It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mass brawl at theme park after Muslim women are banned from going on rides unless they remove their

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


It really is a religious thing relating to protecting both sexes from unmodest exploitation. The rules can be bent though to some degree.Well, maybe it's not entirely religious, I'm inclined to think it's partly culture too.


Detailed scholarly attention has been focused on prescribing female dress. Many Muslims believe that the basic requirements are that when in the presence of someone of the opposite sex (other than a close family member (those which are within the prohibited degrees of marriage) – see mahram), a woman should cover her body, and walk and dress in a way which does not draw sexual attention to her. Some believers go so far as to specify exactly which areas of the body must be covered.

en.wikipedia.org...
Now, that being said, I recently saw a woman with the hijab in a shopping mall, and she was wearing a leopard print, and very slick sexy high heeled shoes. She was definitely pushing the limit. Reminds me of the Sex In The City movie where they went to Saudi Arabia and found the women wearing expensive fashionwear under their robes.
edit on 1-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I know but good grief you don't need a head scarf to make you modest. Besides God made us to run around naked with no clothes, Satan is the one that ruined that one for us. It is silly though, i've heard of accounts where women were put to death if they had been raped even though it was not their fault, and i've heard of accounts where women have been put to death for violating the female dresscode of sharia. I'm surprised these women haven't converted to a more aesthetic religion and got the hell out of dodge.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


It really is a religious thing relating to protecting both sexes from unmodest exploitation. The rules can be bent though to some degree.Well, maybe it's not entirely religious, I'm inclined to think it's partly culture too.


Detailed scholarly attention has been focused on prescribing female dress. Many Muslims believe that the basic requirements are that when in the presence of someone of the opposite sex (other than a close family member (those which are within the prohibited degrees of marriage) – see mahram), a woman should cover her body, and walk and dress in a way which does not draw sexual attention to her. Some believers go so far as to specify exactly which areas of the body must be covered.

en.wikipedia.org...
Now, that being said, I recently saw a woman with the hijab in a shopping mall, and she was wearing a leopard print, and very slick sexy high heeled shoes. She was definitely pushing the limit. Reminds me of the Sex In The City movie where they went to Saudi Arabia and found the women wearing expensive fashionwear under their robes.
edit on 1-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I know but good grief you don't need a head scarf to make you modest. Besides God made us to run around naked with no clothes, Satan is the one that ruined that one for us. It is silly though, i've heard of accounts where women were put to death if they had been raped even though it was not their fault, and i've heard of accounts where women have been put to death for violating the female dresscode of sharia. I'm surprised these women haven't converted to a more aesthetic religion and got the hell out of dodge.


You have a very limited understanding of others peoples culture definitely. But you have a point. Covering has a little to do with modesty.

For one, historically speaking, covering the entire body was already performed by Arab tribes before the advent of Islam. With one difference, they covered everything, including their face, but left their bosom open.

So in the Quran it says to lengthen the headscarf to cover the chest as well.

The Arab tribes that prefer covering the face do it so that when their daughters or wives do something shameful, no one knows who it is.

Currently tho, it has turned into something of a symbolism. A reference point if you will.

But this was all at a time where women covered alongside other women who also covered, it didn't matter if they were Jews or Christians, it was a normal attire for people in that time.

Needless to say a lot of people just copy paste their behaviors from their parents and don't think very clearly about it.

As it stands, covering your body is not necessary to be Muslim.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Highergrounds
 


Oh hai imperialism. Wasn't expecting to see you in the west.

Comply with safety rules. If you don't like it, protest, not fight.


This is pretty much why I have a strict anti mob policy. Pretty much, once a mob devours human decency and responsibility, start shooting for your own safety.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Maybe this was all a publicity stunt? I could see it happening by some undercover radicals, the fact the 2 park workers received a good hiding shows that these people were violent and unable to deal with things like grown ups or civil individuals. I personally am fed up with all the equal rights -anti fash - anti racist do gooders shouting 'poor muslim' and having a go at anyone who dares suggest that just maybe the muslims are in the wrong. It sems like every time something like this happens we get the same fall out afterwards with opinions split firmly in to 2 camps, until now ive been on the fence but having seen similar things happen, more so in the UK, i have finally jumped off the fence and am saying what i think. Sorry if you dont like it or you think i am a racist or bigot but seeing this type of thing (and i use that very loosley) too many times now has led to this opinion.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 





know but good grief you don't need a head scarf to make you modest. Besides God made us to run around naked with no clothes, Satan is the one that ruined that one for us. It is silly though, i've heard of accounts where women were put to death if they had been raped even though it was not their fault, and i've heard of accounts where women have been put to death for violating the female dresscode of sharia. I'm surprised these women haven't converted to a more aesthetic religion and got the hell out of dodge.



I personally agree with you on this. I am not for Sharia law by any means. I believe in balance in all things. One wonders why they want to be in the States and keep pushing this agenda. Perhaps it is a sort of mission for them to promote their religious views actively. That being said, I found an interesting blog from a muslim viewpoint, but from I think a moderate point.
www.mubeena.net...


Unfortunately, what's missing in that blog is the use of the hijab to protest western society....too bad.


edit on 1-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Make them sign a waiver, put them in the back seats, and off they go.

What's the big deal?

If they want to risk getting their heads ripped off because they have absolutely no common sense, let them.

Who cares?

People make such mountains out of mole hills these days.
edit on 1-9-2011 by Common Scarecrow because: addition



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


The insurance companies will care.
The park will care.
The judge and jury will care.

How about joining the real world?
Lots of money to be made of companies that don't think ahead.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


The insurance companies will care.
The park will care.
The judge and jury will care.

How about joining the real world?
Lots of money to be made of companies that don't think ahead.



Did you not read the very first line of what I wrote?

Signed waiver = released from responsibility.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Highergrounds

Mass brawl at theme park after Muslim women are banned from going on rides unless they remove their head scarves


www.dailymail.co.uk

A theme park was forced to shut its gates to visitors when a mass brawl broke out after Muslim women were banned from rides unless they removed their headscarves.

Two park rangers were injured and 15 people, including three women, were arrested in the scuffle at Rye Playland in New York yesterday. They have since been charged with disorderly conduct and assault.

Muslim visitors involved in the fight accused police of brutality and claimed they were treated 'like animals'. One said: 'It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim
(visit the link for the full news article)



Sounds like a case to me of the squeeky wheel wanting the oil...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WatchRider
 


More like the squeaky wheel needs to be deported.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


The litigious nature of this country has made personal responsibility a thing of the past. That is why every company should (those who don't will eventually wish they did) have risk assessment and policies in place. Policies that are generally above and beyond, just to be on the safe side. Not to mention that any insurance company would require this.

The question that a jury would face is this: did the company do everything in its means to keep the users safe? If no, the company loses...

*FWIW, I agree with you, it's just not part of the world we live in now; the world that tells me I must be warned in writing that I'm about to drink "hot" coffee... Pfft


edit on 1-9-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Also, I find the article the OP posted a bit misleading actually.

it makes you feel like they argued with the park attendees, when in fact they didn't. They were arguing amongst themselves until a fight broke out.

heh



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Setting aside the issues related to religion etc.

I found an interesting site that lists (many?) of the theme park accidents - kinda shocked me !

amusementsafety.org...

It seems to me that anything that adds to the safety of patrons and staff should be a priority!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Highergrounds
 


It's a roller coaster alright, such things..



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


That is the root of the problems we have these days ....... absolutely no personal responsibility or accepting the consequences of stupid selfish actions.

Everything is someone else's fault, and who can I sue to get my piece of the pie.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


Signed waiver doesn't include the other guests that may be injured/killed by a derailed roller coaster. The rides were not designed for flapping loose clothing or 350lb people either. If someone is so wide they don't fit in the restraints properly they are rejected from riding as well. The 350lb person could sign a waiver but, I doubt the people walking around the park want to see a 350lb person land on them or a derailed coaster crashing on them. Has nothing to do with their religion. It is all safety concerns.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I don't know, but when people are more attached to demanding rides on roller coasters wearing a piece of cloth than they are the actual religious value, something tells me it's all hype.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Let's make this simple. A company creates a theme park and has one rule :

1. Anybody wearing blue jeans will not be allowed on any rides.

Now if somebody pays money to enter the park and they are wearing blue jeans do they have a right to complain when refused on any rides?

Quite clearly NO for 2 reasons:

1. It is NOT a public body it is a PRIVATE enterprise who can have whatever rules they like as long as they are not discriminatory to the person. Blue jeans has absolutely NOTHING to do with any race or religion. The rule was clearly displayed before they entered the park.

2. Anybody entering the park does so with their own free will and is not forced into paying the admission fee.

If anybody wearing blue jeans pays the admission to enter the park and then complains does so because they are a moron. Moronic behaviour is not confined to black, brown, white, christian, muslim, buddhist, tall, short, fat, thin, old, young, male, female, straight, gay, bi.....did I miss anybody?.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nusnus
If ANYONE has read the article carefully, the MUSLIMS did not argue with park attendants.

At that point the park called in the police and SOMEHOW...things got nasty afterwards. But if there is ANY suspicion that the police beat the crap out of the women, I would have someone investigate this.

Oh, and to all the haters: THEY WERE LEAVING! But they epic failed -.-




As irked families started lining up for refunds at the gate at around 2:30 p.m. after being informed of the policy, they started fighting among themselves, said county parks Deputy Commissioner Peter Tartaglia.

Read more: www.nypost.com...

edit on 1-9-2011 by nusnus because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2011 by nusnus because: (no reason given)


YO! EARTH TO SNU SNU. 2 SECURITY GUARDS IN THE HOSPITAL! HELLO!? ANYONE THERE?!

nope.

i suppose they each got confused, thought the other was one of the muslims, and accidentally beat eachother to the point of being hospitalized.
edit on 1-9-2011 by thedeadlyrhythm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join