty. It's the women who teach their daughters from a young age to cover up. They're the ones in charge of raising children and turning them into Muslims. In most middle-class families in modern countries, hardly any Muslim woman is forced to cover up. I can imagine this being the case in poor third-world nations, but go to any mall in most modern Muslim countries and you'll see everything from burqas to mini-skirts.

This is the Western liberation mentality. You fail to realize that some people simply don't want to be freed from their cultures and become Western. Muslim women are completely fine with hiding their hair and bodies.

A hundred years ago, women in the US taught each other they should not vote, should be completely subservient, should not cause trouble, should not be politically active, should not speak till spoken too and should accept whatever beatings their husband had to deal out. Does the fact that was taught to these women of 100 years ago make it alright that these things happened?

Similarly blacks in the US 150 years ago, taught each other they were subservient and should not try to vote, own weapons, talk to whites, ride on a "White" bus, drink from a White public fountain, and that they should just put up with what happened to them. Does that fact that blacks taught each other to accept slavery and segregation mean that it was completely alright? No of course not.

Same thing here. Just because women obey this strictures and most accept that they have to accept these strictures does not mean they are better off obeying them, and does not mean those who impose the strictures are Correct.

Depending on several factors, it could be one, two or all of the above. But #3 is unlikely in most modern Muslim countries.

Would you call a strict Sharia country a "modern Muslim country"?

This is a terrible argument. I could just as easily claim that every woman in Switzerland secretly wants to be a murderer, but due to centuries of cultural brainwashing and legal punishments women are forced not to murder anyone.

What exactly do you find difficult to believe about a woman being a devout Muslim?

I don't find it hard to believe at all. I only think it should be acknowledged that women that would chose NOT to wear the traditional garb would incur penalties. Be they social, religious, familial, or legal penalties.

Sure a woman could wear whatever she wants in the US for example, but if she is tossed from her Mosque, or divorsed by her husband, or if she is refused access to her family overseas, then does she really have a easy choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In all the ones where there is a consequence to not covering up. If a woman gets a hard time from her family, religion or legal authorities, legally or Illegitimately, then she is being compelled to cover up.

They aren't compelled at all. Since when is family disapproval equivalent to compulsion? Westerners make lifestyle, education, career or relationship choices that their families disapprove of all the time.

So not wearing a full covering in a Sharia nation is the equal to a US girl becoming a porn actress? Exposing skin there, equals full nudity with graphic sex here. I can see why those Sharia men would disapprove.

No. They are similar in the sense that they are things that the family disapproves of.

It does not matter if there are no legal consequences if there are social and religious consequences. The woman still is being coerced.

She can leave her religion or find a new family if she doesn't like them. Although, apostasy is technically illegal, but not covering up isn't.

A hundred years ago, women in the US taught each other they should not vote, should be completely subservient, should not cause trouble, should not be politically active, should not speak till spoken too and should accept whatever beatings their husband had to deal out. Does the fact that was taught to these women of 100 years ago make it alright that these things happened?

Similarly blacks in the US 150 years ago, taught each other they were subservient and should not try to vote, own weapons, talk to whites, ride on a "White" bus, drink from a White public fountain, and that they should just put up with what happened to them. Does that fact that blacks taught each other to accept slavery and segregation mean that it was completely alright? No of course not.

Same thing here. Just because women obey this strictures and most accept that they have to accept these strictures does not mean they are better off obeying them, and does not mean those who impose the strictures are Correct.

What makes you think you know what's best for women? If a woman is sane and intelligent and prefers to cover her hair, what gives you the right to tell her she's wrong? I think women are beautiful, but I'm not going to call a Muslim woman stupid and oppressed and forcibly convince her to change her clothing preferences simply because I can't see her hair, face and body.

Would you call a strict Sharia country a "modern Muslim country"?

Well, Sharia has nothing to do with whether a country is modern or not. The UAE is modern but it still has Sharia law. Afghanistan is a Sharia country but it's not modern.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. I only think it should be acknowledged that women that would chose NOT to wear the traditional garb would incur penalties. Be they social, religious, familial, or legal penalties.

Sure, sometimes, but this is not compulsion (except the "legal" part). Women still wear it by choice, and if they choose to stop, they can do that too.

Sure a woman could wear whatever she wants in the US for example, but if she is tossed from her Mosque, or divorsed by her husband, or if she is refused access to her family overseas, then does she really have a easy choice?

She has a choice. You can't have it both ways. Either you cover up, or people who think covering up is mandatory will be disappointed. Either way, there is no compulsion. Many things in life have consequences. You weigh the positives and the negatives and then make a choice.

Edited by Parsip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't compelled at all. Since when is family disapproval equivalent to compulsion? Westerners make lifestyle, education, career or relationship choices that their families disapprove of all the time.

I think we have a fundamental difference in what we think of as Compulsion. I'm thinking that if there are penalties, then you naturally tend to go toward what is being required of you. Thus, being compelled by way of negative influences. You, I think, think compulsion can only be done by force, as with a knife to the throat.

Teenagers in the US commit suicide daily because of social influences on them that compel them to end their lives. It is much the same, that social influences compel many Islamic women to comply and wear the traditional clothes.

No. They are similar in the sense that they are things that the family disapproves of.

I'd disapprove of my daughter getting a nose piercing, or getting an ankle tattoo. If she got into porn filming, I'd basically have to have her institutionalized, or toss her out of the family.

That is like saying, to me anyway, that not eating peanuts is the same as not eating raw human flesh. These are not the same, peanuts are an actual food and eating human flesh is cannibalism.

She can leave her religion or find a new family if she doesn't like them. Although, apostasy is technically illegal, but not covering up isn't.

That is a lame excuse when 90%+ of whatever country is Muslim. In Egypt recently a Muslim woman married a Coptic Christian and the Christian and the girl were killed, because if it forbidden by law for those two groups to marry and the penalty is death. And it is death for a Egyptian Muslim to convert to Christianity also. But to convert to Islam for the Christian is fine.

Where is this "now free" girl to go? How is she to be employed? Where is she to live? No one would allow her to live in their house, or work at their business. Leaving your religion in many middle east countries is a slow death warrant.

Same thing here. Just because women obey this strictures and most accept that they have to accept these strictures does not mean they are better off obeying them, and does not mean those who impose the strictures are Correct.
What makes you think you know what's best for women? If a woman is sane and intelligent and prefers to cover her hair, what gives you the right to tell her she's wrong? I think women are beautiful, but I'm not going to call a Muslim woman stupid and oppressed and forcibly convince her to change her clothing preferences simply because I can't see her hair, face and body.

I did not say it was best. I said just because they accept their culture and follow the rules does not mean the rules are for their best interest and that those in charge making the rules are right in doing so.

No where did I say that I know what is best, or that I'd force women to strip off their customary dress. I'd only support the choice of some to not wear that customary dress and not have to be stoned, or thrown out of a marriage, or arrested, or shunned by friends and family.

Well, Sharia has nothing to do with whether a country is modern or not. The UAE is modern but it still has Sharia law. Afghanistan is a Sharia country but it's not modern.

You're dodging the question. The UAE has the surface appearance of being modern, but that is only due to spending of large amounts of money. Are the people there modern? Can a nation that allows the beating of a wife and children and the stoning of women who were raped truely be called modern?

She has a choice. You can't have it both ways. Either you cover up, or people who think covering up is mandatory will be disappointed. Either way, there is no compulsion. Many things in life have consequences. You weigh the positives and the negatives and then make a choice.

And if the choices have only one acceptable choice it is compulsion.

If there is a democratic nation vote and the only person you are allowed to vote for is the Dictator, then there is no democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think we have a fundamental difference in what we think of as Compulsion. I'm thinking that if there are penalties, then you naturally tend to go toward what is being required of you. Thus, being compelled by way of negative influences. You, I think, think compulsion can only be done by force, as with a knife to the throat.

Teenagers in the US commit suicide daily because of social influences on them that compel them to end their lives. It is much the same, that social influences compel many Islamic women to comply and wear the traditional clothes.

That's not compulsion. That is influence, completely mental, which you can avoid by not caring what other people think.

I'd disapprove of my daughter getting a nose piercing, or getting an ankle tattoo. If she got into porn filming, I'd basically have to have her institutionalized, or toss her out of the family.

That is like saying, to me anyway, that not eating peanuts is the same as not eating raw human flesh. These are not the same, peanuts are an actual food and eating human flesh is cannibalism.

It was an example. You can replace it with anything a family usually strongly disapproves of. To some Muslims, leaving your hair uncovered and wearing only a a sleeveless shirt and a mini-skirt is immoral. Why wouldn't they disapprove if their daughter/wife did it? Are they supposed to abandon their morals on a whim? As long as they don't force her to dress a certain way, it's not compulsion.

That is a lame excuse when 90%+ of whatever country is Muslim. In Egypt recently a Muslim woman married a Coptic Christian and the Christian and the girl were killed, because if it forbidden by law for those two groups to marry and the penalty is death. And it is death for a Egyptian Muslim to convert to Christianity also. But to convert to Islam for the Christian is fine.

Where is this "now free" girl to go? How is she to be employed? Where is she to live? No one would allow her to live in their house, or work at their business. Leaving your religion in many middle east countries is a slow death warrant.

Refusing to cover up is not apostasy. Many leaders of Muslim countries have wives who wear Western clothing.

I did not say it was best. I said just because they accept their culture and follow the rules does not mean the rules are for their best interest and that those in charge making the rules are right in doing so.

No where did I say that I know what is best, or that I'd force women to strip off their customary dress. I'd only support the choice of some to not wear that customary dress and not have to be stoned, or thrown out of a marriage, or arrested, or shunned by friends and family.

So why would you strongly disapprove if your daughter became a porn actress? Doesn't she have the right to do whatever she pleases without being shunned by family and friends?

You're dodging the question. The UAE has the surface appearance of being modern, but that is only due to spending of large amounts of money. Are the people there modern? Can a nation that allows the beating of a wife and children and the stoning of women who were raped truely be called modern?

This is irrelevant to the discussion, but most of the UAE is modern in the sense that it's technologically advanced, with modern infrastructure and a high standard of living. Morality has nothing to do with it.

And if the choices have only one acceptable choice it is compulsion.

If there is a democratic nation vote and the only person you are allowed to vote for is the Dictator, then there is no democracy.

Why is there only one acceptable choice?

I don't want this to go on back and forth for days. The point is that most middle-class (and up) women in most modern countries aren't forced to cover up, and do it by choice because they're every bit as devout as Muslim men. Maybe in a poor third world nation like Somalia they're forced to wear a burqa, but in Kuwait, the UAE, and practically every modern country most Muslim women aren't forced to do it.

Edited by Parsip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they don't force her to dress a certain way, it's not compulsion.

I suppose then it comes down to the word force. Can social pressure 'force' someone to do something? What about religious pressure? Family pressure?

So why would you strongly disapprove if your daughter became a porn actress?

She does. But didn't you just say that we should be able to hold our own morals? Plus, the porn lifestyle is rife with many dangers, that I would not willingly allow my daughter to experince without expressing disapproval. Up to including tossing her out of the family.

Why is there only one acceptable choice?

I don't want this to go on back and forth for days. The point is that most middle-class (and up) women in most modern countries aren't forced to cover up, and do it by choice because they're every bit as devout as Muslim men. Maybe in a poor third world nation like Somalia they're forced to wear a burqa, but in Kuwait, the UAE, and practically every modern country most Muslim women aren't forced to do it.

If there is one choice does depend on the country in question, the social class in question and even on individual personnalities. I think one point would be that if a Man who lives in a Sharia nation Wanted to force his wife and daughters to cover up, he can do that, right? So, is being Allowed a freedom, really a freedom? If they are being allowed to wear western clothes only because they have influence, or money, or their husband/father does not care, then is that really freedom?

If it is the Man's Choice, then is there really a Woman's choice at all?

Do you think my dog wants to Sit when I tell him Sit? He does that because I have conditioned him (compelled) to obey, and he does so willingly, because there is no punishment (used when initially training the dog), or there is a treat (also used in training). So one could argue that Muslim women who do cover up could, possibly, maybe be doing so because that is what they were trained to do as a child. I suppose inside their own culture that is not a big deal. Even in the western world it is not a big deal. But occationally we get these news stories of totally fanatically zealots who use Sharia to its fullest and demonstrate exactly what Sharia does allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another Western misconception: that Muslim women are forced to cover up. In most cases they aren't, and cover up by choice. Generally speaking, Muslim women are at least as devout as Muslim men, usually more so. Both men and women are responsible for perpetuating the sexual repression.

As for lesbianism and wearing fancy underwear beneath a burqa, that is unlikely to be true in any Muslim group other than young women in countries where gender segregation is ruthlessly enforced, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

I'm curious. You never did comment on the actual article of the OP. Do you approve of the actions of the authoritys (Muslim men) regarding the photograph the girl took?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted he was a good boxer, but geez did he spout a lot of rubbish most of the time...

:w00t: No actually most of the time he made complete sense. The video was just a sign of the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I suppose then it comes down to the word force. Can social pressure 'force' someone to do something? What about religious pressure? Family pressure?

Not if she was mentally sound. If she's a child for example, then yes, you can mentally force her to do something.

She does. But didn't you just say that we should be able to hold our own morals? Plus, the porn lifestyle is rife with many dangers, that I would not willingly allow my daughter to experince without expressing disapproval. Up to including tossing her out of the family.

Exactly. Why do Muslims want women to cover up? Because they believe if a woman doesn't, it's immoral and therefore risks punishment in the afterlife. Also, there are many psychos in the Muslim world who believe if a woman doesn't cover up, then it's acceptable to force sex on her.

If there is one choice does depend on the country in question, the social class in question and even on individual personnalities. I think one point would be that if a Man who lives in a Sharia nation Wanted to force his wife and daughters to cover up, he can do that, right? So, is being Allowed a freedom, really a freedom? If they are being allowed to wear western clothes only because they have influence, or money, or their husband/father does not care, then is that really freedom?

If it is the Man's Choice, then is there really a Woman's choice at all?

Do you think my dog wants to Sit when I tell him Sit? He does that because I have conditioned him (compelled) to obey, and he does so willingly, because there is no punishment (used when initially training the dog), or there is a treat (also used in training). So one could argue that Muslim women who do cover up could, possibly, maybe be doing so because that is what they were trained to do as a child. I suppose inside their own culture that is not a big deal. Even in the western world it is not a big deal. But occationally we get these news stories of totally fanatically zealots who use Sharia to its fullest and demonstrate exactly what Sharia does allow.

I don't think so, not legally at least. There are no laws mandating women to cover up in most Muslim countries, as far as I know. If a man doesn't like his wife's clothing style, he can either put up with it or divorce her. Though, in the Middle East it's usually de facto anarchy as the ruling families, courts, and security forces pick and choose which laws to follow or ignore, so I can imagine them turning a blind eye to violent spousal abuse. But in most cases there is no need to force women to cover up; they do it by choice and consider it a religious duty.

Edited by Parsip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.