| www.CostaRicaTicas.com https://forum.costaricaticas.com/ |
|
| Maybe Islamic Law isn't so bad after all https://forum.costaricaticas.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7897 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | VegasBob [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Maybe Islamic Law isn't so bad after all |
I just heard on CNN that an Islamic man can divorce his wife by merely saying to her "You are divorced" three times. The wife must then leave the family home immediately. WOW the lawyers in the States would starve to death. I wonder if it would have helped me if I had converted. |
|
| Author: | AngloTime [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yea, there's an old saying about clicking your heels three times too. There's no place like the DR, there's no place like the DR, there's no place like the DR! |
|
| Author: | Prolijo [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you really want to be rid of your wife consider some of these laws in various latin-american countries: It's "an excusable act of passion" in Colombia, South America, for a man to murder his wayward wife when he finds the woman in bed with her lover. If the husband "personally witnesses the corrupt sexual activity," he's allowed to shoot his unfaithful spouse. Such adultery-related homicides aren't even prosecuted. A man in Matagalpa, Nicaragua, is required by law to divorce his wife as soon as he discovers that she's committed adultery. He's in serious trouble should he fail to do so; the hapless husband may then be prosecuted for his unwillingness to take the proper and necessary course of action. A wife, on the other hand, is not permitted to divorce her husband when he's caught in bed with another woman. Such things are simply to be expected when it comes to men, says the law. In Uruguay, a husband who catches his spouse in bed with another man is given an option under the current law. He has the right to kill both the wayward wife and her lover——or he can choose to slice off his wife's nose and castrate her lover. It's a violation of the law in Valparaiso, Chile, for any man to marry a certain kind of woman——he must never take for his bride a woman who has committed adultery. Such a woman is to be condemned forever. El Salvador certainly isn't the best place for a married woman to have a fling. Any "married woman who lies with the male who is not her husband" can get a six-year prison term and a $30 fine. The amount of the fine is awarded to the woman's husband as his indemnity! A husband in Honduras is guilty of adultery only when he has a mistress and when he "keeps her in a notorious manner." In Limon, Costa Rica, both parties in an adulterous relationship are in for real trouble: Each person is subject to being beaten and drowned in punishment for their deed. The law among the Tupies of Brazil stipulates that once a woman is married, she's required to be faithful. The same standard doesn't apply to the husband. He's allowed to have as many mistresses as he can afford to keep. Adultery isn't always a crime in Caracas, Venezuela. It depends on how long a couple has been married. Anyone, male or female, can play around and not be prosecuted, so long as they've been married for fewer than 12 months. After one full year of marital bliss, the same sexual activities become serious criminal offenses. Personal revenge is allowed by law in Paraguari, Paraguay, when a man catches his wife in bed with someone else. He's permitted to kill his wife's lover, and his adulterous spouse, on the spot. But the wronged husband must take immediate action to be considered guiltless under this law——he isn't allowed to wait and do it later. On the other hand, a wife who catches her mate in bed with a lover is not entitled to any of these privileges. source:http://www.shangri-la-lost.com/itsthelaw.html |
|
| Author: | Lee [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Just curious: |
Just curious: Why in hell would you get married in the first place? Lee |
|
| Author: | Cygnus [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Prolijo, not having studied your cited site, are these Latin American laws/customs current or somewhat from a macho past  
As for Islamic law currently, like in Saudi Arabia, adultery by a woman is punished by STONING to Death 
Believe even a Saudi princess was thus punished not so long ago. Her lover was publically BEHEADED by sword [scimitar?] for letting his little head rule his actions 
Archaic moral or religuos laws 
Cygnus 
|
|
| Author: | VegasBob [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is all quite a bit different from the current U.S. law where the man's assets are shared equally between the spouse and the lawyers. |
|
| Author: | Jazz Musician [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The only real problem with marriage these days is the double standard is "out of the closet." Really frosts my ass, because I kinda like the double standard. Now bitches hold it against ya. Of course, in some Latin American cities in Central and Sul America, the double standard is alive and well. And then there's Rio, where, like here, the double standard is threatened, but for a different reason. Namely, everybody there phucks around equally. I like marriage as long as I can phuck around without her doing the same. Is that so much to ask? It is? Then phuck it. |
|
| Author: | Rolex [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Veil of Fears Why they veil; why we should leave it alone. Stanley Kurtz is a fellow at the Hudson Institute From the January 28, 2002, issue, of National Review Last month's dramatic pictures of Afghan women shyly peeking out from beneath freshly lifted veils set off a torrent of commentary on the meaning and aims of the war. Although Afghanistan's new rulers quickly abolished the Taliban's draconian codes of womanly conduct, some Americans called for a government-imposed program of feminist reform. Feminists, like Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler, even tried to spin the war as a crusade against a global "patriarchy." Meanwhile, the mainstream press was busy detailing the horrors of the Taliban's treatment of women, focusing on the veil. "It was like being in jail," said one Afghan woman of her years under the veil. But now, proclaimed the New York Times, "the prisoners have been set free." In a cover story on Muslim women, Time magazine dubbed the Afghan burka "a body bag for the living." But the "veil as body bag" notion is both mistaken and dangerous. There is no surer way to drive the Islamic world into the arms of the fundamentalists than to force Western feminism on a newly conquered Muslim country. It is no coincidence that the two Muslim fundamentalist regimes of our day — Iran and Afghanistan — arose in nations that had systematically attempted to root out traditional Islamic practices regarding women. (Those efforts were sponsored by the shah in Iran and the Soviets in Afghanistan.) Instead of being damned as a senseless outrage, veiling deserves a qualified defense. The practice has undoubtedly slowed the Muslim world's path to modernity, and that is a serious problem. But that difficulty would never have arisen in the first place if veiling hadn't accomplished something important. Veiling is embraced by millions of Muslim men and women as one of the keys to their way of life. They are not mistaken. The conflict between modernity and the traditional Muslim view of women is one of the most important causes of this war. The tiresome claim of the leftist academy that poverty causes terrorism misses the point. So far from being poor, Muslim fundamentalists tend to come from a relatively wealthy modernizing class. The terrorists and their supporters are generally newly urbanized, college-educated professionals from intact families with rural backgrounds. They are a rising but frustrated cohort, shut out of power by a more entrenched and Westernized elite. True, the new fundamentalists often find themselves stymied by the weak economies of Muslim countries, but as a class they are relatively well off. Like many revolutions, the Muslim fundamentalist movement has been spurred by increased income, education, and expectations. But it is the clash between traditional Middle Eastern family life and modernity that has decisively pushed so many toward fundamentalism. And women are at the center of the problem. Although the puzzle of "modernity and the Muslim woman" is one of several keys to this war, the feminist sensibility of the American press has rendered the connection between terrorism and the Islamic sexual system all but invisible. The press has been obsessed with the relatively small number of modernized women in Afghan cities who were indeed viciously oppressed by the Taliban's infamous policies. Women who had once been accustomed to Western skirts were not only forced to cover themselves entirely and forbidden to leave home without a male relative, they were banned even from making noises with their shoes as they walked through the streets of the city. The world has justly condemned these policies, but this picture of government-imposed veiling does not accurately describe the situation of most Afghan women under the Taliban, much less the lives of the many educated women throughout the Middle East who have enlisted in the Muslim fundamentalist movement through their decision to don the veil. Town and Country The Taliban's code of womanly behavior was intentionally directed toward the cities. The aim was to "purify" those areas of Afghanistan that had been "corrupted" by modernization. But the Taliban never bothered to enforce its rules in traditional areas. Actually, in most Afghan villages, women rarely wear the burka. That's because villages in Afghanistan are organized into kin-oriented areas, and the veil needs wearing only when a woman is among men from outside of her kin group. A rural woman puts on a burka for travel, especially to cities. Yet just by exiting her home, a woman in a modern city inevitably mixes with men who are not her kin. That's why the Taliban prohibited the modernized women of Kabul from so much as stepping onto the street without a male relative. So the real problem with the veil in Afghanistan was the Taliban's attempt to impose the traditional system of veiling on a modernizing city. Yet, remarkable as it may seem, many modernizing urban women throughout the Middle East have freely accepted at least a portion of the Taliban's reasoning. These educated women have actually taken up the veil — and along with it, Muslim fundamentalism. To see why, it is necessary to understand what makes traditional Muslim women veil in the first place. Life in the Muslim Middle East has long revolved around family and tribe. In fact, that's what a tribe is — your family in its most extended form. For much of Middle Eastern history, tribal networks of kin functioned as governments in miniature. In the absence of state power, it was the kin group that protected an individual from attack, secured his wealth, and performed a thousand other functions. No one could flourish whose kin group was not strong, respected, and unified. In the modern Middle East, networks of kin are still the foundation of wealth, security, and personal happiness. That, in a sense, is the problem. As we've seen in Afghanistan, loyalty to kin and tribe cuts against the authority of the state. And the corrupt dictatorships that rule much of the Muslim Middle East often function themselves more like self-interested kin groups than as rulers who take the interests of the nation as a whole as their own. That, in turn, gives the populace little reason to turn from the proven support of kin and tribe, and trust instead in the state. So from earliest youth, a Middle Eastern Muslim learns that his welfare and happiness are bound up in the strength and reputation of his family. If, for example, a Ch*ld shows a special aptitude in school, his siblings might willingly sacrifice their personal chances for advancement simply to support his education. Yet once that Ch*ld becomes a professional, his income will help to support his siblings, while his prestige will enhance their marriage prospects. The "family" to which a Muslim Middle Easterner is loyal, however, is not like our family. It is a "patrilineage" — a group of brothers and other male relatives, descended from a line of men that can ultimately be traced back to the founder of a particular tribe. Traditionally, lineage brothers will live near one another and will share the family's property. This willingness of a "band of brothers" to pool their labor and wealth is the key to the strength of the lineage. But the centrality of men to the Muslim kinship system sets up a problem. The women who marry into a lineage pose a serious threat to the unity of the band of brothers. If a husband's tie to his wife should become more important than his solidarity with his brothers, the couple might take their share of the property and leave the larger group, thus weakening the strength of the lineage. There is a solution to this problem, however — a solution that marks out the kinship system of the Muslim Middle East as unique in the world. In the Middle East, the preferred form of marriage is between a man and his cousin (his father's brother's daughter). Cousin marriage solves the problem of lineage solidarity. If, instead of marrying a woman from a strange lineage, a man marries his cousin, then his wife will not be an alien, but a trusted member of his own kin group. Not only will this reduce a man's likelihood of being pulled away from his brothers by his wife, a woman of the lineage is less likely to be divorced by her husband, and more likely to be protected by her own extended kin in case of a rupture in the marriage. Somewhere around a third of all marriages in the Muslim Middle East are between members of the same lineage, and in some places the figure can reach as high as 80 percent. It is this system of "patrilateral parallel cousin marriage" that ex plains the persistence of veiling, even in the face of modernity. By veiling, women are shielded from the possibility of a dishonoring premarital affair. But above all, when Muslim women veil, they are saving themselves for marriage to the men of their own kin group. In an important sense, this need to protect family honor and preserve oneself for an advantageous marriage to a man of the lineage is a key to the rise of Islamic revivalism. Covering Up Most people think of the Iranian revolution of the late 1970s as the beginning of the contemporary Muslim fundamentalist movement, but it was in Egypt in the mid 1970s that modern Islamic fundamentalism really took off. The movement was started by students — men and women — at Egyptian universities who spontaneously adopted a code of Islamic decorum in mixed company. In keeping with that code, and despite government attempts to forbid it, Egyptian college women began to don the veil. The practice soon spread (and along with it, the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism) to legions of educated working women in Egypt's cities. Oddly, these willing wearers of the veil were precisely the sort of educated career women on whom the Taliban would ruthlessly force the burka. The difference was that these women, unlike those who later fell victim to the Taliban, had free access to education and modern careers. They put on the veil precisely as a way of enjoying these modern innovations — without also endangering their marriage prospects, or their family's honor, in the new, mixed-sex environment. The last three decades have seen a tremendous increase in the number of Egyptians receiving an education. Many of these young people are fresh from villages, where the traditional marriage system is still strong. These are the grown Ch*ldren whose parents, uncles, brothers, and sisters sacrificed to make them into professionals. By veiling, they are fulfilling their end of the bargain; they are promising not to destroy — by a shameful affair, or by marriage to a stranger — the honor or prosperity of their families. Of course, not all Muslim women are young or waiting to marry relatives, but the preferred marriage pattern shapes a wider ethos. Some modernized office workers decide to veil only after they marry, to reduce jealousy, and protect the honor of their husbands and families. The veil was never the nightmare American feminists make it out to be. In a world where satisfaction in life is predicated on the honor, strength, and unity of the kin group, the veil makes sense. Although the oppressive impositions of the Taliban have rightly been abolished, the United States ought not to be in the business of browbeating Muslim women out of their veils, much less reforming the Middle Eastern kinship system. Instead, we need to encourage the separation of traditional Muslim family practices from the political ideology of Islamic fundamentalism. By far the best way to do this is to roundly defeat the fundamentalists on the battlefield. Once military and political failure has broken fundamentalism's appeal as an ideology, traditional family practices will be free to gradually adapt to modernity. Modernizing Egyptian women may still veil, but if they drop the theocratic fundamentalist baggage, that will be enough. Can we really get modernizing Muslim women who veil to drop their support for fundamentalist theocrats? It won't be easy, but nothing is more likely to produce a disastrous backlash against the United States than the conviction that an American victory will lead to a feminist-directed assault against veiling and the family. And many Muslim women in rural areas veil without being followers of the fundamentalist theocrats. When the United States governed Japan after World War II, we forcibly reconstructed the country as a democracy, without being so foolish as to seriously challenge its traditional family or sexual system. That system has remained far more "traditional" than our own, yet today Japanese family and sex roles (for better, and for worse) are slowly changing and adapting to modernity. With luck, the pattern will someday repeat itself in the Middle East. Muslim fundamentalists have turned on America as a convenient scapegoat for the agonies and contradictions of modernization in their own society. Yet distorted and unjust though it is, their logic contains a kernel of truth. The Western movies, television shows, and other media that now reach the Middle East tell of a world in which premarital sex and love-marriages are the norm — a world in which the extended family counts for little, and the lineage for nothing. This is what most alarms Muslim traditionalists. Western family norms may someday gain a foothold in the Middle East, but historically, family change lags behind and adapts to changes in political and economic life. So it is to the economic and political spheres that we ought to apply our pressure. The veiling question cuts across conventional political lines. The Left, of course, is split between feminists and multiculturalists: The former camp says, "Such practices as veiling are impermissible, for anyone"; the latter camp says, "Well, this is what they do, and who are we to object?" But conservatives are divided as well. Conservatives are eager to spread Western values across the globe, and when it comes to democracy and the free market, they have a point. But the conservative "realist" tradition in foreign policy warns against endangering ourselves through attempts to remake the world in our image. Burke's conservatism is the model here. Burke was a critic of the excesses of British rule in India, and he also favored American independence when few of his fellows did. Burke was never the die-hard opponent of reform he's often made out to be, but he did respect the wisdom embodied in custom. Burke believed that gradual change — from within the framework of custom — was the best policy, not only for England, but also for the nations England ruled. When it comes to veiling, Burke's policy should be our policy |
|
| Author: | Tman [ Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK...some of you may bash me for these thoughts, but...I must digress... I have known 2 women in my life who went from American wealthy homes and into Muslim marriages and religions, including adopting dress customs and male dominance in marriage. While one cannot completely understand it, I could only guess that they wanted the partiarchy coverage and leadership. Maybe because it was lacking in their upbringing...or maybe because materialism and modern culture and female "liberation" was found wanting in their experience. I also think they responded to the total attention and passion these men brought to the table based on their beliefs and customs. I hope those women are happy still...20+ years later. I'll probably never know...but Princess Grace never seemed terribly unhappy in her cultural change. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I am continually puzzled as to why women in US culture bare more and more flesh in their fashion and self expression...YET seem so reserved and cold sexually. They also want to continually sue us for sexual aggression in the workplace for a casual comment about their appearance, or saying "hey Alice, i really prefer today's naval ring to that crucifix one you wore yesterday". What is that all about? Even if you go to a gringa stripper bar, you will find many of the prettiest dancers staring at THEMSELVES in the mirror while giving you a lapdance (and charging you $20+ per 3 minute song). Is that an extreme case of narcissism, or are they just happy to see themselves?
And when it comes to so many of the obese Gringas that try and wear the low waiste jeans with tight tummy revealing tops...showing piercings and tatoos everywhere...well...I say, import a few million of those burka bags and veils...and pass a law that these women have to wear them in public! |
|
| Author: | Zigmonger [ Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | you are all such good analysts!!! |
And way to serious!! I have learned all I ever knew from you, the fruedians, of today!!! lets get back to the simple stuff, like id, ego, superego, things like oedipus and electra complex, where it all eminated from in the first place. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|