The dangers of the Niqab and Burqa

First off, let’s get our definitions straight here.
Niqab:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg
Burqa:
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/burqa_afg_s.jpg
So, there was this wild situation where Tamera Shehat—a 26-year-old guy from Cairo—was actually at his own wedding when one of the guests realized his bride was actually a dude! When Tamer finally confronted him, the guy admitted he was really an 18-year-old named Ahmed Abo Zeid. Apparently, he tried to get gender reassignment surgery but the doctors wouldn't clear him, so he just threw on a Niqab and started pretending to be a woman. His whole plan was to marry Tamer and then reveal the truth afterward to convince him to go through with the marriage. Well, it backfired big time—he ended up Uhapsen and got slapped with 45 days in jail for fraud.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-13762,00.html

Thank God I’m not Muslim, seriously. I mean, when you see stuff like this:
http://www.superkaratemonkeyfist.com/niqab803_3616.jpeg
how are you even supposed to tell if someone hiding under a ninja mask looks like this:
http://home.planet.nl/~stikf013/Meppen/apple/ugly6.jpg

Some guy in Egypt really messed up big time...

What does being a "real woman" actually mean in Islam? Or... what even is that concept?

dominikx10 said:What defines a woman in Islam? ???

Dominikxe, listen, a Muslim woman doesn't actually have to wear a niqab or a burqa.
For Muslims, wearing anything short, tight, or see-through is considered forbidden. Men aren't allowed to wear silk or gold, and women are supposed to cover everything except their face, hands, and feet up to the ankles.
Women should stay away from men's clothing, just like men shouldn't be wearing women's clothes.

I don't see anything wrong with dressing modestly; I mean, even nuns cover up because Christianity calls for modesty too... and personally, I really don't care how anyone chooses to dress, or if they want to go out half-naked... but, honestly, it’s just plain rude to mock someone because of what they choose to wear.

Umpo, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam, and as I've already pointed out, so is cross-dressing... so, looking at the text you posted, I don't see anything there that suggests the person is behaving like a devout Muslim believer...🙄

Also, I feel like it's become totally acceptable in the West for gay men to disguise themselves as stunning women... I mean, even in those old soap operas, you could see "glammed-up cats" (if you know what I mean), where an average viewer would never suspect they were actually men... so, it's not just about ninjas and wrapping yourself up to trick people.😬

Someone did a pretty good job editing this last round photo in Adobe Photoshop... and it's perfect evidence for all those people who claim humans evolved from monkeys.👍

Sarah Miller said:women should really cover everything except their faces, hands, and legs down to the ankles.

man... even a short t-shirt is too much...😲

I mean, I’m mostly on board with what you’re saying... just don't take it to the extreme. People ought to dress with some decency... rather than this constant display of indecency everywhere we look...👎

dominikx10 said:I mean, I guess I'm mostly on board with what you're saying here... but we shouldn't go overboard or anything... people really ought to dress with a bit more decency... instead of having this constant indecency popping up everywhere...

Well, hey, at least we can finally agree on something for once!🙂

UmpaUmpa Anthony Perez9 said:First off, let's get our definitions straight.
Niqab:
[Image Link]
Burqa:
Just a photo of someone in a Burqa. Hard to say much more than that.
Some guy from Egypt really messed up...

Just riding around and stuff. legal ban I’m all for covering women up in trash bags whenever I get the chance.

It’s pretty pathetic watching natural beauty get suffocated by all these rules taken straight out of some supposedly God-given book.
Even the Bible isn't an exception when it comes to its contempt for women, though that whole era is mostly behind us now that the clergy doesn't run the show anymore.

If a woman isn't going to cover up, she might as well just buzz it all off. But then again, if looking like that isn't her vibe, well, there's always shaving. Let them cover up..
(7) Men don't need to cover their heads either; that image is just a reflection of God's glory."A woman is the glory of a man. For man is not of the woman, but woman is of the man. And man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man." (9)
1 Corinthians 11

Anonymous said:Even the Christian Bible isn't immune to this disdain for women, even if those old practices have mostly been left in the dust since the clergy lost their grip on everything.

"1. If a woman does not cover herself, let her cut her hair; but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, let her cover herself.

2. A man should not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
1 Corinthians 11

Man... 🙂 such a little troublemaker...

1. Right before that quote, it actually says:
Every man who prays or prophesies with an uncovered head dishonors his head. Likewise, every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.
So, this whole thing is specifically about how people behave DURING PRAYER AND PROPHESYING.

2. And then, further down in the passage:
But in the Lord, neither is woman without man, nor man without woman; for as woman is from man, so also man exists because of woman; and all things are from God.

Bosanka said:I don't see anything wrong with dressing decently—even nuns cover up because Christianity finds modesty important...

🙂 Uniforms for different Christian orders really just reflect the ideology, the era, and the place they started. Like, take the Franciscans—they wear this late Medieval/early Renaissance Italian peasant style. It’s kind of like how Kerloz described it in those Glembay stories—that Angelika isn't a Dominican, she’s more like a court lady from the 1300s. And the actual Dominican nuns? That order popped up in the 13th century. Who knows, maybe an order starting today will be carrying Gucci bags in 200 years! LOL. Anyway, nuns aren't strictly obligated to cover up, and honestly, they often don't, but they definitely aren't out there wearing mini-skirts and leggings.

Bosanka said:Umpa, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam, and like I said before, wearing clothes of the opposite gender is too... personally, in the post you shared, I don't see anything suggesting the guy is a devout Muslim...🙄

Well, one way or another! One poor guy found out right before the wedding that his bride was actually a groom. Can you imagine if they had actually tied the knot? Would he even dare admit publicly that he married a man? The guy lives in Egypt, which is a super patriarchal society...

Bosanka said:Also, I want to say that in the West, it's become totally okay for men with certain inclinations to camouflage themselves as stunning women... even in old soap operas, you could see "glamorous ladies" (read: cats) where a regular viewer would never suspect they were actually men... so, it's not just about ninja moves and wrapping things up to trick people.😬

That's a whole different story. In the West, it's a relatively small issue. But man, I've heard some horror stories from people who visited brothels in the Far East. Every second girl is actually a ladyboy, and they are so hard to tell apart that experienced guys sometimes have to check for an Adam's apple first. Brrrr... Gross....

By the way, one of the Bond girls was trans—Carolina Cossey, who was in For Your Eyes Only, one of the women in the bikini during that pool scene in Spain.

Bosanka said:Someone did a really good job editing that last photo in AdobePhoto... and it's perfect "proof" for those who claim humans evolved from monkeys.👍

Probably is—honestly, it’s just for show, the pic doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying.

dominikx10 said:ccc... 🙂 little troll...

1. Before that quote, it says:
Any man who prays or prophesies with his head uncovered brings shame upon his head. Likewise, any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame upon her head.
So this specifically refers to behavior during PRAYER AND PROPHESYING.

I don't know what you're getting at. That a woman doesn't need to cover her head after prayer? That's not the point. The point is the hierarchical relationship where the woman is positioned below the man in this "explanation." In "God's presence" during prophecy or prayer, the woman clearly holds a lower status than the men.
How can this kind of backwardness even be promoted today? If that's your thing, fine. Personally, I think it's shameful and regressive.

2: Following the quote said:Yet in the Lord—neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman! For as the wife is to the husband, so is the husband to the wife; and all things are from God.

That doesn't change the core issue at all.

Want the whole passage? Here:

Wearing Veils
#11 Be my imitators, just as I am Christ's. (2) I thank you for remembering me in everything and following the traditions as I handed them down to you. (3) But I want you to know: Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. (4) Any man who prays or prophesies with his head uncovered brings shame upon his head. (5) Likewise, any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame upon her head. It is the same as being bald. (6) If a woman does not want to cover herself, let her have her hair cut; but if it is shameful for a woman to cut or shave her hair, let her cover herself. (7) A man need not cover his head, for that is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not from the woman, but the woman is from the man. (9) And the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. (10) Therefore, the woman should have authority over her head because of the angels. (11) Yet in the Lord—neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman! (12) For as the wife is to the husband, so is the husband to the wife; and all things are from God. (13) Judge for yourselves: is it right for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (14) Does not nature itself teach us that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair? (15) And it is a pride for a woman to have it, for her hair is given to her as a covering. (16) If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no such customs, nor does the Church of God.

What kind of "profound wisdom" is hidden in this Bible verse?

---> the man is the woman's head,
---------------> Christ is the head of every man,
-------------------------> and God is the head of Christ.

See the hierarchy?
It’s establishing a twisted dynamic where the woman is placed far below the man. Or, at least, it's a "God-sanctioned" validation of the social status that existed back then.

The man is the image and glory of God (man is created in God's image) and shouldn't cover his exalted, God-near head, while the woman is merely the man's glory, created for him rather than him for her. She has to cover her head out of shame, supposedly so the angels won't be tempted (?). The woman is beneath the man, just as the man is beneath Lord Jesus-God—meaning she is infinitely lower!
*****************

At the end, it says:

Even in the eyes of the Lord—there's no woman without a husband, and no husband without a wife! Because as a woman is to her husband, so too is the husband to his wife; it all comes from God.

It’s basically an argument for why men and women shouldn't be single, right? How does that "cancel out" the way women are being devalued in this whole passage?
It’s just some clever wordplay to muddy the waters so you don't notice how women are being shoved way down the hierarchy here.

"...and it all comes from God"
That’s not a value judgment. Animals are "from God," too.

Are you really judging whether it's improper for a woman to pray to God naked?
Not at all. It’s hardly a scandal. There's nothing wrong with it. 🤣

(14) Doesn't nature itself teach us that it's shameful for a man to grow his hair long? (15)
What nonsense. Since when did "nature" decide men have to have short hair???

But for a woman, long hair is a point of pride because it serves as her veil. (16)
So a woman gets hair instead of a veil? A pendant? Some women actually prefer short hair. Is that really such a huge sin or against nature?? 😕

If anyone wants to argue, we don't have those customs, nor does the Church of God.
This whole section feels like one big argumentative spat. And how arrogant of the author to claim he isn't interested in arguing or even in God's churches. A real saint, right? Early Christian sects spent endless time bickering over their narrow-minded dogmas. Sure, they didn't have a habit of arguing. 😍

Here is a more detailed look at the Christian-biblical view of women:
(In the Quran, there's less theoretical degradation—though Arabic "scholars" put it together 500 years later—but it shows up much more in Muslim practice, which is pretty obvious to anyone watching a mosque.)

http://www.angelfire.com/scary/svetopismo/24.html

Last Update: Monday, December 19, 2005. 10:22am (AEDT)
Unholy undies adorning a rabbi's tomb
Hundreds of Young Israeli Women looking for husbands have been placing their underwear on The tomb of a venerated rabbi in the hopes that their marriage prayers will be answered.

Authorities have collected around 400 pairs of knickers and Bras fra The grilles of The tomb's window and on nearby trees, The New York Times reported.

According to Jewish tradition, anyone who is unmarried will meet their soul mate and marry within a year if They visiti The Final resting Place of Rabbi Yenothan Ben Uziel in northern Israel.

but Rabbi Israel derati, who is in charge of protecting holy sites in the north, has told the newspaper the women's prayers will go unanswered.

"Having consulted with the chief rabbis, I can say with certainty that not only are these women guilty of a profanity but they will also never gain benediction," he said.

- AFP

charged with preserving the final resting place of Rabbi Yenothan Ben Uziel in The Amuka region of northern Israel , The New York Times reported on Sunday.

Just let me push back on you for a second there. 😬

Long story short.
The New York Times reports that hundreds of women searching for husbands are leaving their laundry at a respected rabbi's grave, all hoping their prayers for finding "the one" actually come true.
However, Rabbi Israel derati, who handles the protection of these sacred sites up north, mentioned after talking things over with the council of rabbis that these women are basically committing sacrilege and that their prayers aren't going to be granted.

dominikx10 said:What defines a real woman in Islam? ???

Honestly, I feel like one of the biggest turning points back in 2005 was when France passed that ban on wearing religious symbols in schools.

Besides, everyone keeps talking about "decadence" everywhere you look, but this whole situation goes way deeper than just that. There’s a massive layer of psychology involved here—stuff like sexual manipulation, the fight for equality, freedom of choice, beauty, power dynamics, and all that other heavy stuff... which is exactly what the women who choose to cover up are being denied access to.

UmpaUmpa said:http://www.news.com.It looks like you might have sent an incomplete message! Did you mean to ask about something specific, or was that just a typo? I'm here whenever you're ready to chat./story/0,10117...-13762,00.html

Does this happen to have anything to do with what went down recently? The unrest is really starting to pick up, isn't it? It feels like things are shifting quite rapidly lately. Is anyone else noticing how much more tension there seems to be in the air? It looks like you might have hit send a little too early! Did you have a specific post or some text you wanted me to work on? I'm ready whenever you are. .au? 🤔

briskhound33 said:Just playing devil's advocate here. 😬

And next thing you know, you'll be blaming Americans for all the racial tension in the States. 😉

🙂 :nismomimajkemi: 🙂

dominikx10 said:ugh... even a short tee...😲

I’m mostly on board with what you're saying... just don't go overboard. People should dress decent... we don't need this constant indecency everywhere...👎

It's funny how Muslims see indecency in everything, yet they can hide just as much under all those layers of fabric... Americans realized that a long time ago in the Christian tradition. It's not like they didn't try controlling women and hiding them away back in the day, but eventually, they figured out that stifling them just makes them easier to lose. Once women became free, they actually started taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions....

But as for the ones getting into trouble? They do it because the guys who force their wives and daughters to cover up from head to toe are the ones paying them handsomely for it...

Look, there’s no supply without demand... basically, guys want the freedom to cheat on their wives and daughters, and they're willing to pay a premium to do it. Then they go right back to playing the role of the perfect husband and dad. Makes sense, right?

Hypocrites everywhere!

briskhound33 said:People keep focusing on immorality, but there is much more at play here than just vice. We are looking at psychology, sexual manipulation, equality, freedom of choice, beauty, and power dynamics. Those who cover themselves are being denied all of that.

Do you honestly believe this nonsense you just wrote?

They are being deprived of "those issues."🙂

Actually, they are being deprived of EVERY fundamental right a woman should have in her lifetime.

Are you aware that by using those words, you are defending dictatorial behavior toward women—claiming it is "for their own good" to prevent them from falling into temptation?👍

That is exactly how Stalin operated... everything was done "for the good of the people" (or so he believed).

amberscout59 said:Are you seriously buying into the nonsense you just typed out?

They’re being deprived of "those problems."🙂

Yeah, they're being stripped of basically every fundamental right a woman should have in this life.

Do you even realize that by saying stuff like that, you're actually defending dictatorial behavior toward women? It’s like you're claiming it's "for their own good" just so they don't fall into temptation or whatever.👍

Honestly, it’s the exact same logic Stalin used... everything is supposedly done for the good of the people (at least, that's what he told himself).

Just go back and read the whole thing from the top, man.

UmpaUmpa said:First off, let’s get the terminology straight here.
Niqab:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg
Burqa:
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/burqa_afg_s.jpg
Tamera Shehat, a 26-year-old groom in Egypt, was stunned at his own wedding when a guest pointed out that his bride was actually a man. When Tamer confronted him, the individual admitted he was indeed a man named Ahmed Abo Zeid—an 18-year-old who had tried to undergo gender reassignment surgery but was denied by doctors—so he just threw on a Niqab and started posing as a woman. His plan was to marry Tamer and then reveal the truth afterward to convince him to go through with the marriage... Uhapsen was subsequently arrested and slapped with 45 days in jail for fraud.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-13762,00.html

Thank God I'm not Muslim. Especially when you see stuff like this:
http://www.superkaratemonkeyfist.com/niqab803_3616.jpeg
how are you supposed to know if there's something like this hiding under a ninja mask?
http://home.planet.nl/~stikf013/Meppen/apple/ugly6.jpg

Some guy in Egypt really messed up big time...

Phoenix, Phoenix, always Phoenix. Let's pivot to politics for a second.

briskhound33 said:Go back and read everything from the beginning.

My apologies; I assumed you were being sarcastic.
It was likely just prejudice, given what I "expected" to hear from you.

An American woman said:Dominikxe, look—a Muslim woman isn't actually required to wear a niqab or a burqa.
For Muslims, wearing clothing that's short, tight, or see-through is discouraged. Men aren't supposed to wear silk or gold, while women should cover everything except their face, hands, and feet down to the ankles.
Women should avoid dressing like men, and men should avoid dressing like women.

When I see those Saudi sheikhs on 🙄

Islam has specific guidelines regarding what everyday clothing can or cannot be worn... so comparing it to monks just doesn't really hold up. 😉