Muslim Women Drivers & Car Accidents

Confusedboy

What women are allowed or expected to do in Saudi Arabia is much more to do with Saudi Arabian culture than Islam, though it is true enough that the Saudis invoke Islam as justification for thier culture and laws.

In the rest of the world, including countries in which Islam is a major constituent of the law-making process, women and men can mostly say what they want to whoever they like, dress how they like, and behave how they like, although cultural and traditional factors may strongly influence them to speak, dress, and behave in a particular way. Similarly, cultural and traditional factors strongly influence the way women and men speak, dress, and behave in our own society.

I am not aware of any religion anywhere whose authorities forbid the obeying of the secular or religious laws of any nation in which it's practitioners may be residing or visiting.

Spen, if you are not a troll, you will do until one comes along!

daviesee

Time for a heated debate!

mcj78

snailracer wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I understand there may have been research into this and it is IIRC shown that the niquabs/ burqas do not restrict the view when driving

True, but point me to the research which proves no form of headwear, religious or otherwise, has ever slipped/accidentally been moved from it's intended position on the wearer's head & covered their eyes, thus blocking their field of view, even momentarily, and i'll accept that.

Motorbike helmets can slip, or not fit properly, too.
You can barely see out of some cars, and some drivers have the seat so far back their vision is obscured by the door pillar.
Cyclists wearing hoodies.
Baseball caps.
Designer glasses with wide arms that obstruct peripheral vision.
You could even say the hunched-over road bike position restricts the cyclists view - can't see past their own shoulders without stretching.
Where do you draw the line??

Exactly my point - there are many things which may or may not restrict a person's vision on the road, it's down to the individual to ensure their burqa / baseball cap / hoody / crash helmet(?) / massive specs don't block their view of the road - if you ran someone over then said to the police officer that your religious headwear / hoody / baseball cap / crash helmet(?) / massive specs fell over your eyes & caused the accident, whose fault would it be - the clothing, or the wearer for failing to secure it properly?

As for the rest of the debate - why is the woman out of the kitchen in the first place? :roll:

Drysuitdiver

daviesee wrote:

Time for a heated debate!

well if all you can see is the eyes then it wouldn't be a mass debate would it

king_jeffers

AidanR wrote:

What happens if a Hindu driver crashes into a cow? Was it fate? Can it be divine fate to crash into a sacred animal?

If a Hindu drives into a cow and no one is around other than the Hindu who was driving the aforementioned car, does the cow make a noise?

:?

SimonAH

Crash Hindu a cow?

kieranb

Confusedboy wrote:

What women are allowed or expected to do in Saudi Arabia is much more to do with Saudi Arabian culture than Islam, though it is true enough that the Saudis invoke Islam as justification for thier culture and laws.

In the rest of the world, including countries in which Islam is a major constituent of the law-making process, women and men can mostly say what they want to whoever they like, dress how they like, and behave how they like, although cultural and traditional factors may strongly influence them to speak, dress, and behave in a particular way. Similarly, cultural and traditional factors strongly influence the way women and men speak, dress, and behave in our own society.

I am not aware of any religion anywhere whose authorities forbid the obeying of the secular or religious laws of any nation in which it's practitioners may be residing or visiting.

Spen, if you are not a troll, you will do until one comes along!

no blasphemy laws then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Nigeria

king_jeffers

SimonAH wrote:

Crash Hindu

Great band

snailracer

King Jeffers wrote:

AidanR wrote:

What happens if a Hindu driver crashes into a cow? Was it fate? Can it be divine fate to crash into a sacred animal?

If a Hindu drives into a cow and no one is around other than the Hindu who was driving the aforementioned car, does the cow make a noise?

:?

From wikipedia:

"At one time the death sentence was imposed for killing a cow in India, and as late as 1960, an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow."

snailracer

DonDaddyD wrote:

snailracer wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

snailracer wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes there is:

Spen666 wrote:

firstly, this may be based on a false understanding of Islam, but I understand that a muslim women in some islamic societies is forbidden from speaking to a male other than her husband of family members.

But that is true, is it not? e.g. Saudi Arabia. Although women there aren't allowed to drive by themselves in the first place.

We don't know and that's the bigoted assumption Spen666 asserts. As oppose to finding out if the above is, in fact, the case before continuing with his question. He continues based on the above without caring if it is true or not.

I wonder if he ever considers if the assertion is insulting to a practicing Muslim.

The existance of rampant sexism in Saudi is common knowledge. Saying "I think", "IMO", "if it is true" or "AFAIK", etc. is simply polite and in the spirit of an open discussion.

From a 2008 report by the US State Department:

"...The government also imposed corporal punishment by flogging for offenses including the harassment of women or for being alone in the company of an unrelated person of the opposite gender."
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/20 ... 119126.htm

Also, officially illegal for women in Saudi to drive since 1990.

You are aware that:

Islam is a religion found, practiced and followed around the World.
Saudi Arabia is but one country within the World.

Moreover:

Like Christianity there are numerous denominations of Islam.
There is more than one religion practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Conclusion:

1 Saudi Arabia is not Islam and is not the sole representation of the religion.

2 Not all in Saudi Arabia are Muslim's (people who follow the teachings of Islam as set in the Qur'an - the Islamic 'bible' for want of a better example).

3 Not all Muslim's are from Saudi Arabia.

I am quite aware of all your points.
I have highlighted those words that showed the original posts had restricted scope to avoid generalising about ALL muslims – which just shows that, if any generalising was done, it wasn’t done by me or Spen666.

DonDaddyD

snailracer wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

snailracer wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

snailracer wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes there is:

Spen666 wrote:

firstly, this may be based on a false understanding of Islam, but I understand that a muslim women in some islamic societies is forbidden from speaking to a male other than her husband of family members.

But that is true, is it not? e.g. Saudi Arabia. Although women there aren't allowed to drive by themselves in the first place.

We don't know and that's the bigoted assumption Spen666 asserts. As oppose to finding out if the above is, in fact, the case before continuing with his question. He continues based on the above without caring if it is true or not.

I wonder if he ever considers if the assertion is insulting to a practicing Muslim.

The existance of rampant sexism in Saudi is common knowledge. Saying "I think", "IMO", "if it is true" or "AFAIK", etc. is simply polite and in the spirit of an open discussion.

From a 2008 report by the US State Department:

"...The government also imposed corporal punishment by flogging for offenses including the harassment of women or for being alone in the company of an unrelated person of the opposite gender."
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/20 ... 119126.htm

Also, officially illegal for women in Saudi to drive since 1990.

You are aware that:

Islam is a religion found, practiced and followed around the World.
Saudi Arabia is but one country within the World.

Moreover:

Like Christianity there are numerous denominations of Islam.
There is more than one religion practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Conclusion:

1 Saudi Arabia is not Islam and is not the sole representation of the religion.

2 Not all in Saudi Arabia are Muslim's (people who follow the teachings of Islam as set in the Qur'an - the Islamic 'bible' for want of a better example).

3 Not all Muslim's are from Saudi Arabia.

You have a point there DDD. Fair play to you.

Laws "in Saudi" a country with multiple religions have (moslty) little to do with Muslim beliefs so why the hell bring it up.

Anyway:

FTFY

Galfinnan

Most religions are pretty much the same I find, even the most zealous of them all picks and chooses which aspects of their religion they choose to follow or believe in.

I think the burden of proof would be on the woman involved to prove that she applied the laws of Islam to all aspects of her life consistently for that to act as a valid defense. If I even encountered this situation which I reckon is highly unlikely at best I would simply phone the police and allow them to handle it.

Realistically, if the woman involved would be as devout as to not speak in this situation then I am prety sure that she would also be capable of adhering to section in the Khoran (sp) which deals with dealing with other people fairly or does this only apply if the person shares the same faith?

I do believe though that if you live in a country then you should expect to adhere to the laws of said country.

I am of the opinion though that Islam like Catholiscism and the bulk of religions and the bulk of religious people is entirely disruptive if not dangerous to modern society.

mattsaw

I's suggest that if the persuasion of the theoretical Muslim women was so devout that she wouldn't talk to another man while unaccompanied, then she also wouldn't be driving while unaccompanied.

However I would also suggest that the chances of being in an accident with a deaf mute would be far higher.

DonDaddyD

Mattsaw wrote:

I's suggest that if the persuasion of the theoretical Muslim women was so devout that she wouldn't talk to another man while unaccompanied, then she also wouldn't be driving while unaccompanied.

Agree, and if the persuasion was so strict/paticular about what women can and cannot do, would she be driving in the first place?

Probably not.

snailracer

DonDaddyD wrote:

..
Laws "in Saudi" a country with multiple religions have (moslty) little to do with Muslim beliefs so why the hell bring it up...

So real-world examples are not allowed, just in case someone who doesn't read posts properly misapplies that example?

Confusedboy

kieranb wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

What women are allowed or expected to do in Saudi Arabia is much more to do with Saudi Arabian culture than Islam, though it is true enough that the Saudis invoke Islam as justification for thier culture and laws.

In the rest of the world, including countries in which Islam is a major constituent of the law-making process, women and men can mostly say what they want to whoever they like, dress how they like, and behave how they like, although cultural and traditional factors may strongly influence them to speak, dress, and behave in a particular way. Similarly, cultural and traditional factors strongly influence the way women and men speak, dress, and behave in our own society.


Spen, if you are not a troll, you will do until one comes along!

no blasphemy laws then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Nigeria

I repeat, I am not aware of any religion anywhere whose authorities forbid the obeying of the secular or religious laws of any nation in which it's practitioners may be residing or visiting. Nigerians of either sex are more or less free to do as they please within the limits prescribed by thier own laws, which are thier business. They also have cultural and traditional restrictions on thier behaviour which they may or not choose to observe in consideration of the approbation of thier peers. Like Saudis. Or anyone else.

That said, Islam is a little unlike other religions in that, by it's very nature and as a direct result of the teachings of it's prophet Mohammed, it is a somewhat 'bottom up' arrangement in which doctrine is determined by local holy men, or by madrassas, interpreting the Koran; most other religions have a dogmatic system in which doctrine is handed down from structured archaic authoritarian institutions. This accounts for the very strong influence of local tradition and culture on the practice of the religion, and expains why Islam as practised in Saudi Arabia is radically different from the form it takes in Indonesia (the country with the largest Muslim population), or Iraq, or Mali.

Nigeria is undergoing a terrible constitutional crisis, and this is being excacerbated by religious intolerance from all sides. In fact, the rule of law, secular or religious, is breaking down there. One can hardly compare the situaltion there to that of a theoretical driving offence in the UK.

DonDaddyD

snailracer wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

..
Laws "in Saudi" a country with multiple religions have (moslty) little to do with Muslim beliefs so why the hell bring it up...

So real-world examples are not allowed, just in case someone who doesn't read posts properly misapplies that example?

What the hell are you on about?

The thread is about the presumed practices of a particular Muslim denomination.

The person cited laws of a particular Country.

1). We do not know if the assumptions made of said Muslim denomination are in fact accurate.

2). The practices of said religous denomination (a subgroup with the religion) have little to do with the societal laws of a Country that contains multiple religions and denominations of those religions.

Really, it's like saying some Catholic sects don't wear contraception and then citing an English law around contraception, as though it's relevant.

While it may be a real a real-world example and valid in an of itself, it is hardly relevant to the discussion.

rolf_f

Spen - exactly what sort of legal opinion/knowledge are you expecting to get off a cycling forum?

snailracer

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
The person cited laws of a particular Country.

1). We do not know if the assumptions made of said Muslim denomination are in fact accurate...

Never been to Saudi, I take it? You would have little cause to doubt the "assumptions" if you did, as I have. I consider them common knowledge in that region.
If a woman were to be seen driving in Riyadh, the roving bands of "morality police" would have pulled her up in short order.

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
2). The practices of said religous denomination (a subgroup with the religion) have little to do with the societal laws of a Country that contains multiple religions and denominations of those religions...

The enforcement of the laws is varies with region and who you are. However, the vast majority of the population is subject to the very strict Wahhabi laws. There is no distinction between religious and "societal" laws in Wahhabi society, the societal laws are considered "interpretations" of those laws laid down in the classic Islamic texts.

If I said that a car left-hooked me today, would you assume that I think all cars try to left-hook cyclists, that I am trying to slander all car drivers, that vans and lorries might also do the same so why am I singling out cars, etc.? No. You and others are simply overthinking it.

spen666

itchieritchie wrote:

"Thinly veiled"...good one...!!

I have some good Muslim friends. Will make some enquiries. Generally though, I can tell you that Muslims from places like Malaysia are less fundamentalist in approach than, say, those from Saudi Arabia. Generally...

I'm not a lawyer but went to law school. Aside from the application of the HRA, the courts always apply the "reasonableness test."

To take the example here, just because a Sikh would be permitted not to wear a helmet by the courts on religious grounds doesn't mean a Muslim woman involved in a car accident would necessarily be allowed to stay silent if she were unaccompanied by a Muslim male relative.

Why is this different?

The Sikh man would only be endangering himself by not wearing a helmet. The Muslim woman would involve someone else if involved in an accident.

This opens up a whole interesting debate about....helmetsd- and the right of the law to force one to wear them.
the issue I was referring to was the allowing someone to "be exempt" from the law on religious grounds but not on other grounds. the sikh is exempt on religious grounds, but you can't be exempt even on medical grounds.

how and why do we allow this?

Apples and oranges. Or the facts would be deemed "Not on all fours" in court parlance...

I reckon that's how it would work anyway. Like I said, I only did the theory, not the practice.

Not sure what's going on between you two, Spen and Spider. It's an interesting thread though Spen and I'd like to see how it pans out. I'm also curious so thanks for bringing the topic up.

I actually doubt it in this case, but if Spider is right, however, then shame on you.

As for muslim fenmale's speaking to males a quick google sea\rch would bering up websites such as this http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/34841 which giving advice to muslims says amongst other things

Sharee’ah blocks all the ways that may lead to fitnah (temptation, trial), hence it forbids softness of speech and does not allow a man to be alone with a non-mahram woman. Undoubtedly these private chats are not regarded as khulwah in the sense that he people involved cannot see one another, but they are one of the greatest causes of fitnah as is well known.

What has happened to you is the best testimonial to the truth of what we are saying, because it is difficult for a man to ask these personal questions of a believing woman, unless he uses these means that are being used in a bad way.

Fear Allaah, and do not speak to non-mahram men. This is safer for your religious commitment and purer for your heart. You should note that marriage to a righteous man is a blessing from Allaah, and a blessing cannot be acquired by means of sin

The private chats it refers to are internet conversations in the context of the original question

notsoblue

How often do you think this is a problem, Spen666?

spen666

cee wrote:

regardless of religious views or culture.....

A question for spen...

what would happen if there is any valid reason for not swapping details at the scene, but reporting it within 24 hours at a Police Station?

It is easy to imagine examples where someone may not feel safe or comfortable exchanging details at the scene of an accident...say a lone female at night has a bumper bash with a vehicle containing 5 young blokes?

Technically could still be an offence!

The law requires you to stop at the scene exchange details or if not report AS soon as practicable and in any event within 24 hours.

So accident 8pm tonight, report at police station 8am tomorrow morning is probably an offence.

Reporting at say 8:30 pm at police station a couple of miles away if possibly not an offence

Ginjafro

What a daft and pointless thread....

notsoblue

Ginjafro wrote:

What a daft and pointless thread....

Its more than just a daft and pointless thread. Its insidious.