Page 1 of 2

回教徒女性穿长褲/饮酒有沒有罪?

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 10:37 am
by *小周
Image

陶杰 :女人穿褲子有沒有罪 ?


女人穿褲子有沒有罪?在道德塔利班統治的國家,女人不穿裙子,就是犯了天條。

盧布娜是一個蘇丹女人,她在紐約聯合國任職新聞官。盧布娜回到祖國探親,在首都卡土穆,出席一個宴會。那一夜她連同十三個女人一起被捕,罪名是身為女人,沒有穿阿拉伯婦女的傳統長裙,在公眾場合穿了褲子,而且還是牛仔褲。

盧布娜被判公開鞭刑。本來,她是聯合國職員,根據伊斯蘭國家的「法律」(如果真有法律的話),聯合國工作人員有外交豁免權,盧布娜可以避過重刑。

但這個女人作了一個重大的決定,她突然宣布辭職。辭了職,就沒有豁免權了,盧布娜故意這樣做,是為了替女人爭一口氣——穿褲子無罪,你敢當眾鞭打我,你就下手吧。

「法庭」的「陪審團」覺得很困惑,這下子他們不知道怎樣判。幾百年來,只有女人穿褲子被判鞭打而當庭痛哭求饒,答應下次不敢再犯,絕無不畏鞭子、明知可以逃脫刑責而偏要「罪名成立」的。盧布娜不肯以聯合國職員身份,獨自逃脫酷刑,她要與當夜都穿了褲子的十三個女人一起「有罪」。由於她好歹是聯合國「外國勢力」包庇的人,她雖然辭職,但蘇丹的伊斯蘭法庭還是很忌憚,不知道她背後是不是有更大的「黑手」叫她這樣做,從而鬧出國際新聞。

現在,盧布娜的案子暫緩判決。她在羈留所,成為女犯的領袖,叫她們不要怕。男獄警搶了她的手機,對她拳打腳踢,警方把她與男犯共囚一室,意思是想男囚犯強姦她。

現在,盧布娜身陷險境。香港的八婆師奶們:你們也是女性,可不可以少追看一兩集《大窟窿》,少看幾本八卦雜誌,關心一下千里之外這位不同膚色的姐妹的安危?蘇丹在侮辱全世界的女性,你豈可以沉溺在打麻將、親子、搶購 LV的浪潮之中,對生命麻木不覺?

起來聲援盧布娜吧,上網找她的名字: Lubna Hussein,香港是一個自稱的「國際城市」,關心八卦新聞可不可以也國際一點,寫信給聯合國,看看可不可以為這個勇敢的女人請命?

(来自8月9日《苹果日报》,原题:《国际八卦》,陶杰)
http://www.freehead.com/redirect.php?ti ... o=lastpost

按:今日《星洲日报•快乐星期天•星洲广场》亦转载此篇文章。

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 10:41 am
by *小周
現代女英豪---蘇丹女子 Lubna Hussein

8/04/2009


世界會美好不是她本來就美好,而是人們很努力去爭取來的。

最近在英國很難不去注意蘇丹女子Lubna Hussein的新聞,誰是Lubna Hussein?為什麼她會吸引了西方報章媒體很大的興趣與注意呢?而我則是對她勇敢的行徑讚賞不已,所以特意與大夥分享。

Lubna Hussein上個月與朋友在一家餐館聆聽來自埃及歌手的演唱,卻因穿長褲被警方逮捕至警局。警方一共逮捕十三個人,其中十人坦然承認有罪,幾天後被警方鞭打十下並罰款250元蘇丹幣(約台幣三千餘元),其中一人還只是個十三四歲的小女生,她當時被嚇到尿都流出來了。

Lubna Hussein拒絕認罪,請求見律師辯護挑戰其指控,因而她的案子移送至法院審理。Lubna Hussein決心對抗此惡法,她說伊斯蘭教裡既沒有說女人是否可以穿褲子,更沒有因其穿著而鞭刑女人的規定,這法令跟根本跟宗教一點干係也沒有,純脆是男人虐待女人。

為了迫使法令作修改,她堅決面對司法的起訴。她之前不僅拒絕蘇丹總統Omar el-Bashir的特赦,更在上個星期三出庭法院的時候,出人意外地宣布辭去她在聯合國的工作,放棄她的刑事豁免權,好讓法官能審理此案。Lubna Hussein受顧於聯合國在蘇丹的維和任務的新聞官,所以享有刑事豁免權。但她認為躲在刑事豁免權的保護傘下,無法證明她的清白,所以她決定辭去工作,再者她要對抗法律且要求作修改。

婦運人士且是反對派政治人物的Mariam Alamahdi稱讚Lubna Hussein是個真正的女英雄,她將此轉變成一個公開辯論決定的議題。說Lubna Hussein在法庭宣佈辭去她的工作,放棄她的豁免權,要求以一般蘇丹女性對待時,令人十分感動。Mariam Alamahdi說Lubna Hussein幹嘛因為穿長褲與襯衫而需要總統的赦免呢?她拒絕豁免權,因為一般的蘇丹人民婦女並沒有此特權。

Lubna Hussein的案子八月四日將審判,若蘇丹法院判決Lubna Hussein有罪,她將被公開施以鞭刑四十下並罰款。她在接受衛報的訪問時表示,有什麼好怕的?她堅持並不會害怕可能面對的處罰,她認為笞刑並不痛,但此法的存在是對她、對女人、對人類且蘇丹政府是一種恥辱。她說:『你怎麼去告訴世人你的政府鞭打自己的人民?你怎麼能這樣做呢?』。

她強調她決心面對司法不是為了她自己,而是為了改變法令,這是她的機會去捍衛蘇丹的女性。自從Omar el-Bashir在1989年靠軍事武力奪取政權後,蘇丹的女性常因為穿著的問題遭警方逮捕並施以笞刑。記者問她會因此事件改變穿衣服的習慣嗎?她回答說:『我有長褲,有洋裝與有蘇丹傳統服飾,我高興穿什麼就穿什麼,我不會去改變的。』

那若法官以服裝不雅,判決笞刑四十下呢?她說她會繼續抗爭到底,即使上訴到最高法院。『若他們判決我有罪,我已經做好要被鞭打四十下的準備,甚至是四萬下。若女性因其穿著得遭受鞭刑,我已經做好要被鞭刑四萬下的準備了。』

加油Lubna Hussein,希望你的努力與犧牲沒有白費,希望今天蘇丹政府法院還給你與全蘇丹女性穿著的自由!


補註

有報導說Lubna Hussein會被逮捕至警局不是因為她的長褲而是她的腦袋,她之前擔任記者時曾寫過不少文章批評政府缺乏政治與社會的自由,所以政府藉機報復。

在關注Lubna Hussein的案子之際,我竟然發現連國際惡名遭彰蘇丹政府的警察與法的素質都比台灣的高許多,Lubna Hussein在被警方逮捕至警局後當拒絕認罪,警察並沒有鞭刑她,依她的要求請辯護律師到場。而上個星期三法官得在她放棄刑事豁免權後,才能繼續審理此案。有哈佛的法學博士的領導人,並沒有提昇台灣司法的水平,反而連累到他的恩師,儘管畢業多年了,還得負起責任三不五時投報繼續「教導」他的學生,勸不動了,只好公開呼籲台灣的菁英不要再沈默下去了,任由他的弟子惡搞遺害台灣。

資料來源

Public flogging holds no fear for woman who dared wear trousers

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... mlThursday, 30 July 2009
Lubna Hussein: 'I'm not afraid of being flogged. It doesn't hurt. But it is insulting'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/au ... dress-code Editor

http://littlenoteinuk.blogspot.com/2009 ... ssein.html

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 10:47 am
by *小周
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/au ... dress-code

Lubna Hussein: 'I'm not afraid of being flogged. It doesn't hurt. But it is insulting'

By James Copnall The Observer, Sunday 2 August 2009

Lubna Hussein could receive 40 lashes if found guilty on Tuesday of being indecently dressed - by wearing trousers. In her first major interview, she tells James Copnall in Khartoum why she is determined to fight on, whatever danger she faces

Sitting in the restaurant where her ordeal began, Lubna Hussein looks at the offending item of clothing that caused all the trouble and laughs softly. "In Sudan, women who wear trousers must be flogged!" she says, her eyes widening at the thought. The former journalist faces up to 40 lashes and an unlimited fine if she is convicted of breaching Article 152 of Sudanese criminal law, which prohibits dressing indecently in public.

What exactly constitutes "indecent" is not clear. Last month Lubna was among a crowd listening to an Egyptian singer in a restaurant in a swish area of Khartoum when policemen surged in. They ordered Lubna and other women to stand up to check what they were wearing, and arrested all those who had trousers on. Lubna, who was wearing loose green slacks and a floral headscarf, was taken to the police station.

"There were 13 of us, and the only thing we had in common was that we were wearing trousers," Lubna says. "Ten of the 13 women said they were guilty, and they got 10 lashes and a fine of 250 Sudanese pounds (about £65). One girl was only 13 or 14. She was so scared she urinated on herself."

Lubna asked for a lawyer, so her case was delayed. Despite the risks, she is determined that her trial should go ahead. Before her initial hearing last Wednesday, she had 500 invitation cards printed, and sent out emails with the subject line: "Sudanese journalist Lubna invites you again to her flogging tomorrow."

The court was flooded with women's rights activists, politicians, diplomats and journalists, as well as well-wishers. During the hearing, Lubna announced that she would resign from her job as a public information officer with the United Nations, which would have provided her with immunity, to fight the case. The judge agreed, and adjourned the trial until Tuesday.

Lubna says she has no fear of the punishment she might face. "Afraid of what? No, I am not afraid, really," she insists. "I think that flogging does not hurt, but it is an insult. Not for me, but for women, for human beings, and also for the government of Sudan. How can you tell the world that the government flogs the people? How can you do that?"

She is determined to face prosecution in order to change the law. "It is not for me. It is my chance to defend the women of Sudan. Women are often arrested and flogged because of what they wear. This has been happening for 20 years. Afterwards some of them don't continue at high school or university, sometimes they don't return to their family, and sometimes if the girls have a future husband, perhaps the relationship comes to an end."

Lubna, a widow in her 30s, says women have faced similar punishments, mainly in silence, ever since President Omar el-Bashir seized power in 1989. For much of the time since then, Sudan has been at loggerheads with the west. It provided shelter for Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, and is still on an American list of countries that sponsor terrorism, although a senior US official said recently that there was no justification for this.

But Lubna says her concerns are not political. Her frustration stems from what she believes is an erroneous interpretation of her religion.

"Islam does not say whether a woman can wear trousers or not. The clothes I was wearing when the police caught me - I pray in them. I pray to my God in them. And neither does Islam flog women because of what they wear. If any Muslim in the world says Islamic law or sharia law flogs women for their clothes, let them show me what the Qur'an or Prophet Muhammad said on that issue. There is nothing. It is not about religion, it is about men treating women badly."

Since news of the case broke, Lubna has been celebrated in the western press. She is bemused by the thought of being seen as a heroine, and even more by the idea - suggested by some British newspapers - that she was targeted because she is a Christian. "I am a Muslim, and a good Muslim," she says.
In response to the articles about her case, the Sudanese embassy in London pointed out there had been next to no coverage of a recent landmark arbitration ruling on the region of Abyei, which is contested by the north and the south following two decades of civil war. Despite fears that it might spark renewed conflict, both sides announced they would respect the ruling.

"The floodgates of expert and non-expert comments on Sudan opened suddenly on 29 July in the wake of an indecency and antisocial behaviour case in Khartoum involving journalist Lubna A Hussein," the statement read. "The case is still ongoing and it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on it. The real question, which is relevant to the deep-rooted Islamophobic and anti-Arab prejudice, is th selective spotlight on Ms Lubna Ahmed Hussein and determined neglect of Abyei dispute's result for eight long days."

Sitting in the Khartoum restaurant as the fierce late-afternoon sun intrudes through the windows, Lubna dismisses the notion that western praise might be a drawback in a country like Sudan. "In Sudan, we like the west," she exclaims, apparently agitated by the idea that people might not realise this. "For many Sudanese, our dream is to go to the west." But the government doesn't always give that impression. "The government thinks differently to the people. The government hopes to be friends with the west, but sometimes they try to look tough, that's all."

Nevertheless, she is worried that the foreign attention on her case could lead to further cultural misunderstandings. "The west really doesn't understand Islam," she says. "Because as Muslims we know that, if the police catch girls and arrest and flog them, we know this is not Islam. But when the government of Bashir does that, the west says: 'Oh, that is Islam.' It presents a bad face of Islam."

Since her initial hearing, Lubna has been bombarded with messages and phone calls from all over the world. Her family has been supportive, she says, perhaps in part because they are used to it: she was first arrested 15 years ago as a campaigning university student, and has been called in by the police on many subsequent occasions, often after writing satirical articles for the newspaper her husband set up, Sahafa
But one phone call from within the country touched her most. "I talked to my colleagues in the court, the 10 who have already been flogged. At the beginning they were very sad, and one of them was in a bad psychological state. But when she saw me on TV and in the newspaper, she called me to say that this was good. In the beginning, her neighbours and her family didn't believe she was flogged just for the clothes she was wearing. So she called me to say thank you."

The issue is rapidly becoming politicised. The Sudan People's Liberation Movement, which represents the mainly non-Muslim south in a coalition government, has called for the law to be changed. Under a 2005 peace deal, sharia law is not supposed to apply to non-Muslims, and not the least controversial among Lubna's statements is that several of the 10 women she says were flogged were non-Muslims.

But, for Lubna, the heart of the case goes beyond the north-south divide and its ramifications. She says nothing in Islam justifies flogging a woman for wearing trousers. "I am not a hero, I just don't have a choice," she says, fiddling with her pale gold headscarf.

When she spoke to the Observer, Lubna was wearing trousers again, this time blue jeans. Will her experience change the way she dresses? "I have trousers, I have dresses, I have traditional Sudanese clothes - I wear what I like. I won't change."

And what will happen if the judge decides, as is still possible, that she was indecently dressed, and sentences her to 40 lashes?

"I will take my case to the upper court, even to the constitutional court," she insists, measuring her words. "And if they find me guilty, I am ready to receive not only 40 lashes, I am ready for 40,000 lashes. If all women must be flogged for what they wear, I am ready to be flogged 40,000 times. "

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 10:58 am
by *小周
非回教徒对回教徒女性所要面对的挑战真的深感无奈也匪夷所思……
她们不偷、不抢、不贪污、不失信、不欺诈……但却为了我们眼中的“小事”须面对如同强奸犯的严厉鞭笞刑罚!

我国的回教徒女模特儿喝酒一案也引起一番争论……


女模喝酒 国际特赦吁马来西亚勿施鞭刑

【大纪元8月21日报导】(中央社吉隆坡21日法新电)人权团体“国际特赦组织”(Amnesty International)今天呼吁马来西亚政府,勿对一名喝啤酒的穆斯林女模特儿施以鞭刑,并废除这种“残忍又有辱人格的惩罚方式”。

32岁的卡提嘉(Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno)上个月在法庭上承认,她去年在东部彭亭州(Pahang)一间饭店夜店内饮酒,因此被判鞭刑和罚款5000马币(1400美元)。

卡提嘉下周将被鞭打六下。此外,她昨天提出上诉,要求鞭刑在公开场合执行,以对其他穆斯林产生警惕作用。

国际特赦组织表示,马来西亚当局应该“立即撤销鞭打她的判决,并一并废除鞭刑”。

国际特赦组织发布声明表示:“鞭刑是一种残忍、不人道和有辱人格的惩罚方式,且国际人权法禁止实施鞭刑”。

卡提嘉带着两个孩子住在邻近的新加坡,她将成为拥有多元文化的马来西亚内,第一个按伊斯兰律法处以鞭刑的女性。鞭刑预定在一间女子监狱执行。(译者:中央社蒋天清)

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/9/8/21/n2631663.htm

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 10:59 am
by 5+7
有下文了吗?我是指那穿裤而被罚的女英雄.

至于那位知法犯法的马来女模是明知故犯,活该。虽然因为喝酒而被罚鞭笞是过分了些。但,一开始,她已知晓身为回教徒是不可以喝酒的。

所以说不是回教徒是比较“轻松”了,呵呵!

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 11:27 am
by *小周
5+7 wrote:有下文了吗?我是指那穿裤而被罚的女英雄.

至于那位知法犯法的马来女模是明知故犯,活该。虽然因为喝酒而被罚鞭笞是过分了些。但,一开始,她已知晓身为回教徒是不可以喝酒的。

所以说不是回教徒是比较“轻松”了,呵呵!
Lubna Hussein的案子暂缓判决。

Kartika将在明天前往加影女子監獄,被單獨囚禁一週,之後再接受鞭刑。
老天,举国欢庆国庆日,Kartika却面对鞭刑!

我无法说出“活该”两个字……


新加坡‧喝酒被判處6鞭罰款‧女模受刑丈夫不探望

(新加坡)名模將被判處6下鞭笞,丈夫卻不會前去探望。
32歲的馬來女模特卡迪卡,被控去年7月11日晚上11時40分在彭亨州的一間酒廊喝啤酒,被關丹回教法庭判處6下鞭笞及罰款5000令吉。
已是新加坡永久居民的女模,將是第一個在馬來西亞回教法下,因喝啤酒而被鞭笞的女性。

家人申請獄內監督行刑

她曾要求在大庭廣眾下受刑,但要求遭到拒絕,家人只好申請進入監獄內監督過程。

女模的姐姐週六(8月22日)早上受訪時說,家人的要求至今都還未接到答復,不過,家人會在下週一(24日)早上,陪伴妹妹一同前往加影女子監獄。妹妹將被單獨囚禁一週,之後再接受鞭刑。

“她現在已做好心理準備了,正忙著收拾東西,安頓好孩子。”
姐姐也透露,妹夫因為在獅城的工作繁忙,將不會趁週末趕到馬國陪伴妹妹,囚禁期間也不會去探望她。妹妹可能在受刑後幾天回返獅城。妹妹的8歲兒子和5歲女兒現在由家人照顧。

女模的父親蘇卡洛慕達立(60歲)受訪時說,第一次遇上這樣的案件,女兒難免會感到恐懼。但她始終要勇敢面對,樂觀一點。

蘇卡洛慕達立表示,女兒卡迪卡在大馬中學畢業後,繼續到學院讀書,之後還曾到歐洲訓練。

“女兒到新加坡工作後,曾擔任護士,後來也有進修護士課程,之後也有到歐洲訓練一個月的時間。”
目前,由於卡蒂卡正在處理被判罰的事情,因此已向本地的私人醫院申請暫停工作。

女模小時候調皮

蘇卡洛慕達立也透露,由於女兒小時候是在鄉村長大,因此個性會比較男性化,因此非常調皮,小時候也常常被父親教訓。

“我小時候曾經打過她,但只是很溫和的教訓,她長大後變得有紀律,不用我擔心。”

蘇卡洛慕達立說,女兒天生長得漂亮,即使結婚後依然動人。
“她在新加坡有和公司簽訂合約,當兼職模特兒,只是最近才開始,因此廣告和走秀都還沒有正式嘗試過。”

星洲日報‧2009.08.22
http://www.sinchew.com.my/node/127576?tid=2

Posted: 23-08-09 Sun 8:46 pm
by 5+7
不好意思,没有幸灾乐祸的意思。活该在这里可以诠释为:应该那样。

她明知道身为回教徒是不可以喝酒的,不管她是否是真正的回教徒。

很多马来人根本不理会回教教义,没祈祷、没真的斋戒。她要喝就应该是在家里喝,哪里可以在公共场合喝?她的家人对她的受罚也没什么怨言。

好像偷东西在回教法庭中会被判砍手的,有这回事吗?

Posted: 02-09-09 Wed 2:28 am
by *好小子
5+7 wrote:至于那位知法犯法的马来女模是明知故犯,活该。虽然因为喝酒而被罚鞭笞是过分了些。但,一开始,她已知晓身为回教徒是不可以喝酒的。

所以说不是回教徒是比较“轻松”了,呵呵!
5+7 wrote:不好意思,没有幸灾乐祸的意思。活该在这里可以诠释为:应该那样。

她明知道身为回教徒是不可以喝酒的,不管她是否是真正的回教徒。
我不认为是活该,是可怜。喝酒又不是贩毒又不是杀人放火,对喝酒的人施刑是疯人的行为。对别人强制施刑的不是宗教,是法则吧。让这种东西乖戾了宗教的本质,真是奇怪。

我不会因为自己不是回教徒而开心,倒会为那些因宗教而受苦的人感到可惜。
5+7 wrote:很多马来人根本不理会回教教义,没祈祷、没真的斋戒。她要喝就应该是在家里喝,哪里可以在公共场合喝?她的家人对她的受罚也没什么怨言。
这让我想起一个故事——

有位回教徒看见一位佛教徒吃肉,问他:“佛教徒不是都吃素的吗?”
佛教徒说:“不是的,我们的佛教不强求,虽然有这种鼓励。”
过后,回教徒向他的教友说:“原来佛教徒是那么不虔诚的。”

又有一天,回教徒遇见一位华人,他在吃牛肉。回教徒问:“你是佛教徒吗?”
华人说:“是的。”
回教徒再问:“那你为什么吃牛肉?”
华人说:“没为什么,因为佛教不强求的。”
结果,回教徒又向他的教友说:“原来佛教徒是那么不虔诚的。”

有一次,回教徒问佛教徒:“你一天祈祷几次?”
佛教徒说:“没祈祷。”
回教徒再问:“为什么?”
佛教徒说:“我们的佛教不强求,没祈祷也没关系的。”
这次,回教徒也向他的教友说:“原来佛教徒是那么不虔诚的……”

Posted: 27-09-09 Sun 12:37 pm
by 5+7
“活该“是一种说辞。

在她从小懂事以来,身在回教徒的家庭就应该清楚:不能喝酒是回教徒必须遵守的教规。她理应懂得。

我不会因为自己不是回教徒而开心,倒会为那些因宗教而受苦的人感到可惜。 〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉真正的、虔诚的回教徒不会认为他们是受苦。他们更不会去做那些不被教规所认同的行为。喝酒会乱性,这大家都懂吧?

当然,只因为喝酒而必须被罚鞭笞是过分严厉,就像偷东西被罚砍手、女人不能穿裤那样。

至于您所比喻的佛教徒怎么可以吃肉,不祈祷等,就显示当事人不太理解佛教,不然他不会那样回答。他也不是真正的佛教徒。很多人拜神,都称自己是佛教徒,方便吧?

Posted: 27-09-09 Sun 9:30 pm
by 蓝天的思念
5+7 wrote:“活该“是一种说辞。

在她从小懂事以来,身在回教徒的家庭就应该清楚:不能喝酒是回教徒必须遵守的教规。她理应懂得。

我不会因为自己不是回教徒而开心,倒会为那些因宗教而受苦的人感到可惜。 〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉〉真正的、虔诚的回教徒不会认为他们是受苦。他们更不会去做那些不被教规所认同的行为。喝酒会乱性,这大家都懂吧?

当然,只因为喝酒而必须被罚鞭笞是过分严厉,就像偷东西被罚砍手、女人不能穿裤那样。

至于您所比喻的佛教徒怎么可以吃肉,不祈祷等,就显示当事人不太理解佛教,不然他不会那样回答。他也不是真正的佛教徒。很多人拜神,都称自己是佛教徒,方便吧?
喝酒会乱性,虔诚的教徒不该犯教规,这个我认同。

问题是,如果一味着认为人犯了错,就一定要马上受罚(她犯了戒律,所以一定要受罚!活该!),恐怕不是失去了宗教里都强调的‘慈悲’及‘宽恕’吗?

对待犯错的人,我认为,我们更应该用’爱‘来让他们回头,不是一手马上推他们到死角边,要‘摧毁’他们。

~小弟的意见。有冒犯,请见谅。