Punishment for women who don't want to wear jilbab

[John indonesia]

Perhaps the beach most illustrates the intrinsic unfairness of the imposition of the hijab. Hot day with children and husband lightly attired and the woman clad head to foot with dark clothing absorbing the sun's heat.

.. and not getting skin cancer

 

[John indonesia]

My experience is limited to a couple of years, and most of that in the office so I don't really see all that much of day to day life.
However, ladies at my place choose what they want to wear. Most of the Chinese types like to wear modest clothes. Most of the Muslims wear about the same, but tend to wear higher necklines and fewer wear tight trousers. Best guess without counting, about half of the Muslims seem to wear head coverings.
That suggests a moderate society where personal choice is above force. In turn, that suggests social pressure to wear head coverings is limited.
None wear face coverings.
When it comes to Muslim personal friends, most of their wives wear a headscarf in public, but do not when I visit their homes.
I tend to be pretty chilled out when it comes to other people's religions. My office has Christians of various types (Including a 7th day Adventist), a few Buddhists, and a load of Muslims. There might well be others as I rarely ask about their religious preference.
I'm an atheist with slight agnostic tendencies.
My opinion of religion is easy enough - if it doesn't hurt anyone, why should I care?
It was nice to see JI had called it a day and encouraged its members to live reasonable lives.

 

[John indonesia]

Wear a jilbab if you want, but it is doing you no favors in the appearance department.
Niqabs are a symbol of a hideously sexist worldview

Interesting.
I tend to find a headscarf shows roundness in a woman's face, and that can make her look cute. However, that's a personal thing.

As for full face coverings being evil in whatever way, it could be argued a bikini does the same thing, just in reverse.

The same goes for porn in its various forms. It strikes me top shelf magazines are extremely sexist. Do you think they are acceptable and, if so, why isn't porn

hideously sexist?

 

[jstar]

I'm an atheist with slight agnostic tendencies

The fact that this is not possible (or allowed) here, should tell you enough.

Of course there are many so called KTP-Muslims in the country and not that many extremists. But there is definitely a certain amount of fear and nobody wants to be called a “bad Muslim”.

As for full face coverings being evil in whatever way, it could be argued a bikini does the same thing, just in reverse.

One has nothing to do with the other. A full face covering as with a burka is not for nothing forbidden in many western countries; not because it shows you’re a Muslim but because there’s no possibility to check ID etc. I also don’t wear my helmet with visor when I go through immigration or enter a bank.

 

[Balifrog]

.. and not getting skin cancer

Yeah, it's well know that Europeans all die from skin cancer ...

 

[harryopal1]

The underlying Islamic requirement for woman to dress modestly is one thing but the sophistry used to justifying women being completely clad and with the burka also veiling the woman's eyes is really to do with masculine determination to totally control and subjugate women. Fortunately not so many Indonesian women see this as a religious requirement and I find it hard not to feel sorry for women in burkas with the black burka seeming rather sinister. (Nothing to do with trying to prevent cancer.)

 

[Balifrog]

women in burkas with the black burka seeming rather sinister.

Fully agreed. Nicely expressed !

 

[John indonesia]

I find it hard not to feel sorry for women in burkas with the black burka seeming rather sinister. (Nothing to do with trying to prevent cancer.)

It is possible a number of them want to wear it as they see it as their duty as good Muslims. I disagree as I don't believe that clothing is mentioned in the koran. I gather it says something about modesty and covering hair, but that's about that.

As for sinister, why? I don't like to see them dressed like that but it isn't my business. I'm not scared of them, nor should I be. If a grown man gets frightened of a 45kg woman, it's time to evaluate your fitness to be called a man.

If westerners complain about them, they have an equal right to complain about western clothing - I gather that has brought the 'bloody foreigners coming over here and telling us what to do' brigade out in the past.

That clothing was probably all about health when full coverings were adopted.
If I lived in a place that has extremely powerful sunshine in the day, can freeze at night, and had regular sandstorms, I would wear protective gear.
However, that's desert clothes, and they aren't really suitable for countries like Indonesia.

 

[harryopal1]

I did not say the black burka frightened me nor am I trying to tell people what to do. Simply expressing a very subjective response of feeling sorry seeing women here in this tropical climate having to dress in this kind of garb. And I suspect many westerners would see the black burka totally covering a woman's face as having a rather sinister appearance. It does not mean I would be impolite or disrespectful of women who do wear the burka but then they probably would rather not talk to me anyway.

 

[jstar]

If westerners complain about them, they have an equal right to complain about western clothing - I gather that has brought the 'bloody foreigners coming over here and telling us what to do' brigade out in the past.

That clothing was probably all about health when full coverings were adopted.

In fact it’s the opposite. Did you ever see old b&w pics of Dutch East Indies? There you see it was quite common for women to go topless. And who ‘forced’ the women to dress up? Indeed, the Dutch (and esp. spouses).

The full dress covers and hijab and burka are all Arab. Also foreign btw.

Don’t open the picture if you can’t stand nudity…

 

[jstar]

Btw, the picture was taken in Central Java, not Bali.

 

[Shadrach]

The underlying Islamic requirement for woman to dress modestly is one thing but the sophistry used to justifying women being completely clad and with the burka also veiling the woman's eyes is really to do with masculine determination to totally control and subjugate women. Fortunately not so many Indonesian women see this as a religious requirement and I find it hard not to feel sorry for women in burkas with the black burka seeming rather sinister. (Nothing to do with trying to prevent cancer.)

It does seem that it is a male domination and subjugation situation. The men can dress as they like, without having to cover up their hair and faces! I heard that many Muslim houses don't have windows because of this?

 

[Balifrog]

There you see it was quite common for women to go topless

Good old days ! Too bad I arrived too late ....

 

[fastpitch17]

Btw, the picture was taken in Central Java, not Bali.

Yes, some people think it was only the Balinese that had topless women. Far from the truth. The Balinese were just some of the latest who started covering their breast and the was in the 1950s.

All across Indonesia women were mostly topless. Change came from region to region over many years. Religion had nothing to do with it except for a few prudish christian missionaries scattered about. The Kabaya, Indonesia's national attire was introduced by the Dutch. It was given to the higher social standing in Batavia for attending more formal functions. The first kabaya were lace and basically transparent. It spread from there, well, you know Indonesians and their image.

After the fall of Suharto the mass organizations who were led by Arab/Indonesians were set free to do as they please. It was then that they started their campaign to cover Indonesian women. They went about stating women must be covered and told the men they were bad Muslims if they allowed their wives, sisters, daughters, or female reletives to go uncovered. They would do all they could to embarrass women every chance they could find. My question has always been, if the men were good Muslims in the past when women were topless, why would they be bad Muslims when their head, shoulders, arms, or legs were shown? Nobody challenged that or they feared being labeled a bad Muslim. I remember reading that the Quran states what is to be covered and the Arabic word lost it's original translation over the years to now fit with what Islamic men want. The original translation was women should cover their "treasures". The history of Mohamed tells that his wives were not covered.

Indonesia went from respecting women for being women to sexualizing women from head to toe and losing all respect for women. Now boys seem to be taught that if they see skin of a shoulder, leg, or neck they have reason to be aroused because the woman must want you. Cases of family members raping young children with the excuse they seen their panties when they laid on the floor to watch tv is not totally uncommon. The excuse is freely given simply because there are other men who will accept it as a legitimate reason.

Now Islam in Indonesia doesn't seem to live to follow the Quran, only the Hadiths which were personal interpretations and personal ideas from men. Like circumcision, cutting of the nails, plucking out underarm and pubic hair. Of course, Muslims pick and choose which to follow. These are not addressed in the Quran. The very beginning of the Quran it does state the Allah created humans in perfect fashion and should not be changed in any way. Then, some guy comes along and states, except for some foreskin and there you go. Why, because in the history of Mohamed, it tells that he was born without a foreskin. So, his wives were uncovered and that now is taboo, being born without a foreskin is reason enough to go against Allah's order not to change what is perfect. No where in the Quran does it condemn being gay. It does condemn some acts that someone who is gay may partake in. But Islam condemns being gay all in.

I think that if Indonesian Muslims only followed what they swear is the word of Allah, the Quan, and not follow all the personal interpreting that followed sometimes hundreds of years after Mohamed and none from his actual time, it would be a different Indonesia. Indonesia should have tossed out all those educated in Arabia in the early days who wanted to bring in Arabic Islam. At least if the hijab still existed it would be more suited for the climate and come in Indonesian inspired patterns.

 

[harryopal1]

And at the extreme end you have the Taliban who not only flog women if the slightest bit of their body is showing but insist that even widows cannot work and no woman can leave the home without a male escort.

 

[John indonesia]

Don’t open the picture if you can’t stand nudity…

View attachment 4164

Here's a point to consider.
The two girls in that picture look under 16. If I'm correct about the ages, you just posted child pornography.
The thread is about supposed punishment for a moral crime, so how do posters feel about the potential crime mentioned above?
At the time of taking the photo would have been nothing, but it would attract a prison term now.

 

[John indonesia]

It's likely a lot of women don't want to wear full coverings, but a lot will consider such clothing to be the only modest way to dress.
Perhaps those who really hate to see face covering should ask any women they meet if they are happy to wear that stuff and, if not, beat up the husband and or father.
The suggested solution is as unworkable as the complaint.
The question is, how will stopping women dressing that way make the complainers happy?
In cases where is it domestic abuse, and there will be a number, of course it's wrong, but we in the west have failed to consign wife beating to the history books.
That puts us in a very weak moral position to attack a culture we don't properly understand.

 

[Bob]

Here's a point to consider.
The two girls in that picture look under 16. If I'm correct about the ages, you just posted child pornography.
The thread is about supposed punishment for a moral crime, so how do posters feel about the potential crime mentioned above?
At the time of taking the photo would have been nothing, but it would attract a prison term now.

It's not pornography or even close to pornography. There's nothing at all that a normal person would find prurient about the picture.

 

[Helpful Herbert]

When you are forced to cover your head from about the age of 2, it is not surprising that you end up doing so for your whole life. Our maid described it to me as if she would feel naked going out of the house without one, the same as if i would go out without wearing any trousers.
The reason religious people are so keen to get their hands on young kids is that if you can indoctrinate them with something by the age of 7, then they will probably remain indoctrinated for life, unless the child develops a superior intellectual capacity, which especially in Indonesia rarely happens due to the education system.

 

[fastpitch17]

Here's a point to consider.
The two girls in that picture look under 16. If I'm correct about the ages, you just posted child pornography.
The thread is about supposed punishment for a moral crime, so how do posters feel about the potential crime mentioned above?
At the time of taking the photo would have been nothing, but it would attract a prison term now.

My goodness. Pornography is in the mind of the viewer. These are historical assets. There are historical shows that show them and more. They have even passed muster here when some Islamic nut took issue to someone who post historical photographs and lost their case.

Maybe stick to the real crimes of children being sexually molested by their religious (enter religion here) leaders and teachers. Yes, children are indoctrinated to style of dress early on but many of those who indoctrinate them take advantage of them. Go on your crusade to stop that and pass on the historical entries. If you can't accept it as historical then you know little to nothing about Indonesia.