Very Disturbing: Honor Killing of Virgin - Page 6

iris427 · 01-28-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarasara

Yet you don't find anything wrong with that, because you feel that the woman is getting more respect by being allowed to be naked or semi naked in public (here im not talking street-wise, more magazine/tv wise) because it shows that she has freedom. Well, I don't view that as freedom really, more of thinking of a woman as a thing that can be bought.

I'm stating this to show you that although many people in the ME consider this to be wrong, some people in the US don't want to think of why we do think that way. I'm trying to point out that somethings some American people do which are considered "everydaÿ" or "normal" are just as surprising to us as "honor killing" is to you(Not neccessarily the bikini/playboy example).

Now you'll tell me that not everyone thinks that way but I can assure you that not everyone here agrees/does "honor killing" either.

ETA: Aren't working women in the US also payed less than men even if they're doing the same work?

[/i]

Sara, there have been many threads on NC.com about the objectification of women in American culture. Obviously many of us disagree with it. I don't think anyone here would say things are perfect for women in the US. I don't want you to have the impression that we American women think everything is ideal for women here or that we like the way women are portrayed in the media/Playboy etc.

Legally, men and women are supposed to make the same pay for the same work. That doesn't always happen in reality of course.

sarasara · 01-29-2007, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Sarsara, you seem to have some very negative pre-conceived notions of life in the USA, and you state your disgust at those ideas quite plainly here, yet, woe to the person who dares to saying anything that you perceive to be the slightest bit anti-islam, because then you cry a river and scream about people hating on your religion. I'm anti-religion, not just anti-islam. I think religion is the root of all evil in the world and we all (especially women) would be better off without any religion. Ask the christians here, I'm just as much anti-christian and anti-judaism as I am anti-islamic.

RedCatWaves, I have never told someone that I disrespected their religion because it doesn't hold the same beliefs as the ones I hold.

I never told anyone that they lived a "sad life".

Yet I have been told these statements before. One of them being told by you.
I see people here throwing a fit for no reason, but when I stand up to someone who tells me that they do not respect my religion, then that means I'm making a big deal?

And is it wrong for me to come to this thread and explain more about my religion since people have very false perceptions of it?

And is it wrong for me to question the way women are payed in the US when you questioned the way women divorce in Islam?

And is it wrong for me to say how I feel about porn when you say how you feel that we're stuck in the 10th century because we care about virginity?

And is it wrong for me to state why religion and why it works for me , when you stated your beliefs and I did not say anything to that, because I respected your way of thinking.

This is not particularly you.

But you were saying I "cried a river" when someone said a thing which is the slightest anti islamic, so I thought I would like you to see that there are many things which are said that I feel disrespectful to me but I don't start a fit over them.

geeky · 01-29-2007, 07:02 AM

Sarasara,

I did a little research. The laws I was referring to requiring 4 male witnesses 4 rape are in Pakistan, and have been changed only very recently this year. I thought it was general Islamic law. My mistake.

sarasara · 01-29-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Sarasara,

I did a little research. The laws I was referring to requiring 4 male witnesses 4 rape are in Pakistan, and have been changed only very recently this year. I thought it was general Islamic law. My mistake.

Oh, so that's why you kept telling me about the 4 male witnesses! Actually this is the first time that I knew it existed, though. Rape victims don't need any witnesses (neither male nor female).

Quote:

The claim that rape victims require four witnesses to seek justice for their case is untrue and a false lie propagated by those who either do not have any knowledge in Islamic law or want to "prove" a so-called weakness in the hadd laws. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient and the judge can invoke his judgment based upon takzir (his own discretion).

If a person makes an allegation of adultery against another person (male or female), only then he or she must produce four witnesses to support such an allegation: "And those who accuse chaste women [of adultery] and then do not produce four witnesses…."2; otherwise, he or she is guilty of slandering, which is a grave offense in Islam.

To insist that the raped victim must provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public.

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...sses-for-rape/

But what caught my eye while I was googling was that there were articles which were blocked, but there headlines seemed t be claiming that 4 male witnesses were needed.

And another which outraged me, was an article from the BBC News.

In the article they were changing the meaning of some verses of the Quran to the exact opposite of what they meant.

One of them was when they were saying that if a woman is raped and does not bring 4 male witnesses, she will be flogged 80 times in public.

The actual meaning of the verse is that if someone(male or female) accuses a woman of having pre/extra marital sex and does not bring 4 witnesses to prove that, this person will be flogged 80 times publicly for ruining the woman's reputation.

But if I didn't know better, I would have believed wha was written in on the article, especially being it from the BBC News.

Quote:

What was particularly outrageous in the law was that a woman who reports she has been raped will be charged for slanderous accusation and flogged 80 lashes if she is unable to prove the rape," she says.

"Under the huddud law you have to produce four pious male Muslim eyewitnesses in order to prove illicit sex has taken place and it's impossible."

I kind of felt weird when I read this, because when we do researches we're only supposed to use articles on the BBC or CNN website, "since they are from the few websites that we can trust to bring us the true and unbiased information." Ya, right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977446.stm

curlylaura · 01-29-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarasara

Quote:

What was particularly outrageous in the law was that a woman who reports she has been raped will be charged for slanderous accusation and flogged 80 lashes if she is unable to prove the rape," she says.

"Under the huddud law you have to produce four pious male Muslim eyewitnesses in order to prove illicit sex has taken place and it's impossible."

I kind of felt weird when I read this, because when we do researches we're only supposed to use articles on the BBC or CNN website, "since they are from the few websites that we can trust to bring us the true and unbiased information." Ya, right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977446.stm

The bolded quote was from from Zainah Anwar of Malaysian advocacy group Sisters in Islam, it was not the BBCs own interpretation of Islam.