Should France ban the veil?

[naved_s9994]

Lets just call it quits.  

Are you for real? This is really an interesting debate here LOL, as a spectator

[m@tty]

Seeing as it is open to interpretation, some people will interpret it as a mandate by God, and hence are obliged to follow it.

[Yitzi_K]

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.

[ninwa]

But it's not specifically mandated.
*Specifically*.
That's the ONLY point I was making.
Bleh.

[Yitzi_K]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[Yitzi_K]

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.

[m@tty]

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.

[ninwa]

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.

[ninwa]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[Yitzi_K]

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.

[m@tty]

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?

[Yitzi_K]

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.

[TrueTears]

I voted "Don't care, they can do whatever they want"