Skip to comments.Sudan woman risks flogging over uncovered hair
Posted on 09/08/2013 6:49:14 PM PDT by markomalley
A Sudanese woman says she is prepared to be flogged to defend the right to leave her hair uncovered in defiance of a "Taliban"-like law.
Amira Osman Hamed faces a possible whipping if convicted at a trial which could come on September 19.
Under Sudanese law her hair -- and that of all women -- is supposed to be covered with a "hijab". But Hamed, 35, refuses to wear one.
Her case has drawn support from civil rights activists and is the latest to highlight Sudan's series of laws governing morality which took effect after the 1989 Islamist-backed coup by President Omar al-Bashir.
"They want us to be like Taliban women," Hamed said in an interview with AFP, referring to the fundamentalist militant movement in Afghanistan.
She is charged under Article 152 which prohibits "indecent" clothing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So McCain tell me again how allaackbar is the same as Thank God.......
If we have to look at Michelle Obamas face, the least obamas friends can do is let this woman show her hair.
Meanwhile, back at the nuthouse called DC the crickets are chirping loud and clear.
And the West’s scandal was the plunging neckline.
To be semi-fair, in at least some Islamic regimes the accepted covering need not be more than a ceremonial piece of gauzy cloth. (The queen of Jordan was wearing one in that photo-op where Pope Francis ceremonially bowed to her.) It’s a symbolic religious gesture. That doesn’t make the “Allah” of fanatical Islam any better of course. But it means he hasn’t gotten quite all the final say yet.
NOW and obama see no problem...
Let’s Bomb Sudan!
They’re too busy singing “Whip it good.”
These people don’t mind cruelty, they just want it to be THEIR cruelty.
It bothers me to see women in America wearing the hijab. I call it the flag of Islam because everytime you see a woman wearing one, it is like saying, “Islam is in your country”. I believe that the Islamists put so much importance on the hijab because they use it as a means to control their own women and also as a form of terrorist warfare since the wearing of the hijab allows Islamists to instantly tell which women are Muslim and which are not. This leaves nonMuslim women as easy targets for rape and abuse. Even a Muslim mullah in Australia did a sermon in which he compared women who did not cover their heads as uncovered meat. If meat is uncovered you cannot blame the cat if he eats it. In other words women who do not cover their heads are “asking for it”. This is rape as a form of warfare.
To be even more semi-fair, most Orthodox Jewish groups have similar strictures about a woman’s hair.
Why not compromise and wear a wig?
the Rosa Parks of Sudan
Well that sure ought to be an indictment of their “Allah.” He’s not even lustproof!
Compare Christ to that. It’s like comparing 24K gold to the plastic dispensed from a gum ball machine.
Another reason for it is that a woman's hair is considered beautiful and alluring. This is a treasure that she wants, by virtue of modesty, to reserve only for her husband's viewing pleasure. Thus, married women wear wigs, kerchiefs, or hats to hide their hair from the gaze of just any man. These wigs are usually custom made, quite expensive, and gorgeous. So are the hats, and even the better kerchiefs. Some married women who are more "modern" Orthodox, especially in out-of-town communities, do not opt to cover their hair, or do so only in the synagogue and only by wearing a hat which still reveals plenty of hair. No one is beaten for not covering their hair! There might be a few harrumphs about it from wagging tongues, especially in NYC, but there would never be any physical punishment for not doing it or being brought up on charges!
Therefore, there is little similarity between these Muzzie women and Orthodox Jewish women.
There is no requirement for unmarried women to cover their hair, at any age.
Unfortunately for books and movies, there is zero evidence of there ever having been any place or time in Europe where such an atrocity was part of the legal system.
No doubt it happened from time to time under a particularly vicious baron, but not legally.
Who’s talking “legally”? I generally don’t see laws legalizing atrocities. It is lore passed down through the generations. And what about pogroms? Those were part of a legal system?
OK. There is no evidence “primae noctis” was ever a widespread or ongoing custom anywhere in Europe. As I said, no doubt there were criminal lords who did this, but it was most certainly never considered normal or routine.
Islam is a misogynistic totalitarian political system that uses “religion” as a beard. It is completely inimical to Western ideas of individual liberty and to the Constitution. It should be delisted as a “religion” by Constitutional amendment.
I’m not going to argue with you. You have your sources, and I have mine. The main point I wanted to make was that comparing Orthodox women with Sudanese women and their respective headcoverings was not valid, as their reasons are different.
I agree. Let's look at this practically. Why would a nobleman do something that guarantees his serfs being perpetually pissed off at him, when it would be simpler and easier to simply offer servant jobs in the castle to the more attractive young girls, and send the girls back to the peasant village when they get older?
In the real world, then probably even more than now, it isn’t necessary for the baron to rape young women. They throw themselves at him, as a rule.
A young woman who managed to produce a child for the lord could have the child recognized and be raised as a member of the aristocracy, albeit an illegitimate one. Though this usually applied when the woman was a member of the nobility or squirearchy herself. Serfs were pretty much below being noticed.
Although it should be noted that William the Conqueror was a bastard, the son of a tanner’s daughter. That’s pretty impressive social mobility for a single generation.