![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Saturday, 30 Sep 2006
A funny(ie sad, pathetic, bordering on terrifying) new law in Bahrain says Female Bahraini university students must adhere to a certain dress code while on campus. For those who read Arabic, this is how detailed the new law is.For those who don't, this is me paraphrasing:
Clothes must not be transparent as not to show the body, must not stick to the body as to show the detials of its shape, or be so tight as to hint at the shape. Clothes must also not be short. This includes shirts and tops as well as dresses, skirts and pants.Clothes must also not have "wide openings" so as not to show bare skin. This includes skirts with slits, low cut tops and dresses or skirts that reveal the knee of the dress wearer, in any position, standing, sitting, or walking.The new law also prohibits accessories such as anklets, and hair died in "strange" colors. Women wearing full Abayas or loose dresses that cover the body, are not allowed to wear transparent ones which show the clothes underneath, or ones with slits that show clothes underneath which may not adhere to the modesty rules. Women are also not allowed to wear the face veil, accompanied with "excessive eye make up" that makes the eyes stand out attractively. Finally, no pants, shirts or tops with inappropriate writings or drawings on them are allowed.
They must be fucking kidding.
Dandash
September 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
So… what’s left to wear then? The article just described everything in my wardrobe (minus the face veil).
September 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
And you guys take a couple of steps backwards. Way to go!
September 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I never really thought of a t-shirt and jeans as being all that seductive.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
i’m intrigued, beyond the cultural oppression of women, as to why the 50% of the populations of these countries are so easilty cowed. I have to assume that enough of a proportion of women support such attitudes, or at least stay mute. When women of these countries realise that they actually comprise 50% of the people and will be able to coerce a fair proportion of males to support them, witholding sex would get my attention, then things could be out on a reasonable level playing field for both sexes.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
I think they should stop messing about and just ban women from Bahrain full stop.
September 30th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Valerie Says: “I never really thought of a t-shirt and jeans as being all that seductive.”
Not a teenage boy then, I guess? Some women really can fill out a T-shirt and jeans. Any time Lucy Liu wants to come over to my place in a T-shirt and jeans is fine by me.
For those of you who are prepared to read the Zionist press, an article on a new political party in Bahrain devoted to, to da, fighting for their right to party (and drink and wear jeans etc etc). Now there’s a political platform to die for.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060925&s=braude092706
September 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
I have a better idea: make all the guys wear opaque sunglasses and give them guide dogs.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
I think they should just say: Wear a fucking Burka or don’t come to uni… Sheeesh…
September 30th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
In a sick way, it makes sense. If a muslim woman is raped, she pretty much gets punished for adultry (the standards of prosecution are too high and or sick), and the male family members are then pressured into killing her. All in the name of Allah.
So facing this, making your women as ugly as possible may be the only way to protect them.
Or of course, Fundimentalist Muslims think of women as a step below slaves, and this is just another way for impotent retards to show off their power over them.
September 30th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Is this another way of saying “Put a bag over your head?”
September 30th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
They could have just shortened it down to:
Women must wear a potato sack and cannot wear make up.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:31 am
Hei,
Truth be told, some women can also really fill out a potato sack.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:05 am
SM, the sad part is not the fact that this “decency act” passed. The really sad part is reading the talkbacks to the AlArabia article… you should post the translation for some of those. scary.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:09 am
I grew up in a small Arkansas town, and girls couldn’t wear pants unless it snowed–and the snow better be deep!!
October 1st, 2006 at 7:19 am
And the influence of Iran’s lunatic theocracy over Shiite-majority Bahrain reaches a new height.
To Smarty — no, it won’t help. Muslim women in Bahrain will still be abused and raped and it will still be “their fault.” Nobody will be able to see marks and wounds, of course, so in fact it will be easier for them to hide abuse.
Few people ever talk about THAT aspect of this kind of forced hiding, but you can bet that the most misogynistic of the men in these societies take full advantage of their wives’/daughters’:
* bundling up to hide their bodies
* inability to talk to any male outside of the family
* fear of reprisals if they talk about being abused
*sigh*
October 1st, 2006 at 9:34 am
Carnicula,
I would say that a majority of women in these places agree to such laws, or mif not to this extreme, at least to the general spirit of them. Women’s opression is never so direct and blatant.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Hmmm. Dear Lord I hope such decrees are not contagious. I greatly value the time spent in jeans and a t-shirt. Hope the Bahraini women find their voices and object to this blatant violation of their rights.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
They ARE contagious, Juka, in the same sense that Islamism or terrorism is contagious, or democratic revolutions are contagious, or Western pop music is contagious.
All of these things (good, bad or neutral) are examples of fads that sweep regions or the globe.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
(The best thing you can do is to try to encourage the good fads and discourage the evil ones)
October 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Zvi Says:”They ARE contagious, Juka, in the same sense that Islamism or terrorism is contagious, or democratic revolutions are contagious, or Western pop music is contagious.”
Zvi Says:”All of these things (good, bad or neutral) are examples of fads that sweep regions or the globe.”
I think it is a little worse than that. Zakir Naik defends hijab on the grounds that if two women are walking down the street and one is in a miniskirt and one wears hijab, who is going to get harrassed? Well obviously I have to agree with the good Doctor on that one. The problem is that the more girls move to the hijab, the more the harrassment is concentrated on the few that do not. You could imagine a theoretical case where only one girl in all of Cairo wore a miniskirt ….. So the more girls wear it, the more pressure there is on those that don’t to wear it as well. The problem is, of course, that once all the girls wear a headscarf, there will be pressure for some to wear the niqaab and then pressure to wear a black niqaab, and then to never ever leave home at all. This is not just a fad. It is social pressure that will lead to a Taleban-style Middle East.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:35 pm
I say that women should just drop the silly facade of ‘clothing’ and walk around naked in Bahrain. If clothing is the issue, then walking around in nature’s glory should be fine, right?
October 1st, 2006 at 9:55 pm
I noticed they didn’t say anything about her shoes…
October 1st, 2006 at 11:21 pm
[...] In Bahrain, a new ‘modesty’ law imposes female university students further restrictions on their inalienable right to chose how to dress. [...]
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 am
wrt # 4, the reason 50% of the population submits to this is because they’re taught to from age five. That’s human nature and the nature of little kids.
Besides… When I was a college student (1950s) girls were not permitted to wear shorts on campus (there were also no blacks visible). So we (the west) should not crow in such a superior manner.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:47 am
Samething back in High School. And I live in America. Girls Dress code is strict. I went to public school. Their where where not ight pants allowed no starnge hair dye, not short shorts or tank tops, ect. What the hell are you trying to incinuate SM?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:37 am
Libyan Warrior.
There is a difference between High school and University.
High school students are teenagers even though they think themselves grown ups, university students are grown ups.
BTW Tell me, where in america do you have University (college) which enforce strict dress code?
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:55 am
Are they going to protest, or go to a court and fight for their rights?
In western countries Muslims are doing this, they are protesting and suing everyone and everything if something will not go their way .What stopping them now? Hypocrisy?
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:43 am
Well I am a Sophmore in College, and i like walking around in my boxers, but i wouldnt do it outside of my dorm room becuase I am fairly sure I would be arrested. So once again my rights have been violeted. I want to be a nudist. but I would be arrested if I went to wal-mart butt naked wouldnt I? Why cant I walk around Nude? this is a violation of my rights.
Also i would like to see mixed gender football teams. Guys and Girls are equal we should be allowed to playtackle football toghther. I would also like mixed dressing rooms as well. If we are to truley be a free society such things MUST BE ALLOWED. MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL. WE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME STOP SEXISM.
We have no right to question others about their cultural practices, and they have no right to question us about theirs.
Who are you to decide if teenages are grown ups? Why 17,18,19 year olds are all in college. They are teenagers arent they. Once again.
ISOLATIONISM IS THE KEY TO TOLERANCE. We are blessed to be miles away from the savages in the old world (Europe, Middle East, Asia) we are not linked we should keep to ourselves and they should do the same.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:44 am
ISOLATIONISM IS THE KEY TO TOLERANCE. We are blessed to be miles away from the savages in the old world (Europe, Middle East, Asia) we are not linked we should keep to ourselves and they should do the same.
That last part almost sounded sensible. If you had made a seperate comment with a different name, people might have thought you were serious
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:24 am
Libyan warrior
Your are a sophomore in college in US? That must be tragic for you to live in such an awful country where you rights are violated every day. Why don’t you move to KSA?
If you want walking around in your boxers at your college in US you can do that. It is only your own impression that you would be arrested. If you don’t try it you will never know.
If you want to go nude, go to nudist beach, there you could go nude to your heart delight.
Your say that your rights are violated. It is not your rights that are violated, you violate other people rights. Similarly if you steal and the judge sentence you to prison, your rights are not violated you violate other people rights.
You don’t advocate free society, you advocate anarchy.
We have right to question other people cultural practices if the other people, like you, question our cultural practices (see: your comments on Europe).
Furthermore you question views of SM, but because you do not live in Egypt you, according to yourself, have no right to question his views.
Also you do not live in Europe so you have no right to question Europe’s culture.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:40 am
Hi Ella
I hear what you are saying. lol. And you have a very intresting point. but see if we where to follow your way of thinking(or possibly mine) Sandmonkey would have no right to talk about bahrain. He wasnt talking about Egypt in this post he was talking about a country on another content. A whole diffrent race of people. Who he has nothing in common with. The Folks in bahrain are Muslims and Sandmonkey is a Coptic Chritian. if a Law like this was passed in Egypt he is more then welcome to speak about it. As far as not living in Europe. i have lived in Europe, I have many cousins who are half European. I understand many of the cultural norms. but thats besides the point all I am saying is if we as rational and civilized human being would like to honestly and hole-heartedly avoid this clash of civilizations, i suggest ISOLATIONALISM. Especially for America, i mean honestly what Buisness those the US have in the Middle East? Why is it supporting a country to whom which billions of my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of my fellow Americans is going to?
ISOLATIONALISM.
The Islamic faith tells the Muslims that they have no right to attack any nation unless a nation attacks them. We should call for a truce. We should stop the oppression and violence on both sides. If the current clash is to be avoided. From where I standthe west does not fair well in this confrontaition. While China and India both Nuclear powers who can attack the west, are smileing now, as soon as they see a opening they shall exploit it. north korea is unprodictable South America is as well. Iran, is gaining popularity, a coup could occur in nuclear pakistan anyday. All of this is a recipe for disaster. I say enough is enough. Send all Muslims back home to their countries, get western military might out of the Muslim lands, arrange a truce, give Kosovo to the Albanians, draw the boundries, strenghten western immigration. Stop concuming Mid-East oil. AND GET OUT OF THE CONFLICT. Thatswhat we need to do. If we dont They could very well be saying ALLAH AKBAR in NORWAY. That is if they are not already. the convert rates are stagering.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:42 am
Craig I have published under other names, and you have agreed to y stuff.lol. I do it on the Tunisians blog, as well as here.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
“The Islamic faith tells the Muslims that they have no right to attack any *nation* unless a *nation* attacks them. We should call for a truce.”
Unless that *nation* is (drum roll)… THE GREAT SATAN!
LM,
your logic is circular and it–coincidently–fails you.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Libyan Warrior Says:”i suggest ISOLATIONALISM. Especially for America, i mean honestly what Buisness those the US have in the Middle East? Why is it supporting a country to whom which billions of my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of my fellow Americans is going to?”
Gee, you don’t think perhaps, at the risk of sounding caustic, the fact that some Muslims came to America and left two gaping holes in downtown New York may have something to do with why the Americans are in the Middle East? George W Bush came to power on an explicitly isolationist platform. He refused to even get involved in the Israel-PLO peace process. It took an attack by some Muslims to change his mind. They all left us alone, I am sure we would be happy to leave them alone.
Libyan Warrior Says:”The Islamic faith tells the Muslims that they have no right to attack any nation unless a nation attacks them. We should call for a truce. We should stop the oppression and violence on both sides.”
So Muslims often say. However no one is perfect, not even Muslims. So it must follow that there has been at least one occasion on which Muslims have attacks another non-Muslim nation without provocation. Can you name me a single such instance in a single pre-1950 Muslim book - a history book or a religious studies text or whatever. When Muslims teach their version of Just War they must mention cases of what not to do. So can you name a case? And if you cannot, as I expect you can’t, can we agree that whatever Islamic law says on the subject of self-defence is irrelevant and has no application in the real world?
Libyan Warrior Says:”Send all Muslims back home to their countries, get western military might out of the Muslim lands, arrange a truce, give Kosovo to the Albanians, draw the boundries, strenghten western immigration. Stop concuming Mid-East oil. AND GET OUT OF THE CONFLICT. Thatswhat we need to do. If we dont They could very well be saying ALLAH AKBAR in NORWAY. That is if they are not already. the convert rates are stagering. ”
The convert rates are not staggering as it happens. Britain probably only has about 14,000 converts in total - in America about four fifths of all converts revert within a few years. Intermarriage is growing - a third of Muslim women in France marry non-Muslim men - and it probably usually leads to assimilation like it does for Jews.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
The Islamic faith tells the Muslims that they have no right to attack any nation unless a nation attacks them.
It’s really amazing what can be considered an “attack” to, isn’t it?
Danish Cartoons. A speech by the Pope. *sigh*
I bet if I passed wind in the presence of a muslim, it could be considered an attack and would justify a jihad against my country.
We should call for a truce.
As if anybody would fall for that trick again. What you should do, is make amends for all your past misconduct and offer guarantees that it won’t happen again in the future.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
The Islamic faith tells the Muslims that they have no right to attack any nation unless a nation attacks them
Like Indo Pakistani wars in 1971 and 1999 when Pakistan attacked India? And please don’t tell me that that Pakistan is not a muslim state.
We should call for a truce
You mean something like a truce stated in quran so that later, when they are ready, muslim countries or muslim terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda can attack the west or break the truce under any pretext. Don’t make me laugh.
There are moderate muslims but like SM wrote in one of his posts they are outshouted by islamists many of whom are living in the west.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Ella- what translation of the Quran are u referring to? Id love to see this “truce stated in the quran that can be broken under any pretext”, will you let me know the publishing house id like to check it out. And Actually the 1971 date is when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan, not the pakistan-India war…which by the by was about Kashmir so its about resources really. But yes still…i see your point. I guess.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
oh…and i love how Muslims attacked the West when America invaded Iraq..wait..something is wrong in that sentence.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Speaking of Iraq!
Saddam attacked Iran in 1981. Both muslim countries. Who violated Quranic principals there? Iraq or Iran!?
How about when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990? Who violated Quranic princiapls, Iraq or Kuwait?
Yep. 1) Iraq 2) Iraq
So, muslims should be thanking the US for invading Iraq, no? Bah. Nevermind. I know it doesn’t work that way. The Quran always works in favor of muslims, never against them.
Saddam violated the ceasefire with the US/UN for the first time only a matter of months after he signed it. Should I quote what the Quran says should happen to people who violate a treaty?
Nope, guess not. I’m sure it only applies to non-muslims who violate a treaty. Par for the course.
re: truce breaking
Quran 004.091
YUSUFALI: Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.
“restraining their hands” would be a typical truce. No guarnatees other than a an agreement to a cessation of hostilities. This verse explicits states that a truce is not sufficient. Opponents who offer nothing but a truce get this:
seize them and slay them wherever ye get them
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
In fairness, that verse follows this one:
Quran 004.090
YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
So a peace treaty is good enough. A truce is not. I wonder why muslims never seem willing to sign peace treaties, but instead only negotiate for a truce? :O
Israel is getting ready for the inevitable round 2 with Hezbollah as we speak, I’m sure. The Israelis know Islam well.
Saddam and his violations of treaty:
Quran 008.056
YUSUFALI: They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah).
Quran 008.057
YUSUFALI: If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.
Quran 008.058
YUSUFALI: If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.
Unfortunately, there seems to be an implication here that possibly God does love treacherous muslims, or that treachery against non-muslims is acceptable because they aren’t as important.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
“Muslims should be thanking the US for invading Iraq, no? ”
Why should Muslims thank the U.S for invading Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait? Muslims do- believe it or not- have the concepts of “state” and “nation” and “politics” they didnt see it as muslim on muslim, they saw it as too sovereign states fighting a war.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
laa harb,
Muslims do- believe it or not- have the concepts of “state” and “nation” and “politics”
Of course they do! These concepts are (nation and politics) are both explored in great depth in the Quran.
they didnt see it as muslim on muslim, they saw it as too sovereign states fighting a war.
Does the Quran make exceptions for sovereign states? No. So, what’s your point?
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:09 pm
I accidentally stumbled ona good chapter! Lucky me!
In regards to arab muslims killing black muslims in Darfur:
Quran 004.092
YUSUFALI: Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
None of that applies as the killing in Darfur is not accidental.
This is what applies:
Quran 004.093
YUSUFALI: If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.
Asta la vista, baby.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
I’ll take Radical Islamic Loopholes for $500, Alex
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Craig-
“How about when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990? Who violated Quranic princiapls, Iraq or Kuwait?
Yep. 1) Iraq 2) Iraq
So, muslims should be thanking the US for invading Iraq, no?”
it seemed like you were saying that the Muslim world (largely homogenous apparently) should be thankful for the invasion of Iraq because those darned Iraqis would not stop killing Muslims. Thats why I was saying that Muslims have the concepts of nation and state and dont ONLY see things in a religious light as you were implying…if “Muslims” were against the Kuwait war, it sure as hell wasnt because Iraq was violating Quranic principles…so what on Earth does America invading Iraq have to do with it? So..what WAS your point?
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:06 pm
“The Quran always works in favor of muslims, never against them. ”
Do you know of a holy book that persecutes its own believers? That would be barrels of fun,wouldnt it.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
laa harb,
it seemed like you were saying that the Muslim world (largely homogenous apparently) should be thankful for the invasion of Iraq because those darned Iraqis would not stop killing Muslims.
Atcually that bit was intended for LibyanWarrior and his claims that muslims never attack except in self defense. Considering the number of wars fought where muslims were on *both* sides of the conflict, I found it a bit of a stretch that he could actually believe that. I thought Iraq was the best example because Iraq attacked other muslim countries twice in 10 years.
Sorry if you didn’t get my point, I was just playing along with LibyanWarriors twisted reasoning. However, I do think that muslims should not defend Iraq’s actions, not just in those two wars, but at any point in Iraq’s recent history.
Well… I’ll leave that be.
Do you know of a holy book that persecutes its own believers? That would be barrels of fun,wouldnt it.
Wait… what did I say about “persecuting” it’s own believers? I pointed out a double standard, one for muslims and another for non-muslims. I think that is morally wrong, laa harb.
If you can find something in the New Testament where Jesus laid down a different set of rules fro Christians than for non-Christians, I’ll be happy to take a look at it. Off the top of my head, I don’t recall any such passages. In fact I can’t even recall anything from the OLD Testament, which is Judaism, that specifies something is only prohibted if the victim is a believer.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:51 pm
To touch on the other point I tried to make about Iraq,
it seemed like you were saying that the Muslim world (largely homogenous apparently) should be thankful for the invasion of Iraq because those darned Iraqis would not stop killing Muslims.
Iraq was a breaker of treaties. The US treated Iraq as the Quran specifies treaty breakers are to be treated. Shouldn’t muslims be happy that even non-muslims respect teh Quran so much they follow it’s teachings?
I’m pretty sure we can find more treaty breakers in the region. Iran violated the Vienna Conventions in every detail when they seized the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. The Vienna Accords are the mother of all diplomatic treaties.
Iran = covenant breakers.
Lets follow the Quran. So that they will learn. As the Quran says they must.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
laa harb Says:”Do you know of a holy book that persecutes its own believers? That would be barrels of fun,wouldnt it.”
Yes but some religions, Christianity and Buddhism for instance, are Universal religions with Universal rules that apply to everyone. Well Buddhism more than Christianity. Some religions, Islam and Judaism for instance, are tribal religions with some rules that apply to their own and harsher rules that apply to people outside the tribe. So Christian law has always punished the murder of Jews the same as the murder of Christians. At least in theory. Islamic law does not do the same. Muslims can use Islamic law to do whatever they want and always have. Christians have more problems doing that.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Dubai Bahrain and Abu Dhabi Just make me sick. Yalla a7san inshallah they will close ur da3ara and clubs and kick out prostitutes Cuz its f**kn discusting.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
ONE WORD: A777777777aaaaaaaaaaaaa
I am so fucking glad I dont live there, IGNORANT BITCHES.