Burka ban

Brown Bomber · 16-04-2011 03:14AM

Can't believe people are getting so worked up about an item of womens clothing. :pac: Must've missed the news on Libya and Japan lately eh?

Seems to me the same people who want to ban the burqa because it "offends" their culture have no interest in the offense caused by Muhammed cartoons, or Fitna and instead defend freedom of speech.

dead one · 16-04-2011 08:43AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Look at the country with the lowest rate of rape on the graph. Japan. One of the most secular countries in the world.

What do you mean by lowest rate. Is it your excuse

. Rape is still there my friend. Women are still scarfying. Every soul is precious. I can clearly see selfishness.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

One of the most secular countries in the world.

Today many countries in the world are secular. They aren't following any religion. Can you name any country which takes its authority from God?

, Please for my information.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are only 115,000 muslims in Japan out of a population of 128m. And you think that hijab is necessary to prevent rape?

Look friend i am not here to defend muslim countries because they aren't islamic at all. Many of these countries are heavily influenced by western culture. I have pointed it time and again.
For your information Just watch this video and also see comment

Im not muslim, Im Christian and from England. But watching this I've realised how much the west has destroyed culture in the east. Its stupid how we try to bring our ways to you saying "Live like this, this is right". We, as nations, should respect other cultures like the ones shown in this video. America is greedy and just forces it's capitalism into other countries so that it gets more money, not caring about how it destroys cultures. We in the west should stop this.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also since there are no predominantly muslim countries on the graph how do you presume to draw the conclusion that hijab lowers rape rates??

I think i have given you enough reason. I am not defending muslim countries. There is difference between muslim countries and Islamic state. First you should learn about it. I can see you are selfish here securing western values but for me east or west both are equal.
hijab does prevent rape but it also guards Chasity and modesty of women. It guards women to be advertise. It guards women to be a showpiece. It guards women to become victim of desires of men. To stop rape you also need a perfect family system.

Surah 33:59

Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

So the Quran says that women should wear the veil/hijab so that they can be recognized (as pious Muslim women) and then no one would bother flirting or annoying them. .

oldrnwisr · 16-04-2011 09:42AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

dead one wrote: »

What do you mean by lowest rate. Is it your excuse . Rape is still there my friend. Women are still scarfying. Every soul is precious. I can clearly see selfishness.

Rape is still there? So your argument is that there is no rape in countries which enforce hijab, such as Iran for example? Prove it. In 2000, the official Iranian news agency reported that a woman is raped and murdered in Iran every six days. I don't see any evidence to suggest that this has changed since then. Also Sweden, a country with an unexpectedly (IMO) high rape rate has stated that immigrants, particularly those from muslim countries are far over-represented in those committing rape.

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-puts-sweden-at-top-of-euro-rape-statistics-peace-in-europe-surrender/

dead one wrote: »

Today many countries in the world are secular. They aren't following any religion. Can you name any country which takes its authority from God?, Please for my information.

That would depend on your definition of God.

The following countries base their entire system of jurisprudence on Islamic law:

Yemen
Aghanistan
Pakistan
Somalia
Sudan
Saudi Arabia
Mauritania
Oman
Iran

Iran would be top of the pile as far as determining an Islamic state would be concerned given the integration of Islam into all levels of bureaucracy.

As far as Catholicism is concerned then obviously the Vatican is at the top of the list but catholicism is also the state religion in the following countries:

Costa Rica
Malta
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Andorra
Argentina
etc. etc.

Then there are lutheran, eastern orthodox and buddhist states. Here are two links which should explain things in more detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

The thing is though, your question is slightly misguided in the first place. A country can consider it's authority to derive from God and yet remain secular in the application of its laws. Take the preamble to our own constitution as an example:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

dead one wrote: »

Look friend i am not here to defend muslim countries because they aren't islamic at all. Many of these countries are heavily influenced by western culture. I have pointed it time and again.

No you are arguing for the practice of a (currently) Muslim tradition as a preventative against rape. A preventative, which I have already pointed out is rigidly enforced in some states and yet has had no effect on rape rates.

dead one wrote: »

There is difference between muslim countries and Islamic state. First you should learn about it. I can see you are selfish here securing western values but for me east or west both are equal.

Ok so explain the difference. List examples of each so that we can all see what the difference is between the two and how that supports your argument.

dead one wrote: »

hijab does prevent rape but it also guards Chasity and modesty of women. It guards women to be advertise. It guards women to be a showpiece. It guards women to become victim of desires of men. To stop rape you also need a perfect family system.

As I've said already, prove it. Detail at the very least statistical evidence to show that the introduction of hijab into a country lowered the number of rapes.

the_syco · 16-04-2011 09:07PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

My view is that citizens of a state should be allowed to freely choose what clothing they wear. Yourself and the pro-ban camp obviously disagree with this view and believe the state knows better and thus should decide what you do and don't wear.

I don't care what people wear, but as balaclavas are banned from banks, shops, airports, schools and most state buildings, I don't see why the burka should be allowed.

dead one wrote: »

JUST See women who were scarified in the name of culture. This show hijab and family system is necessary. Only a perfect family system and law can finish these crimes. Man made laws can't?

If a man rapes a woman who he is married to, in the west this is called rape.

In the countries were women must wear the burka by law, if a man rapes a woman he is married to, what do the "holy men" who are in charge of the law call it? I am not questioning what the holy book (Qur’an) calls it; I'm questioning what the law is in the counrty? I find what those who claim their way life is based on a holy book are not so holy themselves.

Scotty # · 16-04-2011 09:56PM

I'm religious and support the ban

the_syco wrote: »

I don't care what people wear, but as balaclavas are banned from banks, shops, airports, schools and most state buildings, I don't see why the burka should be allowed.

It is neither illegal to own or wear a balaclava. You are free to wear one whenever you wish. Granted your local bank manager or shop keeper may ask you to leave but you are not breaking any laws by wearing one.

oldrnwisr · 16-04-2011 10:20PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

It is neither illegal to own or wear a balaclava. You are free to wear one whenever you wish. Granted your local bank manager or shop keeper may ask you to leave but you are not breaking any laws by wearing one.

Actually that's not quite correct. While it is legal to own a balaclava and wear it at home, wearing it publicly is a different story. The state places a great deal of trust in the judgment of the gardai in this country. You could easily be arrested under Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1994 or Section 30 of the Offences against the State act. In fact one man who dressed up for Halloween in a balaclava was convicted under the Public Order Act for threatening or abusive behaviour.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/balaclava-clad-joker-claims

toy-gun-was-halloween-gag-1442789.html

Section 11, Public Order Act 1994
It shall be an offence for a person to be within the vicinity of any such building or curtilage or part of such building or curtilage for the purpose of trespassing thereupon, in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein.

Section 30, Offences Against the State Act 1939
A member of the Gárda Síochána (if he is not in uniform on production of his identification card if demanded) may without warrant stop, search, interrogate, and arrest any person, or do any one or more of those things in respect of any person, whom he suspects of having committed or being about to commit or being or having been concerned in the commission of an offence under any section or sub-section of this Act or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of this Act or whom he suspects of carrying a document relating to the commission or intended commission of any such offence as aforesaid or whom he suspects of being in possession of information relating to the commission or intended commission of any such offence as aforesaid.

I think given the history of this country in the last few decades that balaclavas would fall under the terms of the highlighted grounds.

valm · 16-04-2011 10:28PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

So no balaclava in Ireland = no burka in Ireland, that's fine with me. No covering of the face.

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:10PM

I'm religious and support the ban

celtictiger32 wrote: »

i think people are against it for both those reasons more or less except i wouldnt exactly call it a phobia. i think a lot of the islamic community try to impose their culture for instance there was a call by several of them not so long ago to have sharia law (i think this is the correct term apologies if not) imposed on all muslims in ireland. the likes of this only alienates them and their culture to the rest of us, i dont think you would find many catholic, christian or whatever going to muslim countries and demanding that they should be governed but their own religious laws etc. same applies to the burka, a woman can be arrested for her choice of clothing in certain countries, and most we'll just say irish women respect these laws and cultures when they visit these countries if not just dont visit them so the same should apply here if a country has banned the burka that is their law so the muslim community should abide and respect that law or just dont be there.

I disagree with the argument 'we can't wear X in Saudi so they can't wear Y here'.

We are not Saudi. We are not a nasty oppressive tyranical regime. We can't say 'oh look they do it and therefore so can we'.

Scotty # · 16-04-2011 11:13PM

I'm religious and support the ban

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Actually that's not quite correct.

Actually it is. Show me anywhere in the statute where it says balaclavas are illegal!

The law you have quoted would also make the knives in your kitchen drawer illegal. The wheel brace in the boot of your car... your golf clubs... None of these things in themselves are illegal but you can still be charged with being in possession of them depending on your intent. You may not have actually committed any crime with them.

The pro-ban camp really are clutching at straws now with these very feeble excuses to justify the ban.

The debate, for me, is not about the purpose of the burka or what it stand for. It is about MY RIGHT (and yours) to dress as we please.

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:18PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Smacks of not quite knowing what you're talking about

The law also introduces a maximum fine of, AFAIR, around €40,000 for men who are convicted of forcing women who wear the burka.

Though I'm sure that many people will find it intolerably offensive that the state is limiting a man's freedom to oppress his missus! Issa political correctness gone mad!

But did I ever say I objected to fining men who were forcing women to wear the burqa? If I did, would you like to link that post, or if you can't would you like not to talk as if I did?

I said, that given the number of women who suffer from domestic violence in France it's hypocritical to pass legislation that bans the wearing - EVEN BY CHOICE - of a particular garment that is only worn by a small subset of society.

Instead of doing that, why not improve the support for victims of domestic violence of all nationalities? So women who do want to break free have somewhere to go?

As I've already said, two women a week are murdered by their partners in countries like the UK. So why the hell aren't we trying to sort that out instead of beating up on a marginal practice of covering one's face when we don't even know the % of women who are not doing it of their own free will?

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

pH wrote: »

Well for one the idea of going around masked in public. Even if you accept that's OK, most will then draw the line at some point - and at that stage we're still 'discriminating' against women in burkas.

yet, it's ok to cover your face by wearing 'masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions'
more hypocricy

oldrnwisr · 16-04-2011 11:25PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

Actually it is. Show me anywhere in the statute where it says balaclavas are illegal!

The law you have quoted would also make the knives in your kitchen drawer illegal. The wheel brace in the boot of your car... your golf clubs... None of these things in themselves are illegal but you can still be charged with being in possession of them depending on your intent. You may not have actually committed any crime with them.

The pro-ban camp really are clutching at straws now with these very feeble excuses to justify the ban.

The debate, for me, is not about the purpose of the burka or what it stand for. It is about MY RIGHT (and yours) to dress as we please.

The knives in your kitchen drawer are legal, as long as they stay there. That's the point. It does not, as you've argued depend on your intent, however. It depends on a garda's interpretation of your intent. The determination of whether an offence has been cause under the public order act is whether reasonable inference can be made about intent. Someone walking the streets in a balaclava could be reasonably inferred by a garda to be up to no good. Also it's not that you have committed a crime with those items but whether you are likely to commit a crime.

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:26PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm not a believer. Not that it makes a difference. I simply have a problem with the government (or religion for that matter) telling people how they can or can't dress. Regardless of race, religion, or culture - as long as it's not harming anyone else. It's that simple.

You said earlier when talking about oppression being the excuse behind the ban...
I've asked you twice now to point out these other reasons but you haven't offered any. You've tried relentlessly to justify the ban throughout this thread and you've failed. The truth is there are no others. The ban is unjustifiable. It helps NOBODY and it serves NO PURPOSE, other than to remove the visible signs of Islam from the streets, it's REAL purpose after all.

What on earth gives you the right or anyone the right, to tell people what they can and can't wear as long as they are not harming anyone? (I don't actually want an answer to that - no doubt you'll come up with some kind of logic where it's not OK for Islam to tell people how to dress but it is OK for their government.)

spot on. There are only two reasons - wanting to oppress religious people and wanting to oppress people different from oneself.

This concern for women is just a fig leaf.

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:29PM

I'm religious and support the ban

liamw wrote: »

To those that are against the ban, why would women freely choose to wear something whose purpose is to subjugate them?

(I'm not taking sides, still on the fence)

because they don't see it as subjugation?

drkpower · 16-04-2011 11:31PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Someone walking the streets in a balaclava could be reasonably inferred by a garda to be up to no good.

Someone walking the streets in an Aran jumper could be reasonably inferred by a garda to be up to no good, depending on the circumstances.

This particular line of inquiry is an irrelevence.

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:31PM

I'm religious and support the ban

pH wrote: »

This is a good point. Take a group of women who we know are free to choose to wear whatever they want. Let's take Irish adult women.

There are about 1.5 million of them (free from religious or cultural oppression to go around all day with a bag over their heads).

Of this 1.5+ million women, how many choose too wear a burka - the answer is zero - none.

So when I see 1.5 million women (who have a choice) and none choose it, I'm extremely sceptical of any claims which point to a woman in a burka who is obviously under a pressure to wear it and saying "Oh it's her free choice".

how do you know the answer is none?

eg you'd have thought that among Jews the answer is none, but that isn't so

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3499122.ece

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:38PM

I'm religious and support the ban

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ultimately, sadly, it is up to these women to break free of their brainwashing by themselves at which point we should do everything under the sun to protect them. Unless we can come up with a better yet still fair society.

thank you

Bans only make people more devout and make them cling more to their belief

To give an example, the Soviets tried to kill religion for 70 years. Religious people couldn't get jobs, were arrested, sent to labour camps, etc.

but they failed. They created by that a strand of Orthodoxy even more zealous than before, that flourished as soon as USSR fell

that's it in a nutshell. Banning the burqa is the best way to make sure the burqa is clung to by Muslims down the years. If the burqa issue were just ignored, it would have been out of use by the second or third generation of muslims in France.

Moomoo1 · 16-04-2011 11:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This raises an interesting point. Is the right to do something effected by whether or not you where brainwashed into doing it?

yes - but only if you've got proof beyond reasonable doubt that they were brainwashed

Moomoo1 · 17-04-2011 12:01AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Morbert wrote: »

This has been addressed (a few times) already.

inadequately

no one's got round the issue that any measure that victimises one ethnic section of society for crimes that are committed throughout the society (=violence and coercion against women) is racist.

no one's got round the fact that they have not actually sought the opinion of women affected by this ban and bothered to ask them what _they_, the people they are supposedly protecting them, think.

basically, the pro-ban side take some highly questionable assertions (like 'no woman would wear the veil out of choice' and 'as soon as the ban comes into force the lives of those women who are forced to wear the burqa will improve' and 'anyone who wears the veil is brainwashed') - all sweeping assumptions and generalisations with little factual basis offered and treat these assertions as the solidest of fact, and then build a huge logical castle on top of that

without realising that the base for their logical edifice is rotten

Moomoo1 · 17-04-2011 12:10AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What a disingenuous appraisal of our previous discussion but good to see that you haven't overcome your own racial issues. I have no more problem with islam than christianity, I'm still going out with the same muslim girl I was last year. I do however hate extremist and oppressive cultures that subjugate their people under the pretence of religious (or any made up) authority. Of course, besides that, the burka isn't even islamic, its cultural, but its a culture that I deem to be incredible damaging, hence I oppose it.

I bet if a Jewish woman wants to wear a face covering then your opinion of that would be totally different?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3499122.ece

robindch · 17-04-2011 09:20PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Moomoo1 wrote: »

the pro-ban side take some highly questionable assertions (like 'no woman would wear the veil out of choice' [...] and 'anyone who wears the veil is brainwashed') - all sweeping assumptions and generalisations with little factual basis offered

Interesting statement released a few years back from the MCB, the organization which claims to represent muslims in the UK:

http://www.islam21c.com/editorials/218-important-advice-to-the-muslim-community-in-light-of-the-debate-over-the-veil

MCB wrote:

3. The veil, irrespective of its specific juristic rulings, is an Islamic practice and not a cultural or a customary one as is agreed by the consensus of Muslim scholars; it is not open to debate.

We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution in this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief. Not practicing something enjoined by Allah and His Messenger (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) - regardless its legal status (i.e., whether obligatory, recommended or praiseworthy) - is a shortcoming; denying it is much more serious. Allah says in the Qur’an: ‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain error.’

So, the MCB believes that nobody has a choice in the matter. Furthermore, a woman's refusal to wear the veil isn't just a simple matter of not doing something you're supposed to. On the contrary, it's far worse than that -- it's a full-on rejection of the stated demands of the creator of the universe and places the woman in a state of religious "error" which, worst of all, "may lead to disbelief".

I don't believe that the MCB has changed its position.

Morbert · 17-04-2011 10:37PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Moomoo1 wrote: »

inadequately

no one's got round the issue that any measure that victimises one ethnic section of society for crimes that are committed throughout the society (=violence and coercion against women) is racist.

No one has gotten around to the issue because it is not relevant. You said the issue has been dealt with inadequately, which is a confusing thing to say. I do not know how it can be more adequately dealt with than by saying the merits of the ban are independent of any islamophobic/xenophobic support it might gain.

no one's got round the fact that they have not actually sought the opinion of women affected by this ban and bothered to ask them what _they_, the people they are supposedly protecting them, think.

basically, the pro-ban side take some highly questionable assertions (like 'no woman would wear the veil out of choice' and 'as soon as the ban comes into force the lives of those women who are forced to wear the burqa will improve' and 'anyone who wears the veil is brainwashed') - all sweeping assumptions and generalisations with little factual basis offered and treat these assertions as the solidest of fact, and then build a huge logical castle on top of that

without realising that the base for their logical edifice is rotten

This is unrelated to my post you quoted.

Morbert · 17-04-2011 10:48PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I bet if a Jewish woman wants to wear a face covering then your opinion of that would be totally different?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3499122.ece

We would, of course, hold the same opinion. The debate is not about religious practices. The debate is about whether or not the burka is a signature of state-sanctioned abuse and subjugation of women.

aidan24326 · 18-04-2011 12:43AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Morbert wrote: »

We would, of course, hold the same opinion. The debate is not about religious practices. The debate is about whether or not the burka is a signature of state-sanctioned abuse and subjugation of women.

But that's exactly what it is. I've spoken with muslim guys, that I've known/worked with etc, and their attempts at justifying the burkha on cultural and traditional grounds have been nothing short of pathetic. It is oppression of women full stop. Dress it up in all the religious codswallop you care to muster, but the fact is that in alot of these countries a woman holds about the same political status as a cat. If she's lucky.

And the burkha is a symbol of that. But should we ban it? I don't know. I hope our muslim population doesn't grow to the point where that even becomes an issue.

dead one · 18-04-2011 08:29AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Rape is still there? So your argument is that there is no rape in countries which enforce hijab,

sorry that isn't my argument. My argument in islamic state there will no be no rape / crimes as compared to rest of world.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

such as Iran for example? Prove it. In 2000, the official Iranian news agency reported that a woman is raped and murdered in Iran every six days. I don't see any evidence to suggest that this has changed since then. Also Sweden, a country with an unexpectedly (IMO) high rape rate has stated that immigrants, particularly those from muslim countries are far over-represented in those committing rape.

Iran isn't islamic state. First you should learn about Islamic state. Let me clear you again. You don't have knowledge of islamic concept of state.
Iran is NOT an Islamic state. It is a secular theocracy run by an unelected and unaccountable shi'ite clergy. In Islamic law an Islamic state or is defined as:
1. Sovereignty for the shar'iah
2. Authority for the ummah or people
3. Single head of state (a caliph)
4. Caliph or executive has the ability to adopt opinions which are binding (he does NOT have to be a cleric to be a caliph).
1. Academically speaking:
Iranian constitution is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...public_of_Iran

2. Item by item listing of contradictions of Iranian constitution with Islamic law here:
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/20...stitution.html

These link will help you to understand real concept of islamic state

oldrnwisr wrote: »

That would depend on your definition of God.
The following countries base their entire system of jurisprudence on Islamic law:
Yemen
Aghanistan
Pakistan
Somalia
Sudan
Saudi Arabia
Mauritania
Oman
Iran
Iran would be top of the pile as far as determining an Islamic state would be concerned given the integration of Islam into all levels of bureaucracy.

Sorry they aren't!!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As far as Catholicism is concerned then obviously the Vatican is at the top of the list but catholicism is also the state religion in the following countries:
Costa Rica
Malta
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Andorra
Argentina
etc. etc.
Then there are lutheran, eastern orthodox and buddhist states. Here are two links which should explain things in more detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No you are arguing for the practice of a (currently) Muslim tradition as a preventative against rape. A preventative, which I have already pointed out is rigidly enforced in some states and yet has had no effect on rape rates.

As i said before you can't compare current muslim countries with islamic state.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As I've said already, prove it. Detail at the very least statistical evidence to show that the introduction of hijab into a country lowered the number of rapes.

Check these statistics. As matter of fact Saudia isn't perfect Islamic State but still it has some of Sharia/islamic Laws
[FONT=verdana, arial]

The crime rate in Saudi Arabia is very low compared to more industrialized countries. An analysis was done using INTERPOL data for Saudi Arabia. For purpose of comparison, data were drawn for the seven offenses used to compute the United States FBI's index of crime. Index offenses include murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The combined total of these offenses constitutes the Index used for trend calculation purposes. Saudi Arabia will be compared with Japan (country with a low crime rate) and USA (country with a high crime rate). According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 2000 was 0.71 per 100,000 population for Saudi Arabia, 1.10 for Japan, and 5.51 for USA. For rape, the rate in 2000 was 0.14 for Saudi Arabia, compared with 1.78 for Japan and 32.05 for USA. For robbery, the rate in 2000 was 0.14 for Saudi Arabia, 4.08 for Japan, and 144.92 for USA. For aggravated assault, the rate in 2000 was 0.12 for Saudi Arabia, 23.78 for Japan, and 323.62 for USA. For burglary, the rate in 2000 was 0.05 for Saudi Arabia, 233.60 for Japan, and 728.42 for USA. The rate of larceny for 2000 was 79.71 for Saudi Arabia, 1401.26 for Japan, and 2475.27 for USA. The rate for motor vehicle theft in 2000 was 76.25 for Saudi Arabia, compared with 44.28 for Japan and 414.17 for USA. The rate for all index offenses combined was 157.12 for Saudi Arabia, compared with 1709.88 for Japan and 4123.97 for USA.
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/asia_pacific/saudi_arabia.html

[/FONT]

oldrnwisr · 18-04-2011 11:27AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

dead one wrote: »

sorry that isn't my argument. My argument in islamic state there will no be no rape / crimes as compared to rest of world.

Iran isn't islamic state. First you should learn about Islamic state. Let me clear you again. You don't have knowledge of islamic concept of state.
Iran is NOT an Islamic state. It is a secular theocracy run by an unelected and unaccountable shi'ite clergy. In Islamic law an Islamic state or is defined as:
1. Sovereignty for the shar'iah
2. Authority for the ummah or people
3. Single head of state (a caliph)
4. Caliph or executive has the ability to adopt opinions which are binding (he does NOT have to be a cleric to be a caliph).
1. Academically speaking:
Iranian constitution is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...public_of_Iran

2. Item by item listing of contradictions of Iranian constitution with Islamic law here:
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/20...stitution.html

These link will help you to understand real concept of islamic state

Sorry they aren't!!!

As i said before you can't compare current muslim countries with islamic state.

Check these statistics. As matter of fact Saudia isn't perfect Islamic State but still it has some of Sharia/islamic Laws

You know, it's always nice when people refute their own arguments. It saves me an awful lot of effort.

Your original argument since you seem to need reminding was that hijab is necessary for a low crime rate.

dead one wrote: »

JUST See women who were scarified in the name of culture. This show hijab and family system is necessary. Only a perfect family system and law can finish these crimes. Man made laws can't?

As I've already shown, countries which have hijab required by law, such as Iran, do not seem to have that such a low crime rate.

First off, Iran is an Islamic state. Maybe you're operating under some kind of faulty defnition but I am using the accepted defintion of Islamic state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state

What you have described is an Islamic caliphate of which there are no modern examples. The last caliphate of recent times was abolished in 1924 with the establishment of the Turkish Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate#End_of_the_Caliphate.2C_1924

Now as for your argument about Saudi Arabia. First of all, you've already acknowledged that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic state in your own post, but for the sake of argument let's go with it. Saudi Arabia has a current total crime rate per capita of 387 per 100,000 people. While quite low, India, for example which is not an Islamic state has a crime rate of just 163 per 100,000 people.

Secondly, your quoted statistics are interesting, however, the authors of the link are far more intellectually honest than you are. If you are going to make comparisons of countries based on crime rates, you should at least be operating on a level playing field which you're not. The authors have highlighted the following objections about Saudi crime figures which make your conclusions highly questionable:

[FONT=verdana, arial]The Government does not keep statistics on spousal abuse or other forms of violence against women. However, based on the information available regarding physical spousal abuse and violence against women, such violence and abuse appear to be common problems. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial]Foreign embassies continued to receive many reports that employers abuse foreign women working as domestic servants. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial]It is difficult to gauge the prevalence of child abuse, since the Government currently keeps no national statistics on such cases.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial]The law does not prohibit specifically trafficking in persons.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial]Among the millions of foreign workers in the country, some persons, particularly domestic workers, are defrauded by employment agencies or exploited by employers; some workers overstay their contracts and are exploited as they have few legal protections. Many foreign domestic servants flee work situations that include forced confinement, beating and other physical abuse, withholding of food, and rape. The authorities often forced domestic servants to return to their places of employment. The Government states that it does not believe that trafficking in persons is a problem because foreign workers come to the country voluntarily. It primarily focused on identifying and deporting illegal workers, and did not devote significant effort or resources to antitrafficking activity.[/FONT]

Moomoo1 · 19-04-2011 11:24PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Interesting statement released a few years back from the MCB, the organization which claims to represent muslims in the UK:

http://www.islam21c.com/editorials/218-important-advice-to-the-muslim-community-in-light-of-the-debate-over-the-veil

'3. The veil, irrespective of its specific juristic rulings, is an Islamic practice and not a cultural or a customary one as is agreed by the consensus of Muslim scholars; it is not open to debate. We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution in this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief. Not practicing something enjoined by Allah and His Messenger (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) - regardless its legal status (i.e., whether obligatory, recommended or praiseworthy) - is a shortcoming; denying it is much more serious. Allah says in the Qur’an: ‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain error.’ [translation of 33:36] '

So, the MCB believes that nobody has a choice in the matter. Furthermore, a woman's refusal to wear the veil isn't just a simple matter of not doing something you're supposed to. On the contrary, it's far worse than that -- it's a full-on rejection of the stated demands of the creator of the universe and places the woman in a state of religious "error" which, worst of all, "may lead to disbelief".

I don't believe that the MCB has changed its position.

well, you can understand them - Islam is under threat in Europe much like Judaism has been in the years past.

Given the number of people MCB is talking, Muslims, to who are not veil wearers it is obvious that they get a choice here

what MCB is talking about is the _right_ of their followers to practice Islam by wearing a veil. Much like every Jew has a right to practice Judaism by not touching electrical appliances at sabbath, even if that is inconvinient to those around him.

Moomoo1 · 19-04-2011 11:26PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Morbert wrote: »

We would, of course, hold the same opinion. The debate is not about religious practices. The debate is about whether or not the burka is a signature of state-sanctioned abuse and subjugation of women.

But those Jewish women cover their faces of free will.

Why do you refuse to believe that Muslim women do the same? Do you have the stats on how many of them actually _want_ to cover their faces?

Moomoo1 · 19-04-2011 11:31PM

I'm religious and support the ban

aidan24326 wrote: »

But that's exactly what it is. I've spoken with muslim guys, that I've known/worked with etc, and their attempts at justifying the burkha on cultural and traditional grounds have been nothing short of pathetic. It is oppression of women full stop. Dress it up in all the religious codswallop you care to muster, but the fact is that in alot of these countries a woman holds about the same political status as a cat. If she's lucky.

And the burkha is a symbol of that. But should we ban it? I don't know. I hope our muslim population doesn't grow to the point where that even becomes an issue.

banning symbols is a waste of time and is often counterproductive

if women are being oppressed in this country, they need to be helped with _real_ help - mainly safe shelter and a chance to start a new life away from their abusers. Crazy bans are good for getting the rabble to vote for you in the elections but do little to help women.

strobe · 20-04-2011 12:12AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Moomoo1 wrote: »

To give an example, the Soviets tried to kill religion for 70 years. Religious people couldn't get jobs, were arrested, sent to labour camps, etc.

but they failed.

Former Soviet states are amongst the least religious states by percent of population in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

Burka ban

Comments