Inevitable: “Burka Barbie” coming to a store near you

Sure that's not Ken under the walking postbox attire. What happens if your brother has an Action Man or GI Joe, will this Barbie have too play a few feet behind them. Can you pay a few quid more for the authentic genital mutilated variety Will be really cheap to accessorize though. no make up or cars, modern gadgets for the house, no house even just your choice of colour for that made to measure suicide bomb vest.

Very good,Iain UK.
Money is saved,however,as only one Ken needs to be purchased for every seven or so Barbies.
Adulterous Burqa Barbie comes complete with small sand pit and pile of stones(cheering stone throwers sold separately).

funkybarfly very good, entrepreneurship showing through, and would we have a BO & MO Barbie? YUCK! Disgusting.
I can just see a Pelosi Barbie with her falsies, shoulder pads along with her botox needles. They would make good Christmas gifts, excuse me (Holiday gifts) LOL GRRRRR

Those dolls are as cute as CHUCKY.

They'd be lovely VOODOO DOLLS, though.

At the end of the day, they also will be considered "UN-ISLAMIC" by
the followers of that satanic, death-adoring sect also known as "islam".

JEWHAWK: VOODOO - for fun, how good. Let's have a VOODOO Obamakin doll, now wouldn't that be cute as CHUNKY! It would be so full of pins you couldn't see it. HAHAHAHAHA GRRRR

SICK,SICK, SICK minded as Hell, for Matel. Burka Barbie, for Save the Children, Hello?? GRRRR

The jihadists and mujahadeen want to save the children so they'll have them to hide behind when fighting the infidel's troops.

Sir Wilhelm: Hide behind the children, or worse, and we know what that would be! GRRRR

Did they do that Muslim thing to her genitals? :)
http://go.to/islamhistory

there is no such muslim thing to genitals . it was just an ancient habbit even before islam . and educated muslims people do not do it to there daughters .

That's why studying history before pontificating on it is so advisable. Yes, it is a Muslim thing.
Here's one reference:

http://killingzone.blogspot.com/2006/04/islam-p...

As I am sure your all aware that it is total BS with the ironically funny point that there is no issue nor a "burqa barbie" at all with one after another agenda-based blog feeding off each other.

Mattel have no intention of promoting such, it was an exhibition with barbies dressed in the various costumes and dress typical around the world.

Fulla is a long-standing doll that has been sold in the MENA region for years and years, created by a Lebanese family whom after great pressure sold it to Mattel under strict conditions that the format it is in stays. Fulla comes with western dress and ME dress that includes only a hijab.

There is no sensation here but a lot of very stupid looking bloggers.

What's BS about it? Are there barbies wearing burqas or not? YES OR NO?

A little yes and a very big No!

The topic was Mattel producing barbies with burqas and they are not. It was the creation of an Italian artist.

I NEVER said Mattel was producing Burqa Barbies, I only said what's coming, and that's my opinion. This is one step closer to it. Any intelligent individual who follows the news know how rampant multiculturalism is in Europe. Everything I stated was true about barbies in burqas and my opinion is that one day we will see it in stores. BTW, If you criticize the burqa barbie, you're labeled a bigot. Multiculturalism + Islam = downfall of Europe.

The implications from the posting of others made it quite clear that they believe your comments as if it was being manufactured which is my point.

You obviously are allowed your opinion, which I compltely disagree with for many reasons, including the comment that if you criticise the burqa your tagged a bigot. As I have posted below to others, the burqa is in fact not the main form of dress for Muslim women but only used in a minority of countries that have hard-line conservative governments. In most Muslim countries you see them and they are tolerated and in many Muslim countries they are even frowned upon and regarded with sympathy or concern.

When France's President Sarkozy expressed his view of banning it in public and correctly said that it was cultural and not "Islamic", many Muslims around the globe supported his views and if you read the press you will note that the Egyptian, Tunisian and the government here in Morocco are considering banning them in all government establishements (schools and offices).

Thus, you singling out Islam, rather than ultra-conservatism and certain cultral-tribalism, is for me wrong.

I will, however, point out that Europe has a problem - that is there is now a distinct level of radical Muslim groups that have been well established whom are simply demanding and pushing for things that are ironically not acceptable in most Muslim countries - they are abusing the rediculous level of liberalism that exists there. Things like Shari'a (which by the way is not the legal system in the majority of Muslim countries) and a Caliphate (a pipe-dream that is rejected in the actual Muslim world as utopian only) are spouted by these people whom are mostly rejects and criminals that escaped condemnation under the rediculous concept of "political asylum".

Cheers

Solkhar, the burqa itself is not the issue. We who do not live under the crippling strictures of Islam take issue with the fact that Muslim women are not allowed to dress as they please, but must conform to rules laid down by men. The burqa in its various forms is simply the most striking visual display of your religion's oppression of women.

With all due respect, you are generalizing.

Yes, there are a great man ¨Muslim countries that women have not much, little or no rights and choices. It is a great problem, there is no denying it.

But, if you read my posts, you will note that it is not the case everywhere at all, there are many Musim women whom are free to put on what they want and interestingly a great number of them chose to wear the hijab (not viel or the burqa)..

The burqa, is an example of "man's oppression" of women, not Islam which is the point I keep coming back to.

"The burqa, is an example of "man's oppression" of women, not Islam which is the point I keep coming back to."

Then why Mohammed sanctioned it?

Necorwulf,

Mohammed did not sanction it.

The Qur'an says only that it is encumbent upon all men and women to dress modestly. It does not say women must cover from head to toe, locked up in the house or the like. The burqa is not mentioned at all. If you look into Arab history from that particular time, there is no evidence that the women of that period, those mentioned in the Qur'an as being covered up like that, even nothing to say their faces were covered. Historians say that the period of covering up and the viel came later and since they were Arabs and Islam started there, it was assumed or forcibly entered into the culture and lifestyle of many Muslims.

Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between Burqa, Hijab and Viel. It is easily identifyable that the Burqa is cultural and tribal, with only Peninsula Arabs, Iranians, Afghanis and some Pakistanis using it to dominance. In fact hard-line Iran allows the faces to be shown. The Viel basically follows those same areas but is a historically cultural icon as much as many considering it to be religious, thus the viel some argue is a cultural tradition. The Hijab though, to many, is considered conforming to the Qur'an as a method of modesty. In many Muslim countries, were women do not necessarily have to or are forced to wear the hijab, they suprisingly chose to do so. It could be argued that it is their choice to show their own conservatism or piousness and some do so because the reality is in the very sexist-dominated Muslim world, they simply will not find a husband if they do not wear it. That is the cold-hard facts. But, back to your point, Mohammed did not sanction the hijab - if you think so, then show it to me - and be sure I will show you that you have confused it with something else.

Qur'an (24:31) - Commands women to "draw their headscarves" over their neckline as well.

Qur'an (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."

Qur'an (24:31) - "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known." The woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men.

Very good!

Now you have quoted the references that most consider the reasons why the hijab should be used as a tool of modesty and why to Muslims that "showing one's body or loveliness" is something sacred and only for the person that one has married.

The word cloak or robe is, because it was written in the 7th century, not a reference to a burqa which I pointed out was not really existing at that time.

I live in Morocco and have learnt to speak, read and write arabic and have access to all the Arabic channels. If you ever have the chance and you watch MBC (Saudi) or one of the UAE channels and you see the historical dramas about the 7th century Arabia, you will see that women's faces are shown and even their arms, they cover their hair and wear lose clothing so that their figure is not given to attrack attention.

No, no references to burqas at all in the Qur'an.

Cheers

huh...
What we are discussing here is that veil, hijab, or any other clothing of similar use is sanctioned by Mohammed and the Quran, and doing so, a control over women. Even a simple Hijab it is STILL controlling her.

You must understand that we don't view Hijab, veil or anything similar in a kind view, in fact, we abhor it. The only difference between each law, from Saudi Arabia(especial places for women, to eat, burqa, no driving etc..etc) to UAE is its interpretation, but it still doesn't change the fact that is an opressive garment!
#

That is a cultural missunderstanding on your part, with all due respect. Your not understanding the difference between the two, its meanings or how it is taken or accepted by people is very critical, let alone that you were assuming things were Qur'anic when they were not - a slight change of direction and topic, again on your part.

I would certainly agree and I condemn without acception the burqa as a cultural attack on the freedom, identity and value of women - it is simply there to make them hidden items of ownership.

The veil has become that as well but has a different history. It's history was in fact that of protection of identity, something that is no longer of value now and as discussed before has become a part of that control over women.

The hijab though is another thing altogether and is considered by many women as a form of modesty as others would consider say a mini-skirt as not acceptable or sleevless, covering up their backsides etc.

Islam considers the defining factors of modesty to be for a women, including her hair as much as her figure. Many cultures and societies value beauty and attractiveness as such. The hijab is an item that simply does not show the hair, it can be complex, elaborate or very simple, it does not cover the face. Some are long and flowing so it comes down to cover the entire top of the body and some are simple scalves. What is most interesting is that in many Muslim societies were there is no such enforcement or lack of freedom to not wear it, women have in about 50 per cent of the cases chose to actually were it. The hijab is not an oppressive garment.

In my own case, my wife does not wear the hijab and says to me that she may wish to wear it later on, when she retires, after she does the hajj or when our son finishes school. I told her as long as she choses to be honest to herself, that if she wears it she does so not for fashion nor to be in-crowd. At present she dresses very fashionable, in the best mix of French-Moroccan style, buys from well-known boutiques but items that cover her backside and though she can wear short-sleeve, she would never chose to go sleeveless.

These days, there is in fact good common-sense fashion that includes the hijab, making it into an art-style that shows, for my part, quality and nobleness, chic and yet the object of adoration is the fashion and quality of choice and not the sexuality and morality within.

A perspective.

Do you see sleeveless nuns? Are ultra-orthodox Jews walking down the street in shorts and without hats? Why do Greek Orthodox women cover their hair in scalves and often in simple black clothes? The list can go on, they all have chosen a level of morality in their dress styles. What the issue here is that there are cultures and tribal habits that are unacceptable and degrading, and when radicals in religious communities start mixing their cultures and adding them into their faith - you get what we see.

Cheers.

You miss the point because you cannot grasp the importance of liberty and the dignity of women. A number of commentators have attempted to show you that control by religion of what a woman wears is an assault to her dignity. We have attempted to show you that the enslavement of women recommended by Islam is evil.You find the tokens of your ability to oppress your wife as chic, . Your tastes are completely irrelevant. The issue is bondage. girls in France begged the government not to allow the hijab in school because it was the only place where they could escape the oppressive rule of their parents and function in any freedom. Muslim girls are killed for refusing to wear it. Here in the US we have Muslim fathers who killed their daughters for refusing to wear what they were"free not to wear".Often women who do not wear the hijab are raped to force them to submit. In the wisdom that is Islam these women are then in danger of being put to death by their families because of the "shame". They prefer to kill their daughters than to lose their "reputation" which is the Muslim synonym for honor. This occurs now in Indonesia.
The control of a woman's clothing is just one part of the despotic cruelty Islam exercises over her. This is the religion that considers that marriage is the sale of a woman's private parts to the husband, who is no more than an animal owner.The Koran finds women useful like a horse. You don't have any concept of what a human being is and no notion at all of honor. You do not appreciate liberty as a value or uphold the defense of the weak. You sell your little daughters who are still children to old men in the slave transaction you call marriage.

These things are stunning to a civilized world. Your studied insouciance in the face of the outrages reveal the depths of your disease. "Cheers" was not an appropriate response to the misery of Muslim women and children and the devastation of Muslim manhood.

Bronwyn,

your argument is more emotive than logical or acceptance of all the good and bad that happens in this world. You do not walk around the streets of your city naked because morality, which has a foundation from religous faith, does not allow you to do so.

Having said that, there is a great gulf and difference between what is morality and what is demeaning and devaluing people. I have no arguments with and if you read my posts correctly, you will note that I condemn the burqa and the viel as being exactly that - demeaning. Nevertheless, my faith, as does all faiths, asks for both men and women to dress with modesty which by your defnition is "control", thus I could jump to conclussions as you have and assume your a naturist/nudist.

The mentioning of other faiths such as christians, as an example, is to point out that they are not all like you or Necrowulf and that they have also put morale 'codes'. Thus, you and Necrowulf must condemn them as well.

I will, however, certainly condemn, horrible and disgusting cultural-tribal cultures that make women something less than an object, forces them to be non-existant except at home. I especially condemn the fact that because trible-cultural arrogance through Arab clerics have spread such behaviour along with my faith.

Each and everytime I see or here about young girls being forced to hide themselves, not have a career or are simply not allowed to fulfill dreams it certainly hurts me and makes me sick. But with all that I see, I also see the reality on the ground and it is not all that you are making it to be.

I see women whom have a choice to not wear a hijab but chose so, not because of social or cultural reasons but because they wish to show a level of piety for their own spiritual/moral reasons. I applaud them for their choice, but I do not put them either higher or lower for doing so.

What is also annoying is defencive attacks, like the last one of Necrowulf, which is the perfect example that there are people out there whom only assume that the world that they know is the only one that counts, and that is part of the tragedy of this world - Westerners arrogantly assuming that their lifestyle, standards and way of doing things is the only one possible and radicals from the Muslim world basically doing the same and using archaic cultural or tribal excuses to say that it is religous when it is not.

Both are in all sense of the word RADICAL and are dangerous to this planet, they push ignorance and cause wars, that is a historical fact. The enemy of radicalism is normality - trying to just have a normal life, normal relations and dealing with others with mutual respect. The Muslim world is suffering - hijacked by radicals and to destroy their support is to trash their propoganda that the West is the one that is radical - that they are bigots, arrogant, christian crusaders whom wish to destroy Islam. Destroy that argument, not support it, and you are doing more damage to radical Muslims. Blog-sites like this one in fact support the radicals as evidence.

"...What is also annoying is defencive attacks, like the last one of Necrowulf, which is the perfect example that there are people out there whom only assume that the world that they know is the only one that counts, and that is part of the tragedy of this world - Westerners arrogantly assuming that their lifestyle, standards and way of doing things is the only one possible and radicals from the Muslim world basically doing the same and using archaic cultural or tribal excuses to say that it is religous when it is not...."

"...Both are in all sense of the word RADICAL and are dangerous to this planet, they push ignorance and cause wars, that is a historical fact...."

So, wanting freedom o speech, free women from the shackles of a primitive religion, wanting to blaspheme and criticize islam or any other religion, rejecting pedophilia, wanting scientific advancement, equal rights for men and women and even same sex couples, be against racism and defend the right of everyone to have freedom of thought is radical and bad?!

Then define what is the correct vision, and what it should be like solkhar, tell me what I shouldn't believe so I won't be marked as a "radical"


Pff... in this day and age, being pro-freedom and pro-equal rights labels you as a radical, I can only imagine what it is not a "radical".


If you want to defend your religion, go in forums were muslims post frequently, go to islamic awekening forum, and try to talk some sense to those people. I read that forum once, about 2 to 3 weeks ago, and I felt literally very sick to read what is displayed there... You must also accept that we will blaspheme against everything you hold holy.

Bronwyn said everything that needed to be said and more; though I want to add something else, why finger point to other religions, can't take flack alone? Besides, christianity doesn't say every women should wear what nuns wear. Islam does.

Necrowulf, I put my answer to you here as the thread run out of space.

I pointed out your response of "why finger point to other religions, can't take flack alone? " is a "typically defensive" radical response that simply does not look at the answer. Your further response now is very much similar, stating that freedom of speech and the rest is what you are after so somehow pointing out that since you like all these great goals it is thus unjustified to criticize your comments. There were many dictators on this planet that were only after stability and peace in their country....... to make a dramatic but relevent point here.

I am also after all those things you are after, though having said that, I am not after the destruction of nor do I criticise any single faith and condemn the core beliefs of 1.6 billion people because of a dangerous and radical group exists amongst them. That is my point, and that is what you are doing. If I was like you, I would condemn all Christianity because of the demands and rhetoric of a few "fire & brimstone" teleevangalists, condemn all blogs because so many far-right blogs are demanding unthinkable, illogical or dangerous sentiment.

Freedom of speech, by the way, is a privilage and when it becomes collective freedom to hate, it falls apart, so thus you can say and believe what you like, but when it turns to hate, you can say it as an individual and I can condemn you.

A last point, you state why do I not take my arguments to Muslim web-sites? Who says I do not ? In fact I do on a number, I argue with similarly obstinant and what I think is hate-pushing individuals who try and pull the fast-one by quoting questionable haddiths but cannot in the end claim anything except political-cultural-tribal hate. They make me sick as much as the hate-bloggers such as Werner Reimann or hate-mongers like Robert Spencer & Fitzgerald (and many others).

An ITALIAN ARTIST perpetrated this monstrosity ?

It's not a "creation", but an ABERRATION.

It simbolizes that women are held captive by males.It's like
the uniforms Jews were forced to wear at the concentration camps.

Islam is a HATEFUL sect, therefore nothing right, honorable, useful,
clever, acceptable, clean and civilized could be originated from it.

Funny, when Muslims complain about bad taste of a similar sort they are ridiculed. Double-standards to a degree there.

No doubt the cultural-tribal burqa is a symbol of offense to all women.

Islam, one of the Three Abrahamic Faiths, is currently hijacked by radicalism and extremism not to mention their propaganda to gain support from followers is fueled by blogs like this - that the West has always hated Islam and is on some Crusade to wipe them from the planet.

Your rather emotional rant is only that.

"Nothing right, honorable, useful, clever, acceptable, clean and civilized could be originated from it."

The right is as right as Judaism and Chrsitianity as we all share the same patronage from "the people of the Book".

Honourable? Are we basing this on causing deaths? History is absolutely on the side of deaths under the banner of Christianity. Are you talking present? No honour points at all, Islam is under the hijacking of radicals - go figure!

Useful? That is rather odd, if living is considered useful, then Islam is also, if not, then all the faiths have no use.....

Clever, are you talking about being inventive? Modern medicine is founded on the compilations created by Ibn Sina, much of Greek Philosophy and Aristotle in particular would have been lost or unknown if it was not for Muslim scholars, let alone the subjects of Architecture, algerbric maths and so on and so forth.....

What is the meaning of acceptable? There are 1.6 billion Muslims whom obviously consider Islam as more than acceptable, but preferable. If you wish to go by numbers in belief and use a bit of democracy, more people find Islam as more acceptable than say - Judaism in its small numbers.

Clean? Now that is funny. Muslims are required by faith to constantly wash themselves, as well as for the five prayers. The Hammam or bath house, created by Romans and Greeks has been, in the Ottoman and Maghreb world turned into a fine art. In fact Maghrebi Muslims consider those not from that region to be unclean, because they do not have the dead skin scraped-off each week in the local hamam.

The funniest and most illogical phrase is being called not civilized. There have been many civilizations, rises and falls, examples of their peaks are known in history. To open history and ignore all of it and only consider a part or ignore it is a smack in the face of logic and academia.

Thus, civilization has already been recorded and there is no need to write it all here, I recommend everyone to read history from credible academic sources and not from agenda-based ones, such as blogs. But, as an example, since the above poster is trying to score some emotional point, let us talk about 800 years in what is now southern Iberia. During that time, as all civilizations have, it had its ups and downs and arrogance and being to comfortable with the successes of its predicessors was its cause of destruction. During those 8 centuries though, Al-Andalous was by far the more advanced socially, legally and technically than any place in Europe, probably on par or better than that of Damascus, Byzantium and Cairo let alone those in the far east. While most Europeans were sleeping in houses that included housing their animals, the city of Cordoba had running water, sanitation and sewerage systems. During that period, the Sultan allowed for the most capable to become stewards to the country and twice even Jews made it to the post of Grand Vizier, something that had not happened in Europe until Queen Victoria accepted one as a Prime Minister just before the turn of the last century.

Civilization is part of history, recorded and cannot be ignored, no matter what the agenda is. The future is still to be made, the present is to be faught over and debated - there is certainly no Muslim civilization at present.

"Islam is under the hijacking of radicals "

This remark is FALSE.
It's a SORDID EXCUSE for muslim terrorism.


"more people find Islam as more acceptable than say - Judaism in its small numbers."

I find your remark rather out of touch because Islam was FORCED on conquered people as the islamic
hordes wrecked its way into the Maghreb and India.

Jews NEVER forced anyone to convert, because one has to have a Jewish mother to be one.


The WHOLE islamic beastly sect and its savage and primitive followers aren't worth of a clogged toilet bowl's content.

Your allowed your imaginary views, but if you make attacks then be certain for a response.

I never said Jews forced conversion, thus your statement is a moot point. The history of Christianity and Islam and in fact Hinduism is all based on the movements of empires, cultures and armies. My statement, based on your own accussations and assumptions about Islam being unacceptable was to state that if you go by numbers, there are more people whom think Islam is acceptable than Judaism - a simple basic demographic fact.

Your last statement "....the WHOLE....etc...." is just an emotive rant, possibly because of the username, is agenda based garbage. It is also a burst of some strange defensiveness because you avoided all the other points made in my response to your previous outburst.

Just a single Jew, Albert Einstein, was more useful to mankind than ALL muslims combined, from past, present and future generations.

Again, it is a moot point, history and cvilization has already happened, it is impossible to hide or destroy its existance, even though some tried, like the National Socialists in Germany did with Judaism.

If you wish to play the game of history, then you must put all of it dow on the plate or look the fool. For example, much of what Einstein learnt regarding mathematics was based on the preservation and expansion of principles written by two Muslim philosophers, one an Arab and the other a Persian. Thus, it could be argued that without these Muslims, Einstein may have not learnt enough, not bothered and certainly would not have sufficiently understood what became the theory of relativity.

Simply put, your argument still has no weight.

solkhar-

No, the irony is that the doll is being auctioned to raise money for Save the Children, an organization that fights to ensure that all children have access to quality education. I am reminded of little girls that were not allowed to leave a burning school in Mecca because they were not veiled. The girls who escaped were beaten and forced back inside, the door locked behind them. Anyone who knows what the burqa really stands for also knows the horrendous punishments women endure if the dare to remove it in public. How Mattel could design a doll dressed in these hideous garments that represent oppression and misery is beyond me. The fact that they refer to the burqa as "traditional Islamic dress" proves that they are clueless. The Quran mandates modest dress for women, but the burqa is an extreme interpretation. It was invented by weak-minded Muslim men as another means to take control of their "property".

The dolls were designed by an independant artist for an exhibition, Mattel did not design them nor are they in any catalogue. They are never to be into production.

The burqa is a cultural-tribal custom that is inflicted on women in those areas, it is not representative of the entire or in fact the majority of the Muslim world. You are correct that Islam asks for "modesty" in both "men & women" and the problem is the extremist and ultra-conservatives trying to apply their region's sexist culture into that rule. Try and talk to a Bangladeshi woman who wears the same sari as Indian hindus do that she should be a burqa and you will get a pretty swift answer.

So my point remains valid, Mattel did not design it and the reality is that questionable blogs and those that follow it jumped on it, made the topic more than it is and then fed of each other to make it into a total farce - as per most of the comments above.

You think that the subject of this discussion is whether Mattel manufactured the dolls? How can you be so foolish? Where are your values when what is important to you is whether Mattel is the one marketing this prison suit? The outrage is that anyone at all thought to make a dollar by making the emblems of slavery desirable to little girls.It is bitterly ironic that an organization formed to help children would sell these dolls.The brainwashing of an innocent generation is the topic here. Don't you have any sense at all?The real subject of the discussion is the heartlessness of any "entrepreneur" seeking to present the dehumanizing shroud of the burqa as a fashion statement for little girls to aspire to. We grieve for women so oppressed that they dare not refuse this shroud. These women appear as the living dead. Their expressions cannot be seen. They cannot feel the wind on their faces or through their hair. They are prisoners. No other "culture" forces these body bags on women except the cultures associated with Islam, so refrain from trying to protect the devilish doctrine that enslaves so many. The burqa is another Islamic outrage against women. How morally bankrupt to be unable to perceive it.

Bronwyn,

tsk, tsk, insults and name calling already? Calling someone foolish and morally bankcrupt is not only poor showing but also considering that what your arguing about is wrong makes it worse.

If you go back through the postings not to mention the title of the article you will note that they are condemning Mattel for manufacturing, so the subject is completely relevent.

Additionally, you forget the rather ironic point that it is blogs like this that condemn Muslims all the time for going overboard with condemnations over freedom of expression by artists, exhibitors and cartoonists whom make a comment criticising Muslims, Islam or Mohammed. Thus, it is rather hypocritical to go and condemn Mattel over this, when in fact it was their support of exhibitions that include barbie in it, let alone that the subject is in fact the "artistic expression" of the Italian artist whom made them. (Basically you got it wrong on all parts).

As for the subject of the burqa, you will get no arguments from me about the supression and pain that it represents. I lhave chosen to retire and live in Morocco, a country that not only frowns upon it but is close to banning it in government institutions, as being a security risk and a dress-code that is not only un-Islamic but represents an alien-cultural-tribal practice that has nothing to do with the Maghreb region. Morocco has been over the last 7 years dismantling "unacceptable infiltration of foreign practices" under the guise of being "sunnah" when they are clearly not. That is one of the reasons why I chose here.

Cheers

solkhar -

"The burqa is a cultural-tribal custom".

I thought that might be your response. Where did this "cultural" custom come from?? It is based on the words in the Quran. You are just another Muslim defending the evils of Islam by calling abhorrent acts cultural and referring to the perpetrators as "extremists" and now we have a new evil-doer...the "ultra-conservative" Muslim...

"Islam asks for "modesty" in both "men & women"..."

Islam does not "ask", it demands "modesty" of women under penalty of merciless consequences for those who disobey. I have yet to see evidence of a Muslim man beaten for wearing "immodest" clothing.

"Try and talk to a Bangladeshi woman who wears the same sari as Indian hindus do that she should be a burqa and you will get a pretty swift answer."

What?!?

Your point is not valid. Mattel commissioned the designer to create this doll. They allowed their name and the Barbie trademark to used. Mattel is also responsible for the Fisher Price manufactured "Baby Cuddle and Coo" doll that spouted "Islam is the light". They tried to defend it by saying that the clearly annunciated phrase was not what it seemed. You are missing the point of what is happening here.

"They are never to be into production."

Never say never. I doubt they will mass produce Burka Barbie as it does not seem a lucrative move, but if they can find some advantage in loading the store shelves with this tribute to oppressed women, then I am sure they will.

There is nothing in the Qur'an that says you must not see a woman and that she must be covered from head to to. The custom of hiding and locking away women comes from Arab-Iranian culture that spread also to what is now Afghanistan.

Most Muslim women do not use the burqa and only know of it because of over-zealous radicals or from watching gulf-Arabs.

Bangladesh, if you are unaware, are almost totally Muslim. They rejected the push by zealous Arabs and wear the same SARIS that Hindu Indians have. Indonesians also do not use and reject, unlike half of he Malays whom follow a more Saudi style of worship and thus you see it more.

Your exageration and over simplification about "be modest or else" does not in fact fly. The reality is that many families will enforce dress codes, but that is a social issue. Pious Greek or Russion orthodox fathers will enforce their ways as will ultra-orthodox Jews to theirs. The reality is that there are simply a greater proportion of strong conservativeness amongst Muslims, but having said that, go to the majority of larger cities in the Muslim world and you will see ladies not covering their hair, buying designer jeans from boutiques, depending on the weather, sleveless tops and high-healed shoes. In fact, because a good portion of the Arab world is françaphone (French speaking), they have a more strong and higher quality of dress-sense and fashion style (la mode) than most Western Countries.

Mattel commissioned the artist to show clothes of the world and the burqa ended up in it reflecting the "cultural and tribal" clothes that are worn and it is neither a statement towards or against Islam, that was made on this and other blogs. The "Islam is the light" factor was the effort of Mattel for marketting to the Muslim world, a different subject altogether, considering the burqa issue was an exhibition.

A last point, go to Iran or Saudi and ask a guy to put on speedos and you will find him arrested by the religous police. Go try and find one Mosque on this planet were a man can enter without a shirt on or in shorts. No, modesty rules apply to all, but tribal-cultural Arabisms have infiltrated badly, considering also that the bulk of clerics from that region were the ones to spout their versions - wahhabism, salafism etc.

Solkhar

solkhar,

"Mattel commissioned the artist to show clothes of the world and the burqa ended up in it reflecting the "cultural and tribal" clothes that are worn and it is neither a statement towards or against Islam..."

Why did Mattel label this doll as wearing "traditional Islamic dress" and not "Middle Eastern cultural/tribal dress"? See the problem? Muslims protest, riot and threaten over any potential ban on the burqa claiming it should be allowed in the West for "religious" reasons. I have not yet heard any Muslims complaining that their "cultural/tribal" rights are being violated...it's always about their "religious rights". Why do you suppose that is?

"Go try and find one Mosque on this planet were a man can enter without a shirt on or in shorts."

That's a ridiculous comparison. A man not wearing a shirt would be denied entry to a 7-11. The "dress code" for women extends beyond the mosque, doesn't it.

"The "Islam is the light" factor was the effort of Mattel for marketting to the Muslim world"

This is the first time I have heard someone actually admit it. Mattel continues to deny that the doll was programmed to utter anything other than gibberish and the word "mama". My point in bringing up the baby doll is that Mattel is once again acting in an irresponsible and unthinking manner and when confronted they spew lies and BS excuses. This is just one more example of Islam encroaching on the West. I do not want to see a burqa on a woman, a doll, or even in a magazine. It is offensive and seeing its gradual acceptance in the West, under the guise of a "religious right" by liberal, Muslim appeasing idiots is disgusting.

"A last point, go to Iran or Saudi and ask a guy to put on speedos..."
Ummm...no, thanks. But that was funny. I just got a mental image of a bunch of burqa wearing women surrounded by Muslim men in speedos. Seriously, though, why must you go to extremes to illustrate your point?

"Why did Mattel label this doll as wearing "traditional Islamic dress" and not "Middle Eastern cultural/tribal dress"? See the problem? "

Yes, it is a problem, that is the ignorance of Mattel and I sent an email pointing it out and they replied that they have received many complaints on the same track. They said that they are "still getting to understand things...". For my part that is a poor excuse since they spend tens of millions of dollars on marketting that they can get something like that incorrect.

"Muslims protest, riot and threaten over any potential ban on the burqa claiming it should be allowed in the West for "religious" reasons."

Only extremists a making that point, as I explained before, the burqa is neither typical nor given much respect in many Muslim countries save those so-called orthodox nations. You may be confusing the rights of wearing the hijab which is a different subject. It is never referred to as a tribal-cultural matter because Arabs and Arab nationalims wants to confuse their culture with religiious values.

"Go try and find one Mosque on this planet were a man can enter without a shirt on or in shorts."

. "The "dress code" for women extends beyond the mosque, doesn't it. "

No it is not a rediculous comparison, in fact the being dressed moral code does apply to men and women both and yes in Iran and Saudi a shirtless guy walking into the equivalent of a 7-11 would be kicked out or even charged with public indecency. It is only a point that I am trying to make, the burqa for my part is sexist abuse of women but I am making the issue, again, that it is not Islam, it is Arab cultural-tribal practicies that have come along with it. In the end it is our problem, and Muslims must face up to it. There are great improvements in some parts of the Arab World, like here in Morocco and the Maghreb region, but only a start.

"The "Islam is the light" factor was the effort of Mattel for marketting to the Muslim world"

The speedos quip was to make a point, Iran's swimmers at the last olypics had take off their board-shorts at the last second before competing and the Iranian delegation watching first told their women to go... what a joke.

Cheers

" I am reminded of little girls that were not allowed to leave a burning school in Mecca because they were not veiled. The girls who escaped were beaten and forced back inside, the door locked behind them. "

My Gosh ! What a TERRIBLE story !!!
Without any doubt, women are the greatest victims of that abominable death - slobbering
cult invented by Muhammad,The Ruffian.

DOLL'S BUSINESS:

I will order to local artisans some dolls sporting MOHAMMAD's face to use
them as TARGETS at pubs and shooting galleries.
It's a pity that I could only use that doll ONCE, because I intend to use
my 12 gauge shotgun...nothing will be left after the first swarm of white-hot
lead hit the Prophet-Ruffian's face...nothing.

There are people here in Brazil who believe in MACUMBA, some
sort of BLACK MAGIC of African origin...this doll could be used to
jinks the hell out of one's enemy...

Jewhawk,

If you are planning to "disrespect" the filthy prophet by reproducing his image in the form of a doll, I hope you have more than a 12-gauge shotgun in your arsenal. I'll bet you'll be the proud recipient of more fatwas and death threats than anyone in history. :-)

Dear Christine_S, believe me, the result of a 12-gauge shotgun's blast is HIDEOUS.
I've tested it with sand-filled cans, coconuts and some sand-filled soda cans.

Only SHREDS of them were left behind.I shudder to think what would happen to
human flesh.

Death threats and fatwas?

Well, NOBODY lives forever.

Maybe a TOILET PAPER with the pedophile / ruffian / scoundrel of
the desert mohammad's ugly face could suffice.
It'd be a very appropriate spot to see the abhorrent creator of the
"religion of peace" on it.

Macumba is more than just "black magic", it's an actual religion actively persecuted by monotheists such as Christians and (appropriately ennough) Muslims.

Adam, I guess you are referring to " CANDOMBLÉ ". That's the religion
brought to Brazil by African slaves.It's a politheist faith and somehow
mixed its gods to Roman Catholic saints.

Macumba is INDEED, a kind of witchcraft, maybe similar to Haiti's
SANTERIA.

Here in Brazil people goes to Macumba's "terreiros" to ask
for stuff like love potions, supernatural ways to get better
jobs and yes, the DEATH of enemies and love rivals.

The funny thing about Macumba is when they make "spells"
on street's crossings at midnight, with full moon... there's
black candles, a slain black chicken, cachaça ( sugar cane
schnaps)...

It scares the hell out of the most gullible folks.The not so
gullible simply STEAL the chicken and the cachaça !!

Of course, the Catholic Church doesn't approve such
"pagan" practices, nor does the Evangelic Protestants,
Candomblé's most vocal and acid critics, but the term
"persecution" hardly could be applied in Brazil.

We do live in a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

It would help first of all what you mean by "witchcraft". Do you have a specific definition, or just any sort of spiritual practice that you disapprove?

And persecution of Candomble, Macumba, Umbanda, Quimbanda, Santeria and related "voodoo" religions continues to this very day - in Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, and even Africa itself (where the persecutors are in most cases Muslims). I don't mean non-approval, I mean persecution. Granted, the situation is better now than before; but the true democracies of the Latin/Caribbean regions need to work harder.

"It would help first of all what you mean by "witchcraft". Do you have a specific definition, or just any sort of spiritual practice that you disapprove? "

I do humbly admit my utter ignorance about this subject, unlike your obvious
expertise regarding it.
I am only a Jew and I don't have the nerve to disapprove what my fellow
countrymen do with their time.

Violent persecution against Afro-Brazilian religions is ILLEGAL according
to Brazilian Constitution and disapproved by the vast majority of the
Brazilian population.

Brazil clearly could not be compared to ANY other country
vis-à-vis freedom of religion.

I am not too sure if the burka clad barbie woo the same way as other barbies did!

"And hey, kids, here's a special feature of Musttel's new Burqa Barbie; with just 3 unwraps you can remove her authentic, gender-demeaning headgear and see the lifelike black eyes, bruises, broken jaw and missing teeth!"

Why don't Muslim men wear burqas? "I only ask because I want to know ....."

@Beejj

On a lighter note..didnt you know MJ after taking Islam wore one! Now ask me why only he wore and not other muslim men I have no answer!

Regds
Aram

The burqa is a cultural-tribal control method to subjegate women, thus their wearing it is pointless.

As for the obvious attempt at humour about Michael Jackson, yeah to be honest it looked like one did it not? Just another strange thing about a strange person, albiet a gifted singer, dancer and songwritter.

Why can't feminists protest against "Burka Barbie" for once, in the same way they protest the actual Barbie?

Or are they and their Super-Righteous Christian Moral Majority partners-in-bed are too busy burning copies of Playboy to make a stand against real injustice? Hypocrites of a feather....

Coming soon Talban Kenny, complete with rocks and axes.

hijab is not a sign of treating women as sub humans . i am muslim in an arab country wears hijab and a doctor too .
the hijab in islam is a sign of respect to the female body . it's not a healthy thing to a women s feeling to be judged for her legs and arms and ........ and ............. u know what i mean .

Tell me as a doctor;do you examine male patients.
A few proud Muslim(deluded)female medical students have been told that they will be thrown off the medecine course if the insist on covering their forearms in operatories.
What's to be proud of being Muslim and female?

Have you ever thought that you're nothing more than a conforming robot within an imposed 7th century culture.

Get a real life and dump your rationalised superstitions.
How can one have pride in submission?that's oxymoronic.
but then cognitive dissonance is part of the tyranny you accept.