Please identify the better status of women from the following cultures and Islam

Please identify the better status of women from the following cultures and Islam

Does Islam honored women and insulted or mistreated??
Honoring of Islam for women
Islam raised the status of women, and only between men and women in more provisions, they are commanded to like faith and obedience, and equal to him in reward of the Hereafter, and has the right of expression, ... Lihat Selengkapnyarecommend and order good and forbid evil, and calling to God, and they have the right to own property, buy and sell, and inherit, and give charity and blowing, is not permissible for anyone to take her money without her consent, and have the right to a dignified life, not assault it, not grievance. Have the right to education, but must learn what you need in debt

Women in communities and other religions ...

Women among the ancient Greeks

They have despised the humiliation, even call it an abomination of the devil, and they held Ksagt heirlooms, bought and sold in the market, deprived of their rights, deprived of the right to inherit the right to dispose of money in say Vilsovhm "Socrates" [The presence of women is the largest origin and source of the crisis and collapse in the world that women like tree where the poisonous face of a beautiful, but when the birds eat them die off "a. e, and I counted them, is that women are Aepehr and have lovers.

Women in the Romanian

It was the convergence of the most suffering under the slogan they have taken and they called the "women do not have the spirit," including torture pour hot oil on her body, and link them to columns, but they were innocent link Bveol horses, and speed to the maximum speed until you die.

Of women in the ancient Chinese

Women have likened the water wash the painful happiness and money, and China has the right to sell his wife Kaljarip, and if widowed Chinese women became the husband the right of the people and where wealth is inherited, and China has the right to bury his wife alive.

When Indian women

It is not women the right to life after the death of her husband, but you must die on the death of her husband, and burned with a fireplace and a living one. The lone woman be married and who lost her husband from the untouchables in Indian society, and the outcast them at the level of animals.

Women at the horse
Has permitted married mothers, sisters, aunts and daughters and nieces and was denying the female in the menstrual period (menstrual cycle) to a remote location outside the city and the woman was under the authority of man's absolute right to rule by death or enjoy the life.

When Jewish women

Have they regard as a curse because it seduced Adam, and when they infect the menses is not Ijalssounaa Iwaklunha not, do not touch the pot so as not to become defiled, and some were placed for a menstruating woman and put a tent in front bread and Mea, puts it in this tent until she becomes pure.

Woman when Christians

Suffice it to remind you what the church one of the men when he said: "If you see a woman do not think just because you see a human being or even being a brutal but you see is the devil itself, which you hear is whistling snake."

Women among the Arabs

They did not have the right to inherit, and if a man dies and leaves as his son until his wife had no women in ignorance, the right of her husband and not to divorce a limited number nor polygamy a certain number and the woman was in ignorance, hate the act of adultery request pay the material and it was their food is solid for males and forbidden to women and girls have Be Iwdn and buried alive under the earth they fear shame and poverty.

- The English Parliament issued a resolution in the era of Henry VIII prohibits women to read the "New Testament" because it is considered unclean.
- English law even in 1805 allowed a man to sell his wife, has set his wife's six pennies.
In modern times, women were expelled from the house after the age of eighteen to start working to earn a living, and if you want to stay in the house, she had to pay her parents rent for her room and the price of food and laundry.

These are women in other religions and at various other clans and have heard and read these creatures Magayth varieties of torture and humiliation to physical and moral, even sun brightened by Islam I met all the good and honor and received all the care and attention.

How can this compare to Islam which is Berha and treat them by honoring her, and spending on them?!

The changes in these rights through the ages, have not changed the basic principles theoretical, but in practice there can be no doubt that the golden age of Islam, the Muslims more application of the law of the Lord, and the provisions of this law: honoring one's mother and charity to the wife, daughter, sister and women as general. The more the weakness of religious whenever there is disorder in the performance of these rights, but still one denomination to adhere to the Day of Judgement condemned, and apply the law of their Lord, and these are the first people to honor women and the delivery of their rights to it.
Despite the weakness of religious commitment among many Muslims today, women still have their place and status, mother, daughter, wife and sister, while recognizing that there are shortcomings or injustice and neglect of women's rights when some people, but each is responsible for the same

Women in Islam, the sisters of men, and the good people are good to the people; postulate in childhood have the right to breastfeeding, care, education and charity, which at that time, darling, and the fruit of heart for her parents and brothers.
And is enhanced Imakbert Mecca, which the jealous guardian, and fundamentally under his auspices, and not accept to be extended to ill supported, and the tongues of hurt, and the eyes betraying.
So she was the word of God, and His covenant thick; birthday: in her husband's house most cherished neighborhood, and withhold, Dhamar, and the duty of honoring her husband, and treat her kindly, refraining from harming them.
If the right was accompanied by honoring God - the Almighty - and the most entitled and abuse coupled between lessons, and corruption in the land.
If the sisters are the links to the Muslim is, by honoring her, and jealousy it.
If the aunt was like the mother in the land and the link.
If the grandmother, or an elderly increased value to her children, and grandchildren, and all their relatives; there is hardly a given request, not discrediting an opinion.
And ordering the man not far from Idnyha kinship or neighborhood had the right of Islam-General of the palm of harm, ignoring the sight, and so on.
Muslim communities continue to sponsor these rights the right care, making women's value and has no effect when the non-Muslim communities

Then that women in Islam
Right of ownership, and leasing and sales, procurement, and other contracts, and have the right learning and education does not go against her religion but that the knowledge which is an obligation sin was leaving a male or a female.
Indeed, it is for men only with its special but not for men, or as unique to them without rights and provisions that will suit both of them, as detailed in Moadah.

It is honoring the women of Islam
Be safeguarded, including her, and keep their dignity, and protected from vulgar tongues, and eyes treacherous, and tyrannical hands; Vomrha veil and cover, and distance from the wanton display, and mixing with men, foreigners, and everything that leads to Vtantha.

It is honoring Islam has
Ordered husbands to support them, and the charity of intercourse, and beware of injustice, and abuse

And even the pros - also
That is permitted for a married couple to live apart, if not harmony between them, were not able to live a happy existence; is allowed to divorce her husband after he failed all attempts at reform, and when their lives become a living hell.



Dedicated to our sisters who died and harassed for our fault in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Arkan, Jingjiang, Chechniyah,Uzbekstan and may others place that are unknown to me.

May Allah forgive us for our inability and give us ability.

Great. Another Nigerian thread.

This thread might not last long, the reason being that the title is all caps. That's a big non-no these days.

Dan, if you can change the title to get rid of the all caps, that will help a lot.

Edit: I hadn't read the entire post, it's length reads like the first chapter of a rather long book. Having just gone through it, may I make a suggestion? Howzabout coming into the 21st century? Reading stuff from other cultures that were said way back when doesn't do you much good when you're trying to present your case that Islam is superior today. You're dealing here with people who aren't afraid to look up stuff themselves, and to embarrass the heck out of you when your obvious bias is revealed to be flimsy at best. Islam's treatment of women, according to recent press reports, isn't all that stellar either, so it appears.

I'm quite ready to accept that islam did indeed introduce some major improvements in the treatment of women - more than a thousand years ago, in a tribal late bronze age society that treated them not much different from cattle. Much of the rest of the world did move on though, and in this particular issue left most islamic countries quite a bit behind.
In a civilized society any woman has exactly the same rights as any man. Of course there's still plenty inequality around, for example compulsory military service in Germany is for men only, until recently women couldn't serve even if they volunteered ( the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional a while ago, I'm expecting that to backfire any day now in that women can get drafted too... )

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm quite ready to accept that islam did indeed introduce some major improvements in the treatment of women - more than a thousand years ago, in a tribal late bronze age society that treated them not much different from cattle.

I would see it more as somewhat of a return to the standards of the pre-Christian Roman Empire. The Romans were far more enlightened imo.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm quite ready to accept that islam did indeed introduce some major improvements in the treatment of women - more than a thousand years ago, in a tribal late bronze age society that treated them not much different from cattle.

I would see it more as somewhat of a return to the standards of the pre-Christian Roman Empire. The Romans were far more enlightened imo.

Or plenty other european more or less tribal societies before they converted to christianity and started the dark age

I hate to admit that the rise of Christianity to power in Europe coincides with the Dark Ages, but history will not be denied. It seems that combining the Christian religion with State power didn't do either of them any good. Reform helped a lot, and later changes both in the Church and the State helped bring an end to the Dark Ages.

They say especially Celtic society had a legal system not rivaled for many centuries since, but our own Germanic ancestors weren't too shabby in that regard either. It does seem like pre-Christian society was almost invariably better off.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

This thread might not last long, the reason being that the title is all caps. That's a big non-no these days.

Dan, if you can change the title to get rid of the all caps, that will help a lot.

Edit: I hadn't read the entire post, it's length reads like the first chapter of a rather long book. Having just gone through it, may I make a suggestion? Howzabout coming into the 21st century? Reading stuff from other cultures that were said way back when doesn't do you much good when you're trying to present your case that Islam is superior today. You're dealing here with people who aren't afraid to look up stuff themselves, and to embarrass the heck out of you when your obvious bias is revealed to be flimsy at best. Islam's treatment of women, according to recent press reports, isn't all that stellar either, so it appears.

Noted and edited!

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I hate to admit that the rise of Christianity to power in Europe coincides with the Dark Ages, but history will not be denied.

Seriously, I think it had far more to do with the Völkerwanderung, the subsequent fall of the western half of the roman empire and the ensuing chaos. It's not like everyone was converted at sword's point and at least in some cases the rise of christianity looks more like a result of the chaos than the cause.

Hello Dan, your thread is lengthy. I slept off when reading it. Take a clue from thabotizz- keep it simple. And current

Originally posted by Macallan:

Seriously, I think it had far more to do with the Völkerwanderung, the subsequent fall of the western half of the roman empire and the ensuing chaos. It's not like everyone was converted at sword's point and at least in some cases the rise of christianity looks more like a result of the chaos than the cause.

There is this study.

And let's not forget about the Viking attacks. They gave rise to the feudal system, which also made the concept of a state religion easier to enforce.

Originally posted by Y0Y0:

Great. Another Nigerian thread.

so? You have problems with Nigerians?
May i remind you we have more British And American thread in D&D.

Originally posted by jivelissie:

Originally posted by Y0Y0:

Great. Another Nigerian thread.

so? You have problems with Nigerians?
May i remind you we have more British And American thread in D&D.

I don't understand!

I don't see wrapping women in voluminous robes as honouring them. I didn't see any honour in the death of the princess either.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

I don't see wrapping women in voluminous robes as honouring them. I didn't see any honour in the death of the princess either.

So u said as your opinion; and nobody is going to attack your freedom of expression as far as it isn't offensive!

More then 1000 years ago, yes women in Islam enjoyed a high status comp[ared to other cultures. But now, compared to American and European women, Islam more or less treat women as chattle. Being forced to wear hot, full body clothing in the desert with temps in excess of 40C is downright barbaric and cruel.

Most groups have moved on in the initial list except in Islam where women in modern times are still second class.

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

Originally posted by jivelissie:

Originally posted by Y0Y0:

Great. Another Nigerian thread.

so? You have problems with Nigerians?
May i remind you we have more British And American thread in D&D.

I don't understand!

They have problem if your not English or American and not of a Religion that suits them also of one that does not believe in the Divine Clown :clown:
Other than that i enjoyed reading it

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Most groups have moved on in the initial list except in Islam where women in modern times are still second class.

Whats a first rate class woman then

Originally posted by Frenzie:

They say especially Celtic society had a legal system not rivaled for many centuries since, but our own Germanic ancestors weren't too shabby in that regard either. It does seem like pre-Christian society was almost invariably better off.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I hate to admit that the rise of Christianity to power in Europe coincides with the Dark Ages, but history will not be denied. It seems that combining the Christian religion with State power didn't do either of them any good. Reform helped a lot, and later changes both in the Church and the State helped bring an end to the Dark Ages.

I am not sure we could generalise about events spanning multiple millennia and several continents. Neither am I sure we could talk sensibly about separate Celtic or Germanic societies, or for that matter about Christian society.

Christianity came to power in Europe before the Dark Age, or less contentiously named the Middle Ages. A form of Christianity became a Roman state religion in 380 (and earlier Emperors clearly preferred Christianity), and there have been cogent arguments that this contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire abut a century later. In any case the armies that sacked and succeeded Rome were largely Christian as well.

In any case Christian sects that actively avoid political power rather than seek it out would in my opinion be more in the spirit of the early Christians than the sects that seek out political power.

This has very little to do with the original post, but it is hard to understand what that post is about.

Originally posted by jax:

A form of Christianity became a Roman state religion in 380 (and earlier Emperors clearly preferred Christianity), and there have been cogent arguments that this contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire abut a century later. In any case the armies that sacked and succeeded Rome were largely Christian as well.

In any case Christian sects that actively avoid political power rather than seek it out would in my opinion be more in the spirit of the early Christians than the sects that seek out political power.

If you care more about being devout Christians than about maintaining civilization (and the armies that come with it) then I'd say downfall is imminent.

But then, higher religiosity could also be the result of the civilization collapsing for other reasons. It certainly doesn't help to stop or reverse the process, at any rate.

Originally posted by jax:

In any case Christian sects that actively avoid political power rather than seek it out would in my opinion be more in the spirit of the early Christians than the sects that seek out political power.

There you go..render.... or go North.. if you are a coward.

But ....try to sway government on moral issues....

Originally posted by Frenzie:

If you care more about being devout Christians than about maintaining civilization (and the armies that come with it) then I'd say downfall is imminent.

Downfall I wouldn't know, but the Christian sects that have merged with the power structures of the world (e.g. Roman Catholicism) have managed better than the ones that didn't (e.g. the once great Church of the East). Initially Christianity was a religion for slaves, harlots, downtrodden, and especially the argumentative, rather than the emperors, bureaucrats, and power brokers.

I am not preferring either as such, that is not my business, just stating that what we today consider to be Christians are a whole other bunch than the Christians nearly two thousand years ago.

Hahaha,would say women in Islam are prisoners in there own home.In Nigeria,no coming out,always in all-covering robes,no education.Surprised to see our late president's wife in public(thought she was also in puda)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by jax:

Christianity came to power in Europe before the Dark Age, or less contentiously named the Middle Ages. A form of Christianity became a Roman state religion in 380 (and earlier Emperors clearly preferred Christianity), and there have been cogent arguments that this contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire abut a century later. In any case the armies that sacked and succeeded Rome were largely Christian as well.

The roman empire was hardly all of europe. Further north it took much longer for christianity to get anywhere ( where I was born it happened about 800 years later, and that wasn't the last pagan stronghold in europe either )

Not all Romans were Christians either, while there were missions to Barbaric Europe from an early age. The Churches in Europe have never been truly unrivalled. Rome only got rid of the Orthodox with the arrival of Islam. While they were beaten back from the continent, the Lutherans and the other reformers sprouted up.

Originally posted by jax:

I am not preferring either as such, that is not my business, just stating that what we today consider to be Christians are a whole other bunch than the Christians nearly two thousand years ago.

I think you are generalizing. The bible, apostles and post apostles were very clear that there was a hierarchy and indeed should be a hierarchy in Church. Some have opted out because of wrong doings with in Church. My perception is they look for a more localised authority because of this. They claim Bible directs them but in actuality it is just the pastor or possibly some council etc,etc. This probably won't be a popular opinion....

In many ways I find it easier to relate to the more worldly Christianity of today. The conflict between say liberal theology and conservative theology is not different from similar conflicts within or betwen political parties, and the conflict between the Pope and Patriarch would is reminiscent of similar secular conflicts. The early Christians on the other hand seemed extremely sectarian, with an ability to fight over (to an outsider) miniscule otherwordly details is worse than the most extreme Academics. I accept that Jesus being both God and human is central dogma to any Christian, but who today would care so deeply about how these two parts were mixed into one vessel, or whether Jesus was in attendance at the creation or not? These outcome of two questions established the history of Europe.

Originally posted by jax:

The early Christians on the other hand seemed extremely sectarian, with an ability to fight over (to an outsider) miniscule otherwordly details is worse than the most extreme Academics.

if I understand you correctly, not sure I do, I believe they were closer to life and times of Christ and knew heresy when they saw it. Many people's interpretation of that early history has been watered down and in some case changed. I read a few days ago about someone's idea on Gnosticism. Because they were zealots,should old Den take them seriously, when they in some cases did not believe in divinity of Christ. We are what we are. I don't get a headache over it. I do like to see religion discussed so much. I didn't expect that on this board. hmmmmm.

The Gnostics were and are at the fringe of Christianity, and maybe more to the point had minimal influence in Europe. For Christians Father and Son should be a given, with the Holy Spirit perhaps a little more iffy. But the sectarian conflicts in Europe in the first millennium were on less radical issues than that. Arians and others were excluded by Nicea, given that they considered the Son lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit least of all. This mattered politically as this was the first protracted religious civil war in Europe, and Nicean Rome was sacked by Arian barbarians. This were two sects both believing in the Trinity, but at least they were separated by the Nicean creed. Other divisions were more arcane, like how the Son was divine. This is where I start to lose touch with the mind of the early Christians.

Originally posted by keloda:

Hahaha,would say women in Islam are prisoners in there own home.In Nigeria,no coming out,always in all-covering robes,no education.Surprised to see our late president's wife in public(thought she was also in puda)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A good point!

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Originally posted by keloda:

Hahaha,would say women in Islam are prisoners in there own home.In Nigeria,no coming out,always in all-covering robes,no education.Surprised to see our late president's wife in public(thought she was also in puda)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A good point!

Gracias

For the benefit of that lost soul (Juggalo1) up in the frozen hinterlands of the globe. A first class woman is one who has the privilege of my company.Juggalo1. As women are treated kind of less in Islam I have not partaken of such prehistoric forays.

Originally posted by rjhow:

A first class woman is one who has the privilege of my company.

Beyonce and Rihanna inclusive?

Originally posted by jax:

This is where I start to lose touch with the mind of the early Christians.

You certainly are not alone. long story short. somewhere Newman said that once you make the apostolic connection to the Latin Church. The rest all goes away, as I understood him. I believe that. Everything becomes a point of faith for me. The Trinity especially can be come complicated. I've read Augustine on it and others and I will say understanding is for a better, smarter, man than myself. I read one apology, by a Messianic Jew, on it and it was the best I have read......It turns out was a oneness guy.....

LILITH AND EVE

I guess Adam had another wife!

Lilith was created independently from and equal to Adam, and this led to problems.

Not least of them arose because Adam always liked to be on top when making love. No doubt this was merely a symptom of deeper differences, but it was the issue that caused the rift in the end.

http://www.unicorngarden.com/bkshe4.htm

Originally posted by jivelissie:

Hello Dan, your thread is lengthy. I slept off when reading it. Take a clue from thabotizz- keep it simple. And current

Noted! Thanks.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

I don't see wrapping women in voluminous robes as honouring them. I didn't see any honour in the death of the princess either.

If I got u right u mean dressing of a thing! . Moslem women copied their mode of dressing from Mary, the Christ's mother. If u have never never seen it just knock at any Chatholic Church for her paint if u aren't. If u want condemn it, condemn both! Period.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

More then 1000 years ago, yes women in Islam enjoyed a high status comp[ared to other cultures. But now, compared to American and European women, Islam more or less treat women as chattle. Being forced to wear hot, full body clothing in the desert with temps in excess of 40C is downright barbaric and cruel.

They are no more than advertisement tool there; companies and hotels use young women to advertise their products. For instance, what does tyre advert has to do with women? Banks also use them to attract investors as in Nigeria. And when they start getting old the dispose them. This is no more than modern slavery! Western women I piety thee!!

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

More then 1000 years ago, yes women in Islam enjoyed a high status comp[ared to other cultures. But now, compared to American and European women, Islam more or less treat women as chattle. Being forced to wear hot, full body clothing in the desert with temps in excess of 40C is downright barbaric and cruel.

They are no morther advertisement tool there; companies and hotels use young women to advertise their products. For instance, what does tyre advert has to do with women? Banks also use them to attract investors as in Nigeria. And when they start getting old the dispose them. This is no more than modern slavery! Western women I piety thee!!

what are you implying?

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

They are no morther advertisement tool there; companies and hotels use young women to advertise their products. For instance, what does tyre advert has to do with women? Banks also use them to attract investors as in Nigeria. And when they start getting old the dispose them. This is no more than modern slavery! Western women I piety thee!!

You are aware they do the same with men? Put young, allegedly attractive people in ads, that is.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

They are no morther advertisement tool there; companies and hotels use young women to advertise their products. For instance, what does tyre advert has to do with women? Banks also use them to attract investors as in Nigeria. And when they start getting old the dispose them. This is no more than modern slavery! Western women I piety thee!!

You are aware they do the same with men? Put young, allegedly attractive people in ads, that is.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

They are no morther advertisement tool there; companies and hotels use young women to advertise their products. For instance, what does tyre advert has to do with women? Banks also use them to attract investors as in Nigeria. And when they start getting old the dispose them. This is no more than modern slavery! Western women I piety thee!!

You are aware they do the same with men? Put young, allegedly attractive people in ads, that is.

Ever heard about the Amazons?

They wore clothes, so they were cowards. That's Greek logic for you.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

They wore clothes, so they were cowards. That's Greek logic for you.

Since you've posted right after me, who is you, me?
If it's me, the day you'll understand culture, I'll be bishop or some shit alike.

The basis of this thread is a bit of a no-no. Women are second class citizens in Islam.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The basis of this thread is a bit of a no-no. Women are second class citizens in Islam.

dhimmitude- a demeaning Islamic policy towards these needing Islamic "protection", a policy aimed at humiliating and even persecuting them.

In Islam to be protected means to be reduced to a status of a slave. That is in Islamic culture there is no provision for equal suffrage. Women and non Muslims are "protected" that is treated differently, with less rights.

You absolute idiot. All the above mentions were from hundreds of years ago. Where as in the present day, you still stone people to death for adultery and homosexuality. And then you say we're barbaric.

Originally posted by MConor:

You absolute idiot.

That's racism!!!

What's racist about it? I made no comment on your race, nor your religion or ethnic background. At most, it's a personal attack, and at common sense, it's completely and utterly true. Your argument is as see through as glass, and I will be damned if I don't tell you.

But is against the forum's rules!

What is? Calling your argument stupid? That's not against the rules.

But you called me 'idiot'!

Because your argument is stupid

But what's that

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

But you called me 'idiot'!

Hey, if the Idiot fits.



One error though, there is no such thing as an 'absolute idiot'. There's always room for improvement. B)

Originally posted by MConor:

You absolute idiot. All the above mentions were from hundreds of years ago. Where as in the present day, you still stone people to death for adultery and homosexuality. And then you say we're barbaric.

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

But is against the forum's rules!

Indeed it is, it is a personal attack. If you hadn't preceded your post with "You absolute idiot." it would have been fine, but it is hard to find a more clear-cut case of personal attack than that. Don't do that again. Show that someone's argument is wrong or deluded or whatnot, don't call people names.

This thread is just an attempt at the OP to convince himself that his religion is superior to other religions by suggesting its superiority in a related topic.

Historically, Islam had given women greater equal rights compared to other cultures. Also, wearing a Burqa is not as oppressive and negative as Western cultures believe. Female clothing restrictions can insulate women from an unhealthy obsession with their body image. As a result, Muslim women are less likely to suffer from eating disorders or be objectified by society. The problem with Islam is that even though it may have helped elevate the status of women hundreds of years ago, it does not currently treat women completely equal to men. It struggles to adapt and change in a modern global context (and I do not mean conforming to Western values).

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Being forced to wear hot, full body clothing in the desert with temps in excess of 40C is downright barbaric and cruel.

Actually, thats quite wrong. That kind of clothing is designed for the desert. In those conditions, your worst enemy is sunburn and dehydration and that clothing is perfect to protect against both. The sunburn part is pretty obvious and once your inner layer of clothes is soaked in your own sweat you will fill better, while the outer layers prevents up to some point its evaporation. The cruelty is to force the women to kept that tradition once they settled.

As for the OP statements, is not that they are wrong, but were worded with deception in mind. Being a free woman in the ancient Greece or Rome was way better than being a woman in some Islamic countries today.

Originally posted by Immanis:

That kind of clothing is designed for the desert

True. But forcing them to wear it and designing it to help them is different. How many teenage girls do you know would choose to wear a full body cloak in the scorching sun?

Originally posted by MConor:

But forcing them to wear it and designing it to help them is different. How many teenage girls do you know would choose to wear a full body cloak in the scorching sun?

Thats because usually they are at 10 seconds from a nice shade and never in real danger. Put any in a desert for a couple of hours to give them a taste of the situation, then politely explain them that they are at a few days of the nearest oasis with only a bottle of water and everyone is responsible by their own survival, then give them the choice of clothing and we will see.

Incidentally, people in the desert don't speak often for the same reason (dehydration) and are expected to obey whatever the group leader says or fend by themselves (allow me to translate: go and die like a dog) and their opinion is valued by their experience (translation again: women and kids shuddup). Also if thats your whole lifestyle, you keep yourself busy enough trying to just survive and keep your group safe, so there is far less room for lenience with transgressions and the law usually is swift and ruthless.

Rings a bell?

Originally posted by redder0:

Also, wearing a Burqa is not as oppressive and negative as Western cultures believe. Female clothing restrictions can insulate women from an unhealthy obsession with their body image. As a result, Muslim women are less likely to suffer from eating disorders or be objectified by society.

Wearing a hijab can be seen more as a fashion statement, but there are issues with a burqa. They literally turn their wearers faceless. That makes other people look at them as objects, not as persons. That should explain why the burqa is in decline in areas where they used to be common.

Originally posted by Immanis:

Actually, thats quite wrong. That kind of clothing is designed for the desert. In those conditions, your worst enemy is sunburn and dehydration and that clothing is perfect to protect against both. The sunburn part is pretty obvious and once your inner layer of clothes is soaked in your own sweat you will fill better, while the outer layers prevents up to some point its evaporation. The cruelty is to force the women to kept that tradition once they settled.

That can barely be true for those black ones that seem to be the most popular in these parts. My order of preference for what to wear when it's hot and sunny goes something like this:

3. Black/dark blue/other dark color shirt.
2. Bare-chested.
1. Light-colored shirt.

But anyway, what you're saying goes contrary to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lived in a desert in Somalia when she was young, describes in Infidel. She describes how the women wore clothes that allowed use of their arms, didn't cover their faces, and allowed movements in general because they had to work. Only when they moved to cities and Saudi-Arabian style Islam took over was it even possible for women not to work and thus to wear burqas.

Also, if that were really necessary for the heat, men would also wear burqas. Saudi-Arabian men wear clothes with the same protective qualities without the dehumanizing aspects.

So yeah, basically I think you might be being misled by a lie perpetrated by the moderate or the accommodationists or some such.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

So yeah, basically I think you might be being misled by a lie perpetrated by the moderate or the accommodationists or some such.

Nope, mine was just an answer to Sanguinemoon's post regarding to the use of that much cloth in the desert with temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius, I never mentioned the burqa or any other specific piece of cloth, so I'm fairly sure of not been misled by anyone. As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she was probably living in an oasis or similar, not moving continuously through the desert, is that is the case is not really that different that the girls going to the beach because they were in no hurry to go anywhere and the tents or whatever they were living provide enough protection.

Also I've seen my small share of desert and I personally like to cover my face (you know, sand don't taste that good and your lips tends to crack). The issue here is not the clothes in particular but that they are forced to wear them and punished if they don't, the problem would be exactly the same if they were forced to wear bikinis.

Originally posted by Immanis:

As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she was probably living in an oasis or similar, not moving continuously through the desert, is that is the case is not really that different that the girls going to the beach because they were in no hurry to go anywhere and the tents or whatever they were living provide enough protection.

I don't think so.

Otherwise we're in agreement.

It is a question of coercian. As long as the choice is freely made and does not violate public ordnances concerning hiding identities it should be permissible.

Concerning the status of women who adhere to this custom all that needs to be examined is the place where this Culture has originated and the place where this culture is practiced in its purist form, that is Saudi Arabia. No Muslim will criticize Saudi law. In Saudi Arabia women must be accompanied by a male relative, women are not allowed to drive, and women are segregated from men. Legally a womens statement is not able to stand against a mans testimony in a court. This is the "freedom" that all Muslims wish to see spread to all the world.

it when you start having nightmares that needs translation,then you have to find faith