An update on this story. "Protests at Sudan woman's trouser trial," by Abdelmoneim Abu Edries Ali for WA Today, August 5:
Sudanese riot police used tear gas against hundreds of people demonstrating outside a Khartoum courtroom on Tuesday in protest at the trial of a woman who faces 40 lashes for wearing trousers.
The judge decided to adjourn the trial to September 7 to determine whether Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, a journalist who also works with the United Nations, has legal immunity, defence lawyer Jalal al-Sayyid said.
Hussein, who is in her 30s, has been charged with public indecency after she was arrested last month along with 12 other women who were wearing trousers at a Khartoum restaurant.
Riot police wearing helmets and armed with shields and sticks used tear gas to disperse hundreds of women and activists from Sudanese opposition parties who demonstrated in support of Hussein outside the courthouse, an AFP correspondent reported.
"No to oppression against women," read one banner carried by the demonstrators. "No return (to) the dark ages," said another.
One of Hussein's lawyers, Manal Khawajali, said she was assaulted by police outside the court and would file a complaint.
Hussein has said that she wants to be tried to challenge a law that decrees a punishment of whipping for people wearing "indecent" clothes, and told a hearing last week that she wished to waive her UN immunity.
Emerging from the courtroom flashing the victory sign, Hussein again insisted she wanted to be tried and said she had resigned from her job at the UN's media office in Sudan so she no longer had immunity.
"The court should not have delayed the trial," she told journalists after the closed-door hearing.
But in an apparent disagreement within her defence team, a lawyer nevertheless argued that she had immunity and asked the judge to ignore Hussein's wishes, Sayyid said.
He said the judge decided to ask the Sudanese foreign ministry to determine the immunity issue ahead of her next court date.
Ten women have already been whipped for the same offence - including Christians - and Hussein has said she will fight a guilty verdict and the law itself.[...]
Unlike in some other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life. Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of the country's laws discriminate against women.
Hussein said she wants to fight to get rid of the law, saying it "is both against the constitution and sharia (Islamic law)."
Three observations: Once one is under Sharia law, the only path forward within the system is to argue a ruling somehow violates Sharia. Appeals to democracy, egalitarianism, or human decency (as defined by something other than Sharia) are outside of the scope of the discussion. Secondly, it is in the spirit of Islamic law -- via Qur'an 4:34 -- that disobedient women may be beaten. That is the root of a variety of problems. Thirdly, the lack of accountability inherent in a theocracy ensures cases of this level of absurdity will happen again, and the victims can only hope to embarrass the government enough in the global media that it relents.
"If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Koranic verses or hadith (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) say so. I haven't found them," she said.
Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, who published an article in Ajrass al-Horreya newspaper (Bells of Freedom) entitled: "Lubna, a case of subduing a woman's body."
Restoring what I (dumbledoresarmy) kept of the comments that were made to this article, when we were still using Intensedebate. Observe the Mohammedtroll 'Women For Truth' towards the end of the thread, throwing sand.
SADM said - Her demand that they cite just where Mo or the Koran dictate what a woman cannot wear is a reasonable and logical argument. But of course Islam runs contrary to reason and logic.
There is no winning in Islam, unless, that is, you want to kill or subjugate others and call that victory.
-HESPERADO said - The problem is not merely the Koran. You won't find anything in the Koran to directly support punishment of women for improper dress.
But you will in the Sunna.
And the vast majority of Muslims follow the Sunna.
That's the problem that is obscured by this "Koran-only" obfuscation.
- MUHAMMADBEAR said - Yes, it's just wife beating and honour killing in the Koran; no dress code.
- STEPHENA said - But the Koran 4:34 can be used to apply to anything the male authority figure wishes to impose on the 'inferior' woman.
- It is a sanction used to punish 'disobedience' or 'ill conduct', which makes it applicable to all kinds of situations.
- CN - Remember, 4.34 sanctions spousal abuse if the husband merely "fears" disobedience or ill-conduct. A wife may be perfectly compliant, but she can still be lawfully beaten because her husband is on the paranoid side.
- Also, there is no word "wife" in 4:34 -- it only refers to a man's "women" -- by which, from the context of the surrounding verses, is meant to include all women who are his to have sex with, including sex slaves.
However, I'm not sure Muslims use this verse to refer to women in general.
It's more like what Marisol said in her intro -- it establishes a general mindset against women, from which can be extrapolated more specific control over them.
-
- It is largely to the Sunna where Muslims turn to legitimize those specific types of control, including the hijab.
POETCOMIC said - PSSST! No one REALLY knows what Sharia law IS in the 21st Century. They make it up (interpret it) as they go along. And as for a Caliphate...let's see them pick a Caliph! That should be fun!
As the purists try to 'out-sharia' each other you end up with psychos killing vegetable merchants (Iraq a few years ago) for displaying their tomatoes in a 'sexually arousing' way.
Shut Islam off in its 7th century world and in a year they will be slaughtering each other over pornographic parsley.
-WELLINGTON said - (quoting) 'Sharia is made up as they (this Muslim, that one and the next one) go along?' Agreed. How appropriate since the Koran was made up too. For that matter, all of Islam has been made up and bears no more relation to ultimate reality than does the ancient Egyptian religion or Greek and Roman mythology, with due apologies here to these ancient belief systems since they did not have a long history of oppressing mankind as has Islam.
-OUTOFCONTEXT said - Legalisms and technicalities aside, sharia is whatever advances Islam in any given time and place, like Jihad (greater and lesser). Usually this manifests itself as a Stalinist/Hitlerite raw terror for its own sake, to keep the subdued (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) in awe and fear.
THELEGEND said - watch this horrific [links video on Muslim demographics in Europe]
i have been warning the west from along time ago from this Islamic invasion gueese they didn't listen.
-WELLINGTON said - The video you linked to claims that there are nine million Muslims in America. There are probably not even half that. I too share a dread of what Islam unchecked holds for America and the West but it is imperative that accuracy accompany such concern. If not, then hysteria, not cogent opposition to religious tyranny, will be the result.
-AGL said - Estimates that I have seen for raising one child is about $200,000 (varies by region). Nothing encourages people to have fewer children or none at all than the high cost of raising a child up to the age of 18.
-INDIANTIGER said - But, muslims don't care because in your welfare societies, they make taxpayers pay for rearing their cockroach kids.
-OUTOFCONTEXT said - That is one depressing video. It's why I say it's time to start a "repatriation with respect" (emphasis on the repatriation part) campaign, esp in Europe. Every day they delay the hill gets steeper.
AIKENBRYCE said - RE: THELEGEND2009
Watched the video. Not sure of the veracity of the demographic statistics, but I can certainly envision this nightmare occurring.
If true, I can certainly see the rise of fascistic regimes and the dread they will instill.
Not that I approve of fascism.
I just can't see the recourse the indigenous have.
I can foresee a violent overthrow of their treacherous governments, then a backlash against "the other" -- a term the Saudis use for non-muslims, but rehashed in this scenario for non-Europeans and non-Christian.
LEEVY said - the demographics is not reality, as more muslims are needed since they kill each other faster than any other people.
the more truth about islams comes out, the more agitated muslims become.
you cannot stop stupid people from converting.
there is a substantial amount of muslims leaving islam, but you will not hear about it.
years ago a friend of mine married an indonesian muslim, they married in the Catholic church and raised two daughters as Catholics. Her husband said there is no reasoning with muslims, he knew first hand since he was one and left it once he immigrated to the U.S.
SADM said - Hesperado
Again...For whatever reason I'm not able to normally reply to your comment
That may be why al-Hussein conveniently left that out of her argument.
-HESPERADO - Actually, I just noticed she does say there is nothing in the hadith to legitimize dress codes for women.
I'm not sure she's right about that.
According to some Islamic sites, I've learned that apparently there is at least one hadith if not more where women and men are not supposed to wear the same types of clothes, which would logically extend to pants:
"Rasool-Allah [i.e., Mohammed] cursed the man who wears women's clothes and the woman who wears men's clothes"
This site says the above hadith is "sahih" from Abu Dawud but does not provide actual reference numbers:
http://www.shawuniversitymosque.org/JTaqwa/module...
WOMENFORTRUTH said - 3o years of researching, studying Islam and still nothing.
Spencer's goal is to put in quran verses werever theres chaos.
Ignorance and stupidity is what runs christian lives. thank God i'm outta there.
1) verse 4:34, if we read the whole text, says HUSBANDS are the protectors and maintainers of women. doesn't say the government. a woman, unless she has a job, should respect the husband is working hard to provide her with food, clothing, and shelter.
2) Islam does not allow women to act like christian women. maybe if the word beating was in the bible, we'd probably see a few less women in downtown at midnight as well as less rates of rape. [NONSENSE: ABSOLUTE F888ING NONSENSE – RAPE IN MUSLIM LANDS IS THROUGH THE ROOF]
3) This article is in NO WAY related to verse 4:34. Actually its in now way related to the sharia. Again i'd expect a thumbs down, and whining from many of you. Ignorance and stupidity hurts doesn't it?
-OUTOFCONTEXT replied - Slave owners used to like to claim that they supported their slaves - providing them with food, shelter, "protection," etc. Talk about standing cause and effect on its head. Islam = enslavement to men who pretend to know god's will.
-ISABELLATHECRUSADER said to 'Womenfortruth' - MOVE AWAY FROM THE CRACK PIPE
"Ignorance and stupidity hurts doesn't it?"
I don't know; you tell us.
Again, what does the Holy Spirit have to do with your ramblings?
-HESPERADO told 'Womenfortruth' - (quoting) "verse 4:34, if we read the whole text, says HUSBANDS are the protectors and maintainers of women."
No, you are incorrect: the verse speaks only of "men" and their "women".
However, indirectly, you might be correct about the subcategory involved here: 4:34, due to its surrounding context, probably refers to men in general but with reference to the women they can have sex with -- with verse 4:23 stipulating first those women with whom men may not have sex:
"Forbidden to you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your aunts, both on the father and mother's side, and your nieces on the brother and sister's side, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters who are your wards, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in: (but if ye have not gone in unto them, it shall be no sin in you to marry them;) and the wives of your sons who proceed out of your loins; and ye may not have two sisters; except where it is already done."
The following verse (24) then adds that the wives of other men are forbidden to Muslim men to have sex with -- with one exception: the slave girls which the Muslim man owns. I.e., if a man's slave girl happens to be married to another man, it doesn't matter: the Muslim man can still have sex with her if he wants to (doesn't matter if she says no).
Generally, speaking, I would agree that Sura 4 is not laying down rules of general treatment of women by the state, but rather by each Muslim man.
However, on the other hand, Islam at the time the Koran was written did not have a "state" -- or, we can say that each Muslim man embodies the "state" of the Sharia, since in Islam there is no individuality, there is only regimented conformance to the Sunna.
WOMENFORTRUTH said - and a woman gets 3 chances to fix herself up from a christian way of life. 1st is talking to her, second if she does it again is being more severe and seperating away from her, and if she does it again, she gets a TAP with a toothbrush or cloth. Purpose is emotional damage rather than physical.
a husband cannot whip or scourge (pickthalls translation is wrong) like how christian men do (the US, 85% christian with christian values and beliefs in the government system, leads the world in domestic abuse. And all thanks to Paul and his helper the holy spirit-that guides and controls ALL christians).
-GRAVENIMAGE said - Men have no right to beat women in a sane society--with a miswak or otherwise. No man has a right to beat his wife or any other woman in the West--and doing so is a punishable crime.
-SUSANP said to WOMENFORTRUTH- Your incoherent prose is impossible to decipher beyond your contempt for the rational and your love of irrational islam. Your statistics are ridiculous, just like your opinions.
-DUMBLEDORESARMY said to SUSANP - Susan - I am rationally convinced that in the postings of 'woman telling lies' what we are hearing is the demonic. It's like hearing something spitting and snarling and hissing from out of a dark cupboard. She's possessed.
-HESPERADO replied to WOMENFORTRUTH - (quoting) "scourge" does not mean merely "to whip" -- it can also mean more generally "to punish severely".
The Arabic is clear, as the translations of ten different translators make clear (6 of them were Muslims, including Pickthall -- he was learned in both English and Arabic literature):
Aside from Pickthall, we have:
Yusuf Ali -- he translates waidriboohunna as "and beat them". He adds in parentheses "(lightly)" -- but there is no "lightly" in the Koran in that verse.
Hilali-Khan (two translators) -- "beat them". They also add "lightly" to the Koran, but it is not there.
Shakir -- "and beat them". He did not add "lightly" or any qualifier.
Sher Ali -- "and chastise them". He did not add "lightly" or any qualifier. Note: the word "chastise" means "To inflict pain upon, by means of stripes, or in any other manner, for the purpose of punishment or reformation" (Webster's dictionary).
Khalifa -- "beat them" . He adds an elaborate parenthetical softening -- "you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them." But there is nothing in the Koran in this verse to justify this elaborate scenario.
Arberry -- "and beat them" (no softening, no qualifiers).
Palmer -- "and beat them" (no softening, no qualifiers).
Rodwell -- "and scourge them" (no softening, no qualifiers).
Sale -- "and chastise them" (no softening, no qualifiers).
http://www.quranbrowser.com/
AGL said - "the victims can only hope to embarrass the government enough in the global media that it relents."
So justice for victims in Dar ul-Islam depends on Dar ul-Harb being large enough to matter to Dar ul-Islam.
GRAVENIMAGE said - (quoting) "Unlike in some other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life. Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of the country's laws discriminate against women."
.............................
They also have a "prominent place" in being raped by the Janjaweed, if they have the misfortune to to live in Sudan's South or Darfur.
more:
'Ten women have already been whipped for the same offence - including Christians - and Hussein has said she will fight a guilty verdict and the law itself.'
.............................
Well, this makes more sense--some of the early reports referred to Ms. Hussein herself as Christian. And yet, her Christian companion were subject to the same whippings--another case of Shari'ah norms applying to non-Muslims.
LEEVY said (replying to 'Womenfortruth') - "When a sharia court for muslims was pushed by the islamists in Ontario a few years ago, it was protested against mainly by Muslim women. These same Muslim women lived in sharia muslim couintries before they immigrated to Canada and these women knew first hand how sharia law punishes women. .
to the appologist women of truth aka stupid cow, get the hell out of Western lands where we have real human rights, and go live in a Muslim land with sharia to boot. and then you can comment on how wonderful your disgusting hell hole cult is to your liking. otherwise shut the f. up."
(END OF RECORD of original thread as kept by me, dda).