I can't, and neither can you.
That girl and the other one next to her who asked the question were so annoying.
Contradiction (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 0bs3n3
- Start date
Yes. Fuck, even I was forced to believe something, cause I was born into it, and I live in a Western country. Except the difference is I can leave my religion without fear of being ostracised, not getting a job, beatings etc.
Correction.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it doesn't happen as much as it should because of the intimidation associated with leaving Islam. For instance, and you want me to use another country as an example here, fine, if a person in Gaza were to publicly leave Islam, I'm sure he wouldn't last long at all till he went missing, lost a few fingers or some other shit.
Want me to name a few others? Ok, I can provide sources if you want as well.
In southern Afghanistan it is de facto obligatory to wear a hijab.
Iran (mandatory)
Kuwait (mandatory)
Malaysia (any woman working in a government position)
Pakistan (not enforced, but the history of intimidation and social pressures to wear hijab is well recorded)
Tunisia (mandatory 'modest' dress)
Whilst it is not a requirement in other Muslim countries, there are always other restrictions, for instance, even in the more 'liberal' country of Lebanon, blaspheming God publicly carries a punishment of 1 year imprisonment. There are similar laws across most Muslim countries excepting the Western ones; Turkey and Indonesia.
File:Muslim Dress Billboard.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutaween - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No I wasn't questioning that, I mean, it's not rampant, the number of women who had ever been married or in a de- facto relationship, experienced violence by a partner at some time during the relationship was at 23% in 1996, 14 years ago, and it has been estimated that it has dropped off significantly since that, but rather I was making a point that at least there are government campaigns against it and social/cultural opposition to it. In Arab/Muslim countries it is barely, if at all, an offence, and is often thrown out of court. (statistics are from www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Statistics_final.pdf )
Ok, I'm not getting through to you, statistics/facts time, you can't argue with that.
In Syria, a husband can prevent his wife from leaving the country. In Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Jordan, Morocco, Oman and Yemen, married women must have their husbands' written permission to travel abroad, and they may be prevented from doing so for any reason. In Saudi Arabia, women must obtain written permission from their closest male relative to leave the country or travel on public transportation between different parts of the kingdom.
According to the UN, "utilization of Arab women's capabilities through political and economic participation remains the lowest in the world in quantitative terms….In some countries with elected national assemblies, women are still denied the right to vote or hold office. And one in ever two Arab women can neither read nor write." (Arab Human Development Report 2002, NY: UN, 2002)
In a Saudi Shari'a court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women. In Kuwait, the male population is allowed to vote, while women are still disenfranchised. Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia all have laws stating that a woman's inheritance must be less than that of her male siblings (usually about half the size). Moroccan law excuses the murder or injury of a wife who is caught in the act of committing adultery; yet women are punished for harming their husbands under the same circumstances.
As the U.S State Department Report on Human Rights Practices 1999-2006 said regarding Jordan, "Wife beating is technically grounds for divorce, but the husband may seek to demonstrate that he has authority from the Koran to correct an irreligious or disobedient wife by striking her."
According to UN data, the proportion of women's representation in Arab parliaments is only 3.4% (as opposed to 11.4% in the rest of the world). In addition, 55% of Arab women are illiterate. The Assistant to UN Vice Secretary General, Angela King, publicly called on Arab states to grant women their rights. ( Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London) )
No, you were arguing that it doesn't matter what the conditions a person is in if they find their own way to be happy. If a Muslim woman can still be happy despite the aforementioned difficulties, it's fine. By that same principle, if any other person in difficult circumstances, as an extreme example, a Jew in a concentration camp, can be happy, then it's fine.
Many/Some/All? Provide citation please.
A 'lot'? Doubt it's many at all actually. And their work is probably confined as well.
I think I've put that theory to rest above ^^^
Again, I think I've proved above to an extent that they are the property of their husbands, or are at least second class citizens.
I'm glad you're able to see it's abominable and tbh I never doubted that you would. I assume you've been raised in Australia and have the Western social and humane expectations built into you.
Pwnt.
Last edited:
I miss Nebz
philphie
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,187
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
you talk too much, doesn't it hurt?
Why is this so hard to believe? News articles and reports come out of the Islamic countries pretty often stating exactly that. Examples being execution for being an apostate etc. Fear and intimidation seems to be the way to go for those people in Islamic countries. :/
They're free to leave Islam in the West, as it's a basic freedom. In Islamic countries, they can be executed as an Apostate, if they choose to leave Islam.
philphie
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,187
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
anonymous.92
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 156
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
No, that wasn't my point. When a person grows they develop their own opinions about religion, so no matter what the societal expectations are, they will believe whatever they want to, regardless of whether they make it public or not.
So, if a person had left their religion without making it public, they wouldn't have any qualms about going against the principles of that religion.
See above.
Pakistan?!?!?!?! You can't be serious. If you knew anything about Pakistan you'd realise that many women do not wear the hijab. Obviously, some do. But in that country, a woman who does not wear it, faces absolutely no intimidation whatsoever.
I suggest you go research the culture of Pakistan.
Btw, there are a ton of Muslim countries, labelling four countries (I'm going to exclude Pakistan) as representatives of the rest, doesn't paint an accurate picture of Islamic countries as an entirety.
Do you think 23% is a small amount? That's quite a big figure. Do you realise that's almost a quarter of the population? See, in Arab countries or whatever, domestic violence is in fact an offence. The statistics obviously would be higher in those countries, as many of those countries are third-world countries. Poverty, lack of education, etc leads to higher instances of crime than in a developed country, like Australia. That's not the fault of the religion or the fact that it's an Arab country, but for the simple fact that it's a developing nation.
No, once again you didn't realise what I was asking. I was asking for the example of a nation that permits the husband to do whatever he likes with his wife, as if she were simply his property. Those statistics you mentioned were isolated examples of the authority the governemnt gives to the husband, but none of them mentioned that the husband can do anything.
Normally, I wouldn't be asking you for such an example, but in your previous post, you claimed that the husband can do whatever. I'm merely trying to show you that no country would let the husband to have complete and utter control of his wife.
I get your point, but the extreme nature of the pain and suffering experienced by the Jews, still makes it seem as if you were comparing polar opposites.
Um. You said yourself that you've been to Saudi Arabia. You would have seen with your own eyes the proportion of Muslim women who cover their faces.
Actually, it is 'a lot.' In countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the women prefer to go to female doctors and teachers for their own comfort. Due to the high demand of female doctors and teachers in those countries, females of those professions are welcomed with open arms.
No. You first mentioned that women are the property of their husbands. Now, you're saying that they may as well be second-class citizens. Instead of being ambiguous make it clear to me. Do you think women overseas are property or second class citizens? And do you only think like that towards women living in those countries you mentioned?
Fuck me, you are as stubborn as a mule.
To cite Middle East Analyst, Chery Benard,
"In Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed. In post-Taliban Afghanistan, women have been raped for daring to think they could now go without the burqa."
And please, you are the one who needs to do the research. Now admit to me, you said no intimidation whatsoever? Well you're wrong straight away. Ever heard of ' Eve teasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia '?
Note that:
Eve teasing is a euphemism used in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan
Congrats. Now go back to what I posted and read it again. They are not isolated incidents, I referred to 8 different Arab/Muslim countries there (or is half the Arab/Muslim countries not a good enough indicator either?), and I can refer to more if you want.
Here are some key points which you're obviously ignoring:
Yes, I was there, and I did not see a single woman not wearing a hijab, and I can say that I didn't see a single non-white woman not wearing a face veil.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]A) Women are forbidden from becoming judges by long standing edicts by Islamic jurisprudents and Islamic sharia.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]B) Restrictions for married women on holding jobs contrary to family values. According to article 1117 of the civil code of justice, the husband is entitled to prevent his spouse from holding certain jobs. The article states that the husband can prohibit his wife from employment which harms the reputation of the family or is against family values.[/SIZE][/FONT]
That is the biggest load of crap. Sure, everyone has the capability to question what they believe, but it is only the very rare few who actually do, and of those who do, especially in Islamic countries, only a few more would actually do anything about it as a result of the intimidation and social pressures surrounding leaving. You're clearly not understanding or are ignoring me (and others on this thread) who are citing social pressures and intimidation. You're saying people can leave Islam like it's the easiest thing in the world. Individuals who live in countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan etc. would face beatings/death/seclusion for leaving - they'd essentially have to start life afresh. And don't you dare deny that this happens, because it does. Fuck, one of my friends was essentially disowned by his family when he became an atheist and left Catholicism, and that's in Australia.
Oh wow. No intimidation whatsoever? Fuck me, what scares me is that you actually believe the shit that is coming out of your mouth.
To cite Middle East Analyst, Chery Benard,
"In Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed. In post-Taliban Afghanistan, women have been raped for daring to think they could now go without the burqa."
And please, you are the one who needs to do the research. Now admit to me, you said no intimidation whatsoever? Well you're wrong straight away. Ever heard of ' Eve teasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia '?
Note that:
Eve teasing is a euphemism used in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan
Hahaha, so first Saudi Arabia isn't enough, but then when I cite 5 others (there are actually 5 there excluding Pakistan) that's not enough either? Stop clutching at straws mate, it does paint an accurate picture. And I've only mentioned the countries where it is mandatory, other countries, like Indonesia actively encourage the wearing of modest dress and discourage and most importantly, encourage public discouragement of not wearing modest dress, as is evident from that picture of the government billboard in Banda Aceh.
First of all, and I should have asked you to do this first, turn back on the logic switch in your brain; it's not a quarter of the population, noob, it's 23% of individuals in marriages, which is far from a quarter, it's probably around a twentieth of the population, and even that is definitely an overstatement. That statistic is also 14 years old and has been predicted to drop. And while you are right in saying that poverty, lack of education etc. lead to higher instances of crime, it is the lack of regard paid to the education of women and the lack of rights given to them by Arab and Muslim countries which encourages it. Did you not read the statistics I gave you? Here they are again:
And don't say countries like Saudi Arabia etc. are poor. Despite current circumstance, prior to the GFC they were riding high off the Chinese economic boom and still are oil rich. If they can constantly keep upgrading and updating their military, they can provide basic education.
You really are trying to dodge the bullet. So ok, you know what, I'll pay this to you. I said they were owned by their husbands, well, you've got me on the technicality, women aren't actually classified as property by Arab/Muslim countries!
Congrats. Now go back to what I posted and read it again. They are not isolated incidents, I referred to 8 different Arab/Muslim countries there (or is half the Arab/Muslim countries not a good enough indicator either?), and I can refer to more if you want.
Here are some key points which you're obviously ignoring:
Now I reckon that's as close as you can fucking get to controlling another person, short of legal slavery.
It's an extreme example, I'll grant, and I'm happy to acknowledge that conditions in Arab/Muslim countries are far from those in the concentration camps, but that does not change the fact that you are arguing the same thing in principle.
???
Yes, I was there, and I did not see a single woman not wearing a hijab, and I can say that I didn't see a single non-white woman not wearing a face veil.
Maybe you are right, but there are still significant restrictions imposed by Islamic Sharia Law in Iran, like:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]A) Women are forbidden from becoming judges by long standing edicts by Islamic jurisprudents and Islamic sharia.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]B) Restrictions for married women on holding jobs contrary to family values. According to article 1117 of the civil code of justice, the husband is entitled to prevent his spouse from holding certain jobs. The article states that the husband can prohibit his wife from employment which harms the reputation of the family or is against family values.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Does it matter which? If I had to choose I'd say second class citizens, but I don't think there's a big gap there.
Last edited:
anonymous.92
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 156
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
Ugh. Why can't you see that no matter how many statistics you shove down my throat, that it is pointless measuring a person's happiness and contentment by one factor. You continually assert that the government restricts the freedoms of Muslims overseas, and while that is undeniably true, it is ludicrous to form the opinion that Muslims as an entirety are oppressed.
You're basing your entire arguement on this. How hard is it to admit to the fact that happiness can not be measured unless you take into account individual circumstances and situations? Come on, it isn't that hard to admit. Admit this, and our discussion is over. That was my point from the very beginning.
jb_nc
Google "9-11" and "truth"
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,391
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
lol m8 this is wrong
It's the principal of the matter. That these people could viably be in a position to enjoy more freedoms and thus be happier (because freedom and choice do bring happiness), but their government and religion deny them this, and then apologists like you come along and say "nooo, but it's fine, cause happiness can not be measured unless you take into account individual circumstances and situations."
And yes, you are an apologist. I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that many, perhaps even most individuals in Arab/Muslim countries are living second class lives, and that they are nowhere near as capable as living life to its full extent as those in Western countries, yet you insist that a womans inability to travel without permission from a male, her presumption of guilt and unequal legal status and the likelihood of her illiteracy does not matter, for your aforementioned reasons. You are trying to excuse the inexcusable and are as bad as those perpetrating the act of oppressing these people for your attempt to minimise the extent of their crimes.
And yeah, ok, I'll pretend not to notice that you've abandoned your argument that women in Arab/Muslim countries are not property/second class citizens.
anonymous.92
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 156
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
No, actually, I said in my previous post that the statistics you provided were correct.
Go ahead, and insist on calling me an apologist. Yeah, the plight of some women and men in those countries would obviously be sad. But, um, excuse me? Who are you to continually insist that ALL are oppressed? Your completely justified in criticising the laws of their countries, but the line should be drawn at calling them all subjugated. Yes, I will concede, some may be, but not ALL.
I've heard numerous accounts of people living in the aforementioned countries, who are actually quite pleased with their lives there. Will you call them oppressed too? Because that's what you've been doing up until now.
jb_nc
Google "9-11" and "truth"
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,391
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
yeah, ok m8. thanks for your wrong opinion not correlated by any research
start with:
The Tyranny of Choice; December 2004; Scientific American Mind; by Barry Schwartz; 6 Page(s)
Then go from there.
Again, you're trying to pick me up on a technicality. Of course not everyone is subjugated. You've got the ruling class and the upper class who I'm sure are more than happy (males, that is). There's also the religious leaders, who have a whole host of obedient zombies to follow their every word. They must be very happy.
No, I'm not arguing all, I'm not sure if I even said that word, can you quote me, please? I might have said all women, and that would be correct, with a few exceptions. No, I'm arguing most people are subjugated. And as far as I'm concerned, and as far as you, and for that matter, every sensible person should be concerned, that is not good enough. Even if I did say all, it is irrelevant, I was probably just exaggerating for effect, you can't deny that most would be subjugated, I've already pointed out women are and they form around half the population in most countries. Why are you still trying to dodge the bullet? Just admit that life is, on the whole, better in Western countries (on a freedoms/human rights basis), and it should be better in Arab/Muslim countries, but isn't due to bullshit governments, batshit insane religious leadership and a stupid religion.
Nah, it's written by a Jew, can't be true.
But seriously, I do know about that and was not arguing in that context. Having too much choice in the supermarket doesn't really match up to having the choice to travel of your own volition or not. There's also the moral problem of how the choice of some (women) is being limited for the advantage of others (men).
Last edited:
anonymous.92
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 156
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
Good. I'm glad we have progressed a bit. You conceded it was not all. Well, I too, will concede that, yes, some are subjugated. I was mostly fussy about your use of the word all in your posts.
I think we have reached an understanding. Good day.
lol, no we haven't? First quote me using the word all in reference to entire Muslim populations, then concede that most people living in Arab/Muslim countries are subjugated, not just some. There's a difference. Just bite on the bullet so I can be over with this shit thread, you stubborn git.
EDIT: Guess what? You're bullshitting us all! Cause I have no life, I just checked through the thread using old Ctrl+F, never used the word all in that context. Cunt.
Last edited:
anonymous.92
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 156
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
It was implied that you meant all. I thought during our entire discussion that you meant all. What do I care if you say most or whatever? At least you're not narrow minded to think that everyone is subjugated in those countries.
I just hope you realise that levels of subjugation and oppression obviously will vary between Muslim country to Muslim country.
It's not narrow mindedness, just plain logic. Of course not everyone is unhappy.
So I'll take your silence as an indication that you forfeit your argument that rather then some people in Muslim countries being unfairly subjugated in terms of freedoms and human rights (and as a result of this, in terms of other things such as education etc.), most are.
So if you'll sign here, and here, and here and admit that Arab and Muslim countries are shit, or at least shittier than Western countries, we can all go home happy. Till the next fail thread comes along, at least.
Last edited: