Israeli rabbis clamp down on burka

[ensho]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7919501/Israeli-rabbis-clamp-down-on-burka.html


Israeli rabbis are to clamp down on the growing number of devout Jewish women wearing the burka by declaring the garment an item of sexual deviancy.

At the insistence of the husbands of some burka-wearing women, a leading rabbinical authority is to issue an edict declaring burka wearing a sexual fetish that is as promiscuous as wearing too little.

A small group of ultra-orthodox Jews in the town of Beit Shemesh chose to don the burka, usually associated with women in repressive Islamist regimes, three years ago in a bid to protect their modesty.

-snip-

The trend has also caused tensions in family life. One man went to a rabbinical court in an attempt to get a ruling to force his wife to stop wearing the burka.

The plan backfired, however. The court ruled that that woman's behaviour was so "extreme" that it ordered the couple to undergo an immediate religious divorce.
---------------------------------


religious insanity is so tedious

[damntexdem]

1. Tedious? Come on, now! Admit how amusing it can be.

Don't you see endless ironies just in this one, minor issue?

[azurnoir]

2. somehow this does not surprise me

the religious laws in Orthodox Judaism and Islam regarding women are closer than many here would like to admit

[henank]

4. On the contrary

You obviously didn't read the OP. There it states quite clearly that

At the insistence of the husbands of some burka-wearing women, a leading rabbinical authority is to issue an edict declaring burka wearing a sexual fetish that is as promiscuous as wearing too little.

Show me where the Muslim religion claims that women should NOT wear the burqa. Show me Muslim men that do NOT want their wives to wear the burqa. The Jewish men and the rabbis want the exact opposite of what certain Muslims want.

You are so conditioned in your anti-Israel mindset that anything relating even to Judaism puts you on the offensive.

Besides all of which, this is a really old story that was in the headlines probably over a year ago, more likely closer to 2 years ago. I'm not sure why the Telegraph should dig this up now. Here's a story on the same subject from 2008: √http://www.forward.com/articles/12558/

[azurnoir]

6. the 2 year old blerb in the Forward does not provide the info

that is obviously much more recent

[shaayecanaan]

8. Does it really matter whether its a wig or a shawl or a veil or a hijab?

its the same principle, surely?

[henank]

9. No. It's a compeltely different matter

whether it's covering your entire body or covering your hair.

But the most important difference in principle is that Judaism does not mandate beating your wife or any other woman for not covering up as her husband or other menfolk demand.

[shaayecanaan]

10. I thought that both religions demanded modesty of women...

which is why both of them require a woman to cover her hair. At least I thought that was the principle at hand.

If its not due to modesty, perhaps you'd like to explain what the motivations are for requiring a woman to cover her hair are?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I find it interesting how little attention this OP got...

I guess it's not about Muslim women, so it's no big deal..

[henank]

5. It's because the story is old. See my #4 above. N/t

[Violet_Crumble]

11. No, it's not. Has the issue been resolved? If not, then it's current...

After reading post #4 I'm a bit unsure as to why people pointing out that the burqa is worn by choice by some Jewish women would offend you so much you'd accuse them of being antisemtic.

[azurnoir]

7. your right and more over it is surely quite embarrassing

for some here as seen in the attempt to cover or declare it "old" news