ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: ninwa on April 22, 2010, 08:15:43 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8635178.stm
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered parliament to debate a law banning women from wearing full-face Islamic veils in public, officials say.
Last year he said such veils oppressed women and were not welcome in France.
The proposal has provoked intense debate about religious freedom in a secular society, as well as the position of Muslims in France.
interested in your views since I'm actually studying this issue in French atm
related: Belgium will ban the burqa
-
Absolutely not.
Of course in French society (indeed in Western society) forcing someone to comply with a religious belief (ie that women should be completely covered) is considered wrong. Therefore it's perfectly fair for France to put a stop to the forcing of women to wear veils, just the same as they would stop violence against women.
But to deny women the free choice to comply with their religion is abhorrent and disgusting. I am sure that many Muslim women would choose to wear a veil themselves, without it being forced upon them. This is a practice that is completely personal and has no effect or harm on others whatsoever. (Of course the security issues are a whole different kettle of fish.) If Australia made laws forbidding the practice of my religion or any part of my religion, I'd be furious.
-
It's France, they have language police. Not surprised they would do something like this.
-
Absolutely not.
Of course in French society (indeed in Western society) forcing someone to comply with a religious belief (ie that women should be completely covered) is considered wrong. Therefore it's perfectly fair for France to put a stop to the forcing of women to wear veils, just the same as they would stop violence against women.
But to deny women the free choice to comply with their religion is abhorrent and disgusting. I am sure that many Muslim women would choose to wear a veil themselves, without it being forced upon them. This is a practice that is completely personal and has no effect or harm on others whatsoever. (Of course the security issues are a whole different kettle of fish.) If Australia made laws forbidding the practice of my religion or any part of my religion, I'd be furious.
I agree with you on most levels, but can I just mention that (as far as I know) the wearing of the burqa/niqab is not actually in the Koran anywhere. It is not a religious practice but rather a cultural one. Does that change your view at all?
(I'm happy to be corrected, this is just my very limited understanding)
-
Absolutely not.
Of course in French society (indeed in Western society) forcing someone to comply with a religious belief (ie that women should be completely covered) is considered wrong. Therefore it's perfectly fair for France to put a stop to the forcing of women to wear veils, just the same as they would stop violence against women.
But to deny women the free choice to comply with their religion is abhorrent and disgusting. I am sure that many Muslim women would choose to wear a veil themselves, without it being forced upon them. This is a practice that is completely personal and has no effect or harm on others whatsoever. (Of course the security issues are a whole different kettle of fish.) If Australia made laws forbidding the practice of my religion or any part of my religion, I'd be furious.
I agree with you, but can I just mention that (as far as I know) the wearing of the burqa is not actually in the Koran anywhere. It is not a religious practice but rather a cultural one. Does that change your view at all?
(I'm happy to be corrected, this is just my very limited understanding)
I know as much as you about Islam, so I don't know if that is true or not. But I would assume that just because it's not in the Koran does not necessarily make it not part of the religion. For example, 99.99% of Jewish practices are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but they're religious practices nonetheless.
-
It doesn't matter what country or what religion is involved, people should have the freedom to wear whatever they want.
So, NO.
-
I approach these issues with a perspective from Mill's On Liberty - something should only be banned if it causes harm to someone. If France can prove that the cultural wearing of veils is oppressing women (and I'm not saying that this is that hard), then they're in the right. Otherwise, it's an unnecessary law.
-
I approach these issues with a perspective from Mill's On Liberty - something should only be banned if it causes harm to someone. If France can prove that the cultural wearing of veils is oppressing women (and I'm not saying that this is that hard), then they're in the right. Otherwise, it's an unnecessary law.
But what if the women themselves are the ones choosing to wear it?
-
If France can prove that the cultural wearing of veils is oppressing women (and I'm not saying that this is that hard), then they're in the right.
I don't think that's hard to prove either, but I don't think imposing a draconian law is going to change the root of the problem, which is the archaic attitude to women still prevalent in some cultures. I'm worried that instead of liberating these women, this law may instead have the unintended effect of confining them to their homes (as they're either too self-conscious to go out in public or their husbands won't permit it).
However, this is not surprising for a country which bans the wearing of crosses, veils, kippot etc. anything (conspicuously) signifying religious adherence) in schools, and makes it illegal for students to take days off for religious holidays...
-
Absolutely not.
Of course in French society (indeed in Western society) forcing someone to comply with a religious belief (ie that women should be completely covered) is considered wrong. Therefore it's perfectly fair for France to put a stop to the forcing of women to wear veils, just the same as they would stop violence against women.
But to deny women the free choice to comply with their religion is abhorrent and disgusting. I am sure that many Muslim women would choose to wear a veil themselves, without it being forced upon them. This is a practice that is completely personal and has no effect or harm on others whatsoever. (Of course the security issues are a whole different kettle of fish.) If Australia made laws forbidding the practice of my religion or any part of my religion, I'd be furious.
I agree with you on most levels, but can I just mention that (as far as I know) the wearing of the burqa/niqab is not actually in the Koran anywhere. It is not a religious practice but rather a cultural one. Does that change your view at all?
(I'm happy to be corrected, this is just my very limited understanding)
One of the very wrong misunderstandings that people believe is that the niqab comes from culture. You would even find some Muslims even claiming this.
It's actually a religious practice, although the word "Niqab" doesn't appear in the Quran exactly, the command to cover up/veil is definitely mentioned. however, Scholars differed whether it is compulsory to wear the niqab or not. Some say yes, and some say no. Two of the four School of thought in Islam believe it is compulsory, hence why countries such as Saudi Arabia adhere to the full-face veil.
So No, France is completely Foolish for trying to ban the Niqaab. It is not the oppression of women and making her taking it off is actually oppressing her.
And at most times, Husbands do not force their wives to cover-up fully, France's claim is wrong, if they have actually entered the home of these Niqaabi women, they would know it was done by their own choice.
Souljette<3
-
Wait isn't that what I said?
I agree with you on most levels, but can I just mention that (as far as I know) the wearing of the burqa/niqab is not actually in the Koran anywhere.
Though I suppose that's pretty close to being a religious practice since it's kind of based on a religious text... Does it say that you have to cover your face?
-
Wait isn't that what I said?
I agree with you on most levels, but can I just mention that (as far as I know) the wearing of the burqa/niqab is not actually in the Koran anywhere.
Though I suppose that's pretty close to being a religious practice since it's kind of based on a religious text... Does it say that you have to cover your face?
Specifically?
Then no, it's based on the interpretation.
Souljette<3
-
The Quran or Hadith (not too sure) state this: a woman must cover her whole body, with the exception of her hands and face.
Thus, burqa is not compulsory, the scarf is (to cover the hair). From what I know.
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
Because Tit-for-Tat never made for good politics.
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
Bob, that law in Iran isn't to "allow" women to wear it. It's to force them to wear it. Subjugation of women if ever I've seen it.
EDIT: heh, i think in my sleep-deprived mind this morning, I misread your post. disregard, bob :P
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
Because Tit-for-Tat never made for good politics.
What about equality?
If I were to go to Dubai I would be expected to respect their customs, such as not kissing in public (I think that was Dubai anyway), and dressing very conservatively in some Muslim countries. I don't call that oppression. Why should France's action be termed that? France is one of the most secular countries in the world - surely if you go to France you should respect that too.
-
I wasn't calling it oppression I was making light of/fun of/pointing out the fact that Souljette called it oppression. I don't think it is oppression wanting to be able to see someones face so they can identify them.
-
I wasn't calling it oppression I was making light of/fun of/pointing out the fact that Souljette called it oppression. I don't think it is oppression wanting to be able to see someones face so they can identify them.
I agree. Who knows who could be under a burqa?
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
Because Tit-for-Tat never made for good politics.
What about equality?
If I were to go to Dubai I would be expected to respect their customs, such as not kissing in public (I think that was Dubai anyway), and dressing very conservatively in some Muslim countries. I don't call that oppression. Why should France's action be termed that? France is one of the most secular countries in the world - surely if you go to France you should respect that too.
If a particular society chooses to adopt a particular practice for religious and cultural reasons, then that's their choice. I don't believe, however that a society should justify a ban on a particular practice on the basis that another society has chosen to ban another practice. It's simply not sound policy.
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
Because Tit-for-Tat never made for good politics.
What about equality?
If I were to go to Dubai I would be expected to respect their customs, such as not kissing in public (I think that was Dubai anyway), and dressing very conservatively in some Muslim countries. I don't call that oppression. Why should France's action be termed that? France is one of the most secular countries in the world - surely if you go to France you should respect that too.
If a particular society chooses to adopt a particular practice for religious and cultural reasons, then that's their choice. I don't believe, however that a society should justify a ban on a particular practice on the basis that another society has chosen to ban another practice. It's simply not sound policy.
What about when that practise contravenes the bill of right of the country, i.e. France? The burqa is clearly a symbol of the subjugation of women by a patriarchal society, which is counter to French ideals. Therefore, in this case, the debate boils down to freedom of religion vs. freedom from oppression. In this case, I believe the argument can be made that freedom from oppression wins out...
-
What about when that practise contravenes the bill of right of the country, i.e. France? The burqa is clearly a symbol of the subjugation of women by a patriarchal society, which is counter to French ideals. Therefore, in this case, the debate boils down to freedom of religion vs. freedom from oppression. In this case, I believe the argument can be made that freedom from oppression wins out...
I'll say again, what makes you think it's oppression? I'm not saying there aren't women who are forced to wear it, because I'm sure there are many. But the law dealing with that should come under the usual law prohibiting domestic violence. But I'm positive that there are many Muslim women out there, who, given the choice, would choose to wear the veil, because they believe it is the right thing to do. Why should they be disallowed the right to dresss how they wish?
-
although its understandable why France, for whom secularity is enshrined in its constitution, would want to eliminate as much "visible" religion from the public eye as possible
-
What about when that practise contravenes the bill of right of the country, i.e. France? The burqa is clearly a symbol of the subjugation of women by a patriarchal society, which is counter to French ideals. Therefore, in this case, the debate boils down to freedom of religion vs. freedom from oppression. In this case, I believe the argument can be made that freedom from oppression wins out...
I'll say again, what makes you think it's oppression? I'm not saying there aren't women who are forced to wear it, because I'm sure there are many. But the law dealing with that should come under the usual law prohibiting domestic violence. But I'm positive that there are many Muslim women out there, who, given the choice, would choose to wear the veil, because they believe it is the right thing to do. Why should they be disallowed the right to dresss how they wish?
How can they know how they want to dress, when all their life they've been brainwashed with "if you don't dress like this, you're a worthless slut who should be stoned to death"? That is the sharia law in many Islamic countries, and that message is carried with immigrants from those countries to places like France, Belgium etc. If you don't wear the burqa in public, you should be stoned to death. How can you honestly argue that this is an informed decision on the part of those poor, oppressed women? It's clearly one of fear, and if not fear, then brainwashing.
Your quote, here, Yitzi, "I'll say again, what makes you think it's oppression? I'm not saying there aren't women who are forced to wear it, because I'm sure there are many."
That's what makes it oppression. I find it odd that you recognise that MANY women are being forced to wear this garment, yet you do not find this to be oppression? The fact that many women (and I think you'll find that it is MOST women) are forced to wear it bears an unconscionable moral hazard in a country working towards equality of women.
-
I am muslim, and I am yet to meet someone who wears it out of oppression, or are forced to wear it.
Furthermore, I know heaps, and I mean heaps of converts, yes people that chose to become muslim at an adult age, that do wear it, and obviously they are not forced as their family are not muslims.
Ok fair enough, France is secular and doesn't want religion publicly promoted and such, but please don't say it's oppression against women.
-
I am muslim, and I am yet to meet someone who wears it out of oppression, or are forced to wear it.
Furthermore, I know heaps, and I mean heaps of converts, yes people that chose to become muslim at an adult age, that do wear it, and obviously they are not forced as their family are not muslims.
Ok fair enough, France is secular and doesn't want religion publicly promoted and such, but please don't say it's oppression against women.
The way of life that you have experienced in the Australian Islamic environment, where the Muslim community here has integrated into the society of the target destination country better than any other Muslim community in the world gives your experience a bit of a biased twist.
I have no doubt that the oppression is far less so Australia (in fact, that gives me a great deal of hope for the safe success of the Islamic emergence into the rest of the world). But you have to realise that every day in the countries where your family came from, women are physically harassed, jailed and/or stoned for not wearing the head covering. And many immigrant muslim communities that transport themselves to other countries take that with them. I don't think you can turn a blind eye to the simple fact that this oppression does happen, and is particularly problematic in countries where the community fails to integrate properly, as in France.
EDIT: But also, even here, where the physical safety fear is almost null, there is still the subtle sexism of "you are an immodest slut if you do not wear the burqa". Just look at the comments of your Australian cleric, Sheikh Taj Din Al-Hilali, "there were women who sway suggestively, and wear make-up and immodest dress ... " (this was from his rant on why women who get raped are to blame...)
I mean, when you're sending that kind of message about female 'modesty', from the most senior leader in your faith, what do you think the trickle-down message to females in your community is? Wear it, or be cast as "immodest" in the eyes of your family. That is brainwashing. Oppression of a less tangible, but ultimately appreciable and highly significant variety.
-
What about when that practise contravenes the bill of right of the country, i.e. France? The burqa is clearly a symbol of the subjugation of women by a patriarchal society, which is counter to French ideals. Therefore, in this case, the debate boils down to freedom of religion vs. freedom from oppression. In this case, I believe the argument can be made that freedom from oppression wins out...
I'll say again, what makes you think it's oppression? I'm not saying there aren't women who are forced to wear it, because I'm sure there are many. But the law dealing with that should come under the usual law prohibiting domestic violence. But I'm positive that there are many Muslim women out there, who, given the choice, would choose to wear the veil, because they believe it is the right thing to do. Why should they be disallowed the right to dresss how they wish?
How can they know how they want to dress, when all their life they've been brainwashed with "if you don't dress like this, you're a worthless slut who should be stoned to death"? That is the sharia law in many Islamic countries, and that message is carried with immigrants from those countries to places like France, Belgium etc. If you don't wear the burqa in public, you should be stoned to death. How can you honestly argue that this is an informed decision on the part of those poor, oppressed women? It's clearly one of fear, and if not fear, then brainwashing.
Could you not argue then, that everything you might believe in has happened because you've been 'brainwashed' by the society that you live in. Think about it:
- You must wear clothes when you go out (otherwise the police may book you)
- When you ask for something, you must say please, otherwise you are considered disrespectful.
These sorts of things are culture sets, and I doubt you would argue that these things are brainwashing, because you'd agree to those statements.
That said, I think France is a bit misguided about banning the burqa, as it's merely treating the symptom of what is the real problem, that is as you've mentioned, the problem with how women are treated in Islamic culture, and more generally, integration of Muslims amongst broader society.
-
You have freedom of choice up until it infringes on the rights of others. With your first example, not wearing anything creates a culture of fear for all parents where they are afraid to take their children out in public.
Hence why you are allowed public nudity in places like public beaches, where nobody is harmed by the nudity. Living in a democracy, we decide when too far is too far.
With your 2nd point, it is precisely for the reason that we have freedom of choice that we can be rude. Not saying please does not impinge on anybody's rights, therefore you can be as ill-mannered as you wish (it just won't win you many friends).
The burqa infringes on a woman's right to equality. That is what makes it unacceptable. Any culture set is FINE up until the point where it infringes on another's human right (to be safe in one's environment, to choose, to be equal under the law, etc.) after which it cannot be tolerated in a society like that of the French.
-
I am muslim, and I am yet to meet someone who wears it out of oppression, or are forced to wear it.
Furthermore, I know heaps, and I mean heaps of converts, yes people that chose to become muslim at an adult age, that do wear it, and obviously they are not forced as their family are not muslims.
Ok fair enough, France is secular and doesn't want religion publicly promoted and such, but please don't say it's oppression against women.
The way of life that you have experienced in the Australian Islamic environment, where the Muslim community here has integrated into the society of the target destination country better than any other Muslim community in the world gives your experience a bit of a biased twist.
I have no doubt that the oppression is far less so Australia (in fact, that gives me a great deal of hope for the safe success of the Islamic emergence into the rest of the world). But you have to realise that every day in the countries where your family came from, women are physically harassed, jailed and/or stoned for not wearing the head covering. And many immigrant muslim communities that transport themselves to other countries take that with them. I don't think you can turn a blind eye to the simple fact that this oppression does happen, and is particularly problematic in countries where the community fails to integrate properly, as in France.
EDIT: But also, even here, where the physical safety fear is almost null, there is still the subtle sexism of "you are an immodest slut if you do not wear the burqa". Just look at the comments of your Australian cleric, Sheikh Taj Din Al-Hilali, "there were women who sway suggestively, and wear make-up and immodest dress ... " (this was from his rant on why women who get raped are to blame...)
I mean, when you're sending that kind of message about female 'modesty', from the most senior leader in your faith, what do you think the trickle-down message to females in your community is? Wear it, or be cast as "immodest" in the eyes of your family. That is brainwashing. Oppression of a less tangible, but ultimately appreciable and highly significant variety.
enwiabe, I think you're getting confused between Burqa and what most muslim women wear.
Burqa covers the WHOLE body including the face, which is not an obligation, what IS an obligation is to cover the hair and wear something that isn't too tight, that's it. And this is seen in many girls and women everywhere and has not been a problem.
No one says "you're dressing is immodest if you don't cover you face", But I do agree that Taj hilali should not have said what he did say, and I'm glad he isn't the Australian cleric anymore, neither has he been for the past few years lol.
And regarding the women being oppressed on account of them not covering their face, I'm sure this does not happen in most Muslim countries, but rather in a very minute number of them (I know in my country, a lot of women don't even cover their hair), and if women are oppressed by their family in France, then go ahead and ban it, but if it's simply as you say "they grew up with it, they don't know any better" then let them wear it as part of their culture...isn't that after all how cultures come to be?
You have freedom of choice up until it infringes on the rights of others. With your first example, not wearing anything creates a culture of fear for all parents where they are afraid to take their children out in public.
Hence why you are allowed public nudity in places like public beaches, where nobody is harmed by the nudity. Living in a democracy, we decide when too far is too far.
With your 2nd point, it is precisely for the reason that we have freedom of choice that we can be rude. Not saying please does not impinge on anybody's rights, therefore you can be as ill-mannered as you wish (it just won't win you many friends).
The burqa infringes on a woman's right to equality. That is what makes it unacceptable. Any culture set is FINE up until the point where it infringes on another's human right (to be safe in one's environment, to choose, to be equal under the law, etc.) after which it cannot be tolerated in a society like that of the French.
So you're assuming that all women that wear the Burqa were forced to wear it, shouldn't muslim women in France be asked if this is true first, then if the find that they don't feel equal because of it, ban the wearing of it?
Because just as you assumed that the women do not feel equal, then I can assume that the women do not feel that, rather they like wearing it and will not feel equal if they are not free to wear what they like.
-
Burqa covers the WHOLE body including the face, which is not an obligation,
When you have stories of girls being [b]threatened[/b] into wearing the burqa, how can you still say it is not compulsory in some countries and that it is not oppression?
When you have stories like this, where even somebody exercising free speech to question the practice incites violence, how can you still say "women are free to choose"?
I think a lot of it comes from familial pressure. One of my good friends is Muslim and while her family back in Turkey and Cyprus generally wear some sort of covering, she and her 3 sisters (and her mum) don't. That's because her dad was born and educated in Australia and has actually told them that it is up to them whether or not they want to wear Muslim coverings - and all 5 of them have chosen not to. Why? Because according to my friend, "it's the 21st century and I am an equal to the man next to me and I am going to show that".
So you're assuming that all women that wear the Burqa were forced to wear it, shouldn't muslim women in France be asked if this is true first, then if the find that they don't feel equal because of it, ban the wearing of it?
I think in theory this is a good idea, but consider that if the women were really being forced to wear those things by their families, would they really dare to be honest and stand up and say "I am not doing this out of my free will"?
Also, the French constitution does not allow the gathering of statistics relating in any way to religious affiliation, so that might start to border on the unconstitutional for them too.
Because just as you assumed that the women do not feel equal, then I can assume that the women do not feel that, rather they like wearing it and will not feel equal if they are not free to wear what they like.
You can assume that but it makes no logical sense. Wearing a head-to-toe covering while your husband walks alongside you in t-shirt and thongs (which I've unfortunately seen too many times at shopping centres etc.) makes you feel equal? Seriously?
-
me and I am going to show that".
So you're assuming that all women that wear the Burqa were forced to wear it, shouldn't muslim women in France be asked if this is true first, then if the find that they don't feel equal because of it, ban the wearing of it?
I think in theory this is a good idea, but consider that if the women were really being forced to wear those things by their families, would they really dare to be honest and stand up and say "I am not doing this out of my free will"?
Also, the French constitution does not allow the gathering of statistics relating in any way to religious affiliation, so that might start to border on the unconstitutional for them too.
Well, there are ways to get around that, such as focus group and assuring anonymity, that sort of thing.
You have freedom of choice up until it infringes on the rights of others. With your first example, not wearing anything creates a culture of fear for all parents where they are afraid to take their children out in public.
What about, by not wearing a burqa, you're creating a culture of fear amongst Muslim parents for example. Should we therefore force everyone to wear a burqa then? (I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm actually not advocating this)
I will reiterate my point though: France is a bit misguided about banning the burqa, as it's merely treating the symptom of what is the real problem, that is as you've mentioned, the problem with how women are treated in Islamic culture, and more generally, integration of Muslims amongst broader society.
-
Wait how is it creating a culture of fear against Muslim parents? :S
Also what about when things like this happen
-
gg who cares.
-
interesting article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
Wait how is it creating a culture of fear against Muslim parents? :S
Also what about when things like this happen
Amongst.
By that I mean in a similar way to how parent may react if they see their say teenage daughter in sexually provocative clothing.
-
If Iran is allowed to have a law requiring all women to cover their bodies except their hands/faces why isn't France allowed to have a law requiring women to show their faces? oh right. Because that would be *oppression*.
I agree with this as its true, no matter what religion you follow, if you are a woman you must cover up if your in Iran.
But western countries pride ourselves on allowing you to follow any religion, so I guess we probably shouldn't ban the veil or the above goes out the door. Also being countries that allows people to follow scientology, I personally would ban scientology before trying to tweak with other religions.
-
i don't believe the government should force this law onto the french muslim women who chose to wear the burqa. if you think its oppression and women's rights etc.etc.. then by forcing this law your creating the same problem of oppression against women who freely chose to wear this clothing. by not allowing women to wear it, is not the way to improve their human rights.. and i think that if this law is in place it will have an unintended consequence of isolating the muslim women further than what they are now.
-
Amongst.
By that I mean in a similar way to how parent may react if they see their say teenage daughter in sexually provocative clothing.
Still not following you...
French police fine Muslim driver for wearing veil
-
I wasn't calling it oppression I was making light of/fun of/pointing out the fact that Souljette called it oppression. I don't think it is oppression wanting to be able to see someones face so they can identify them.
Yes, i said it was oppression because these women choose to wear the niqab and Someone is forcing her to take it off. Can you imagine the devastation that she will feel?
Obviously you won't fully understand, but there are those who have spiritual/religious connection to it.
i don't exactly understand;
The burqa infringes on a woman's right to equality. That is what makes it unacceptable. Any culture set is FINE up until the point where it infringes on another's human right (to be safe in one's environment, to choose, to be equal under the law, etc.) after which it cannot be tolerated in a society like that of the French.
How? & Why?
Do you really believe that if the burqa infringes women's right to equality, they would choose to wear it? Who would do that?
Wearing a head-to-toe covering while your husband walks alongside you in t-shirt and thongs (which I've unfortunately seen too many times at shopping centres etc.) makes you feel equal? Seriously?
Why not?
i don't believe equality is achieved through dress code. It is the treatment that makes a difference.
Why? Because according to my friend, "it's the 21st century and I am an equal to the man next to me and I am going to show that".
-This was pretty disturbing, especially from a Muslim perspective. Does it take you for you to be uncovered to show your equal to man?
Regards,
Souljette
Souljette<3
-
Souljette, unfortunately, I believe you have been a victim of this brainwashing. It is evident from your seemingly oblivious quote here:
"Do you really believe that if the burqa infringes women's right to equality, they would choose to wear it? Who would do that?"
Who would do that? Who would choose to wear it? You ask. The fact of the matter is, they don't choose to wear it. Petrified young women who are afraid of the abuse and backlash they would face from family and community if they dared to defy them and their traditions. If you really believe that this does not exist, and that it is not a significant problem in your faith, then I think you ought to open your mind a little bit more to the truth.
The debate here is not really about whether this problem of the subjugation of women in French Islamic society exists, the debate is more about is this an effective means of putting an end to it? And while I do certainly believe what I'm arguing, I do not profess to be correct, as we have no way of knowing until after the fact. I'm of the belief that this will minimise the harm and begin to break open the taboo on women's rights in the French Islamic community. From then on, the progress towards equality will be much quicker.
You will find a litany of examples of persecution of women based on their refusal to wear a niqab. And those are just the ones we know about. I shudder to think at all the oppressed who would be suffering alone, afraid to speak out. They would number far more than those that have had the amazing courage to come forward with their stories in the face of such adversity.
-
i don't believe the government should force this law onto the french muslim women who chose to wear the burqa. if you think its oppression and women's rights etc.etc.. then by forcing this law your creating the same problem of oppression against women who freely chose to wear this clothing. by not allowing women to wear it, is not the way to improve their human rights.. and i think that if this law is in place it will have an unintended consequence of isolating the muslim women further than what they are now.
This is a good point, and you are certainly correct that this law would supplant one oppression with the other. As I said before, it comes down to a battle of which right is more important? Freedom of religion, or freedom of equality?
The thing is though, it is a policy of harm minimisation. The argument goes, yes, it would infringe on the rights of some to freedom of religion, but the damage done by impedence of this right, in the bigger picture, is less so than the damage of continuing this medieval patriarchal microcosm that exists within a secular French society, which shed its feudal system hundreds of years ago and has been working towards full equality under the law for both men and women ever since.
-
enwiabe dont think souljettes been brainwashed at all, matter of fact aside from the minority that are as u say forced to wear it, the majority do it willingly.
-
enwiabe dont think souljettes been brainwashed at all, matter of fact aside from the minority that are as u say forced to wear it, the majority do it willingly.
Can you prove that? None of us can really prove what "most" women are feeling. But surely the fact that some are forced to wear it shows that it is a form of repression. We can't just ignore them in favour of statistics.
-
How can they know how they want to dress, when all their life they've been brainwashed with "if you don't dress like this, you're a worthless slut who should be stoned to death"?
How do you know that they do not know how they want to dress? Do you know this from somebody you know or is it just an assumption?
-
you haven't answered my question.
I just think people really have the wrong idea of the Niqab. They don't understand the essence/beauty of it ( which i don't expect many people too, even amongst Muslims themselves)
Who would do that? Who would choose to wear it? You ask.
I would choose to wear it. I don't have any problem with it, and if any women feels like she is in need of wearing it then so be it. Why the fuss?
The fact of the matter is, they don't choose to wear it. Petrified young women who are afraid of the abuse and backlash they would face from family and community if they dared to defy them and their traditions. If you really believe that this does not exist, and that it is not a significant problem in your faith, then I think you ought to open your mind a little bit more to the truth.
Who said it didn't exist? Yes it is possible to find situations such as these and nobody said it was correct. We don't approve of these things since not every one agree that it is compulsory to wear it. My point is not everyone is forced to wear it ( And if they are, it is not right) and i would say majority wear it from the freedom of their choice.
My faith is not the problem, it would have to be the people who are enforcing such things.
But why is that an excuse for Banning the Niqab all together?
And just to clairfy something, i am not brainwashed. I see the wearing of the BUrqa in a completely different manner that perhaps you will not understand.
Regards,
Souljette
-
How can they know how they want to dress, when all their life they've been brainwashed with "if you don't dress like this, you're a worthless slut who should be stoned to death"?
How do you know that they do not know how they want to dress?
Because they've never been given the alternative, now have they?
-
How can they know how they want to dress, when all their life they've been brainwashed with "if you don't dress like this, you're a worthless slut who should be stoned to death"?
How do you know that they do not know how they want to dress?
Because they've never been given the alternative, now have they?
Well not in Islamic countries but here and many other countries they have yet they still choose to wear it.
Still, just because they're not allowed to dress alternatively doesnt mean they wont know how they want to dress. Its like saying that you've never been a millionaire so you wont know how to become one.
-
Ninwa, Next time you see a man walking with his wife that is covered, why don't you ask her if she feels she is being forced or if she feels she is unequal to her husband because of what she is wearing.
Reminds me of this video I watched a long long time ago- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgqXKqO8BDw&feature=related
-
i don't believe the government should force this law onto the french muslim women who chose to wear the burqa. if you think its oppression and women's rights etc.etc.. then by forcing this law your creating the same problem of oppression against women who freely chose to wear this clothing. by not allowing women to wear it, is not the way to improve their human rights.. and i think that if this law is in place it will have an unintended consequence of isolating the muslim women further than what they are now.
This is a good point, and you are certainly correct that this law would supplant one oppression with the other. As I said before, it comes down to a battle of which right is more important? Freedom of religion, or freedom of equality?
The thing is though, it is a policy of harm minimisation. The argument goes, yes, it would infringe on the rights of some to freedom of religion, but the damage done by impedence of this right, in the bigger picture, is less so than the damage of continuing this medieval patriarchal microcosm of French which infringes the rights of every woman in the microcosm.
i still believe that government cannot protect oneself from harm (if you believe that is what it is doing)
and if that occurs doesn't that set the precendent to ban other things? if you ban something you don't agree with, why not ban other things as well?
and really when you ask muslim people whether the burqa is a sign of oppression, you will definetly get different answers
-
Wait how is it creating a culture of fear against Muslim parents? :S
Also what about when things like this happen
Or what about situations like this or this?
-
Ninwa, Next time you see a man walking with his wife that is covered, why don't you ask her if she feels she is being forced or if she feels she is unequal to her husband because of what she is wearing.
I'm not sure her husband would take kindly to that, considering he was always walking a few steps ahead of her - a sign of dominance, superiority.
I have spoken to Muslims who feel it is a symbol of inferiority. Obviously, that is a very skewed view, considering I don't actually have Muslim friends who choose to wear it. However, I still think that kind of testimony is not completely redundant.
You took my comment out of context. You made an assumption which didn't make sense to me, and I countered it with what I inferred from my observations. Can you now explain why you assume that women feel more equal if they were covered from head to toe while their husbands walked around in very Westernized clothing?
Because just as you assumed that the women do not feel equal, then I can assume that the women do not feel that, rather they like wearing it and will not feel equal if they are not free to wear what they like.
-
you haven't answered my question.
I just think people really have the wrong idea of the Niqab. They don't understand the essence/beauty of it ( which i don't expect many people too, even amongst Muslims themselves)
Who would do that? Who would choose to wear it? You ask.
I would choose to wear it. I don't have any problem with it, and if any women feels like she is in need of wearing it then so be it. Why the fuss?
The fact of the matter is, they don't choose to wear it. Petrified young women who are afraid of the abuse and backlash they would face from family and community if they dared to defy them and their traditions. If you really believe that this does not exist, and that it is not a significant problem in your faith, then I think you ought to open your mind a little bit more to the truth.
Who said it didn't exist? Yes it is possible to find situations such as these and nobody said it was correct. We don't approve of these things since not every one agree that it is compulsory to wear it. My point is not everyone is forced to wear it ( And if they are, it is not right) and i would say majority wear it from the freedom of their choice.
My faith is not the problem, it would have to be the people who are enforcing such things.
But why is that an excuse for Banning the Niqab all together?
And just to clairfy something, i am not brainwashed. I see the wearing of the BUrqa in a completely different manner that perhaps you will not understand.
Regards,
Souljette
Firstly, I believe I did answer your questions :P
I'm sure you would choose to wear it, it's what you've known all your life. But let me ask you a personal question, and you can choose not to answer it if you wish, that's fine, I more than understand. What do you honestly think your parents and family would do if you chose to go out in public without the niqab on? And, now tell me, if you weren't so strong in your convictions, and thought that the niqab was pointless (hypothetically), would the reaction of your family influence your decision to continue wearing it? Perhaps you might even go up and ask them hypothetically how they'd react?
Of course, you may well have perfectly reasonable parents who are not a part of the problem I'm talking about. But then again, they could be like these people who allowed, wait, participated in murdering their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html?eref=ib_topstories
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/germany.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-husband-who-killed-his-wife-and-children-because-of-their-western-ways-437199.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1244406,00.html
In that last article, we find: "In 2000, the United Nations estimated that around 5,000 girls and women in at least 14 countries, among them Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey, were killed yearly because their families felt they brought dishonor on them.
But statistics in Europe are hard to come by given the fact that some honor-related crimes are recorded as simple murders or domestic violence."
That's 5,000 murders EACH YEAR because they didn't wear the burqa. Not only that, it's only 5,000 that we KNOW of. Not to mention that as stated, many of these killings are not divided according to that category and are put down as "domestic abuse" or just "murder" with no subdivision. So if there are 5,000 actual KILLINGS (that we know of) which you would hope are "rare" cases, then how many more millions of women wear the burqa for fear of being in that 5,000 (but likely double or triple) figure.
If you honestly think this isn't a massive problem, then this debate cannot have an agreed foundation upon which to stand, because at this point, you're simply denying fact.
-
Oops sorry didn't see your post Souljette.
Yes, i said it was oppression because these women choose to wear the niqab and Someone is forcing her to take it off. Can you imagine the devastation that she will feel?
Obviously you won't fully understand, but there are those who have spiritual/religious connection to it.
Of course there's a religious connection to it - it stems from the Quran doesn't it?
A personal question which you don't have to answer (as I mentioned none of my female Muslim friends have chosen to wear any sort of covering so I only have their viewpoints): do you wear some sort of covering? What is your spiritual/religious connection to it? Why do you wear it? (I'm assuming you've made the choice to, rather than just following in your family's traditions.)
For the record I don't think France is doing the right thing. I do think it is a symbol of oppression, but I think there are better ways of going around it than by using brute force legislation to force women not to wear it, and I think it'll do more harm than good. Although it is somewhat understandable considering France's historical fear of any religion and any overt expressions of affiliation to any sort of group, religious or otherwise.
Wearing a head-to-toe covering while your husband walks alongside you in t-shirt and thongs (which I've unfortunately seen too many times at shopping centres etc.) makes you feel equal? Seriously?
Why not?
i don't believe equality is achieved through dress code. It is the treatment that makes a difference.
Why? Because according to my friend, "it's the 21st century and I am an equal to the man next to me and I am going to show that".
-This was pretty disturbing, especially from a Muslim perspective. Does it take you for you to be uncovered to show your equal to man?
I assume you mean equality comes from how people are treated, not what they wear. Why, then, is the Quran interpreted in such a way as to state that women must dress so conservatively but men may wear shorts (revealing legs), t-shirts (revealing arms) and no head coverings (revealing hair)?
How is that not unequal treatment? How is a woman wearing a burqa showing that she is equal to man?
-
Ninwa, Next time you see a man walking with his wife that is covered, why don't you ask her if she feels she is being forced or if she feels she is unequal to her husband because of what she is wearing.
I'm not sure her husband would take kindly to that, considering he was always walking a few steps ahead of her - a sign of dominance, superiority.
I have spoken to Muslims who feel it is a symbol of inferiority. Obviously, that is a very skewed view, considering I don't actually have Muslim friends who choose to wear it. However, I still think that kind of testimony is not completely redundant.
You took my comment out of context. You made an assumption which didn't make sense to me, and I countered it with what I inferred from my observations. Can you now explain why you assume that women feel more equal if they were covered from head to toe while their husbands walked around in very Westernized clothing?
Because just as you assumed that the women do not feel equal, then I can assume that the women do not feel that, rather they like wearing it and will not feel equal if they are not free to wear what they like.
thats quite the observation. a lil over the top..
-
lol okay sorry.
*he was walking a few steps ahead of her then whole time I happened to be walking behind them in the same direction, from the shops to their car, approximately 400 metres or so.
better?
-
lol okay sorry.
*he was walking a few steps ahead of her then whole time I happened to be walking behind them in the same direction, from the shops to their car, approximately 400 metres or so.
better?
So male dominance over women is not present in just Islamic cultures are they? Just because this man was dominant over his wife doesn't mean that all Muslim men are dominant over their wife's.
-
You took my comment out of context. You made an assumption which didn't make sense to me, and I countered it with what I inferred from my observations. Can you now explain why you assume that women feel more equal if they were covered from head to toe while their husbands walked around in very Westernized clothing?
Because just as you assumed that the women do not feel equal, then I can assume that the women do not feel that, rather they like wearing it and will not feel equal if they are not free to wear what they like.
lol what I meant was if they were forced to NOT wear it, then they would feel like they were treated less equally to those that wear what they like without question (didn't specifically mean, male-female equality thingy).
About the male dominance thing, come on, really, you're going to base your argument that Islam treats women unfairly on this one instance which you saw?
Maybe they were having an argument and he didn't want to confront her for the rest of the walk? Have you considered a reason for this behaviour? Furthermore, even if he was trying to prove his dominance, surely you can't say ALL muslim men do this?
EDIT: quote stuffing up on me :\
mod edit: fixed it for you... I think. wtf did you do lol
-
Wtf? When did I say that one observation (btw, I've seen this several times) was proof that all Muslim men treat their women this way?! Didn't I recently mention my Muslim friend whose liberal father lets them make a choice?? Stop putting words in my mouth. I used my experiences to back up my assumption that the wearing of the burqa shows inequality in the relationship. That's all.
The argument explanation is plausible. Perhaps in all those instances the couple had just had an argument. Perhaps not. Geez.
-
Oops sorry didn't see your post Souljette.
Yes, i said it was oppression because these women choose to wear the niqab and Someone is forcing her to take it off. Can you imagine the devastation that she will feel?
Obviously you won't fully understand, but there are those who have spiritual/religious connection to it.
Of course there's a religious connection to it - it stems from the Quran doesn't it?
A personal question which you don't have to answer (as I mentioned none of my female Muslim friends have chosen to wear any sort of covering so I only have their viewpoints): do you wear some sort of covering? What is your spiritual/religious connection to it? Why do you wear it? (I'm assuming you've made the choice to, rather than just following in your family's traditions.)
For the record I don't think France is doing the right thing. I do think it is a symbol of oppression, but I think there are better ways of going around it than by using brute force legislation to force women not to wear it, and I think it'll do more harm than good. Although it is somewhat understandable considering France's historical fear of any religion and any overt expressions of affiliation to any sort of group, religious or otherwise.
Wearing a head-to-toe covering while your husband walks alongside you in t-shirt and thongs (which I've unfortunately seen too many times at shopping centres etc.) makes you feel equal? Seriously?
Why not?
i don't believe equality is achieved through dress code. It is the treatment that makes a difference.
Why? Because according to my friend, "it's the 21st century and I am an equal to the man next to me and I am going to show that".
-This was pretty disturbing, especially from a Muslim perspective. Does it take you for you to be uncovered to show your equal to man?
I assume you mean equality comes from how people are treated, not what they wear. Why, then, is the Quran interpreted in such a way as to state that women must dress so conservatively but men may wear shorts (revealing legs), t-shirts (revealing arms) and no head coverings (revealing hair)?
How is that not unequal treatment? How is a woman wearing a burqa showing that she is equal to man?
I can see you are trying to fight for these women's liberties, yet they decide to remain blind (through decision or otherwise).
I don't like the whole religious practice full stop, Religion is the biggest source of inequality globally. Now think about it people are more inferior to another because of their religion. My stance on whether god exists is that I have no proof to say whether 'he' does or not. I don't personally see one religion to have more merit than the other and even though I don't like this whole religion pigeon-holling, I believe that my decision doesn't have to apply to everyone.
Having said that, this notion of what religion you choose decides how much of your body can be exposed compared to say a male is just plain stupid.
Anyway I want to finish this 'reply' with this particular quote:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
-
Firstly, I believe I did answer your questions :P
I'm sure you would choose to wear it, it's what you've known all your life. But let me ask you a personal question, and you can choose not to answer it if you wish, that's fine, I more than understand. What do you honestly think your parents and family would do if you chose to go out in public without the niqab on? And, now tell me, if you weren't so strong in your convictions
I'm not Niqaabi btw. Who Knows.
, and thought that the niqab was pointless (hypothetically), would the reaction of your family influence your decision to continue wearing it? Perhaps you might even go up and ask them hypothetically how they'd react?
No.
Do you believe that every/most Muslim family believes that their daughters must wear the Niqaab? In Fact, A lot of Muslims parents just adhere to the normal Hijab that women wear.
If you honestly think this isn't a massive problem, then this debate cannot have an agreed foundation upon which to stand, because at this point, you're simply denying fact.
At what part of my Posts have i denied anything? i said;
Who said it didn't exist? Yes it is possible to find situations such as these and nobody said it was correct. We don't approve of these things since not every one agree that it is compulsory to wear it
Haven't completely looked at the sites you have shown, but just skimming through it- Look, in Islam no body is Allowed to take the law into their own hands. It Must be done properly through the courts- where it is solely based on the Quran, Although what they did is reprehensible and unacceptable under Islam.
....And Ninwa,
I assume you mean equality comes from how people are treated, not what they wear. Why, then, is the Quran interpreted in such a way as to state that women must dress so conservatively but men may wear shorts (revealing legs), t-shirts (revealing arms) and no head coverings (revealing hair)?
How is that not unequal treatment? How is a woman wearing a burqa showing that she is equal to man?
The Quran lays out rules for a purpose. Man and Women are different. It doesn't tell the women to dress so she can look inferior to man.
It's rather to protect her Chastity from men and preserve her modesty. the Quran recognises the Men gets attracted to women-this is normal, and in order protect women from falling into an illicit relationship she should guard herself so she does not attract men. There is so much more to it, this is the simplest it can get.
As with your Q's, it can be interpreted many ways. She's showing she is an individual, governed By Allah ( Lord) not man. And so forth..
A personal question which you don't have to answer (as I mentioned none of my female Muslim friends have chosen to wear any sort of covering so I only have their viewpoints): do you wear some sort of covering? What is your spiritual/religious connection to it? Why do you wear it? (I'm assuming you've made the choice to, rather than just following in your family's traditions.)
Yes i made my choice. In my faith, we have certain guidelines/conditions on how to dress- and i dress accordingly. Well, i love my faith and how can i love something and not adhere to? I know my way of life is not causing me to be inferior to anybody and i certainly know i am equal individual ( Man/female) simply because my religion rules it so.
Regards,
Souljette
-
Wtf? When did I say that one observation (btw, I've seen this several times) was proof that all Muslim men treat their women this way?! Didn't I recently mention my Muslim friend whose liberal father lets them make a choice?? Stop putting words in my mouth. I used my experiences to back up my assumption that the wearing of the burqa shows inequality in the relationship. That's all.
The argument explanation is plausible. Perhaps in all those instances the couple had just had an argument. Perhaps not. Geez.
I reread what I typed, and I admit, I was a bit unfair, I'm sorry, and TBH i haven't exactly read every post thus far...
anyway I don't like arguing (debating?)...so I think I'm gonna back off this discussion!
-
Souljette, I think you're taking the questions I've asked you and avoided them on the basis of mistaken terminology. Re-answer them with the garment that you wear? Burqa? Hijab etc. You said they "simply adhere to the hijab". Well, what if the daughter didn't want to wear the hijab?
You then say that the law isn't supposed to be taken into their own hands, but the link to the article in Basra says that it was court-sanctioned... And even if you can make the argument that it's reprehensible under Islam, I'm not saying that Islam is the problem, I'm saying that it's Islamic men exploiting the religion to abuse women. You can't say "oh but the quran condemns it" and think that that makes the problem go away. The problem exists whether the Quran condemns it or not.
This is exactly the problem. The men ARE taking the law into their own hands. You, a relatively reasonable person, obviously will say that you think it is wrong for htem to do what they do. But every year 5,000 women are not subjected to that same reasonableness.
The problem exists. You cannot deny that every year thousands of women are murdered, and tens of thousands more beaten, simply for not wearing the hijab/niqab/burqa.
Sooner or later, I really hope you realise that there are misogynistic men who are subjugating the women of Islam, in the name of Islam, and are creating a horrific gender inequality. It's up to the women of Islam, ultimately, to start doing something about it. And I wish all those women fighting the good fight good luck. They're going to need it.
-
^^ u just wouldnt understand, hence all this is pointless.
-
That is an extremely empty statement, and ultimately reflects your own inability to acknowledge basic facts. 5,000 women are murdered each year for not wearing the hijab. It's the ugly truth, and something needs to be done about it.
-
Souljette, I think you're taking the questions I've asked you and avoided them on the basis of mistaken terminology. Re-answer them with the garment that you wear? Burqa? Hijab etc. You said they "simply adhere to the hijab". Well, what if the daughter didn't want to wear the hijab?
You then say that the law isn't supposed to be taken into their own hands, but the link to the article in Basra says that it was court-sanctioned... And even if you can make the argument that it's reprehensible under Islam, I'm not saying that Islam is the problem, I'm saying that it's Islamic men exploiting the religion to abuse women. You can't say "oh but the quran condemns it" and think that that makes the problem go away. The problem exists whether the Quran condemns it or not.
This is exactly the problem. The men ARE taking the law into their own hands. You, a relatively reasonable person, obviously will say that you think it is wrong for htem to do what they do. But every year 5,000 women are not subjected to that same reasonableness.
The problem exists. You cannot deny that every year thousands of women are murdered, and tens of thousands more beaten, simply for not wearing the hijab/niqab/burqa.
Sooner or later, I really hope you realise that there are misogynistic men who are subjugating the women of Islam, in the name of Islam, and are creating a horrific gender inequality. It's up to the women of Islam, ultimately, to start doing something about it. And I wish all those women fighting the good fight good luck. They're going to need it.
I wear the hijab. And for the daughter that doesn't, should be encouraged, and if she still refuses, then it' s up to her & she is accountable for her own actions.
Can you please quote where it had said it was court-sanctioned? i can't seem to find it.
I am aware that people do things in the name of Islam that are wrong. Some are very wrong. But that comes down to the person-Not Islam.
You seem to have the notion that i deny things which i said i don't deny. It is present, how much of it Only God knows.
Souljette
-
^^ u just wouldnt understand, hence all this is pointless.
dude if you don't care
gg who cares.
then why do you keep coming back to this thread and making pointless posts
-
What does "then it's up to her and she is accountable for her own actions" mean? That's a very loaded statement. Are you saying that the honour killing is then permissible? How is being punished for not wearing a hijab acceptable? That is a gross violation of human rights.
Hmm, I was under the impression from my first read that the police had done it. My mistake, they were investigating it. But that still doesn't make the problem go away...
And you deny that the problem is endemic to the Islamic community. You deny that we should be taking preventive steps, but rather handle it case by case. Somehow, I think there's merit to preventing 5000+ deaths each year. Somehow, I think there's some merit to lifting a whole swathe (millions) of women out of a darkness that engulfs their lives.
If you acknowledge the problem, why are you so unwilling to solve it? This goes back to your first sentence, "she is accountable for her actions" is a very ominous statement. I hope you do not mean that she deserves to be beaten, or persecuted, or worse, murdered, for it.
-
What does "then it's up to her and she is accountable for her own actions" mean? That's a very loaded statement. Are you saying that the honour killing is then permissible? How is being punished for not wearing a hijab acceptable? That is a gross violation of human rights.
Hmm, I was under the impression from my first read that the police had done it. My mistake, they were investigating it. But that still doesn't make the problem go away...
And you deny that the problem is endemic to the Islamic community. You deny that we should be taking preventive steps, but rather handle it case by case. Somehow, I think there's merit to preventing 5000+ deaths each year. Somehow, I think there's some merit to lifting a whole swathe (millions) of women out of a darkness that engulfs their lives.
If you acknowledge the problem, why are you so unwilling to solve it? This goes back to your first sentence, "she is accountable for her actions" is a very ominous statement. I hope you do not mean that she deserves to be beaten, or persecuted, or worse, murdered, for it.
You Misunderstood me. Perhaps it was me who should have made it clear.
When i say "she's accountable for her own actions' (In our faith,)i mean that on the Day of Judgement, as everybody will be accounted for their deeds, she will be accounted for hers as well. It's a common statement that we use and that is it's implied meaning.
i didn't mean/realise what you have thought. And obviously i wouldn't, would it not have contradicted what i've been saying?
Guide me to where i have denied the problem is endemic to the Islamic community. Who said i was unwilling to solve the problem? My sisters in faith are always in my prayers.
Souljette
-
And you deny that the problem is endemic to the Islamic community. You deny that we should be taking preventive steps, but rather handle it case by case. Somehow, I think there's merit to preventing 5000+ deaths each year. Somehow, I think there's some merit to lifting a whole swathe (millions) of women out of a darkness that engulfs their lives.
Very strong emotive language. If wearing a veil/hijab leads to violence... there is a fundamental flaw within that society, not islam. The maximum extent of islam's place in that issue would be that the example culture/place has a flawed interpretation of it. Many of my friends and their female family members wear hijabs and I am yet to see one that is a depressed victim of violence.
-
Souljette, you wrote:
"And at most times, Husbands do not force their wives to cover-up fully, France's claim is wrong, if they have actually entered the home of these Niqaabi women, they would know it was done by their own choice."
That is clearly at odds with what you're saying now... And to be perfectly honest, I'm glad you have revised your position. It shows you're thinking for yourself :) I cannot hope to change your mind and impose my view on you, that would be oh-so-wrong, but I do hope that I have encouraged you to approach the issue from more angles.
-
And you deny that the problem is endemic to the Islamic community. You deny that we should be taking preventive steps, but rather handle it case by case. Somehow, I think there's merit to preventing 5000+ deaths each year. Somehow, I think there's some merit to lifting a whole swathe (millions) of women out of a darkness that engulfs their lives.
Very strong emotive language. If wearing a veil/hijab leads to violence... there is a fundamental flaw within that society, not islam. The maximum extent of islam's place in that issue would be that the example culture/place has a flawed interpretation of it. Many of my friends and their female family members wear hijabs and I am yet to see one that is a depressed victim of violence.
I never said the problem was with Islam, but rather Islamic men exploiting Islam. And you're exactly right. There are a great deal many societies that follow Islam who have an extremely warped interpretation of Islamic justice, and French society is one of those. I have already acknowledged in a previous post that the problem is nowhere near as prevalent in Australia, where the Islamic community has integrated admirably.
But just because the problem is not around you, does not mean the problem does not exist elsewhere...
-
Souljette, you wrote:
"And at most times, Husbands do not force their wives to cover-up fully, France's claim is wrong, if they have actually entered the home of these Niqaabi women, they would know it was done by their own choice."
Yes i have said that. I still believe its true. Many women i know and met are all wearing it from there own choice.
Souljette
-
But before you said "they know it was done by their own choice".
You were certainly more definite before. Certainly you must realise now that the problem is larger and more widespread than you had previously thought?
-
But before you said "they know it was done by their own choice".
You were certainly more definite before. Certainly you must realise now that the problem is larger and more widespread than you had previously thought?
Yes i do.
When i had mentioned that statement, i was referring to those who were genuinely wearing from their own choice. ( So not to claim that their husbands forced them..etc,) just as there are those who are forced, there are also those who aren't.
Souljette
-
I don't disagree that there are those who are not forced, but to my mind, the prevalence of women who are forced, and are subjugated is a worrying problem. And whilst the ban is not perfect, it's the one which reduces the most harm. And is certainly a better alternative to doing nothing. I'd more than happily get behind a better alternative solution, if such a one existed. But I am yet to see one.
-
I don't disagree that there are those who are not forced, but to my mind, the prevalence of women who are forced, and are subjugated is a worrying problem. And whilst the ban is not perfect, it's the one which reduces the most harm. And is certainly a better alternative to doing nothing. I'd more than happily get behind a better alternative solution, if such a one existed. But I am yet to see one.
Education about respect for women perhaps?
I doubt the banning of the burqa is going to make any difference to the manner in which women are going to be treated, and might even make matters worse. Persecution complex and the rest of it (and if it can, it's really up to the people putting forward that ban to justify how it will reduce prevalence of abuse of women, using empirical evidence). If that is the case, then there should not be a ban on an item of clothing.
-
Education is a time expensive solution. For starters, it won't work on the adults. Their minds are already set (the vast majority of them). The education programs will hopefully train up the next generation of the community to have more respect for women, so I definitely agree education is the long-term solution. In the interim, however, this is the best option available. In terms of proving that it is the best option, we ultimately know that banning the burqa will FORCE the issue out into the open. Keeping all of the muslim women at home for all time is simply an untenable situation for the community. Therefore, it will force a debate, a community-wide discussion, on women's rights, which will surely work wonders for their situation. In justifying being able to go out in public without a burqa, what other concessions and realisations might be made by a community round table coming to grips with this new empowerment of women? :)
-
Education is a time expensive solution. For starters, it won't work on the adults. Their minds are already set (the vast majority of them). The education programs will hopefully train up the next generation of the community to have more respect for women, so I definitely agree education is the long-term solution. In the interim, however, this is the best option available. In terms of proving that it is the best option, we ultimately know that banning the burqa will FORCE the issue out into the open. Keeping all of the muslim women at home for all time is simply an untenable situation for the community. Therefore, it will force a debate, a community-wide discussion, on women's rights, which will surely work wonders for their situation. In justifying being able to go out in public without a burqa, what other concessions and realisations might be made by a community round table coming to grips with this new empowerment of women? :)
As I said, the problem with enforcing such a ban is the strong possibility that you will alienate the Muslim population (i.e. they won't listen to you). By doing so, you ruin any plans to educate the population. One can not simply beat a person up and expect them to be friends afterwards.
The other thing that must be done is we need to know to what degree Muslims (as well as other populations too, Muslims don't have a monopoly on abusing women) are in fact being disrespectful towards women. Acting on stereotypes does not do wonders to education either. It may be the case that we find that the rate of Muslims being abusive towards women say, is about the same or even less then the general population. In which case, there is no need for a campaign that specifically targets Muslims.
It's most important that this issue isn't turned into a race/religious issue. Hence the need to follow the evidence and not use generalisations about religion/race.
-
I haven't read this whole thread, but I have noticed if enwiabe is talking about how this will empower Muslim women.
I wonder if there are Muslim women who think this would help, and I wonder if there are Muslim women who vehemently disagree with you. Maybe there are both, but I think they should certainly decide over us (I prefer as individuals, but as a group is better than as a country).
-
Souljette, I think you're taking the questions I've asked you and avoided them on the basis of mistaken terminology. Re-answer them with the garment that you wear? Burqa? Hijab etc. You said they "simply adhere to the hijab". Well, what if the daughter didn't want to wear the hijab?
You then say that the law isn't supposed to be taken into their own hands, but the link to the article in Basra says that it was court-sanctioned... And even if you can make the argument that it's reprehensible under Islam, I'm not saying that Islam is the problem, I'm saying that it's Islamic men exploiting the religion to abuse women. You can't say "oh but the quran condemns it" and think that that makes the problem go away. The problem exists whether the Quran condemns it or not.
This is exactly the problem. The men ARE taking the law into their own hands. You, a relatively reasonable person, obviously will say that you think it is wrong for htem to do what they do. But every year 5,000 women are not subjected to that same reasonableness.
The problem exists. You cannot deny that every year thousands of women are murdered, and tens of thousands more beaten, simply for not wearing the hijab/niqab/burqa.
Sooner or later, I really hope you realise that there are misogynistic men who are subjugating the women of Islam, in the name of Islam, and are creating a horrific gender inequality. It's up to the women of Islam, ultimately, to start doing something about it. And I wish all those women fighting the good fight good luck. They're going to need it.
I wear the hijab. And for the daughter that doesn't, should be encouraged, and if she still refuses, then it' s up to her & she is accountable for her own actions.
Can you please quote where it had said it was court-sanctioned? i can't seem to find it.
I am aware that people do things in the name of Islam that are wrong. Some are very wrong. But that comes down to the person-Not Islam.
You seem to have the notion that i deny things which i said i don't deny. It is present, how much of it Only God knows.
Souljette
I'm just inferring, but are you saying that if she doesn't conform she should be killed?
-
Souljette, I think you're taking the questions I've asked you and avoided them on the basis of mistaken terminology. Re-answer them with the garment that you wear? Burqa? Hijab etc. You said they "simply adhere to the hijab". Well, what if the daughter didn't want to wear the hijab?
You then say that the law isn't supposed to be taken into their own hands, but the link to the article in Basra says that it was court-sanctioned... And even if you can make the argument that it's reprehensible under Islam, I'm not saying that Islam is the problem, I'm saying that it's Islamic men exploiting the religion to abuse women. You can't say "oh but the quran condemns it" and think that that makes the problem go away. The problem exists whether the Quran condemns it or not.
This is exactly the problem. The men ARE taking the law into their own hands. You, a relatively reasonable person, obviously will say that you think it is wrong for htem to do what they do. But every year 5,000 women are not subjected to that same reasonableness.
The problem exists. You cannot deny that every year thousands of women are murdered, and tens of thousands more beaten, simply for not wearing the hijab/niqab/burqa.
Sooner or later, I really hope you realise that there are misogynistic men who are subjugating the women of Islam, in the name of Islam, and are creating a horrific gender inequality. It's up to the women of Islam, ultimately, to start doing something about it. And I wish all those women fighting the good fight good luck. They're going to need it.
I wear the hijab. And for the daughter that doesn't, should be encouraged, and if she still refuses, then it' s up to her & she is accountable for her own actions.
Can you please quote where it had said it was court-sanctioned? i can't seem to find it.
I am aware that people do things in the name of Islam that are wrong. Some are very wrong. But that comes down to the person-Not Islam.
You seem to have the notion that i deny things which i said i don't deny. It is present, how much of it Only God knows.
Souljette
I'm just inferring, but are you saying that if she doesn't conform she should be killed?
*in*
She already cleared that up.
*out*
-
I think the decision to cover up or not to cover up is between the woman and God. Opression happens, of course, but in a country like France there are other alternatives - nobody is going to be stoned to death or anything for not covering themselves up. Oppression also comes in many different forms, and it's difficult to outlaw it, it goes right to the attitudes people have.
-
That is an extremely empty statement, and ultimately reflects your own inability to acknowledge basic facts. 5,000 women are murdered each year for not wearing the hijab. It's the ugly truth, and something needs to be done about it.
Based on that, you may as well ban Islam altogether, because many more than 5000 people are killed each year in the name of Islam, for things that have nothing at all to do with the hijab.
-
That is an extremely empty statement, and ultimately reflects your own inability to acknowledge basic facts. 5,000 women are murdered each year for not wearing the hijab. It's the ugly truth, and something needs to be done about it.
Based on that, you may as well ban Islam altogether, because many more than 5000 people are killed each year in the name of Islam, for things that have nothing at all to do with the hijab.
Not just Islam, there are fanatics from all religions who kill in the name of their God(s)...
-
That is an extremely empty statement, and ultimately reflects your own inability to acknowledge basic facts. 5,000 women are murdered each year for not wearing the hijab. It's the ugly truth, and something needs to be done about it.
Based on that, you may as well ban Islam altogether, because many more than 5000 people are killed each year in the name of Islam, for things that have nothing at all to do with the hijab.
Not just Islam, there are fanatics from all religions who kill in the name of their God(s)...
Everybody ALWAYS says that. But is it really true? Can you think of any people killed recently (ie this century) by people specifically in the name of Christianity, or Judaism? I can't, and even if there are any, the numbers are waaaay below those of Islam.
-
I know there have been killings in the name of God by "Christians" in the last century, thought they were really more a cult by that stage. I know not of Judaism. But really I only know what the media tells me... I haven't done any research or anything... And yes, I have heard of a LOT more about Islam... I hear heaps of crap about Islam..
-
I know there have been killings in the name of God by "Christians" in the last century, thought they were really more a cult by that stage. I know not of Judaism. But really I only know what the media tells me... I haven't done any research or anything... And yes, I have heard of a LOT more about Islam... I hear heaps of crap about Islam..
And therein lies my point. There are a myriad problems with Islam. The forcing of women to wear a veil is but one of them. If you're going to start cracking down on Islamic practices, where do you stop?
-
One thing I don't understand is, why are women "encouraged" to wear a hijab, burqa etc. to stop any men thinking of them sexually, when men are not judged for doing this?
-
That attitude pervaded most societies, and it still exists today(outside of Islam). And that is the crux of the issue here, the onus is put on women for man's lack of self-control.
-
One thing I don't understand is, why are women "encouraged" to wear a hijab, burqa etc. to stop any men thinking of them sexually, when men are not judged for doing this?
Who says men aren't judged for doing it? Just because they work to remove the temptation, doesn't mean they aren't guilty if they do.
-
Who says men aren't judged for doing it? Just because they work to remove the temptation, doesn't mean they aren't guilty if they do.
Could someone clarify on this? Are men judged for "succumbing to temptation"? We've all heard of the cases where women have been stoned to death etc. for being raped, but are the men punished too? (typical media only reporting the more shocking aspects)
-
Who says men aren't judged for doing it? Just because they work to remove the temptation, doesn't mean they aren't guilty if they do.
Could someone clarify on this? Are men judged for "succumbing to temptation"? We've all heard of the cases where women have been stoned to death etc. for being raped, but are the men punished too? (typical media only reporting the more shocking aspects)
A google search for 'man stoned for adultery' gives plenty of results.
-
Wow, I didn't see one that wasn't Islamic :(
EDIT: On the first page. Just to save people getting angry, thinking I was speaking in absolutes..
-
I know there have been killings in the name of God by "Christians" in the last century, thought they were really more a cult by that stage. I know not of Judaism. But really I only know what the media tells me... I haven't done any research or anything... And yes, I have heard of a LOT more about Islam... I hear heaps of crap about Islam..
And therein lies my point. There are a myriad problems with Islam. The forcing of women to wear a veil is but one of them. If you're going to start cracking down on Islamic practices, where do you stop?
There are a myriad of problems with all religions. Why don't we just get rid of them all?
-
sorry i haven't read this whole argument but my view on this niqaab debate:
i really do feel sorry for the woman that do wear the head to toe veil which also covers their face. Like honestly i'm not trying to degrade islam at all because i have heaps of mates that a muslim for one, but i mean where's their identity? what's the point of really living if you don't even have a face???? i dont get the reasoning behind covering your face like i think god wouldn't have given woman faces if god intended them to be covered up.. it doesn't make any sense.
on a side note, i think you can band covering the face but nothing else.... THE FACE MAN thats what makes US .. US!
btw sorry if this came out a bit harsh towards those that do wear the head to toe veil. although i doubt theyd be on this forum let alone the internet lol
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
how can it really be their choice when you get your clerics saying shit like
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes"
It's brainwashing, pure and simple. If you're brought up and your parents teach you "if you don't wear the burqa you're betraying your religion", and the parents hold that religion dear to them, do you honestly think that most children will entertain the idea of not wearing it?
We have to realise that when people are brought up to feel that their parents' love is predicated on their adoption of the family's religious beliefs, that the wearing of the burqa is not really a choice; it's a forfeiture to emotional blackmail...
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
how can it really be their choice when you get your clerics saying shit like
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes"
It's brainwashing, pure and simple. If you're brought up and your parents teach you "if you don't wear the burqa you're betraying your religion", and the parents hold that religion dear to them, do you honestly think that most children will entertain the idea of not wearing it?
We have to realise that when people are brought up to feel that their parents' love is predicated on their adoption of the family's religious beliefs, that the wearing of the burqa is not really a choice; it's a forfeiture to emotional blackmail...
Not muslim, btw :P
______________________________________________
Ahmm..Yea, I do agree with that though.
Obviously it has an impact!
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
how can it really be their choice when you get your clerics saying shit like
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes"
It's brainwashing, pure and simple. If you're brought up and your parents teach you "if you don't wear the burqa you're betraying your religion", and the parents hold that religion dear to them, do you honestly think that most children will entertain the idea of not wearing it?
We have to realise that when people are brought up to feel that their parents' love is predicated on their adoption of the family's religious beliefs, that the wearing of the burqa is not really a choice; it's a forfeiture to emotional blackmail...
Not muslim, btw :P
______________________________________________
Ahmm..Yea, I do agree with that though.
Obviously it has an impact!
Yeah, and now consider that the justification of the burqa is "we do not want to be tempted by sexuality, therefore we're going to cover the women up"
The men of the religion basically said "right, Allah says we can't be tempted by sexuality... so instead of controlling ourselves, we're going to cover up our women"
How does punishing the women make any sense??? Learn some god damn self control. If that's what you believe, that you should not give into temptation by sexuality, then by all means KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. But why does that mean you ought to then say "women should over up and if they don't cover up it's not our fault if we give in".
In that way, you basically blame women for your own failings. It's so wrong. It's so wrong on SO MANY levels. It is, completely, treating women like property. Arghghghg it's just so backwards.
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
Naved, some women feel compelled to wear it. I know of many Muslim women who wear it because their family and friends would judge them if they did not, and not because they "choose" to wear it.
And some women aren't allowed to go out into public anyway.
There is one muslim doctor I know that does all the shopping and other errands for his wife. I have never seen her. She never answers the door, never sits with guests. I highly doubt that she chose to live like this.
Disgusting, in my opinion.
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
Naved, some women feel compelled to wear it. I know of many Muslim women who wear it because their family and friends would judge them if they did not, and not because they "choose" to wear it.
And some women aren't allowed to go out into public anyway.
There is one muslim doctor I know that does all the shopping and other errands for his wife. I have never seen her. She never answers the door, never sits with guests. I highly doubt that she chose to live like this.
Disgusting, in my opinion.
"I know of many Muslim women who wear it because their family and friends would judge them if they did not, and not because they "choose" to wear it. " Exactly, its quite bad. Its what I meant to convey.
True story...
Its funny how once, I had this conversation with a Muslim Victorian Police Officer (a father of a friend) .
and I asked him, what his views were on this very topic...
to which he promtly replied... a muslim women who doesnt wear the hijab isnt a muslim??!!
It came to my mind after I read your post ( I remembered him strtaight away!) , and yea fair point they'd be judged.
-
How does punishing the women make any sense??? Learn some god damn self control. If that's what you believe, that you should not give into temptation by sexuality, then by all means KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. But why does that mean you ought to then say "women should over up and if they don't cover up it's not our fault if we give in".
In that way, you basically blame women for your own failings. It's so wrong. It's so wrong on SO MANY levels. It is, completely, treating women like property. Arghghghg it's just so backwards.
I'd imagine it's a two-way street... I don't know the rules exactly, but I'd be very surprised if there were no laws dictating a certain standard of dress for men too.
And who said that this "if they don't cover up it's not our fault if we give in" is the case? Again, I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that in Islamic belief the men do get punished for adultery, just as the women do. It's all about removing temptation, so as to steer as far as possible away from betraying G-d.
Also, the 'controlling oneselves' approach is not exactly feasible. One only has to look at the Catholic Church for evidence of that.
-
Quote Methodsman -
I thought they CHOSE to wear it rather than being forced. There are muslim women out there who don't wear it...
Though, in countries where such practice is FORCED is completely ridiculous and needs to get with the times.
Exactly, its culture!
Besides, they dont wear it at home...only in public, that too by their personal choice!
Naved, some women feel compelled to wear it. I know of many Muslim women who wear it because their family and friends would judge them if they did not, and not because they "choose" to wear it.
And some women aren't allowed to go out into public anyway.
There is one muslim doctor I know that does all the shopping and other errands for his wife. I have never seen her. She never answers the door, never sits with guests. I highly doubt that she chose to live like this.
Disgusting, in my opinion.
"I know of many Muslim women who wear it because their family and friends would judge them if they did not, and not because they "choose" to wear it. " Exactly, its quite bad. Its what I meant to convey.
True story...
Its funny how once, I had this conversation with a Muslim Victorian Police Officer (a father of a friend) .
and I asked him, what his views were on this very topic...
to which he promtly replied... a muslim women who doesnt wear the hijab isnt a muslim??!!
It came to my mind after I read your post, and yea fair point they'd be judged.
Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"
it really becomes...
"burqa... or my entire family and community?"
what a choice, what a free will choice.
-
I'd imagine it's a two-way street... I don't know the rules exactly, but I'd be very surprised if there were no laws dictating a certain standard of dress for men too.
... shorts, tshirt and thongs
Also, the 'controlling oneselves' approach is not exactly feasible. One only has to look at the Catholic Church for evidence of that.
Women are punished because men use the "we couldn't control ourselves" excuse. How can you not see how disgusting that is?
On a slight tangent, there was an article in The Age today about an abuse victim (who is still Catholic) who explained that priests tended to abuse young boys because 1) nuns tended to be responsible for a girl's religious education; and 2) many believed that relations with boys doesn't count as breaking their vow of celibacy.
... just wow.
Its funny how once, I had this conversation with a Muslim Victorian Police Officer (a father of a friend) .
and I asked him, what his views were on this very topic...
to which he promtly replied... a muslim women who doesnt wear the hijab isnt a muslim??!!
hahaha I almost want to introduce him to my Muslim friend, it would be highly entertaining to see her reaction to that
-
How does punishing the women make any sense??? Learn some god damn self control. If that's what you believe, that you should not give into temptation by sexuality, then by all means KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. But why does that mean you ought to then say "women should over up and if they don't cover up it's not our fault if we give in".
In that way, you basically blame women for your own failings. It's so wrong. It's so wrong on SO MANY levels. It is, completely, treating women like property. Arghghghg it's just so backwards.
I'd imagine it's a two-way street... I don't know the rules exactly, but I'd be very surprised if there were no laws dictating a certain standard of dress for men too.
And who said that this "if they don't cover up it's not our fault if we give in" is the case? Again, I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that in Islamic belief the men do get punished for adultery, just as the women do. It's all about removing temptation, so as to steer as far as possible away from betraying G-d.
Also, the 'controlling oneselves' approach is not exactly feasible. One only has to look at the Catholic Church for evidence of that.
Right, even if there are punitive measures for the men, covering up the women still siphons off the blame. If it were truly the man's fault for giving in in the eyes of the religion, then they'd be the only ones getting the blame.
The fact that the women must cover up is entirely a method of shifting blame away from the man. A cop-out to shift at least some of the blame away from his own failings.
And how is not feasible to control one's actions? Should we cover up all our money to prevent people from stealing it? If someone leaves a $10 note on the counter because they drop their phone and go to pick it up, does that in any way absolve the person standing next to them of stealing it? They should have sufficiently removed all temptation, right?
No, ultimately, it's lunacy to say that somebody else is responsible for another person's choices and actions. It's a weak copout. Women are used as scapegoats for the failing of weak men. It doesn't just happen in Islam, it happens everywhere. Because women are physically inferior, that is what has happened for the past 3000 years and they had no choice.
Finally, humanity is catching up its brains to its brawn and common sense is beginning to prevail. This is just one of the remaining remnants of thousands of years of patriarchy.
Your argument that "men must cover up too" is illogical, as men are allowed to show their faces. Biology has shown that the female sexual urge is just as storng as the man's. Why is a female's face more chaste than a man's? Logically, it's not. You can ONLY justify it with sexism. The fact that there is no male burqa proves this...
-
Read this one people..
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Muslims_wear_the_veil
A muslim lady on the hijab :)
-Not sure, if this post has been linked on this topic as yet.. I haven't read all pages.. but read most!
-
Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"
it really becomes...
"burqa... or my entire family and community?"
what a choice, what a free will choice.
You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.
In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.
For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.
-
You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.
In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.
For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.
I thought the Quran doesn't explicitly mention the burqa? Are you saying all the women who choose only to wear a veil covering their hair are not obeying god?
Read this one people..
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Muslims_wear_the_veil
A muslim lady on the hijab :)
-Not sure, if this post has been linked on this topic as yet.. I haven't read all pages.. but read most!
I found a similar article :)
interesting article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
really interesting read!
-
Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"
it really becomes...
"burqa... or my entire family and community?"
what a choice, what a free will choice.
You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.
In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.
For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.
This is precisely what i'm talking about. The word of 'God' is "don't give into sexual temptation". A harmless tenet. Until man intereferes with it, and exploits women to get rid of their own failings. Man created the burqa to subjugate the women in order to fulfil their observance of God. Seems justified, right?
You also seem to have completely abandoned your argument about it being a two-way street. The truth too harsh?
-
You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.
In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.
For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.
I thought the Quran doesn't explicitly mention the burqa? Are you saying all the women who choose only to wear a veil covering their hair are not obeying god?
I don't know the exact religious imperatives of Islam. Quite possibly there are some who would consider only the full veil acceptable, while others believe it is ok to do with less. In such a case, for a women who believes that it is an imperative for her to wear a full veil, then yes, for her to only cover her hair would be disobeying G-d. Assuming she believes in G-d, what is she to do? Wear the veil (willingly or not), and be secure in the knowledge that she is doing the right thing, or not wear it, and be constantly (in her mind) condemning herself to divine retribution?
Of course some will say that the above scenario is simply an outcome of the brainwashing of the women when she was younger, but let's face it, every child is brainwashed by their parents in some way or other (eg to obey the laws of the country). Who are you to say what is 'good' brainwashing and what is 'bad' brainwashing.
-
"Good" brainwashing is the reasoned explanation of the rights of man and citizen. Do not infringe others, otherwise do whatever you want.
"Bad" brainwashing is when you infringe on the rights of your children. You curb their free will by telling them what god to believe in (no religious freedom), by telling them what to do and wear (no free choice), etc.
There is a degree of reasonableness. This is a feeble attempt to draw attention away from the fact taht you have finally acknowledged that the burqa is nothing more than artful brainwashing.
The forcing of the burqa on women is sick, disgusting, and a complete a violation of their human rights.
-
This is precisely what i'm talking about. The word of 'God' is "don't give into sexual temptation". A harmless tenet. Until man intereferes with it, and exploits women to get rid of their own failings. Man created the burqa to subjugate the women in order to fulfil their observance of God. Seems justified, right?
You also seem to have completely abandoned your argument about it being a two-way street. The truth too harsh?
And how exactly do you presume to know the word of G-d? How do you know what G-d requires of each one of us? Have you studied Islam to the point that you know exactly what laws are specifically mandated by G-d, and which are enactments by the religious leaders themselves? I doubt it.
Case in point - possibly 98% of Jewish law is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. You will not find any direct reference of G-d instructing man to carry out these laws. Yet we still believe that these 98% of laws are directly from G-d, by way of an oral tradition. Now I have no idea if Islam also believes in such an oral tradition. Do you?
I've stopped my argument on the two-way street idea purely because I don't know enough about Islamic law to continue it. You could be right, and I could be wrong, but on the same token I doubt you know enough about Islamic law to continue it either.
-
"Good" brainwashing is the reasoned explanation of the rights of man and citizen. Do not infringe others, otherwise do whatever you want.
"Bad" brainwashing is when you infringe on the rights of your children. You curb their free will by telling them what god to believe in (no religious freedom), by telling them what to do and wear (no free choice), etc.
There is a degree of reasonableness. This is a feeble attempt to draw attention away from the fact taht you have finally acknowledged that the burqa is nothing more than artful brainwashing.
The forcing of the burqa on women is sick, disgusting, and a complete a violation of their human rights.
So you've decided what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. Clearly you have the belief that you are a moral authority above all others on this planet. Clearly I cannot hope to argue with you, because you know what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. That is shocking arrogance on your part.
I have NOT acknowledged that it is brainwashing. I have only acknowledged that what some would call instilling belief in G-d is what others would call brainwashing, IMO incorrectly.
-
So much faith based on such little evidence.
Women subjugated according to a religion that they do not believe until their parents effectively say "believe it or we won't love you".
The case in point is, I know enough about Islamic law to know that the men do not cover the face, and therefore it is NOT a two-way street. That is an airtight proof that it is a sexist policy. Refute that. Women have a sex drive and sexual temptation much the same as men, so why are only women required to cover up? As I said before, the only justification is a sexist one.
You were more than happy to argue Islamic law when you thought you were winning, but it is clearly becoming evident that your copout of choice is "I don't know enough to continue". I do not know a great deal about Islam, you are right, but I know enough to know that the burqa is an extremely sexist and oppressive institution. And you can make the argument from common sense, not religion.
-
So much faith based on such little evidence.
Women subjugated according to a religion that they do not believe until their parents effectively say "believe it or we won't love you".
The case in point is, I know enough about Islamic law to know that the men do not cover the face, and therefore it is NOT a two-way street. That is an airtight proof that it is a sexist policy. Refute that. Women have a sex drive and sexual temptation much the same as men, so why are only women required to cover up? As I said before, the only justification is a sexist one.
You were more than happy to argue Islamic law when you thought you were winning, but it is clearly becoming evident that your copout of choice is "I don't know enough to continue". I do not know a great deal about Islam, you are right, but I know enough to know that the burqa is an extremely sexist and oppressive institution. And you can make the argument from common sense, not religion.
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
-
"Good" brainwashing is the reasoned explanation of the rights of man and citizen. Do not infringe others, otherwise do whatever you want.
"Bad" brainwashing is when you infringe on the rights of your children. You curb their free will by telling them what god to believe in (no religious freedom), by telling them what to do and wear (no free choice), etc.
There is a degree of reasonableness. This is a feeble attempt to draw attention away from the fact taht you have finally acknowledged that the burqa is nothing more than artful brainwashing.
The forcing of the burqa on women is sick, disgusting, and a complete a violation of their human rights.
So you've decided what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. Clearly you are a moral authority above all others on this planet. Clearly I cannot hope to argue with you, because you know what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong.
I have NOT acknowledged that it is brainwashing. I have only acknowledged that what some would call instilling belief in G-d is what others would call brainwashing, IMO incorrectly.
I have not decided what is good or bad. Logic has. You can clearly make the argument from logic that society expects you to not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore it is perfectly valid for parents to teach this to their children as they grow up, so that they can become functioning members of society.
What you cannot argue from logic, is that it is right to brainwash your children into believing in your god, as that is an extremely personal philosophy that ideally should be arrived at by an autonomously thinking adult. Not a vulnerable, susceptible child whose only 'choice' is to trust their primary caregivers implicitly.
In a fair, and just society, you should make available to your children all religions, including non-religion (atheism) and agnosticism, and then let them decide. Unfortunately, parents realised many moons ago that if you truly gave your child the right to decide, they would actually shock and horror make their own choice about matters which affect their lives...
I am comforted by the shift to secularism. Because each day, more and more people come to this realisation that religion is of the self, and not something to force upon others. Religion is what you believe, and if you truly loved your children, you'd let them decide for themselves and love them all the same.
But ultimately, as I harken back to my previous post, many of us are still so insecure about our place in the universe, that religion is all they have to cling to in the desperate scramble for answers... and when that insecurity is exposed, that is when the abuses happen.
-
So much faith based on such little evidence.
Women subjugated according to a religion that they do not believe until their parents effectively say "believe it or we won't love you".
The case in point is, I know enough about Islamic law to know that the men do not cover the face, and therefore it is NOT a two-way street. That is an airtight proof that it is a sexist policy. Refute that. Women have a sex drive and sexual temptation much the same as men, so why are only women required to cover up? As I said before, the only justification is a sexist one.
You were more than happy to argue Islamic law when you thought you were winning, but it is clearly becoming evident that your copout of choice is "I don't know enough to continue". I do not know a great deal about Islam, you are right, but I know enough to know that the burqa is an extremely sexist and oppressive institution. And you can make the argument from common sense, not religion.
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
... I'm not talking about god now. I'm talking about logic and reason. So really, you're missing my point. The point I subtly made was that, either:
- God is sexist in forcing the burqa on women only
- The burqa is a product of the institution of sexism in society
Either way, it doesn't bode well for either case...
-
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31
...
Notice also the expression in 24:31,
"They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary."
This expression may sound vague to many because they have not understood the mercy of God. Again God here used this very general term to give us the freedom to decide according to our own circumstances the definition of "What is necessary".
It is not up to a scholar or to any particular person to define this term. God wants to leave it personal for every woman and no one can take it away from her. Women who follow the basic rule number one i.e. righteousness, will have no problem making the right decision to reveal only which is necessary.
...
THE WORD "HIJAB" in the QURAN
"Hijab" is the term used by many Muslims women to describe their head cover that may or may not include covering their face except their eyes, and sometimes covering also one eye. The Arabic word "Hijab" can be translated into veil or yashmak. Other meanings for the word "Hijab" include, screen, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division, divider.
Can we find the word "Hijab" in the Quran??
The word "Hijab" appeared in the Quran 7 times, five of them as "Hijab" and two times as "Hijaban," these are 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.
None of these "Hijab" words are used in the Quran in reference to what the traditional Muslims call today (Hijab) as a dress code for the Muslim woman.
...
In 24:31 God is asking the women to use their cover (khimar)( being a dress, a coat, a shawl, a shirt, a blouse, a tie, a scarf . . . etc.) to cover their bosoms, not their heads or their hairs. If God so willed to order the women to cover their heads or their hair, nothing would have prevented Him from doing so. GOD does not run out of words. GOD does not forget. God did not order the women to cover their heads or their hair.
Yeah, it's Yahoo answers i.e. not the most reliable resource out there, but I bet this person knows more about Islam than any of us.
-
for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself
That is exactly how these atrocities are committed. "Because god said so". Seriously. That is, exactly what I was talking about. Whenever our beliefs are threatened, we say "IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD! GOD SAID SO!"
Sigh. I wish people would see that for what it is, a weak copout to excuse the evils of man.
-
I am comforted by the shift to secularism. Because each day, more and more people come to this realisation that religion is of the self, and not something to force upon others. Religion is what you believe, and if you truly loved your children, you'd let them decide for themselves and love them all the same.
But ultimately, as I harken back to my previous post, many of us are still so insecure about our place in the universe, that religion is all they have to cling to in the desperate scramble for answers... and when that insecurity is exposed, that is when the abuses happen.
On that, we'll have to agree to disagree, because you will never be able to convince me that my religious beliefs are incorrect, and I imagine neither I yours. It appears that that is the crux of this debate, whether or not we allow G-d to be the moral arbiter. That being the case, it seems somewhat pointless to continue this argument, unless we go out on a tangent and first establish whether G-d himself is real or not. That's not something I'm averse to by the way, but it would require a separate, probably much longer discussion.
- God is sexist in forcing the burqa on women only
I have to wonder how you can say that. Assuming we are labouring under the assumption that G-d exists, He, being the supreme being, would have invented morals and ethics, and therefore is the One to decide what is sexist and what isn't.
-
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31
...
[/b]Notice also the expression in 24:31,
"They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary."
This expression may sound vague to many because they have not understood the mercy of God. Again God here used this very general term to give us the freedom to decide according to our own circumstances the definition of "What is necessary".
It is not up to a scholar or to any particular person to define this term. God wants to leave it personal for every woman and no one can take it away from her. Women who follow the basic rule number one i.e. righteousness, will have no problem making the right decision to reveal only which is necessary.[/b]
...
THE WORD "HIJAB" in the QURAN
"Hijab" is the term used by many Muslims women to describe their head cover that may or may not include covering their face except their eyes, and sometimes covering also one eye. The Arabic word "Hijab" can be translated into veil or yashmak. Other meanings for the word "Hijab" include, screen, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division, divider.
Can we find the word "Hijab" in the Quran??
The word "Hijab" appeared in the Quran 7 times, five of them as "Hijab" and two times as "Hijaban," these are 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.
None of these "Hijab" words are used in the Quran in reference to what the traditional Muslims call today (Hijab) as a dress code for the Muslim woman.
...
In 24:31 God is asking the women to use their cover (khimar)( being a dress, a coat, a shawl, a shirt, a blouse, a tie, a scarf . . . etc.) to cover their bosoms, not their heads or their hairs. If God so willed to order the women to cover their heads or their hair, nothing would have prevented Him from doing so. GOD does not run out of words. GOD does not forget. God did not order the women to cover their heads or their hair.
Yeah, it's Yahoo answers i.e. not the most reliable resource out there, but I bet this person knows more about Islam than any of us.
Ninwa, thats amazing use of the net :P
-
Need more?
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
However, The Quran does not specifically mention the Burqa or tell women to wear such extremely confining clothes. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society (24:31), which the Ulama or “Scholars” do agree upon. Modern day Muslims base their authority regarding the Burqa on the Hadith or collected traditions of life in the days of Prophet Muhammad. It is important to note here that these “collected traditions” have no place in Islam
-
Ninwa, thats amazing use of the net :P
LOL. Yahoo answers is the best invention since sliced bread and Google
-
Need more?
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
However, The Quran does not specifically mention the Burqa or tell women to wear such extremely confining clothes. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society (24:31), which the Ulama or “Scholars” do agree upon. Modern day Muslims base their authority regarding the Burqa on the Hadith or collected traditions of life in the days of Prophet Muhammad. It is important to note here that these “collected traditions” have no place in Islam
Clearly this is an opinion, not shared by all Muslims.
-
I am comforted by the shift to secularism. Because each day, more and more people come to this realisation that religion is of the self, and not something to force upon others. Religion is what you believe, and if you truly loved your children, you'd let them decide for themselves and love them all the same.
But ultimately, as I harken back to my previous post, many of us are still so insecure about our place in the universe, that religion is all they have to cling to in the desperate scramble for answers... and when that insecurity is exposed, that is when the abuses happen.
On that, we'll have to agree to disagree, because you will never be able to convince me that my religious beliefs are incorrect, and I imagine neither I yours. It appears that that is the crux of this debate, whether or not we allow G-d to be the moral arbiter. That being the case, it seems somewhat pointless to continue this argument, unless we go out on a tangent and first establish whether G-d himself is real or not. That's not something I'm averse to by the way, but it would require a separate, probably much longer discussion.
- God is sexist in forcing the burqa on women only
I have to wonder how you can say that. Assuming we are labouring under the assumption that G-d exists, He, being the supreme being, would have invented morals and ethics, and therefore is the One to decide what is sexist and what isn't.
Exactly, so choose option b). Man is sexist :)
-
Clearly this is an opinion, not shared by all Muslims.
Are you actually serious?
Did you not read the DIRECT QUOTE from the Quran?
-
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/189/lalalalabeavercantheary.jpg)
-
and once again a nice big happy family lol
so enwiabe has his beliefs, yitzi has his beliefs, the muslims that wear a burqa have their beliefs, the muslims that wear a hijab have their beliefs and thats the end......
-
Clearly this is an opinion, not shared by all Muslims.
Are you actually serious?
Did you not read the DIRECT QUOTE from the Quran?
I did. Like you said, it's open to interpretation. Obviously some would interpret it different to others. I am in no position to decide which is right, and neither are you, or the person who wrote that on Yahoo answers, or anyone for that matter, so therefore, let each to his own. By which I mean there is no need to ban it.
-
for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself
That is exactly how these atrocities are committed. "Because god said so". Seriously. That is, exactly what I was talking about. Whenever our beliefs are threatened, we say "IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD! GOD SAID SO!"
Sigh. I wish people would see that for what it is, a weak copout to excuse the evils of man.
What your God says must be ingrained into your logic process. You must trust what He says; His word trumps your own reasoning skills.
Ninwa, here is another direct quote from the Quran:
Another verse in the Quran is translated as: "And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"
There is much interpretation to be made, and according to your understanding you must be directed. Also, the meaning lost in translation may cause further disparity between sects of the faith.
-
and once again a nice big happy family lol
so enwiabe has his beliefs, yitzi has his beliefs, the muslims that wear a burqa have their beliefs, the muslims that wear a hijab have their beliefs and thats the end......
Lol doubt it...
Its getting more intense, and interesting by each post.
-
Exactly, so choose option b). Man is sexist :)
I'm pretty sure we were discussing that 4 pages ago, so we appear to going in circles. Lets just call it quits. :D
-
I did. Like you said, it's open to interpretation. Obviously some would interpret it different to others. I am in no position to decide which is right, and neither are you, or the person who wrote that on Yahoo answers, or anyone for that matter, so therefore, let each to his own. By which I mean there is no need to ban it.
Sigh.
You seem to selectively forget what you yourself wrote.
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
Et voila. It's not specifically mandated. As you said, it is open to interpretation. My point.
-
and once again a nice big happy family lol
so enwiabe has his beliefs, yitzi has his beliefs, the muslims that wear a burqa have their beliefs, the muslims that wear a hijab have their beliefs and thats the end......
Lol doubt it...
Its getting more intense, and interesting by each post.
*tell me about it*
-
Ninwa, here is another direct quote from the Quran:
Another verse in the Quran is translated as: "And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"
There is much interpretation to be made, and according to your understanding you must be directed. Also, the meaning lost in translation may cause further disparity between sects of the faith.
Ahhhhhh that was exactly my point! It's not specifically mandated!! I know it's open to interpretation...
-
Lets just call it quits. :D
Are you for real? This is really an interesting debate here LOL, as a spectator :P
-
Seeing as it is open to interpretation, some people will interpret it as a mandate by God, and hence are obliged to follow it.
-
I did. Like you said, it's open to interpretation. Obviously some would interpret it different to others. I am in no position to decide which is right, and neither are you, or the person who wrote that on Yahoo answers, or anyone for that matter, so therefore, let each to his own. By which I mean there is no need to ban it.
Sigh.
You seem to selectively forget what you yourself wrote.
Again you're not seeing my point! How do you know that according to Islamic belief it is not specifically mandated by G-d himself (for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself) that women cover their face and men don't?!?
Et voila. It's not specifically mandated. As you said, it is open to interpretation. My point.
You're forgetting something else I wrote... I asked how you know that Muslims don't have an oral tradition relaying the words of G-d (as Judaism does). Just because that verse itself is open to interpretation, does not mean the whole issue is. It could well be that there is an oral tradition mandating the practice.
I was merely saying that bit about interpretation to demonstrate that even according to that verse alone, there is no need to ban the burqa.
-
But it's not specifically mandated.
*Specifically*.
That's the ONLY point I was making.
Bleh.
-
But it's not specifically mandated.
*Specifically*.
That's the ONLY point I was making.
Bleh.
And my point is, you don't KNOW that. You're assuming.
-
for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself
That is exactly how these atrocities are committed. "Because god said so". Seriously. That is, exactly what I was talking about. Whenever our beliefs are threatened, we say "IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD! GOD SAID SO!"
Sigh. I wish people would see that for what it is, a weak copout to excuse the evils of man.
What your God says must be ingrained into your logic process. You must trust what He says; His word trumps your own reasoning skills.
And once more, I say, nothing but a copout. That is an excuse that one uses to default on their obligation to their fellow man. It doesn't matter what your god says, you cannot infringe others. But of course, those weak men who fail will always hide behind excuses like these (and others) to excuse hteir own failings.
-
for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself
That is exactly how these atrocities are committed. "Because god said so". Seriously. That is, exactly what I was talking about. Whenever our beliefs are threatened, we say "IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD! GOD SAID SO!"
Sigh. I wish people would see that for what it is, a weak copout to excuse the evils of man.
What your God says must be ingrained into your logic process. You must trust what He says; His word trumps your own reasoning skills.
And once more, I say, nothing but a copout. That is an excuse that one uses to default on their obligation to their fellow man. It doesn't matter what your god says, you cannot infringe others. But of course, those weak men who fail will always hide behind excuses like these (and others) to excuse hteir own failings.
It's not a copout if that's what you genuinely believe. You're right, people who don't believe and use it as an excuse are wrong, but for those who genuinely believe it, well, it's a genuine belief :p
'It doesn't matter what your god says, you cannot infringe others.' - Again, assuming G-d is a supreme being, you most certainly CAN infringe anyone's rights based on what He says, because He is the one who decides what each and every person's individual rights truly are.
-
But it's not specifically mandated.
*Specifically*.
That's the ONLY point I was making.
Bleh.
It is only not specifically mandated under your interpretation of the text. As you admitted, it is open to interpretation. Hence some may see it as a mandate, and many quite obviously have.
And the original text may be entirely definitive.
And, have you read the entire Quran? You are relying on several internet sources to verify that there is no mandate. That is simply comical.
-
You're forgetting something else I wrote... I asked how you know that Muslims don't have an oral tradition relaying the words of G-d (as Judaism does). Just because that verse itself is open to interpretation, does not mean the whole issue is. It could well be that there is an oral tradition mandating the practice.
I was merely saying that bit about interpretation to demonstrate that even according to that verse alone, there is no need to ban the burqa.
It would appear that "oral traditions" are discouraged.
Islam is the Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur’an
Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for humanity and consider the text in its original Arabic to be the literal word of God, revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of twenty-three years and view the Qur’an as God's final revelation to humanity.
The Qur’an is thus the primary source of knowledge in Islam. Furthermore, the Book itself clarifies that it is meant to be taken as al-Furqan: the ultimate criterion between right and wrong.
...
The supreme status of the Qur’an as a source of knowledge entails that in all matters on which the Book of Allah has given guidance -- direct or indirect, specific or general -- no other source can overrule it. There can always be a possibility of difference of opinion in the understanding of the contents of the Book, but the general rule that the Qur’anic verdict holds supreme to all other sources of knowledge, whether religious or secular, is so unquestionable that whoever disputes it, disputes the very foundation of Islam.
There are those who do not only follow the Quran.
Hadith (Arabic: الحديث al-ḥadīth, pronounced: /ħadiːθ/; pl. aḥādīth; lit. "narrative") are narrations originating from the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hadith are regarded by traditional schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Qur'an and in matters of jurisprudence.
Various sources of Islamic law are used by Islamic jurisprudence to elucidate the Sharia, the body of Islamic law. The primary sources, accepted universally by all Muslims, are the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is the holy scripture of Islam, believed by Muslims to be the direct and unaltered word of Allah. The Sunnah consists of the religious actions and quotations of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad and narrated through his Companions and Shia Imams.
All medieval Muslim jurists rejected arbitrary opinion, and instead developed various secondary sources, also known as juristic principles or doctrines, to follow in case the primary sources (i.e. the Qur'an and Sunnah) are silent on the issue.
...
Qiyas or analogical deduction is the fourth source of Sharia for the Sunni jurisprudence. Shiites do not accept qiyas, but replace it with reason (aql). Qiyas is the process of legal deduction according to which the jurist, confronted with an unprecedented case, bases his or her argument on the logic used in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Qiyas must not be based on arbitrary judgment, but rather be firmly rooted in the primary sources.
-
It is only not specifically mandated under your interpretation of the text. As you admitted, it is open to interpretation, and hence some may, and have, see it as a mandate.
And the original text may be entirely definitive.
I assumed the word "specific" is synonymous with "explicit". The passage does not explicitly mention a burqa or hijab. It does not explicitly mention the need to cover women from head to toe. The very characteristic of something being open to interpretation suggests that it cannot possibly be specific. If it were, why would you have to interpret it?
And, have you read the entire Quran? You are relying on several internet sources to verify that there is no mandate. That is simply comical.
I never claimed to have any more than a trifling knowledge of Islam. Please do not strawman me.
Yeah, it's Yahoo answers i.e. not the most reliable resource out there, but I bet this person knows more about Islam than any of us.
-
for whatever unfathomable reason best left to Himself
That is exactly how these atrocities are committed. "Because god said so". Seriously. That is, exactly what I was talking about. Whenever our beliefs are threatened, we say "IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD! GOD SAID SO!"
Sigh. I wish people would see that for what it is, a weak copout to excuse the evils of man.
What your God says must be ingrained into your logic process. You must trust what He says; His word trumps your own reasoning skills.
And once more, I say, nothing but a copout. That is an excuse that one uses to default on their obligation to their fellow man. It doesn't matter what your god says, you cannot infringe others. But of course, those weak men who fail will always hide behind excuses like these (and others) to excuse hteir own failings.
It's not a copout if that's what you genuinely believe. You're right, people who don't believe and use it as an excuse are wrong, but for those who genuinely believe it, well, it's a genuine belief :p
'It doesn't matter what your god says, you cannot infringe others.' - Again, assuming G-d is a supreme being, you most certainly CAN infringe anyone's rights based on what He says, because He is the one who decides what each and every person's individual rights truly are.
So you're saying that based on whichever god you believe in, you can do whatever you like to OTHER PEOPLE, so long as god says it's ok?
I find this to be repugnant, and I'm ever so glad that the religious communities of the world are shrinking faster than they can realise. There's a reason for it. More and more people are waking up to the fact that religion is not an excuse to do whatever the hell we want. We are all accountable for our actions.
It is precisely this belief system that allows the pope to cover up child sexual abuse and be able to live with himself. It is precisely this belief system that accounts for the utterly senseless violence in the Middle East, and it is precisely this belief system which has been holding back the progress of humanity for 1000s of years
Religion is a covenant between an individual and what they believe. It does NOT affect other people. It affects YOU. When you use it as an excuse to infringe others, that is when man is abusing religion. And it has to stop. You cannot logically argue that a covenant between yourself and your god is grounds to infringe another person. It's merely an excuse used to exonerate yourself. It is the sign of a weak man afraid of retribution.
-
The Qur’an is thus the primary source of knowledge in Islam. Furthermore, the Book itself clarifies that it is meant to be taken as al-Furqan: the ultimate criterion between right and wrong.
...
The supreme status of the Qur’an as a source of knowledge entails that in all matters on which the Book of Allah has given guidance -- direct or indirect, specific or general -- no other source can overrule it. There can always be a possibility of difference of opinion in the understanding of the contents of the Book, but the general rule that the Qur’anic verdict holds supreme to all other sources of knowledge, whether religious or secular, is so unquestionable that whoever disputes it, disputes the very foundation of Islam.
That quote appears to imply that there ARE other sources, merely that the Quran is the overriding one.
-
It is only not specifically mandated under your interpretation of the text. As you admitted, it is open to interpretation, and hence some may, and have, see it as a mandate.
And the original text may be entirely definitive.
I assumed the word "specific" is synonymous with "explicit". The passage does not explicitly mention a burqa or hijab. It does not explicitly mention the need to cover women from head to toe. The very characteristic of something being open to interpretation suggests that it cannot possibly be specific. If it were, why would you have to interpret it?
And, have you read the entire Quran? You are relying on several internet sources to verify that there is no mandate. That is simply comical.
I never claimed to have any more than a trifling knowledge of Islam. Please do not strawman me.
Yeah, it's Yahoo answers i.e. not the most reliable resource out there, but I bet this person knows more about Islam than any of us.
Just because something is not obvious, or specific, to you does not mean that is the case for everyone. You must consider when it was written, the original society and language may render that passage as utterly transparent to the requirements mentioned. I don't know any of this, that is why I have not made any overriding judgement on this issue. But if someone does read that as a mandate, who are you to tell them that they must abandon the word of their God?
It's not specifically mandated.
It's not specifically mandated!!
How is this not absolute?
-
So you're saying that based on whichever god you believe in, you can do whatever you like to OTHER PEOPLE, so long as god says it's ok?
Exactly. Based on the assumption that G-d really, truly did speak to you, you can do whatever He tells you to do. Now since no one alive has ever heard the voice of G-d, no one can use that as an excuse. But if G-d genuinely did tell me what to do, I would do it, no questions asked. (a la Abraham, Isaac and the sacrifice).
You appear to keep forgetting that in my belief and that of most religions, G-d is a supreme being. Meaning, He can do whatever He pleases, and He can instruct man to do whatever He pleases. He rules, owns and created the world and everything and everyone in it, therefore He can do to the world and to everyone in it whatever he likes, whether YOU like it or not.
If that smiting people with thunderbolts, or telling women to cover their faces, so be it. It's His choice to make, not yours.
-
I voted "Don't care, they can do whatever they want"
-
So you're saying that based on whichever god you believe in, you can do whatever you like to OTHER PEOPLE, so long as god says it's ok?
Exactly. Based on the assumption that G-d really, truly did speak to you, you can do whatever He tells you to do. Now since no one alive has ever heard the voice of G-d, no one can use that as an excuse. But if G-d genuinely did tell me what to do, I would do it, no questions asked. (a la Abraham, Isaac and the sacrifice).
You appear to keep forgetting that in my belief and that of most religions, G-d is a supreme being. Meaning, He can do whatever He pleases, and He can instruct man to do whatever He pleases. He rules, owns and created the world and everything and everyone in it, therefore He can do to the world and to everyone in it whatever he likes, whether YOU like it or not.
If that smiting people with thunderbolts, or telling women to cover their faces, so be it. It's His choice to make, not yours.
People say "god said I could do it" without actually hearing god. They pick and choose whichever part of the bible they subscribe to that they think says it's ok and say "LOOK HERE!!!"
..
Disgusting.
-
That quote appears to imply that there ARE other sources, merely that the Quran is the overriding one.
Yes, there are three other sources, all of which expressly discourage "arbitrary opinion" and emphasise the importance of relying on primary sources. Read the rest of the post, please.
It's not specifically mandated.
It's not specifically mandated!!
How is this not absolute?
How is what not absolute? =\
I read through a few internet sites on this issue, not merely this passage. I quoted this passage because it was the only one discussed regarding the issue of wearing coverings for women on every site I went onto. It's not impossible, but surely you would agree that it is very likely that the top 8 results for "does the Quran specifically mention the burqa" can't all be wrong.
Based on that very superficial knowledge, I made a logical assumption that no, it is not a specific mandate but is rather open to interpretation.
Yes, I am very absolute about the lack of specificity, in the passage which several sources state is the basis for the tradition of wearing some sort of head/body covering. If you disagree, tell me where in that passage does it explicitly mention a burqa, niqab, hijab or any sort of all-body covering.
Instead of blasting me for using internet sources, how about you find some for yourself and refute my points? I am sure my 15 or so minutes of research doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. What do you want me to do - go and find someone with a doctorate in Islamic studies?
It's so easy to sit back and criticize.
-
Your judgement is absolute. But you realised this later.
An interpretation is not bending the meaning of something; it is what you genuinely understand it to mean.
Think of it like translating a passage from a foreign language. Different people read this other language to mean different things. Hence when one person translates it, the corresponding passage may be specific in some regard, but another may not. While the interpretation I'm talking about is not this extreme, it is not far off. Everyone has a different understanding of the English language; everyone interprets things differently. If in someone's interpretation something is stipulated, then to them it is stipulated. You can't tell them that they are wrong, there are similar biases in your own interpretation.
Bottom line: your interpretation is not necessarily the "correct" one.
Based on very superficial knowledge, I made a logical assumption.
Hmmm, that doesn't seem right. Read that back to yourself. Again.
While that may help you for this debate, you have absolutely no idea if there really is no mandate in the Quran. But, alas, you still go ahead and state: "It is not specifically mandated!!" And all on superficial knowledge! This is akin to the childish attitude, "It must be true; I read it on the Internet."
My point here is don't be absolute. You don't know that there is not a mandate in the Quran, and even if you did not find such a passage, does not mean that someone else will not. You are not an authority on this, and neither are the top 8 results of an internet search. You can't make a logical assumption and say that there is no textual base for someone's beliefs, based on the words of several anti-Burqa websites.
My sole purpose here has been to show that there is the possibility that there might in some small place in the Quran be some basis for this tradition. I don't know, and neither do you. So don't go out making absolute judgement.
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
-
My point here is don't be absolute. You don't know that there is not a mandate in the Quran, and even if you did not find such a passage, does not mean that someone else will not. You are not an authority on this, and neither are the top 8 results of an internet search. You can't make a logical assumption and say that there is no textual base for someone's beliefs, based on the words of several anti-Burqa websites.
My sole purpose here has been to show that there is the possibility that there might in some small place in the Quran be some basis for this tradition. I don't know, and neither do you. So don't go out making absolute judgement.
Very well. Please find information that contradicts what I said and I will happily apologise for being so absolute. Please show me where in the Quran it states, explicitly, that women must wear full-body coverings (i.e. the burqa, but I don't think the Quran ever uses the term burqa).
I'm perfectly happy to be set right, but instead of doing that, you both have just decided to attack the lack of knowledge I have about this.
Speck - log.
These (as well as the other bits I've quoted in previous posts) were the foundations for my assumption. I apologise if it's not a logical enough assumption for you.
Sorry for using the Internet, it is the only resource I have, time restraints considering. (I would like to add that I also found several slightly different translations of the verse in question, and all of them said pretty much the same thing. Obviously I can't read the Quran as it originally stood; the best any of us can hope for is an English translation. I was going to edit my post to add it, but someone had already replied to it.)
This is what I found about the issue:
What does Quran say about the Burqa?
First of all, it depends on which Islamic scholar you ask. They are all in disagreement as to what extend Quran advocates this. However, the Quran does urge men and women to dress and behave modestly in society. The Quran does not specifically mention the Burqa or tells women to wear such extremely confining clothes.
The clearest verse on the requirement of the hijab is surah 24:30-31.
...
According to Leila Ahmed, nowhere in the whole of the Qur'an is the term hijab applied to any woman other than the wives of MuhammadS.A.W..[9][11]
According to at least two authors, (Reza Aslam and Leila Ahmed) the stipulations of the hijab were originally meant only for Prophet Muhammad S.A.W.'s wives, and were intended to maintain their inviolability. This was because Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. conducted all religious and civic affairs in the mosque adjacent to his home:
^ there's your academics. Sorry I can't contact them directly and ask for their actual views, but there are references in the Wikipedia entry.
Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam); the burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Quran.
The common, misinformed perception is that Muslim women mostly wear the burqa to express their religious devotion.
Frankly, I’ve lived on both sides of this debate, and I would like to put the record straight once and for all as I was instructed during my time in a moderately strict Islamic society - to wear a burqa, hijab or headscarf during daily life is not prescribed specifically anywhere in the Koran – it is not wajib (mandatory and prescribed by the Koran), but only sunat (recommended culturally).
http://quran-hadith-studies.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_hijab
Quotes four passages on this topic. The first two are from the Quran and do not explicitly mention a covering for the body. The second two are from the Hadith, i.e. not the Quran. You will notice that those two passages do explicitly mention coverings.
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
-
@ Ninwa - you can keep bringing quote after quote, but you still cannot prove that it is not the belief of some Muslims that it IS mandatory. Some may say it isn't, and they are free not to wear it, but to those who say it is, and there are such people, they should be given the freedom to wear it.
Clearly there are differences of opinions over the burqa, and it is not for us to say which is right, but we must respect the freedom of those who believe it is a religious obligation.
Here's a quote for you: (CNN) -- I wear the burqa for the simple reason that I am a Muslim and the Koran says that I must wear the full veil in order to be modest.
This woman clearly believes that the Koran itself mandates that she does have to wear it. In fact I recommend you read the whole article
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/04/france.burqa.ban/index.html
-
Thank you for finally bringing evidence into it and not merely making hypocritical attacks. I now see that some choose to view the Quran differently from others.
Freedom to follow religious obligation is obviously very important, but where do you draw the line? Do you even draw a line? What about practices like female genital mutilation, which some can claim is part of their religious freedom? Do you allow that too?
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
This sums up what is inherently wrong with man and religion; the forfeiture of critical thought in lieu of "because god said so".
-
(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/83/bibleisright.png)
I've been waiting ages to use this
-
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
Pshht god's clearly wrong. It's obvious women are better/smarter than men. Diamonds are a girls best friend whereas mans best friend is a dog.
-
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
Pshht god's clearly wrong. It's obvious women are better/smarter than men. Diamonds are a girls best friend whereas mans best friend is a dog.
But diamonds take millions of years and hundreds of pounds of pressure to form and many lives are lost trying to get these diamonds each year. Dogs also took millions of years to form but dogs are easy to make.
My point here is that if women were smart they'd get their own damn diamonds from their own damn mines >:[
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
This sums up what is inherently wrong with man and religion; the forfeiture of critical thought in lieu of "because god said so".
But what if G-d really did say so? Are we not to listen to Him?
-
But diamonds take millions of years and hundreds of pounds of pressure to form and many lives are lost trying to get these diamonds each year. Dogs also took millions of years to form but dogs are easy to make.
My point here is that if women were smart they'd get their own damn diamonds from their own damn mines >:[
So go make yourself a dog >:[
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
This sums up what is inherently wrong with man and religion; the forfeiture of critical thought in lieu of "because god said so".
But what if G-d really did say so? Are we not to listen to Him?
But how do we know god really did say so? Because some random on the street said he did?
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
This sums up what is inherently wrong with man and religion; the forfeiture of critical thought in lieu of "because god said so".
But what if G-d really did say so? Are we not to listen to Him?
But how do we know god really did say so? Because some random on the street said he did?
No. I don't listen to randoms on the street. If you want a discussion on how we know the veracity of G-d and His word, I'm up for it (although I know already no one would win), but it's a discussion for another time and place.
-
If it's up to interpretation, good, let them interpret it - this is a really small and insignificant point. People should do whatever they feel they need to do to appease God, and they should be able to (provided that nobody is harmed in the process).
I find it also sexist that people assume that Muslim women are obviously all weak and disempowered, and arrogant that they would ideally conform to our way of dressing. I'm sure it's true in some cases, but you can't mandate religious 'brainwashing' and it's certainly not something that Islam has a monopoly on.
-
Even if it's written in the Qu'ran, it's still sexist and downright insulting to women.
Either god is sexist, or man is sexist. Either way, that shit has to stop.
Ok, so you think G-d is sexist. But seeing as G-d is THE moral authority, who judges everyone exactly according to their merits, who is the very definition of justice and fairness, and who knows exactly what is best for each individual person, I'm not going to argue.
This sums up what is inherently wrong with man and religion; the forfeiture of critical thought in lieu of "because god said so".
But what if G-d really did say so? Are we not to listen to Him?
But how do we know god really did say so? Because some random on the street said he did?
No. I don't listen to randoms on the street. If you want a discussion on how we know the veracity of G-d and His word, I'm up for it (although I know already no one would win), but it's a discussion for another time and place.
The law doesn't work on "what if"s. In reality, we work from evidence and facts. You can believe whatever you want, no matter how fanciful. But when you translate that to performing actions on others you better have evidence that you were justified in doing so. If all you can say is "I believe" and "what if?", then you had no right whatsoever to infringe another.
-
ah why can't we just let people decide for themselves what they want to believe in and if you think its wrong then they can work that out for themselves if they want to
-
ah why can't we just let people decide for themselves what they want to believe in and if you think its wrong then they can work that out for themselves if they want to
They sure can decide what they believe in, up until the point where that belief infringes upon the rights of others, at which point such beliefs are forfeit.
-
The law doesn't work on "what if"s. In reality, we work from evidence and facts. You can believe whatever you want, no matter how fanciful. But when you translate that to performing actions on others you better have evidence that you were justified in doing so. If all you can say is "I believe" and "what if?", then you had no right whatsoever to infringe another.
I think we've long established that forcing someone to wear a veil is wrong, and must be dealt with by the law, yet you keep harping on about 'infringing others' rights'. I'm not talking about those who are forced to wear it, I'm talking about those who choose to wear it.
You still have not supplied a compelling reason why those who choose to wear the veil should be denied that right. Like you yourself said, "when you translate that to performing actions on others you better have evidence that you were justified in doing so." What evidence do you have that France would be justified in banning those who would choose and prefer to wear the veil from doing so?
-
You still have not supplied a compelling reason why those who choose to wear the veil should be denied that right. Like you yourself said, "when you translate that to performing actions on others you better have evidence that you were justified in doing so." What evidence do you have that France would be justified in banning those who would choose and prefer to wear the veil from doing so?
see numerous previous posts from myself and others talking about France's secularism
-
Yitzi, I've already argued the justification from the standpoint of harm minimisation. I said this long ago in the thread, but it ultimately comes down to this debate of which right is more important. Freedom of religious expression, or freedom of equality and physical safety. I already debated this with you. Look at our earlier posts. You seemingly abandoned that debate and ceded those arguments to me in favour of going on this wild goose chase debate of "OMGZ I BELIEVE IN GOD THEREFORE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT SO LONG AS HE SAYS IT'S OK"... which you have now also conceded was wrong.
-
something was niggling in the back of my mind when you talk about freedom of religious expression vs freedom of equality
and it think this is it
Does Equality Mean We Are All The Same
http://dailypaul.com/node/132783
and this
http://calhoununderground.wordpress.com/category/editorials/8-20-07-%e2%80%9cforced-equality%e2%80%9d/
but i think you get the point they are making
-
something was niggling in the back of my mind when you talk about freedom of religious expression vs freedom of equality
and it think this is it
Does Equality Mean We Are All The Same
http://dailypaul.com/node/132783
and this
http://calhoununderground.wordpress.com/category/editorials/8-20-07-%e2%80%9cforced-equality%e2%80%9d/
but i think you get the point they are making
... Duh? I never said everyone was completely equal. We are all unique. But what everyone does have equally is their rights under the law. So you're extremely far off topic here, and debating something entirely different. If you actually properly read the post you linked to you'd see where it said "But first, I assume we are in agreement that every single person on earth SHOULD have the same basic human rights"
I advise that you reread the posts in the thread and actually understand what's being talked about here...
-
Souljette, unfortunately, I believe you have been a victim of this brainwashing. It is evident from your seemingly oblivious quote here:
"Do you really believe that if the burqa infringes women's right to equality, they would choose to wear it? Who would do that?"
Who would do that? Who would choose to wear it? You ask. The fact of the matter is, they don't choose to wear it. Petrified young women who are afraid of the abuse and backlash they would face from family and community if they dared to defy them and their traditions. If you really believe that this does not exist, and that it is not a significant problem in your faith, then I think you ought to open your mind a little bit more to the truth.
The debate here is not really about whether this problem of the subjugation of women in French Islamic society exists, the debate is more about is this an effective means of putting an end to it? And while I do certainly believe what I'm arguing, I do not profess to be correct, as we have no way of knowing until after the fact. I'm of the belief that this will minimise the harm and begin to break open the taboo on women's rights in the French Islamic community. From then on, the progress towards equality will be much quicker.
You will find a litany of examples of persecution of women based on their refusal to wear a niqab. And those are just the ones we know about. I shudder to think at all the oppressed who would be suffering alone, afraid to speak out. They would number far more than those that have had the amazing courage to come forward with their stories in the face of such adversity.
your arguing here about women and men being equal
so i put those articles because its not about everyone being equal
-
Men and women are equal under the law. If you want to make a point, make an actual point. Posting up thousands of links and expecting people to read all the crap in the links you post is just not conducive to a good, free-flowing debate. Notice that everybody else in the thread used links only for supporting evidence, not blindly parroting whatever it is they're trying to say as you have. I mean, really, who wants to debate a link generator?
If you want to argue that men and women are not (or should not be) equal under the law, go for it. I'm more than happy to rebut that, but make an actual argument on your own terms.
I'll even start you off! Consider this, if you're still puzzled by my previous argument:
Why should women only have to wear the burqa? Why are they being punished for the inability of men to control their sexual urges. Biologically, women have sexual urges that are JUST AS POWERFUL as the men's. So why don't the men have to cover up their faces? Do you think that women don't get aroused by men either? Why shouldn't men wear a burqa too in order to aide the women in controlling their sexual urges?
-
wow u went on a tangent about me posting two links up...
because if they want to they can.
is it punishment or is it their beliefs?
because the people who wear the full body cover up ..thats what their culture is
-
It's pretty clear that you haven't read the other posts. Or you have but you haven't understood them. It has been painstakingly explained several times about how many women are forced into wearing it, many are brainwashed and thousands are killed over it.
Please actually post substantive arguments. These questions have already been answered. If you disagree with those answers, then go ahead, but can you try actually threading together a paragraph or two on why you think I'm wrong?
-
It's pretty clear that you haven't read the other posts. Or you have but you haven't understood them. It has been painstakingly explained several times about how most women are forced into wearing it, many are brainwashed and thousands are killed over it.
Please actually post substantive arguments. These questions have already been answered. If you disagree with those answers, then go ahead, but can you try actually threading together a paragraph or two on why you think it's wrong?
okay so you think thats its wrong and they are oppressed etc, so you think the government should ban them i get that
and my position is that the government should not ban them because i think its up to them if they want to stand against it, not someone else imposing this on others...
all the posts ive made in this topic i stand by
so i have my belief and you have yours
-
so thousands are killed because women wear or dont wear burqas?
theres laws against murder
-
Just because some guy makes a comment saying burqas are good because they curb their sexual appetite, it doesn't mean that this man is oppressing all women who are wearing burqas. That is his opinion about burqas, and it is very possible that women are choosing to wear burqas for completely unrelated reasons to nutjobs like that.
If we take that line of thought, I could claim that school uniforms are necessary because they curb my sexual appetite against otherwise-dressed underage girls - should we ban school uniforms because of a random nutjob's thoughts?
-
Just because some guy makes a comment saying burqas are good because they curb their sexual appetite, it doesn't mean that this man is oppressing all women who are wearing burqas. That is his opinion about burqas, and it is very possible that women are choosing to wear burqas for completely unrelated reasons to nutjobs like that.
If we take that line of thought, I could claim that school uniforms are necessary because they curb my sexual appetite against otherwise-dressed underage girls - should we ban school uniforms because of a random nutjob's thoughts?
You... do... realise that it's not some 'random nutjob', yes? And that this is the view of Islamic society, and by that I mean the vast majority of Islamic men. Clearly your analogy is stupid, because your "reason" for liking school uniforms is ulterior to the actual reason for school uniforms. If the burqa was mandated in Victoria as school uniform in order to prevent schoolgirls from "making guys give into their sexual temptation"... You can't even begin to imagine the backlash...
Curbing sexual appetite is the sole reason for the burqa. That's why it was invented all those years ago, and that's the reason it's there now. The fact that there is no male equivalent shows that it is a disgusting tool used to subjugate women.
-
It's pretty clear that you haven't read the other posts. Or you have but you haven't understood them. It has been painstakingly explained several times about how most women are forced into wearing it, many are brainwashed and thousands are killed over it.
Please actually post substantive arguments. These questions have already been answered. If you disagree with those answers, then go ahead, but can you try actually threading together a paragraph or two on why you think it's wrong?
okay so you think thats its wrong and they are oppressed etc, so you think the government should ban them i get that
and my position is that the government should not ban them because i think its up to them if they want to stand against it, not someone else imposing this on others...
all the posts ive made in this topic i stand by
so i have my belief and you have yours
How can they stand against it, though? If they protest, they get killed or beaten like the other 5,000 women that try each yera. Islamic society is a patriarchy. They're so entrenched in their ways that forcing any sort of change from the inside would likely take a hundred years at the least. And that's if they don't get killed for daring to challenge the religion as they currently are. Thankfully, French society won't wait that long while innocent women suffer...
-
so thousands are killed because women wear or dont wear burqas?
theres laws against murder
Tell that to the women who are already dead. I'm sure they'll be most comforted about you pontificating about sentencing their husbands, fathers and brothers, while they lie dead in the ground. Meanwhile, their sisters face the same tyranny. Isn't it time we started preventing these deaths?
-
I'm not sure about the religious origins. But you have to remember that other religions started off on very perverse moral grounds compared to our standards today (many examples, can't think of the best but how is Noah's Ark - a form of genocide - acceptable in today's society?)
They can form and adopt new meanings, and hence it is impossible to judge accurately and for all about the burqa in modern society.
Secondly, how do you even begin to enforce this law? A French commission investigating options to enforce this law recommended banning burqa-donning women from using public transportation. The unintended consequences are obvious - if Muslim women are truly subjugated by their husbands, then they will be punished further by never being allowed to leave the house, or if so (in a burqa), they will not be able to access many of the city's services. And that will merely cover up the fact that there is male oppression, rather than solve it.
-
I'm not sure about the religious origins. But you have to remember that other religions started off on very perverse moral grounds compared to our standards today (many examples, can't think of the best but how is Noah's Ark - a form of genocide - acceptable in today's society?)
They can form and adopt new meanings, and hence it is impossible to judge accurately and for all about the burqa in modern society.
Secondly, how do you even begin to enforce this law? A French commission investigating options to enforce this law recommended banning burqa-donning women from using public transportation. The unintended consequences are obvious - if Muslim women are truly subjugated by their husbands, then they will be punished further by never being allowed to leave the house, or if so (in a burqa), they will not be able to access many of the city's services. And that will merely cover up the fact that there is male oppression, rather than solve it.
Are you kidding me? Noah's Ark was an act of god that never even happened. Science has already disproven that there could have been a flood lasting 40 days...
So using a fable as your example, not to mention that it's not an example of oppression by man, but by an all powerful being in the sky has absolutely no bearing on this debate whatsoever :-/
Secondly, it's perfectly clear that it hasn't formed a new meaning, hence why women get KILLED over it. But no, you're right, I'm sure they just choose to die, right?
And finally, that's exactly the god damn point. Do you think it's feasible that every single Muslim man in France can keep his wife and daughters at home for all time? Absolutely not. Doing this will force the debate on women's rights in Islamic society right out into the open. They will have to find a workaround to this, and whilst doing so, who knows what other progress might be made. Can you imagine a family functioning when between 1/4 and 3/4 of the family cannot leave the house? That situation could not possibly last. Once that wall is broken down, it will shake the patriarchy at its foundation. Only good can come from that.
-
Belgium's lower house passes legislation to ban the burqa
Approval in the lower house was almost unanimous.
Like elsewhere in Europe, Belgium struggles with anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity and that women in traditional conservative Islamic dress, such as the burqa, the chador and the niqab, signal a refusal to assimilate in western society.
The law's author, Daniel Bacquelaine, a Liberal, said a burqa is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognizable and clashes with the principles of an emancipated society that respects the rights of all.
-
The point is that ideals from religion change. I have conceded that Noah's Ark is not the best example, but the point remains standing that the origins of religious traditions may have dramatically different meanings in modern society. Noah's Ark is now symbolic, rather than historical. Genesis is arguably the same (especially amongst some Christians who believe in evolution).
Not at all - I never implied anywhere that they choose to die. Putting words in my mouth merely obsfucates your argument and diminishes your credibility.
That is one way to instigate change. Personally I prefer a more holistic, non-governmental method. I see change driven from society (bottom-up), not from government (top-down) - although I do respect the possibility of government-driven-by-society change. However, I see no need for it in this case. Your method risks short-term damage to the welfare of Muslim women.
Many of my Muslim friends claim that it is the wife/woman that drives the family unit. Granted, they live in a Westernised environment, but it grants me hope that social change is a stronger force than replacing religious oppression with government oppression (even if you believe it is oppression to achieve liberation).
-
Belgium's lower house passes legislation to ban the burqa
Approval in the lower house was almost unanimous.
Like elsewhere in Europe, Belgium struggles with anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity and that women in traditional conservative Islamic dress, such as the burqa, the chador and the niqab, signal a refusal to assimilate in western society.
The law's author, Daniel Bacquelaine, a Liberal, said a burqa is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognizable and clashes with the principles of an emancipated society that respects the rights of all.
I like this argument the most. To me, this establishes a case for the ban, alongside with other kinds of anti-social dress code. But once again, practicality (the fuzzy area) and the slippery slope makes this an untenable and unattractive position to fight for.
-
Belgium's lower house passes legislation to ban the burqa
Approval in the lower house was almost unanimous.
Like elsewhere in Europe, Belgium struggles with anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity and that women in traditional conservative Islamic dress, such as the burqa, the chador and the niqab, signal a refusal to assimilate in western society.
The law's author, Daniel Bacquelaine, a Liberal, said a burqa is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognizable and clashes with the principles of an emancipated society that respects the rights of all.
I like this argument the most. To me, this establishes a case for the ban, alongside with other kinds of anti-social dress code. But once again, practicality (the fuzzy area) and the slippery slope makes this an untenable and unattractive position to fight for.
The second half of that argument you bolded is exactly what I've been arguing this entire time. Glad to know my arguments made the case for you :)
-
Belgium's lower house passes legislation to ban the burqa
Approval in the lower house was almost unanimous.
Like elsewhere in Europe, Belgium struggles with anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity and that women in traditional conservative Islamic dress, such as the burqa, the chador and the niqab, signal a refusal to assimilate in western society.
The law's author, Daniel Bacquelaine, a Liberal, said a burqa is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognizable and clashes with the principles of an emancipated society that respects the rights of all.
I like this argument the most. To me, this establishes a case for the ban, alongside with other kinds of anti-social dress code. But once again, practicality (the fuzzy area) and the slippery slope makes this an untenable and unattractive position to fight for.
The second half of that argument you bolded is exactly what I've been arguing this entire time. Glad to know my arguments made the case for you :)
I meant the first half (which is why I was talking about anti-social dress code). Fixed.
-
Ah, damn, and here I thought you were finally going to live up to your libertarian ideals of equality and liberty. I guess that's an "untenable and unattractive position to fight for", eh?
-
That is one way to instigate change. Personally I prefer a more holistic, non-governmental method. I see change driven from society (bottom-up), not from government (top-down) - although I do respect the possibility of government-driven-by-society change. However, I see no need for it in this case. Your method risks short-term damage to the welfare of Muslim women.
Actually, I believe that's a large part of this (government driven by society):
More than half of voters in four other major European states back a push by France’s Nicolas Sarkozy to ban women from wearing the burka, according to an opinion poll for the Financial Times.
The poll shows some 70 per cent of respondents in France said they supported plans to forbid the wearing of the garment which covers the female body from head to toe. There was similar sentiment in Spain and Italy, where 65 per cent and 63 per cent respectively favoured a ban
The strength of feeling in the UK and Germany may seem particularly surprising. Britain has a strong liberal tradition that respects an individual’s right to full expression of religious views. But here, some 57 per cent of people still favoured a ban. In Germany, which is also reluctant to clamp down in minority rights, some 50 per cent favoured a ban.
-
Of course, there's always the danger of tyranny by majority as well.
-
Are you kidding me? Noah's Ark was an act of god that never even happened. Science has already disproven that there could have been a flood lasting 40 days...
Without wishing to get wildly off topic, I'd be interested in seeing this evidence.
-
You mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
Which in the first few paragraphs says:
Flood geology is associated with Young Earth creationists, who regard the biblical flood narrative in Genesis 6-9 as a historically accurate record. The evidence they have presented has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers the subject to be pseudoscience. Flood geology contradicts scientific consensus in disciplines such as geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology.
-
Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"
it really becomes...
"burqa... or my entire family and community?"
what a choice, what a free will choice.
You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.
In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.
For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.
Just say god!
Anyway where is the proof that god is a man.
God didn't create man in 'his' (or hers or it's) image, man created god in his image. If we were created in the image of a god, then god should have brainstormed a bit more before releasing a being capable of such atrocities.
-
I read that article on Belgium banning the veil.
Also about it being there to curb sexual relations between men and women, get real. If a man is blaming a women being why he can't keep it in his pants we have a special place for them 'prison'.
-
Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"
it really becomes...
"burqa... or my entire family and community?"
what a choice, what a free will choice.
You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.
In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.
For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.
Just say god!
Anyway where is the proof that god is a man.
God didn't create man in 'his' (or hers or it's) image, man created god in his image. If we were created in the image of a god, then god should have brainstormed a bit more before releasing a being capable of such atrocities.
Don't tell me what to write. I can spell G-d how I choose. I have my reasons for doing so.
G-d is not a man, nor a woman. That being the case, it makes no difference whether I refer to Him or Her, both are somewhat inaccurate pronouns. I only choose Him because that is commonly used as the generic pronoun for G-d.
And I don't know what your interpretation of the verse 'let us make man in our image' is, but clearly it differs from mine.
-
A Muslim woman in northern Italy has been given a €500 (£430) on-the-spot fine under anti-terrorism laws for wearing a face-covering burqa in public
-
For Australia's sake, we need to ban the burqua
-
If we accept those citizens who purposely dress up to resemble the opposite gender, tattoo their entire faces, have dozens of piercings, dye their hair fluoro pink and blue, and those who strut practically nude down the street, then why is it that a woman is being banned from freely expressing herself by way of veiling and saying, "Everything about me BESIDES my beauty should be important to society"? Unfortunately, politicians and race-panderers in the West sometimes get so caught up in forcing upon us the freedom to express ourselves, they overlook the fact that we deserve the right not only to express ourselves but also to decide how we express ourselves.
Therefore, those Muslim women who observe the Niqab do so because either they feel it is obligatory upon them, or they believe it is not obligatory upon them but they wish to exercise precaution and feel more comfortable covering their faces in public rather than exposing them. It may be true that some Niqabis may have adopted this practice through their culture, but it is indeed a religious practice. Governments in the West (and elsewhere) have a constitutional obligation to respect the religious beliefs and practices of their people, not trample upon them based on unfounded declarations.
For almost three decades now, we've seen and heard a plethora of bizarre justifications from both Muslim and non-Muslim authorities for banning Muslim women from their right to dress with the Hijab and Niqab, ranging from it being a hindrance to education, restriction on women's rights, a grave threat to society, to "destabilizing" national culture and causing identification difficulties. Everyone seems to be an expert on the topic, of course. Everyone, that is, except for Muslim women!
-
If anyone can explain to us how a cross pendant on a Christian's neck can in any way be equated to a woman who observes a level of protection so great that she even covers her face, we are all ears. Surely no human rights are violated if a person was asked to remove an item of religious jewelery, but to restrict the way a person can dress, especially when it is a woman demanding protection in a society and culture where exploitation of the female gender is the norm? This is not about eliminating religious symbolism in public; this seems to be more about eliminating a group of Muslim women from society all together. (-_-)
-
Apparently a piece of clothing has the ability to deteriorate national culture, but it's part of our national cultures to go against our written and explicit constitutions, bills of rights, and numerous international treaties which explicitly outline the freedom of religious practice?
In conclusion, it has been a long and tiresome battle between politicians and governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries who want to ban the Islamic modest dress for a list of nonsensical reasons and Muslim women who just want to be able to freely exercise their Divine obligation and the right to protect their beauty. So, will banning the Niqab force dedicated and faithful Muslim women to come into public without their faces being covered? On the contrary, if these women are stripped of their right which they so strongly believe in, they are simply going to stop leaving the protection of their homes all together. Perhaps the most potent factor for the success of such bans in the 21st century is the downfall of the international Islamic community, which has failed miserably to stand united on the platform of a Muslim woman's right to observe the Hijab ( headscarfe) and Burqa (Niqab) and reject exploitation.
By banning the Burqa, Eastern and Western politicians will be forcing these women inside their houses, thus depriving them of their right to be recognized as intelligent and liberated human beings, and as informed and empowered citizens who challenge the status quo of female exploitation. But for patriarchal dictators in the Middle East as well as misogynistic Western politicians who are swept into office by media conglomerates that have reduced women to nothing more than inarticulate sex symbols, perhaps nothing could be more relieving.
What ever happend to section 116 of the Australian constitution? :(
-
Apparently a piece of clothing has the ability to deteriorate national culture, but it's part of our national cultures to go against our written and explicit constitutions, bills of rights, and numerous international treaties which explicitly outline the freedom of religious practice?
In conclusion, it has been a long and tiresome battle between politicians and governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries who want to ban the Islamic modest dress for a list of nonsensical reasons and Muslim women who just want to be able to freely exercise their Divine obligation and the right to protect their beauty. So, will banning the Niqab force dedicated and faithful Muslim women to come into public without their faces being covered? On the contrary, if these women are stripped of their right which they so strongly believe in, they are simply going to stop leaving the protection of their homes all together. Perhaps the most potent factor for the success of such bans in the 21st century is the downfall of the international Islamic community, which has failed miserably to stand united on the platform of a Muslim woman's right to observe the Hijab ( headscarfe) and Burqa (Niqab) and reject exploitation.
By banning the Burqa, Eastern and Western politicians will be forcing these women inside their houses, thus depriving them of their right to be recognized as intelligent and liberated human beings, and as informed and empowered citizens who challenge the status quo of female exploitation. But for patriarchal dictators in the Middle East as well as misogynistic Western politicians who are swept into office by media conglomerates that have reduced women to nothing more than inarticulate sex symbols, perhaps nothing could be more relieving.
What ever happend to section 116 of the Australian constitution? :(
You say all of this without any thought given to the oppression of women's rights because of it. This is a pretty sly post, dressing it up as protecting women's rights. The subjugation of women will no longer stand in progressive democracies. You cite modern-day exploitation in society as reasons for wearing the veil, but the burqa/hijab are archaic relics of a patriarchy.
I laugh at "liberated". How is covering up women as if they are prized possessions liberating in any way? That's what the quran mandates. That women must be covered up to prevent men from "sin". E.g. Men can't control themselves, so the women will pay for it with their freedom! Nice :)
-
Therefore, those Muslim women who observe the Niqab do so because either they feel it is obligatory upon them,
And we must ask - why? Do they feel it is "obligatory" because otherwise they will be disowned or worse by their families if they don't? What about those women?
It may be true that some Niqabis may have adopted this practice through their culture, but it is indeed a religious practice.
If it is a religious practice, then why do they need to proclaim that it is their "culture"?
Governments in the West (and elsewhere) have a constitutional obligation to respect the religious beliefs and practices of their people, not trample upon them based on unfounded declarations.
Banning the burqa would not be constitutionally defined as "trampling" upon these rights. (See below)
If anyone can explain to us how a cross pendant on a Christian's neck can in any way be equated to a woman who observes a level of protection so great that she even covers her face, we are all ears. Surely no human rights are violated if a person was asked to remove an item of religious jewelery, but to restrict the way a person can dress, especially when it is a woman demanding protection in a society and culture where exploitation of the female gender is the norm? This is not about eliminating religious symbolism in public; this seems to be more about eliminating a group of Muslim women from society all together. (-_-)
Confusing argument. Is it a cultural practice, religious practice, or is it actually about "protection"? Protection from what?
If it is indeed a religious practice, you cannot demand religious equality for Muslims and at the same time declare one sign of observance as somehow inferior to another. Who are you to say that wearing a cross isn't as important to a Christian as wearing the burqa is to a Muslim?
Apparently a piece of clothing has the ability to deteriorate national culture, but it's part of our national cultures to go against our written and explicit constitutions, bills of rights, and numerous international treaties which explicitly outline the freedom of religious practice?
1) We do not have a Bill of Rights.
2) Constitutions? Are you referring to both the Cth and state constitutions? If so, the Cth has power to override laws which the states make (s.109). State constitutions aren't really all that important here, especially as you say it is a national issue.
In conclusion, it has been a long and tiresome battle between politicians and governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries who want to ban the Islamic modest dress for a list of nonsensical reasons and Muslim women who just want to be able to freely exercise their Divine obligation and the right to protect their beauty. So, will banning the Niqab force dedicated and faithful Muslim women to come into public without their faces being covered?
Are you saying that Muslims who do not cover their faces are not "dedicated and faithful"?
Perhaps the most potent factor for the success of such bans in the 21st century is the downfall of the international Islamic community, which has failed miserably to stand united on the platform of a Muslim woman's right to observe the Hijab ( headscarfe) and Burqa (Niqab) and reject exploitation.
Interesting that you mention exploitation. What is the relation of exploitation to wearing such items of clothing?
By banning the Burqa, Eastern and Western politicians will be forcing these women inside their houses, thus depriving them of their right to be recognized as intelligent and liberated human beings, and as informed and empowered citizens who challenge the status quo of female exploitation.
Please explain how covering up everything that makes them individuals makes them "liberated".
But for patriarchal dictators in the Middle East as well as misogynistic Western politicians who are swept into office by media conglomerates that have reduced women to nothing more than inarticulate sex symbols, perhaps nothing could be more relieving.
What a generalisation that is. Examples?
I hardly think our dear Ms Gillard is misogynistic.
What ever happend to section 116 of the Australian constitution? :(
I assume you are referring to s.116(c).
That section is rather more complex than that, and in practice has a very, very narrow application. Judging from precedent, the High Court’s view would be that a law banning the burqa would not be constitutionally invalid under that section. I would be happy to elaborate if you wish, or if you want to find out more for yourself:
Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Incorporated v Commonwealth ("Jehovah's Witnesses case") [1943] HCA 12
Kruger v Commonwealth ("Stolen Generations case") [1997] HCA 27
-
Please elaborate! :)
-
You say all of this without any thought given to the oppression of women's rights because of it. This is a pretty sly post, dressing it up as protecting women's rights. The subjugation of women will no longer stand in progressive democracies. You cite modern-day exploitation in society as reasons for wearing the veil, but the burqa/hijab are archaic relics of a patriarchy.
I laugh at "liberated". How is covering up women as if they are prized possessions liberating in any way? That's what the quran mandates. That women must be covered up to prevent men from "sin". E.g. Men can't control themselves, so the women will pay for it with their freedom! Nice :) :)
[/quote]
first of, allow me to inform you women are prized possesions according to our religion as it is liberating in way where harm and the sexual pleasures of men are lured away for they are covered! secondly The quran mandates that women cover themselves up in order not to sin themselves not the men sining as they are the ones showing off their bodies and what not. Also answer me this, why is it that we cover a lollipop with a wrapper? to abstain from filth, dirt and flies right? cause really if we sold unwrapped lollipops then the lollipop itself has no control of protecting itself from this dirt and so just accumulates. this is like the women, we understand women that don't wear the burqa don't intentionally do so to arouse men! rather it is just living right? well regardless if that was her intention men will still stare and look no matter what. therefore the woman has no control and falls prey to fulfilling the sexual desires of men. if not she is rapped and so on.
I agree what you said about men sinning however note that they are partially involved! the quran also mandates for men to lower their gaze upon laying their eyes on a non-covered women other than their spouse and wives.If they presist gazing upon women they are told to fast 3 days, for fasting rids of the energy as you are tired, hungry and what not, therefore having no energy to even think of women, rather thirst and food! please inform me to elaborate if you found things unclear!
http://www.pakistan.web.pk/threads/26860-A-Very-Good-Ad-About-Hejab
all this picture is showing is that hijab protects US from any unwanted attention or unwanted evil..
sorry but i dont see at all how its disrespectful to women.. firstly hijab applies both to women AND MEN..
how about you answer this question.. then perhaps ull understand wat this image means: why dont they sell lollipops without wrappers? ... answer is simple, because theres things out there that are attracted to the sweetness of a lollipop.. similarly women AND MEN should have hijab because theres things(people) out there that are attracted to the beauty..
you can argue that people "are not all sinful or sluts or asking for the recognition of men"
but hey the lollipop isnt asking for attention either.. but if u leave it uncovered we all know flies will come.. same with hijab..
-
I think burqa's are sexy.
-
LOL @ Cthulhu.
-
Islam does not deprive woman of any right, It is said in the holy quran, women ( mothers in specific )are the key to paradise if you treat them well and respect them truely! for they go through the agony and pain of having you in the first place, a burden no other sex goes through!
-
Abdi, when you say "women are prized possessions" your entire argument loses credibility.
Cavemen treat women as possessions. Civilised men treat women as equals.
-
by prized possesions I meant to say something that is dear to us, and that we cherish so much with love.... I see that I stuffed up what I meant to say and you are excatly right by saying that cavemen treat their wives as 'prized possessions'. soo yeah my bad with the terminolgy! :|
-
and by possesions I meant possesions of God! :)
-
Assigning anything but full blame to men for leering at women is blatant sexism.
It's not a woman's fault how she looks. It's entirely up to the man to control how he acts because of it. Failure to control his own actions is entirely his fault.
Apportioning any blame to the woman is absurd. Let me lead you down a bit of a logical pathway to show you just how sexist this is.
Do you agree that women generally have an active sexual drive and are generally physically attracted to men?
-
yes!
-
Then how come men don't have to cover up in the same way that women do?
-
Islam approaches women as a Gem whose beauty is for only deserving eyes
and whose intellect is for all the world to learn from not only by her personal teachings but by the children she raises in the sanctity of a solid home.
Whereas the West approaches women as sexual beings, women who are valued for her sexuality and physical beauty, claiming to value their intellect yet appreciating them for their lack of it. Apparently the west has an ever changing definition of what this beauty is, today it is posing in lingerie for the world to see her goods.
Polar opposites, both objectifying
one objectifies for her protection and dignity(islam)
while the other objectifies for her exposure and declining morality (west)
so we can easily throw this word "OBJECTIFY" around
and use it in a negative manner
but the negative application
that which hurts the women and society
is that which has been conducted and expected of women in the West
Our task is only to see the choices which stand before us
there is truth
and deviation from truth which has been accepted by the masses
make a decision
and apply the prinicples to our life
Hijab is most certainly a tenet of Islam
An honor for those women who choose to identify themselves as BELIEVING & CHASTE WOMEN, read the Quran and you will see it clearly!
"A tree stands strong on a firm foundation
should its foundation be flimsy changing from day to day
based on the latest changes
it would collapse"
Men too have regulations as to what to wear and not! they are not allowed to wear anything below ther knee height such as shorts ectt... There is much more enforcement on the clothing type of women as opposed to men because they have more to cover than we do! ( men)
"The rules, regulations and verdicts concerning women in Islam are clear, frank and open. Islam capitalizes on the complete care that should be given to the protection of a woman against anything that may harm her personally, or cause ill-fame to her reputation or character."
By Sir Hamiltion; the well-known English thinker and doctor of philsophy!
-
Excuse me? Men can wear whatever lose-fitting and revealing clothes they choose in Islam. :-/ A woman's sexuality is not actually acknowledged in the Quran. It is not mandated against, only man's sexual desires are "legislated" for. Women, to whoever wrote the book of the Quran were merely trophy dolls for a man. That's why a man can marry multiple women, but a woman cannot marry multiple men. To orthodox Islam, women are merely possessions. It's pretty sad :(
I see that you cannot answer my question. Perhaps one day you will make the realisation of this absurd double-standard.
-
yeah maybe in your religion not our's.... did you ever think of that?
-
yeah maybe in your religion not our's.... did you ever think of that?
I was talking about your religion...
Also re-read my post, I edited it a bit to include more :)
-
I don't think you really know much about Islam if you've come to this conclusion! :| this is just really stupid.... plus you sound kinda pessimistic!
http://muslimguidance.com/islam-principles/equality-between-men-and-women-in-islam.html
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html
This may be of some help to enlighten your rather uneducated mind!
-
I don't think you really know much about Islam if you've come to this conclusion! :| this is just really stupid.... plus you sound kinda pessimistic!
http://muslimguidance.com/islam-principles/equality-between-men-and-women-in-islam.html
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html
This may be of some help to enlighten your rather uneducated mind!
Why can men have multiple wives, but women cannot have multiple husbands?
-
Because you can't tell who the father is :P
-
Because you can't tell who the father is :P
Sadly, I'm sure that the real answer is similarly asinine
-
I honestly think that is the real answer; ancient Arabia didn't have DNA testing. Otherwise, why else would Islam ban women from having multiple husbands in your opinion?
-
Because you can't tell who the father is :P
Sadly, I'm sure that the real answer is similarly asinine
duuuuuuuuuuuuuh. Because a woman's body is a sanctuary and only one man should be allowed to enter that sanctuary.
Would homosexual Muslims be allowed to have more than one husband if Muslim's were tolerant of homosexuals and gay marriage was legal?
-
I honestly think that is the real answer; ancient Arabia didn't have DNA testing. Otherwise, why else would Islam ban women from having multiple husbands in your opinion?
That is an interesting theory. I think it has more to do with a complete disregard for women, however. When you think about it, the power dynamic of 'allowing' a woman more than 1 husband dictates that men become the possessed, something a patriarchy certainly couldn't allow.
It was probably a mix of factors, and paternity was likely a very convenient factor.
-
Homosexuals get thrown of a cliff... did you not know? Therefore, dealing with the matter becomes easy, they don't have to bother about making rules of the number of men a guy wants to marry. SIMPLE!
Anyways, homosexuals fight for their rights, and I read enwaibe was supportative of it. shouldnt they allow polygamy too?
A man is attracted to a man
A woman is attracted to a woman
A woman is attracted to 4 men
A man is attracted to 4 women
Grant everyone their right!
-
Homosexuals get thrown of a cliff... did you not know?
What??? Homosexuals don't exist :-/
-
I don't think you really know much about Islam if you've come to this conclusion! :| this is just really stupid.... plus you sound kinda pessimistic!
http://muslimguidance.com/islam-principles/equality-between-men-and-women-in-islam.html
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html
This may be of some help to enlighten your rather uneducated mind!
Why can men have multiple wives, but women cannot have multiple husbands?
This chapter should help you undertand your question.... :)
-
btw homosexuality is against Islam!
-
What??? Homosexuals don't exist :-/
Yes, to your surprise, homosexuals do not exist in an Islamic world. I just informed you fo the punishment; they get thrown of a cliff. I know Christianity disapproves of homosexuals too, not sure about Judaism(maybe you can help me with that).
-
What??? Homosexuals don't exist :-/
Yes, to your surprise, homosexuals do not exist in an Islamic world. I just informed you fo the punishment; they get thrown of a cliff. I know Christianity disapproves of homosexuals too, not sure about Judaism(maybe you can help me with that).
Homosexuals are just as poorly treated by all the monotheistic religions. Pretty awful. Judaism and Christianity, granted, no longer stone people for it (though you still get the odd zealot here and there!) But back in their own respective "dark ages" they did their fair share. Islam, unfortunately, is still going through a pretty epic dark age in most parts of the world and, CURRENTLY, has the worst abuse of them.
-
I don't think you really know much about Islam if you've come to this conclusion! :| this is just really stupid.... plus you sound kinda pessimistic!
http://muslimguidance.com/islam-principles/equality-between-men-and-women-in-islam.html
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html
This may be of some help to enlighten your rather uneducated mind!
Why can men have multiple wives, but women cannot have multiple husbands?
This chapter should help you undertand your question.... :)
I don't see a "chapter"
And I'd like you to put it in your own words, if you can? :)
-
How are they treated polytheistic religion?
-
How are they treated polytheistic religion?
Don't know enough to comment :P
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his beloved. His beloved was called eromenos whose reward for his lover lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.
I can see where the catholic church gets their influences from budumtish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
-
It is evident that the nature of women is physiologically and psychologically different from that of men. Psychologically speaking, the woman is monogamous by her very nature. Furthermore, in all cultures, new and old, the headship of the family is normally man’s. One can imagine what would happen if the family had two or more heads. Furthermore, if the woman was married to more than one husband, which would be the father of her children?
-
It is evident that the nature of women is physiologically and psychologically different from that of men. Psychologically speaking, the woman is monogamous by her very nature. Furthermore, in all cultures, new and old, the headship of the family is normally man’s. One can imagine what would happen if the family had two or more heads. Furthermore, if the woman was married to more than one husband, which would be the father of her children?
Blatantly sexist, all of it. "The headship is the man's"
PATRIARCHY
Woman is NOT monogamous by her nature, this has been shown biologically and anthropologically.
If a man is married to multiple women, which would be the mother? That's right, all of them usually bear children for the man. Why not the reverse?
Hint: Blatant sexism.
-
DNA TESTING. Perhaps your religion needs to undergo reformation the way Christianity and Judaism did.
-
enwaibe: Woman is NOT monogamous by her nature, this has been shown biologically and anthropologically.
My point proven, we should allow polygamy and polyandry!
-
DNA TESTING. Perhaps your religion needs to undergo reformation the way Christianity and Judaism did.
Islam does not need to undergo any sort of reformation whatsoever! unlike Christianity and juddasim who revise their holy scriptcures yearly :|........... our laws were intended not to change as God has all knowning all wise! :)
-
If woman aren't Monogamous then Polygomy is not sexist in the least! :P
-
I notice you have not bothered to address any of my points. Thank you then for your implicit agreement.
Please elaborate! :)
If you insist.
Note that points 1. and 2. have been taken from Halsbury's Laws of Australia.
1. The exercise of religion protected by s. 116 extends only to the performance of acts that are done in the practice of religion.
- Argument: it is a cultural practice and not a religious one.
Assuming the High Court accepts that it is a religious practice:
2. The protection extended by s. 116 concentrates on freedom to believe, but freedom to act in accordance with religious beliefs is not subject to the same constitutional protection. Conduct in which a person engages in giving effect to his or her faith in the supernatural is religious, but that conduct will not be constitutionally protected from laws that do not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religions.
- Argument: a ban on the wearing of the burqa does not discriminate against Islam generally, considering there is legislation providing for certain standards of dress in public (public indecency being the first that comes to mind).
3. The purpose of the legislation may be taken into account in determining whether it is a law prohibiting a religious practice.
Per Latham CJ(at 132) in [i]Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Incorporated v Commonwealth ("Jehovah's Witnesses case")[/i] [1943] HCA 12.
In that case, a law forcibly dissolving a Jehovah's Witnessess group and preventing it from practising by seizing all its assets was ruled to be constitutionally valid, because its purpose was not to prevent the free exercise of the members' religion but rather to protect national security (it was wartime etc., see the AustLII link if you want the facts of the case).
3a. Jehovah's Witnesses also contained a test of proportionality: one's freedom of religion may be limited by "reasonable" or proportionate laws designed to protect a legitimate public interest.
The High Court said something along the lines of:
Taking into consideration the most likely intentions of the original framers of the constitution, it is highly unlikely that they would have considered making laws against polygamy or murder as infringing upon religion (even though some religions practice polygamy or human sacrifice). Those laws would still be regarded as secular laws, even if indirectly their effect was to prevent some religious practices.
It is therefore impossible that "the free exercise of religion" in s.116(c) meant an absolute right.
You may see this test applied again in [i]Kruger v Commonwealth ("Stolen Generations case")[/i] [1997] HCA 27. It is this case which really diminished the scope of s.116 by further re.
In the Stolen Generations case, the High Court reaffirmed that a law is only constitutionally invalid under s.116 if it has an ostensible purpose of inhibiting religious practice, rather than merely having the effect of doing so.
The purpose test is the current law, although the Court also acknowledged the necessity of a test of proportionality.
While Gaudron J argued that a law could breach s.116 if one of its purposes was to prohibit religion, she qualified that test with the following:
- The law is not constitutionally invalid if it is necessary to achieve some overriding public purpose or satisfy some social need.
- The law is also not constitutionally invalid if its specific purpose is unconnected with the freedom of religion.
- Argument: it is quite easy to make a case that the purpose of the legislation is 1) for security issues (see numerous news articles about men wearing burqas robbing banks because they were able to hide weapons under the burqa); and 2) for equality issues. Clearly, 1) and 2) are legitimate public interests. 2) is also a social need.
- Equally clearly, 1) and 2) are unconnected with the freedom of religion.
- It may not even be inhibiting any religious practice, assuming the Court accepted the argument that it is rather a cultural practice (and there are plenty of religious scholars who agree that it is a cultural practice and who could be called upon to testify). Not to mention the large number of women who consider themselves Muslim and yet do not wear any sort of covering.
Even if you were trying to argue by Gaudron J's reasoning, and could show that one of the purposes of a law banning the burqa was indeed to prohibit religion, there is still that matter of proportionality - national and state security is surely a sufficient "overriding public purpose" while equality of the sexes is a significant social need.
-
DNA TESTING. Perhaps your religion needs to undergo reformation the way Christianity and Judaism did.
Islam does not need to undergo any sort of reformation whatsoever! unlike Christianity and juddasim who revise their holy scriptcures yearly :|........... our laws were intended not to change as God has all knowning all wise! :)
Actually, orthodox Judaism doesn't change at all, it's still the exact same laws and scriptures since 2000 years before Islam.
-
Should France ban motorcycle helmets? Muslim women angry about this law shoudl consider wearing motorcycle helmets. Problem solved!
-
DNA TESTING. Perhaps your religion needs to undergo reformation the way Christianity and Judaism did.
Islam does not need to undergo any sort of reformation whatsoever! unlike Christianity and juddasim who revise their holy scriptcures yearly :|........... our laws were intended not to change as God has all knowning all wise! :)
Actually, orthodox Judaism doesn't change at all, it's still the exact same laws and scriptures since 2000 years before Islam.
I want to see how this goes.
-
I'm no expert on Judaism, but I have read that orthodox Judaism has indeed changed some of its practices, leading to the "modern-orthodoxy" group.
And don't tell me that you don't recognise them as Jews as well.
-
I'm no expert on Judaism, but I have read that orthodox Judaism has indeed changed some of its practices, leading to the "modern-orthodoxy" group.
And don't tell me that you don't recognise them as Jews as well.
Of course I recognise them as Jews. Anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of their level of observance.
The book which codifies the entirety of Jewish law is the Shulchan Aruch. All orthodox Jews, be they ultra-orthodox or modern orthodox follow this code of the laws. There is not an orthodox rabbi in the world today who would argue with those laws. The only difference is the level of stringencies practiced in the application of the laws.
-
I'm no expert on Judaism, but I have read that orthodox Judaism has indeed changed some of its practices, leading to the "modern-orthodoxy" group.
And don't tell me that you don't recognise them as Jews as well.
Of course I recognise them as Jews. Anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of their level of observance.
The book which codifies the entirety of Jewish law is the Shulchan Aruch. All orthodox Jews, be they ultra-orthodox or modern orthodox follow this code of the laws. There is not an orthodox rabbi in the world today who would argue with those laws. The only difference is the level of stringencies practiced in the application of the laws.
So you do agree that the application and validity of these laws have changed over time? Because if you do then your argument on "fixed morals" on the atheism topic would fall to pieces.
-
No, I don't. Like I said, the Shulchan Aruch (circa 500 years ago) codifies all of Jewish law. All the laws written in there are based on the Talmud (circa 1600 years ago) which is in turn based on the Mishna (circa 2000 years ago) which is in turn based on the written and oral traditions taught to Moses at Mt Sinai (3322 years ago). In all that time, the laws have not changed one bit.
The application of these laws has somewhat evolved, but only in the sense that we now have to interpret laws given 3322 years ago in relation to new technologies such as electricity, IVF, organ transplants etc, which were obviously not around at the time. But when applying those laws to the new technologies, the Shulchan Aruch and other relevant texts are the basis for such applications.
-
Well, it's done. France has banned the veil.
I hope it doesn't happen in Australia, as some people are suggesting it might.
-
hey guys
you might be interested that on sbs insight right now they are talking about this issue
they are getting fired up!
online
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/311#watchonline