So banning the Burka - freeing women from opression or taking away free choice...?

[Portoeufino]

I read that in Belgium there is a draft bill to ban burkas and also the niqab.

As they put it " There is nothing in Islam or the Koran about the burka. It has become an institution of intimidation and is a sign of submission of women. A civilized society cannot accept the imprisonment of women."

They then talk of "matters of public safety" - is that implying that if you wear a burka is it therefore likely you might have it stuffed with explosives? Or if you cover your face, then there are security issues connected with that?

I have to admit I am very ignorant about all this. DO women only wear this clothing because they are opressed? Do they choose to? What happens if it is banned? Are women freed, or will they end up forbidden from leaving the house?

I am very interested to learn and understand more about this.

Oh, umayma, I think I already said that I think there's a lot of things in the Bible that are not applicable in today's society.

Under Sharia law, men and women are not equal. Two women must testify to hold the same weight as one man.

now, 600 years ago, Sharia law was amongst the least unfair cultures towards women - the west certainly did not give women any property rights or ANY place in a court.

But the West has caught up with fairness, and people who are supporting Sharia law are skirting around the fact that it just isn't fair.

Sex with underage children is illegal pretty much everywhere, however the 'age' at which underage applies varies

map showing age of consent variations

Spain has the age of consent at 13, despite having a very 'western' culture

the Virgin Mary didn't have sex, though. Well, whether she did or whether she didn't, that's NOT how Jesus was alleged to have arrived here.

And, again, that (allegedly) was 2010 years ago. Nobody really thinks it's ok for a 30 year old man to be fucking a 12 year old, just because he's the only man she'll ever get fucked by?

this is pathetic, and predictable and a waste of time.

nobody is making apologetics for child rapists. get a grip.

what a load of rubbish you're spouting off. so all the muslims in the world support child rape

just because A VERY FEW girls get MARRIED and live with their HUSBAND when they have reached puberty.

i'm going to sleep! don't even know why i'm bothering with time wasters

Agree with Dittany.

Frankly, I cannot understand how you can fail to see that she's right.

Again, this is not against Islam as a whole, but there are parts to it that would be best forgotten (as is the case with Christianity- but they seem to have moved on a bit).

Currently the average age to begin menstruating is 15.1 in Saudi Arabia (according to this [[http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01443619750113861 study) btw

Isn't it a quater of all girls in Yemen who get married before 15? Yep.

I think statistics are not very pretty.

Sorry:

informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01443619750113861 proper link

dont know about Yemen but statistics aren't that pretty over here are they

are there many 15 r old virgins about these days, i doubt it very much

that is the whole point.

Islam doesn't encourage marriage to girls who have just reached puberty

it has set the MINIMUM age to puberty. so maybe you want Qur'an changed to minimum age 16.

But the fact remains that thousands of very young girls are married off to older men, who then are supposed to wait for them to reach puberty before having sex with them. Yeah, right, I'm sure they all do.

The, those 10 year olds in a great majority of cases have not chosen their husband, their parents did. So a child is married off (against her will, as obviously she cannot consent at this age)to some guy she will have to have sex with and keep the house for him for the rest of her life. Oh, and he's got a right to divorce her, while she, usually does not, and he gets the custody of children after they have reached certain age.

Yup,equality.

Again, agree with dittany...

it's 2.30 am for me so goodnight all...

OK, couple of thoughts/questions... All IMHO, of course:

Firstly, what it says in the Koran is not the issue it's the interpretation and application of those words in many societies that causes the issues. So, using the wording to support an argument for the treatment of women in those regions is misleading.

Secondly, if a woman should be covered when she is with any man who could marry her then why does she still need to cover after being married? If she's already married then she can't be married. I assume, that in fact, the wording means any man who could have sex with her? But, given that we were discussing the semantics around the wording this point also does not make sense.

Thirdly, anyone who thinks that all religions (including Christianity) did not arise with a tradition of owning women is wearing blinkers. The issue of ownership and control of women is at the heart of so many cultures and is hardly confined to the Middle East.

Have a look at this and be horrified at the Peruvian law which states that if a woman is gang raped but only one of the perpetrators offers to marry her then they're all off the hook. This article did generate a lot of rebuttals, by the way, but the facts in it stand.