[Beso]

Some of them have to wear them...


Nāmūs is the Arabic word (Greek "νόμος") of a concept of an ethical category, a virtue, in Middle Eastern patriarchal character. Literally translated as "virtue", it is now more popularly used in a strong gender-specific context of relations within a family described in terms of honor, attention, respect/respectability, and modesty.

The concept of namus in respect to sexual integrity of family members is an ancient, exclusively cultural concept which predates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.[citation needed]

Etymology Edit
The Arabic word "nāmūs" (ناموس) may mean "law", "custom" or "honor". The Ancient Greek word "nómos" (νόμος) means "law, custom".[1][self-published source]

Gender Edit
Namus has been translated into English from the Turkish language with different meanings. Honor is used to mean namus in the English language translation of Filiz Kardam's 2005 paper on namus cinayetleri (literally namus murders), but Nüket Kardam has written that chastity is a more accurate translation than honor. By the latter definition, honor is seen as an imperfect translation because the concept of namus implies the idea that men have a right to insist on feminine chastity. This is built into the legal system which permits reduced sentences for honor killings.[2][3]

The Turkish language has multiple words to describe related concepts of honor including namus, onur and şeref. Though namus is often understood as feminine sexual virtue or chastitiy, this definition is becoming outdated amongst some members of Turkish society. The official definition of namus from the Foundation of Turkish Language is "the attachment of a society to moral rules".[4]

Women's premarital virginity is still regarded as a matter of honor by some families. These cultural perceptions persist in modern metropolitan areas, as well as in the more traditional areas of the rural countryside. Some old-fashioned customs continue to endure, such as requiring proof of virginity in the form of blooded sheets, or in some cases by medical examination. Though Kemalism has contributed to the rapid modernization of the country in many aspects, traditional sexual mores have proven to be resilient. Even those families who encouraged their daughters to pursue professional careers as teachers, doctors or lawyers maintained the expectation that these women would continue to conduct themselves virtuously as "dedicated mothers, and modest housewives".[5]

In some societies, e.g., in Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan, namus goes beyond the basic family and is common for a plarina, a unit of the tribe that has a common ancestral father.[6][better source needed]

Violations of namus Edit
The namus of a man is violated if, for example, a daughter is born into the family instead of a son, or if an adult daughter is not dressed "appropriately", or if he tolerates an offense without reaction.[7][8][9]

Among Pashtuns an encroachment on a man's plot of land also signifies violation of his namus.[6]

Restoration of namus Edit
According to those who adhere to this concept, a man is supposed to control the women in his family. If he loses control of them (his wife, sisters, daughters), his namus is lost in the eyes of the community and he has to cleanse his (and his family's) honor. This is often done by abortion, murder or forced suicide.

In the Western world, such cases are especially visible in immigrant societies when a girl faces the conflict between her choice of the culture of the new home society and the traditions of the old home.[10]

In cases of rape, the woman is not seen as a victim. Instead, it is considered that the namus of the whole family has been violated, and to restore it, an honor killing of the raped woman may happen (estimated 5,000 victims yearly and on the rise worldwide[11]). The raped woman may also commit forced suicide.[12] In Pakistan, acid is often thrown on the victim's face to disfigure her as an alternative to murder.[13]

In British Bangladeshi immigrant culture and in Anatolian Turkish culture the violation of namus can result in the murder of the male involved with the female family member.[14]

Meanwhile, in cases of namus loss due to the arrival of a female child into the family, infanticide or sex-selective abortion may occur.[15]

Namus around the world Edit
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights gathered reports from several countries and considering only the countries that submitted reports it was shown that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, United States, Canada and Uganda.[16]

In 2002 international attention was drawn to the murder of Fadime Şahindal, of the Kurdish minority in Sweden, who violated namus by suing her father and brother for threats made against her and then rejecting the marriage arranged for her.[17]

Support and opposition Edit
Some Jordanian Islamic groups say that punishment of adulterous wives should be left to the state, while others say Islam advocates that male relatives should carry out the punishment. Yotam Feldner writes, "if honor killing originated in pre-Islamic Arab tribalism, it has long since been incorporated into Islamic society and thereby become common throughout the Muslim world".[18] However, "'Izzat Muhaysin, a psychiatrist at the Gaza Program for Mental Health, [...] says that the culture of the society perceives one who refrains from 'washing shame with blood' as 'a coward who is not worthy of living.'[18]

Hundreds, if not thousands, of women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family 'honor

[Beso]

Boris Johnson has said "women who wear the burqa resemble bank robbers" and I think he has a point.......


I caught a glimpse of my neighbour without hers on the other day and she's a ringer for Mad Frankie Fraser.
**** knows how Boris knew that.

[Withano]

Josh has single handedly destroyed everybody in this thread. Kudos to him.

[Alf]

All Boris said was "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"


Bag of gravel anyone?

[Withano]

Quite a sad state when a male politician can mock the appearance of any woman, without a hint of irony, and others will empower his right to do so. Its sad because its probably because he is simply right wing, and so are his defenders of this incident.

His words, in any contextual settings are cruel and discriminatory. All of his defenders would have had a field day if a leftie said something similar.

[Ammi]

....didn’t he also say that despite what he feels they look like..(..comparing them to letterboxes and ‘thieve’ garments...way to go Boris with those comparisons...)...that the U.K. should not consider banning them like other countries are doing...because banning them would only boost the radical views that seem to be gaining strength...interesting that, that bit is barely being reported or discussed in the media...and some newspapers haven’t mentioned it at all so far as I can see...yep, it’s a dangerous world we live in atm sadly...and no more so than if you’re a Muslim...



...even if he now clarifies the whole context which some media have avoided...the damage is done, I fear...

[Tom4784]

Anything that covers a person's face shouldn't be allowed to be worn in certain public places, I don't think anyone takes issue with that part. It's the comparing them to criminals thing that's the problem. Suggesting that Muslims are dangerous just because of what they wear is problematic and fuels hatred against them.

I also take issue with people saying that basically muslim women are put upon and brainwashed into wearing Burkhas and the like. I think that's very patronising towards an entire subsection of women.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Anything that covers a person's face shouldn't be allowed to be worn in public, I don't think anyone takes issue with that part. It's the comparing them to criminals thing that's the problem. Suggesting that Muslims are dangerous just because of what they wear is problematic and fuels hatred against them.

I also take issue with people saying that basically muslim women are put upon and brainwashed into wearing Burkhas and the like. I think that's very patronising towards an entire subsection of women.

Really...in 2018....people shouldnt be allowed to wear anything that covers thier face in public...that sounds ridiculously silly and draconion to me

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Really...in 2018....people shouldnt be allowed to wear anything that covers thier face in public...that sounds ridiculously silly and draconion to me

Do you not see the issue with clothing covering people's faces in certain places?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Do you not see the issue with clothing covering people's faces in certain places?

Oh certain places, sorry i could have sworn you said "in public"

[bots]

Boris Johnson is facing a possible investigation into breaches of the Conservative Party code of conduct.

The party's code of conduct states that Tory officials and elected representatives must "lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance" and not "use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others".

Boris to get the boot?

[Northern Monkey]

Criticising certain aspects of a religion or cultural practices or joking about them doesn’t equate to ‘Muslim hate’.

We are all free to do that in the west.

I’d doubt there are many people who ‘hate’ Muslims just because they’re Muslim or Arabs apart from racists.

We probably all interact with Muslims every day and we all get on just fine.That doesn’t mean we can’t criticise certain practices that don’t gel well with our culture or that we even have to like a certain religion.

Religious practices have been the butt of jokes forever.

Boris is a pretty clever fella and i’d be pretty certain he knew exactly the reaction these comments would get tbh.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Criticising certain aspects of a religion or cultural practices or joking about them doesn’t equate to ‘Muslim hate’.

We are all free to do that in the west.

I’d doubt there are many people who ‘hate’ Muslims just because they’re Muslim or Arabs apart from racists.

We probably all interact with Muslims every day and we all get on just fine.That doesn’t mean we can’t criticise certain practices that don’t gel well with our culture or that we even have to like a certain religion.

Religious practices have been the butt of jokes forever.

Boris is a pretty clever fella and i’d be pretty certain he knew exactly the reaction these comments would get tbh.

Exactly, the problem is you can't say anything negative even if there are negatives or the bigot/racist/fear of brown people (how does that work when every one is tanned after the summer) card is whipped out

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Exactly, the problem is you can't say anything negative even if there are negatives or the bigot/racist/fear of brown people (how does that work when every one is tanned after the summer) card is whipped out

I think it's because there is a lot of fear-mongering around every corner of the media now. Doesn't matter which side it leans. It's all terribad. I think that downward spiral from journalism to celebrity news/tabloid level coverage, where we can draw grand conclusions on the basis of how someone "behaves" to over-examining someone's dress or "way" of speaking. I don't know that it is always intended to be a "shut down tactic" (though I can see that claim). It is a convenience way though to keep conversations from going a way that may displease those person(s)... and a simple way to ensure certain topics remain taboo and controversial I guess.

[Denver]

Turkey use to ban them until the new president cam in

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Turkey use to ban them until the new president cam in

He is taking Turkey back to the dark ages

[y.winter]

A good read - Muslim woman tells it like it is:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ke-no-favours/

I find it ridiculous seeing people defend burqas with a great passion because "Freedom of religion! Islamophobia!" yet forget that the garment they're fighting for is the epitome of misogyny. No religion and no culture are an excuse to this. One step closer to Gilead.

And speaking about Kippas - it's not the same. If anything, the great problem with Kippas is that the Orthodox and Haredi Jews try to prevent women from wearing it too, especially near the Western Wall. Isn't religious fun...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by y.winter

A good read - Muslim woman tells it like it is:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ke-no-favours/

I find it ridiculous seeing people defend burqas with a great passion because "Freedom of religion! Islamophobia!" yet forget that the garment they're fighting for is the epitome of misogyny. No religion and no culture are an excuse to this. One step closer to Gilead.

Did you just .... did you just ignore the fact that making fun of a religion is literal racism? I can't even.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Did you just .... did you just ignore the fact that making fun of a religion is literal racism? I can't even.

Confusing criticism of religion for racism is a common mistake people make. They are entirely different things. A person's belief is not defined by the colour of their skin or race and a religious institution should always be a subject open for discussion.

In the same way that people have the right and choice to follow those teachings, they also have the right and choice to deny and analyse them. That is what freedom is about.

I find it awful that women are subjected to these rituals and shamed into hiding themselves for fear some fantasy deity might otherwise reject them (which seems a bizarre claim when you think about it because he is also meant to have made them so why would he reject the beauty of his creation? It makes no sense at all.) However on the occasions I have met someone dressed like this I have always offered them a smile and made an attempt to strike up a conversation because I feel sympathy for their isolation. Same with anyone in a wheelchair who people often look above their heads or talk to the person with them as if they don't exist.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Confusing criticism of religion for racism is a common mistake people make. They are entirely different things. A person's belief is not defined by the colour of their skin or race and a religious institution should always be a subject open for discussion.

People probably find it hard because some of the prominent critics of islam are also racist, so it kind of gets conflated. But of course criticising the crappy aspects of islamic culture isn't racist.

[y.winter]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Did you just .... did you just ignore the fact that making fun of a religion is literal racism? I can't even.

You missed the point of what I said (and of the article I linked to) - while Bojo's choice of word was somewhat childish it is not clear racism and not directed at Islam in general but addressing a very specific object in an extremist culture that excuses itself under the name of religion. This is not making fun as in "Hahaha Muslim are garbage" (clear tasteless racism), it does make fun of a terrible misogynistic primitive culture (and by culture I mean burkas and especially what they stand for), which deserves all the criticism in the world. Giving it legitimization will make it become a growing culture little by little, terrorizing girls from childhood into thinking that they are sexual objects that need to cover themselves from the moment they hit puberty. Young marriages, sex trafficking, it's all downhill from there. If you don't think your mother/sister/female friends and relative should be subjected into something derogatory as covering themselves in public from head to toe - then deep down you know that it's sick. When the Quran says that both women and men should be covered, exposing only essential body parts, and Muslim men in burqas are nowhere to be seen - it says a lot. Let's not forget that racism deals with gender as well, it's not religion-exclusive.

I find it absolutely horrific as I've found it with Jewish women wearing Frumka (or in Israels' most infamous case aka "Mother Taliban"). Israel's Jewish public didn't even think of justifying it, because this nothing but a radical stretch of the religion and has nothing to do with Judaism - and so should the Muslim people. Criticism in this case is more than welcome - it's a must.

[Beso]

Am i correct in saying women in iran were free from the burqa pre 1979?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Am i correct in saying women in iran were free from the burqa pre 1979?

Not sure on dates without looking it up but I do know that Iranian women once had the freedom to choose, as much as it can be a choice when you are taught/conditioned with specific beliefs, and no longer do as religious garments for women are now enforced in that country.

Go to Iran and get arrested for not wearing head coverings, go to Denmark and get arrested if you do. Go to the UK where a politician writes an article stating we should not ban wearing anything and everyone freaks out.

[Oliver_W]

Afghanistan was certainly more free in pre-80s, I'm not sure if Iran was the same. But either way,when more highly religious "governments" took control of those countries, it all went downhill for their rights and freedoms.

[arista]

He is back in his home in England
after his Italy Holiday.
Still not talking to any press.


Monday he posts again in his Daily Telegraph Column.


ref:SkyNewsHD