I know in the UK, muslims want muslim majority counties to operate under Shariah Law. In Bondi, Sydney Jewish believers have a territorial wire around their suburb so they can live more freely on the Sabbath.
Should Australia allow religious customs to affect our local laws? I personally can see this type of thing getting out of hand - how far can it go?
A muslim woman is insisting on her legal rights, probably urged on by her husband. But, it is interesting to examine the right of women in Islamic courts. As quoted in this link: The Position of Women in Islam
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
The Legal Testimony of Women
Table of Contents
In Islam, a woman’s testimony is worth half the testimony of a man’s, as both the Qur´an and the Hadith state. The Qur´an says, “...if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of, that if one of the two women errs the other will remind her…” (Sura al-Baqara 2:282). Muhammad accounted for this rule by the deficiency of woman’s intelligence: Once the Messenger of God went out to a prayer place to offer the prayer of Greater Bairam or Lesser Bairam. He passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell- fire were you [women].” They asked, “Why is it so, Messenger of God?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “What is deficient in our intelligence and religion, Messenger of God?” He answered, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in your intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. “This is the deficiency in her religion,” he said.(1)
Commentators quote this hadith to support the fact that the woman’s testimony, in Islam, is worth half of man’s testimony.(2) The commentator Fakhr al-Razi speaks of the “forgetfulness of woman” referring to her being “damp and cold in essence”.(3)
I have read in answering-islam.org that men in Islam are very agressively sexually in their culture. The veil is there to put off other men from seducing their wives, going back to medieval days The wearing of the veil says to men that to be interested in this woman is very much against Allah. Whether this burka is so necessary in Australian culture, is the question.
I know from statistics that in France where there is a large muslim population, that 60% of the male prison population is Muslim, most of them in there for rape, or sexual offences. ( I have previously posted a link on this)
So, what do Christians do when we see obviously useless religiousl customs being insisted on, in our legal system? Does this woman have a good argument to wear the burka? Her lawyer argues that certain witnesses give evidence without being seen by the jury (protected witnesses etc) and under that basis this woman should be accepted wearing the burka. Is this a valid argument?
Jury members argue that they want to see her facial expressions in order to judge what she submits in evidence.
Once upon a time there was a man who was an oversexed psychopath and a manipulative control freak suffering from delusions. To control the people around him he formed a new religious sect. He created his own scripture and declared himself to be the prophet speaking the words of the only true god.
His scriptures were written down and in order to control his followers, he commanded them to spend their time memorizing them word for word, and pray to his god five times a day. To each other, the members of this sect had to be completely honest under pain of death, but to people of other faiths, they could lie, cheat, steal from and deceive them. Any member who fell by the wayside, or converted to another religion was to be killed.
He declared that women were the possessions of men. They were there only to satisfy the needs of man, sexual and physical, to bear children and spend their lives catering to the man who owned them. To ensure that they never strayed, he commanded them to cover their bodies and faces and they were not allowed the benefits of education, nor were they allowed to leave their homes except in the company of a male family member. Worse, some of these women were subjected to Veronique circumcision, a painful experience that left them unable to enjoy sex and to suffer agonies in childbirth.
He further declared that his god commanded all men to have four wives in order to satisfy and conceal his own lust. As men and women are born in approximately equal numbers, he had the problem of an excess of young men unable to satisfy their sexual urges. To deal with this, he told them to go on a holy war against all peoples who did not follow his new sect.
These young men constituted his warriors who he sent out to capture more lands, to steal the possessions of their inhabitants and, if the people living there did not convert to his sect, they were to be beheaded, men, women and children. Later, he realized that to kill all the people who would not convert to his sect was counterproductive, and so he allowed some of them to continue living on their land as long as they paid high taxes to him or became his slaves and their women concubines. Life was made so miserable for these people that many joined his sect in desperation.
He so controlled his followers that they continued to spread around the region conquering lands and killing, converting, or suppressing the inhabitants until their numbers increased into the millions. In order to persuade the young men to fight on his behalf, he promised them that if they died fighting for his god, they would be rewarded by going to Paradise where seventy virgins would be waiting for them - what an incentive for a highly sexed young man. How ridiculous! The body spiritual is incorporeal and incapable of sexual activity.
The name of this man was Mohammed; the name of his sect, Islam; the name of his followers, Muslims; the name of his scripture, the Koran. Though long dead, his legacy and teachings are still practiced in the world today with the object of converting the whole world to this pernicious sect where the laws laid down in his scriptures replace each country’s constitutional law.
These examples ( of the confining rules within both Judaism and Islam ) cry out to be told the truth that freedom in Christ is freedom indeed. No wonder that Jesus declared that He is the Truth - and that truth will set us FREE.
This is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I said in the ‘Christian influence’ thread:
I don’t want Australia going down the same track as the UK, where political-correctness has gone so crazy it is overtly anti-Christian and ironically heading pro-Muslim.
Kevin: thanks for the reminder, in the middle of all this talk about politics, that there are bigger things at stake.
Ramadan begins on 11th. Christians are urged to pray for the muslim world for these 30 days. There are many muslims who seriously seek God, but need of course to have their eyes opened to the truth about Jesus, whom they call ‘Issa’ (I think). There are booklets called ‘30 days of prayer for the moslem world’.
Please update this thread with anything you find on the status of Burka’s in Australia. Indeed, any matters of ‘Islam’s progress’ in our country could make there way here please.
Hi Kevin,
I heard about them through church, where they are expected to be available this Sunday at $5 each.
Or they can be ordered through this website:http://www.30-days.net/
Dont know who produces them
Eternity Newspaper, Wednesday, 28th July 2010 - Peter Riddel
Burqa Ban Debate Heats Up
At 1.5% of the population, Australia’s Muslim community is somewhat smaller than those of many European nations, such as France (10%), Netherlands (6%), Belgium (3.6%) and Britain (3%). It is also generally a younger and more ethnically diverse community, compared with France, Germany and Britain where North African Muslims, Turks and Pakistanis respectively are particularly prominent. Nevertheless, trends among European Muslim minorities usually also emerge among Australia’s Muslims, though somewhat later. So do debates that surround these Muslim minority communities of Europe.
One debate that won’t go away in European countries concerns Muslim women who wear a face veil, in the form of the niqab (which reveals the eyes) or the body-length burqa (a full face covering).
In April Belgium’s lower house of parliament banned face-covering Islamic dress in public. The northern Spanish city of Lleida also recently barred women from wearing such veils inside municipal buildings. France is likely to pass such legislation, with a similar push in some other European countries.
The debate is fiery at times, with both Muslims and non-Muslims internally split on the issue. A Swiss Muslim named Zeina has authored a book, “Sous mon niqab”, about her life wearing the niqab. “Suddenly I wasn’t more than a kind of shadow without name or identity. I also lost my face”, she wrote.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, one of Britain’s mYet some prominent groups stand opposed to a ban, such as the Council of Europe, a leading human rights institution, and Amnesty International.
The debate on veiling has recently reached Australia’s shores. In early May, in the wake of the Belgian ban, Liberal Party Senator Cory Bernardi called for a ban on the burqa, making reference to a thief who disguised himself in a burqa during an armed robbery. Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott, while not giving unqualified support to Bernardi, commented: “I think a lot of Australians find the wearing of the burqa quite confronting and I wish it was not widely worn.”
Fred Nile, Christian Democratic Party member in the New South Wales State Parliament, has introduced a bill to ban the burqa in public places, modelled on Belgium and French laws.
No sooner did such calls for a ban emerge than vocal opposition was heard. The leftist greenleft.org.au website responded with accusations of “racist fear-mongering”, commenting that “A much bigger threat to Australian secularism [than Islam] is the high number of conservative Christians in powerful government positions, such as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Abbott and Bernardi himself, who is a devout Catholic.”
The burqa debate may just be the tip of a large iceberg centring upon ongoing discomfort between Muslim and non-Muslim communities in Western countries.
The burqa issue enables those concerned with a growing Muslim presence to make a stand. While a challenge to other features of Islamic faith and culture are liable to attract accusations of racism, challengers to the burqa are more likely seen as champions of women’s rights.
Though numbers of Muslim women wearing the niqab or burqa in Australia is miniscule at present, the debate surrounding this subject is likely to increase with the steady growth in Australia’s Muslim community.
Dr Peter Riddell is Dean, Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths
Bible College of Victoria
I know a female friend who went en-route to Dubai and in some places, she had to wear a burqa even though she wasn’t Muslim at all. I normally disagree with Fred Nile but he’s bung on regarding this issue - burqas when uncontrolled are an affront to democracy and women’s rights.
Dave L. The best compact info, and up to date, I have read is a booklet derived from ” Ten Things Everyone Needs to know about Islam” By John L Esposito. It was prepared for a recent Interfaith conference held at North Sydney. I was unable to go, but received a copy from the Columban Mission Institute at ACU Strathfield. Phone 9352 8013 and E-mail (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a moment.
Looking at this particular situation from a cultural perspective. And bear in mind that this is a limited alternate view, not a full opinion.
She said
“It’s not that I’m being funny or obstinate or whatever, it’s just that I’m feeling uncomfortable to uncover in court in front of all these people,” she told The Australian. “I’d probably say the wrong things because I’m not used to uncovering in front of men.”
When someone goes into court to give testimony, I imagine one would feel a little exposed personally. So one would wear clothes that are more *protective* than normal - the well-presented suit etc. But she is being asked to dress in a manner that is more *exposing* or less *protective* than she is used to in everyday life. I find it quite plausible that that might make her feel uncomfortable. There is a lot of cultural relativity in clothes, and how concealing they should be. I’m trying to think of an equivalent situation for Western women. Being required to testify in a swimsuit maybe? No, too extreme. Or without makeup perhaps?(lol) No, too trivial.
Nonetheless (end devil’s advocacy) her stand is not helpful for our justice system. She says she can express her opinion perfectly well. That’s not the full issue - the court has to assess her reliability. If the prosecution decides not to call her if the judge rules against her application, that denies evidence to the court, and provides a precedent which can be used in the future. Giving evidence from a closed room is making rather questionable (imo) use of a provision which is set up for genuinely vulnerable witnesses, and would have imo about the same devaluing effect on the evidence as the burqa in open court. So, what if the judge rules that she cannot wear the full face covering, and must give witness in open court? I’ll leave that for pondering. I wonder how she knew she could ask for a judge’s ruling on this in the first place?
(edited for tone)
Just had another think about what I wrote about clothes and culture, etc. and perhaps that’s completely from a female point of view, and might only apply to women. I’m no psychologist, just trying to think: how would one feel?
Following on from your original post about the testimony of women
being worth half that of a man :
Have you heard the ads that have appeared on 2GB over the last few days
that tell of a case in the middle east ( UNITED ARAB EMIRATES * ) who was
raped by 5 men. When she went to the police, the female victim ended up in
gaol for at least 12 months - for having sex outside marriage - whilst the
five rapists are free to walk about ( and plot their next evil rape ). What
kind of Allah do they think would condone that stupidity ? Obviously, one
without the love of Jesus. And why do I seem to never hear any condemnation
of these constant incidents that occur in Muslim countries from our local
Muslim communities ? And it’s also very hard to find many references in our
local media.
Thank goodness for the internet - or else we would be mostly in the dark.
Or is this just another case of out of sight - out of mind ?
Interesting that Dawkins doesn’t go to the lengths of wanting the burqa banned. You’d think he’d go all the way as the burqa indeed restricts womens’ freedom of choice in dress.
Fury As Dawkins Compares Burka To Bin Liner - Ninemsn Aug 11, 2010
Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins has re-ignited the debate over Muslim headscarves in Britain by referring to the burqa as a “full bin-liner thing”.
The 69-year-old British author and scientist made the controversial remark in an interview with a radio station.
He also spoke of his “visceral revulsion” when he sees women wearing the traditional Islamic clothing, he told Radio Times during the interview.
Professor Dawkins later refused to retract his comments, claiming that the burka represents “a symbol of the oppression of women”, the Daily Mail reports.
He did not call for the UK to follow the French in banning the burka, as he said such legislation would not be in Britain’s tradition of individual liberty and freedom of choice.
The French parliament voted last month to ban the burka and the niqab, a piece of cloth which covers the face, from public places.
Muslim groups have slammed Dawkins’ claims.
“i think it is ignorant and Islamaphobic,” a spokesman from the Muslim Association of Britain was quoted as saying.
“It is a woman’s choice if she wishes to wear a burka, a niqab or not. Why does it matter to this man what a woman is wearing?”
It is not the first time Professor Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, has attracted criticism for his views on Islam.
In 2008 he said: “It’s almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because you are accused of being racist or Islamaphobic.”
The radio interview was conducted ahead of the release of his new documentary arguing for the abolition of faith schools in Britain, entitled Faith Schools Menace?
I wonder, should Sydney Anglican Church inform the public on the true nature of Islam in Australia?
Thank goodness for the internet - or else we would be mostly in the dark.
Or is this just another case of out of sight - out of mind ?
I was under the impression people mostly know, but don’t want to say.
a case in the middle east ( UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ) who was
raped by 5 men. When she went to the police, the female victim ended up in
gaol for at least 12 months - for having sex outside marriage - whilst the
five rapists are free to walk about
I’ve heard of worse.
What kind of Allah do they think would condone that stupidity ? Obviously, one without the love of Jesus.
Two points:
1. As I understand it, it is honor / dishonor rather than good / evil, that underpins their values /law /morals /ethics (not sure of the right word to use here). That seems I think to be the root of this sort of decision.
2. Love proceeds from the triune God, from the love of the Father for the Son (and possibly the Spirit). So yes, their Allah (if such a being existed) should therefore be lacking in love, as love could not be part of his unitary nature.
Ros Burgess said, about knowledge of the true state of Islam in historical and behavioural ways:
“I was under the impression people mostly know, but don’t want to say.”
Ros, I find many people know Muslim behaviour is not good, worldwide and historically…
....but also there are a lot of Australians feel that Islam is similar to other religious organisations - just another religion. The latter group appears to feel that it is racist to ever criticise the Muslim culture/religion. That this is an unfair criticism.
Many of this latter group seem to be ignorant of what Islam does and has done, and what kind of man began the sect in the first place.
I feel the Anglican Church is loathe to make strong criticism of Islam publicly. I don’t know that they are fulfilling a responsibility to do so?
Sorry to say, but some Anglican leaders need to speak out on this topic, and tell the truth, to the unwitting public.
”....but also there are a lot of Australians feel that Islam is similar to other religious organisations - just another religion. The latter group appears to feel that it is racist to ever criticise the Muslim culture/religion. That this is an unfair criticism.”
Really?
Good bloody grief….
Ken, just go onto non-religious websites like Yahoo and the News-controlled websites to see that the majority do indeed criticise Islam (not just the burqa). I doubt they would feel it is racist to criticise Islam either.
It is ironic to see sydneyanglicans.net as the ONLY place with a majority against the burqa ban.
I find that the only semi-valid reason for opposing a burqa ban is the ‘slippery slope argument’ - if you ban the burqa what’s to stop say Christian things from getting banned in the future. I’ve strongly used this argument against mainly Chinese people with a huge dislike of the Falun Gong, but the burqa is different - it is far more confronting to the public than any other religious expression I’ve seen. Thus, the slippery slope reason is tenuous at best to me.
Note that the judge wanted the jury to be able to assess the woman’s evidence. The woman has worn the niqab for 18 years. The niqab is different to burqa as you can see the eyes. What will happen now. I would guess she will not want to appear - what will the judge do then.
Canada has been having problems at airport security - very often Muslim women are allowed through with no check of them to their passport etc.
So we have women forced to wear these clothes by their husbands and other woman who want to wear them for their own modesty etc.
If we ban (is that just the burqa and not the niqab or both) HOW will we police it. Would you want to be the officer invading a women’s modesty.
Ali’s book may be worth reading on problems when Iran did have a ban back in 1930s A harrowing history – Iran: My Grandfather by Ali Alizadeh
Also Perhaps some Christian head coverings should also be banned and why not those ghastly hoodies as well.
BUT something needs to be done for security concerns. Surely a woman passport officer in a secure room should be allowed to check people etc.
Bikies have to remove crash helmets to enter banks - perhaps those dressed in concealing outfits can only be allowed access to ATM
Hi Dad,
thanks for finding that. Interesting questions. I’m still largely undecided… my gut says “BAN THEM” but I’ve become very suspicious of my gut lately.
Arthur, I have not given my opinion on whether the burka should be banned, actually.
But, I agree with you that it represents something undesirable. (It is difficult to ban something which is a tradition, or part of the culture, although the Qu’ran apparantly doesnt mention the wearing of it, going on other sources I have listened to. )
I find it an undesirable trait of the Muslim culture, because I personally find the macho side of Islam objectionable, armed as I am with the knowledge of God that is freely available in Scripture.
My initial web links (which are not the links you mentioned above) give, I agree, a good picture of the origins of Islam, its soiled prophet, and the subsequent subjugation of women which has become a part of the culture of parts of Islam. Have you read the first two quotations I posted?
I think the wearing of the burka is symbolic of the subjugation of women which is part of the culture of Islam. And also that Australia doesnt share that view of women. I think Islam should reform, similar to what happened in Islamic countries such as Turkey.
If this is a subject someone is keen on, they should definitely pick up a Koran and read it. Chapter 4 on Women is just plain amazing! My eyes nearly popped out of my head when I read 4:38.
38 Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth: and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.
But watch out for versions that try to edit it and soften it up.
[4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, ** and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD’s commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.
[null]Abuse victim 'tried to kill warden'The West Australian[{}]“L” said he had been brought up in a Christian family, but after being sent to the Anglican hostel, he “saw the hypocrisy of the church” and had no faith since then. Now aged 52, he also told the inquiry he had been an advanced “A student” in his early ...
[null]Jean Pakter Dies at 101; Women's Health AdvocateNew York Times[{}]Abortion was still illegal during Dr. Pakter's early years in public health, and she had the task of compiling reports about the commerce in abortion. These reports provided some of the few reliable estimates in the country about the number of women ...
[null]Is the Church Becoming Less Catholic?New York Times[{}]That said, there is more to the Catholic Church's position on abortion than Maureen Dowd cares to acknowledge. The church views abortion as the murder of innocents and thus as an absolute evil, so “absolute intolerance” is not an inappropriate response ...
[null]Does It Mean Anything that a Record Low Are 'Pro-Choice'?New York Times (blog)[{}]Asked to pick one of the two labels applied to the abortion debate, a full 50 percent said they were pro-life, whereas only 41 percent said they were pro-choice, down from the previous low of 42 percent recorded in May of 2009. Republicans are the most ...
RSS Feed