Link:”France: Reactions to proposed partial ban on burqa | Wome Living Under Muslim Laws
Sarkozy’s veil climbdown: Has Nicolas Sarkozy lost face in his battle against the burqa? One might think so considering his latest compromise on the issue. While the French president firmly believes that these allegedly Islamic veils are “a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement” which are “not…”
R does it or does it not have more to do with culture then religion, or do you see this guy wrong?
Quote from: Thread Starter
there are more than one article in that link.
Quote from: Thread Starter
“This is the point missed by liberal defenders of the niqab and the burka. I’m aghast when they say it’s about personal choice, as though that removes the subject from the political arena; one of feminism’s most influential slogans – “the …personal is political” – exposed that as nonsense four decades ago.
No one is saying that women cover their faces for a single reason: a fairly small number believe their religion requires it, some come under family pressure, others adopt it for the political reasons I’ve outlined above. Whatever the motive, the symbolic meanings – separation, rejection, an acceptance of shame – remain the same. I don’t want to ban the burka but I do reserve the right to say, as politely as possible, that wearing it in the 21st-century is preposterous.”
Well said A I am behind you all the way! Also why are these women not demanding of heir men to cover their faces too..why only the women what is wrong with their faces that they can not be shown in public? It has NOTHING to do with religion, it has to do with men afraid that another man might look at his woman and control.
Quote from: Thread Starter
m, that’s a quote from one of the articles of that link. but i agree, of course.
Supporting such backwards ideas is just simply not acceptable. Will this mean we are going to support honor killing, wife beating, poligamy etc?because its part of their religious customs? Where are the lines drawn?
Quote from: Thread Starter
from reading various articles today, i get the feeling that women who wear burqa get a sort of secondary benefit, mainly feeling more pious than other women and may hold a higher status than those that don’t – at least in their heads. ironically i suppose this makes you more desirable!!
I would much rather show them they have a false God, then ban any freedom. Maybe it’s the only way a Muslim woman can achieve orgasm is with one =)
at least some anyways
As I said Canada is looking into the status of boligami ..it is what permits such terrible inustice towards women too and sometimes it is only a law that changes such customs over time. We have to bring these people into the 21st century not us going back in time, no?
Given that I provided the link to WLUML I can say that whilst it publishes articles representing all sides of the issue, the organization itself is opposed to the hijab/niqab/burka as a symbol and instrument of oppression.
The real issue here is that conservative Muslims do not support humanism or the concept of human rights, yet they use the concept to protect their ‘right’ to practice a religion that is opposed to the notion of such rights. They demand reli…gious freedom, yet do not tolerate religious freedom. A woman who wears a niqab is telling you she probably adheres to one or other orthodox maddhab (school of sharia) and certainly would not allow her daughter the freedom to choose her religion or wear what she wishes.
I don’t see that anywhere in what you sent me, can you send me something that verrifies this is their position?
I think there is a misunderstanding here about what the religion of Islam is. For most Muslims it much more than the Koran. The be an orthodox Muslim is to abide by sharia law as determined by your sheikh or imam. There are four maddhab or …schools of Sunni sharia and one of Shia. Whilst there are minority sects, the orthodox maddhabi believes the unorthodox are apostates. So it doesn’t much matter what the Koran says, it matters what your sheikh/imam tells you. And it is an indisputable fact that orthodox sheikhs tell their women they must dress as good Muslim women.
R you had made the statement to me that the feminist Arab movement strongly endorses this, All I am asking for if for you to show me where this is the case, this is big R
I went through that site and no where was this on their radar
Quote from: Thread Starter
MM I’ve been following this for years but sadly I haven’t kept notes. You’ll have to go back through the archives. But I will point to both Ayan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji (a Canadian) on this.
It looks like they endorse the burka by celebrating it Thread Starter
“It is precisely the invocation of “tradition” and “indigenous values” which blurs the fact that practices and legislations supposed to be “Islamic” are in fact carefully crafted to fit the agenda of conservative Muslim forces.”
So what you are saying, this is their Mormon underwear to them
As I said, I’m a progressive humanist. Why would I listen to a conservative religionist on this? Ayan is very clear that in her case she was pressured (as was Irshad) to wear conservative dress. This is not about the freedom to wear what yo…u wish, it is just about the freedom to wear the symbol of a nasty, conservative religion. If you read through the WLUML site you will find articles about French Muslim women who have spoken in favour of the ban or against the burka, being harassed and attacked by conservative Muslims. So much for freedom of speech.
In a sense, it is a religious symbol. You wear it to identify yourself as a conservative Muslim.
So what if someone is harassed by others for their choice in something. They still have the freedom not to do it. That is still not a valid reason to ban a piece of clothing. I don’t care what it represents.
http://www.wluml.org/section/resource/latest andhttp://www.wluml.org/node/6556 and http://www.wluml.org/node/5756 – keep looking MM..
As a nudist I am discriminated against. I don’t hear any Muslim women defending me. This is not a trivial point. You either support the general principle or you don’t. You can’t argue for exceptionalism, that somehow Islam is exempt, especially not when it abuses the same freedom it expects.
I don’t see Mormons supporting you either. Does not that mean that we should ban their underwear? No.
I don’t see Catholics supporting you either. Does that mean that we should deny their priests and nuns their conservative attire? No.
Midwestern housewives aren’t supporting nudism, either. Should they all be legally mandated to participate in Hustler’s “Beaver Hunt”?
Indeed. It is considered normal to oppose nudism. No one bats an eyelid. So it’s okay to discriminate against one group but not another? On what basis? What’s the principle here?
Well, as I’ve said, I am okay with nudism, so I am thoroughly internally consistent.
I don’t support Mormons or Catholics. The sooner these religions dissolve the better.
I actually would love to see decency laws on people completely repealed in the states. I dislike those laws immensly. Actually, Ray, in the states there is a movement that is against the decency laws which have the ability to put women breast feeding in public in jail.
Sarah, if there is to be freedom of choice there must be real freedom of choice. My position is simple and based on reciprocity. I will support the right of conservative Muslim to wear the hijab/niqab if they support my right (or the right of traditional people) to go naked.
Sounds like a complicated legal system, being based entirely on personal acts of reciprocity.
R. For the record. I don’t support the Burqa at all. I just don’t think that personal opinion should be made into legislation.
Is this STILL the case in the US? In Australia it is the reverse. It is illegal to discriminate against women breastfeeding, even in cafes and restaurants.
Yes, it is still the case. I remember about 2 years ago, a Mexican woman got arrested in my area for breast feeding in the grocery store.
I think the only instance in which a woman can go topless in public for any reason in the US is when they are in Portland, Oregon.
B. Reciprocity is the core of the Golden Rule. It’s pretty simple actually.
So are you going to start a petition to see who will let you go naked?
What we are talking about here is exceptionalism, that certain people, religions are exempt from the Golden Rule.
No. Two wrongs do not equal a right in this. We disallow the ban and then work on destroying bans on nudity and other ridiculous stuff.
Okay. So how are you going to figure out which certain people are against your going naked? Are you going to ask them or are you going to assume that Mormons are really all a part of one consciousness, like the Borg?
The particulars are not important. We are talking about the principle of freedom. Apparently we must protect the freedoms of certain chosen people and ignore the freedoms of others
So your proposition is to ignore the freedoms of some people until they say you can go to McDonald’s naked?
Sarah, I’m not expecting Muslims to start a naturist movement, ever.
Those three links you just sent only the last one had any reference of a slight support, it’s not in any of their statement of purpose literature. It sounds like it is not that big of an issue to them.
And R it should not have to be my responsiblity to back up what you say
If you accept that a woman can enter a McDonald’s wearing a burka, why wouldn’t you support the right of a pagan to walk in naked?
R, neither am I. They don’t have to, R. Just like I don’t expect any religious people to start a naturist movement. The fact of the matter is, is that these religious people are not making the laws so their opinions don’t matter as much in this, if at all.
I already do, so I suppose you can sign me into your petition.
Likewise. May you enjoy your Big Mac in your full naked glory.
do you want your big mac with extra magic underwear with that ?
Sarah, they are making laws covering dress in public. How many Western women have been told they have to dress modestly when visiting Muslim countries. You miss my point about reciprocity.
No, she doesn’t miss you point on reciprocity. She is just more fond of the freedom of thought, speech, and expression.
R let me ask you a question
MM you cannot have studied the site to any depth in such a short time. This is not a 30sec sound bite issue. Read Irshad and Ayan’s books. Sorry, but I will not be able to satisfy your immediate needs…
If I was a Muslim woman and the only way I could achieve orgasm was to be able to wear my burka. Would you deny me that right?
Right, so we deny people rights because people are forced to conform when visiting religious dictatorships. That makes us no better than those that we dislike.
B, except Islam does not allow freedom of thought, speech and expression. In fact the more conservatively a Muslim woman dresses the less likely she believes in these things (except when it comes to her freedom to dress conservatively).
MM in public? Like, when you go shopping in the mall?
I could not get that pure physical orgasm without feeling the spiritual flow through my garments. You know it’s my kinky thing
would you deny me that right?
No, Sarah, I support radical tolerance. This means I expect conservative Muslim women to support the right of their daughters to be naturists – in fact there is a large naturist vacation spot in France at Montalivet. What I do NOT support is the selective application of human rights.
I will support your right to have an orgasm in public by whatever means you choose, but only if you support my reciprocal right.
R, it doesn’t matter if they don’t support their children doing that. Their daughters can always break free and find support from outside their family in a Western society. That’s the only reason that I was able to break free myself. Because I was living in the US when I got older and things got a little more crazy in my household.
It’s all about the love R
It does matter Sarah. It’s about hypocrisy. About claiming a right you would then deny to others.
They’re not claiming it because they don’t make legislature.
And Sarah, as you well know some girls cannot break free, some have been killed to protect family honour. There have been several tragic cases in Britain (although that would depend on nationality).
Indeed. Honor killings in foreign countries is not that frequent though I was threatened with it before, it never actually happened.
Making legislature has nothing to do with it. There have been many cases in Western history where women had to fight to make legislature – to gain the right to vote, reform divorce and abortion laws, etc. It’s about what you say and do.
Making legislature has everything to do with it because my main point is that personal opinion shouldn’t be made into law. That’s the problem with most laws…
Of course not, except that these women are quite happy to have their opinion made into law.
Doesn’t mean that they will be made into law.
IOW. You do not have the right to impose your will on me but I have the right to impose my will on you (because Islam is the true religion and therefore exempt from infidel Western principles of freedom).
No. Their will not be made into law either. This is not a dicussion on Sharia law. This is a discussion about a ridiculous head garment.
But they would if they could… that’s the point.
Yeah, well, so would a lot of other people. That’s also my point. People who makes laws need to be impartial.
The laws need to be impartial, in spite of people.
Here’s an interesting article from WLUML…http://www.wluml.org/node/3609 The bottom line issue for me is that human rights and freedoms need to be actively asserted. History will point to a number of totalitarian enemies of such freedom: religion, fascism and communism (or various totalitarianisms). Our freedoms were hard won and easily lost. Unfortunately Islam is opposed to these freedoms and the evidence is clear that if a significant Muslim population resides in a Western nation, a minority within that population start to agitate to erode or modify or exempt themselves from those freedoms (and subsequent responsibilities). Australia has a small Muslim population, but even then we have had sections wishing to set up sharia courts and exempt themselves from Australian law. Of course other groups seek to do the same and there has been considerable focus on a Christian group called the Exclusive Brethren.
A closer look at the situation will reveal that freedom of religion is not an absolute and there are a number of laws that restrict particular religious practices. Aboriginal girls no longer undergo ritual defloration and few boys are ritua…lly circumcised, nor can Aborigines administer traditional punishments (like summary execution for homosexuality). Many pagan religions face a number of restrictions – no goat sacrifices on the full moon in the public park. So my question here is, should we allow religions (and cultures) to practice their beliefs unconstrained? Or are there natural limits?
Should we tolerate female circumcision? Or are we right to outlaw the practice?
We aren’t talking about following Sharia law, we are talking about the right of someone to choose what to wear when they get up in the morning.
B, it is not as simple as that. It is not actually a single issue. Many of the women who wear the niqab/burka (the hijab is not banned in France, only the face veil) do so in acceptance of sharia. The Koran is vague on the issue, but sharia is not. So the fact that they obey sharia tells you they believe in sharia.
Here is an example of the type of apologetics used to justify the jilbab (the original Arabic term). A woman who chooses to wear a particular version is obeying the opinion of Islamic scholars who use exactly this type of argument: http://www.muhajabah.com/jilbab.htm
Covering the entire face nor the hands are specifically stated as being necessary despite the jilbab verse. I will repeat this once more since it is also clearly stated in the Quran via a description of how women must dress, the Burqa (face and hand covering) are not required by an tenant of Islam thus it is not Sharia law.
Correction from Sarah: “Neither covering the entire face nor the hands are specifically stated as being necessary despite the jilbab verse.” Clarified to avoid confusion. Even under strict interpretation of Sharia law, the covering of the face isn’t required.
Then why do Muslim scholars say it is required? Saudi law is based on the rulings of the umma – the body of Islamic scholars. Are you suggesting you know more about Sharia than they? And what of the ruling of the Iranian clerics?
Sarah. Sharia law is constructed through four sources. The Koran, the Hadith, the opinion of scholars and local custom. Of course the Koran is the most important source, but where the meaning is not clear, reference is made to the other thr…ee sources. The sunnah consists of four orthodox schools of sharia named after the scholar who first authored them, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafiya. Iran follows sharia as determined by the majority Ithna Ashari sect (twelvers). In this sense sharia is more than the Koran and is not reliant on it.
It depends on whether or not you are a madhhabi, a follower of one or other of the schools of sharia, or a follower of ijtihad, or independent interpretation. The women who wear the veil are clearly indicating that they are madhhabi, the fo…llowers of a particular sectarian interpretation of sharia: usually Wahhabism, Deobandism or Ikwhan Muslamiya, and Shai Ithna Ashari – the fours pillars of Islamic salafism (puritanism). It would so much easier if there were agreement between the various scholars, but there isn’t. You cannot deny that these scholars advocate the veil using sharia as justification.
That should read ulema, not umma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Did you happen to scroll down on that Wikipedia page? Under the header “Dress codes”:
“However, under (strict interpretation of) Sharia Law, women are required to cover all of their bodies except hands and face.”
Sarah would be the best perso…n to answer those points. She has gone to bed, though.
Also, telling a woman who lived in Egypt what Sharia law is like is comparable to telling a bank teller what handling money feels like.
I’ll make sure I have popcorn in the morning, just in case she feels like answering.
I know many Christians who do not understand the intricacies of theology and basically only follow what the preacher tells them. If you read further into that link it says: “There are many different opinions, however, as to whether the veil… or headscarf is a real Qur’anic obligation. Some scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi claim it is, while others, such as Mohammed Arkoun, Soheib Bencheikh, Abdoldjavad Falaturi, Jamal al Banna claim it isn’t. However, the first group appears dominant: “Jamal al Banna has been for a number of years one of the few mainstream Muslim scholars to argue that the Muslim headscarf, or hijab, is not an Islamic obligation.” Note that it says that the majority consider the “veil or headscarf” an obligation.
Do you know what a logical disjunction is?
B, can I assume you live in a predominantly Christian country and therefore by right of birth must know a great deal about Christian theology? Perhaps you are Jewish and therefore know the Talmud? The point is that followers of religions tend to follow and believe what the priests of that religion tell them.
“There are many different opinions, however, as to whether the veil *or* headscarf is a real Qur’anic obligation.” If the majority of Muslim scholars state that a headscarf is required, but a veil is not, then that condition is still satis…fied, as the statement is that either veils or headscarves, or both, are required, not that headscarves *and* veils are required. This isn’t semantics, either, as the following statement you provided said that Jamal al Banna argues that not even headscarves are necessary. Therefore, there is clearly a contrast being set between those who say that a headscarf *or* veil are required against those who say that neither a headscarf nor a veil are required.
In case I wasn’t clear enough and you didn’t already know what it is, the logical disjunction is the concept of “or”.
Indeed. And what’s your point? Clearly the evidence from Wahabbi, Deobandi, Ithna Ashari controlled areas, that the scholars of these traditions believe the veil is necessary. The ban in France applies to the veil and therefore to those women who adhere to these specific sects.
Yes, I got that ‘or’ was the disjunction. It was a red herring.
A red herring from what?
Egyptian society is not greatly influenced by these sects and some prominent Egyptian scholars (some from al-Azar) have spoken against it. Scholarly opinion varies. What is at issue here is that some powerful sects demand it.
From the fact that these women follow salafi or ultra-conservative sects.
In fact the style of veil will tell you what sect. If it is the black niqab they are Wahhabi, if it is the burka with the mesh, they are Deobandi.
Actually, Egyptian society is very strict and not as liberal as others believe. Female genital mutilation occurs more often than not as do arranged and forced marriages. Those sects are gaining more and more power in Egypt every day. I bought my Burqa in Egypt not Saudi Arabia or any other gulf country.
Yes, this is true. The Muslim Brotherhood are linked to other Salafi groups and the Wahhabi have rich patrons from the Gulf states (not just Saudi Arabia) who finance Wahhabi clerics in every Muslim community. We have Arab financed Wahhabi …activists here in Australia. There is a network of Salafi groups placing immense pressure on women in all sorts of areas. If a woman wears the niqab or burka it signals she belongs to a Salafi sect. And if she wears it intentionally and proudly she is telling you she actively supports the most extreme form of fundamentalist Islam. Most women will born into such a sect and will have no choice. But I simply have no respect for a woman who is proud to wear the niqab.
Neither do I (I bought and wore it out of curiosity), but I still would not tell them what to do unless what they are doing is endangering the safety of others.
Sarah, I understand your point but obviously disagree. There are some groups whose ideology is so oppressive and nasty that we need to keep a close watch. It is illegal to wear a Nazi uniform in some European countries for just this reason. By wearing the niqab she is indicating she belongs to a sect that believes in violent jihad and Islamic supremacism. I do not believe in tolerating intolerance.
I can accept the points that you brought up as they are reasonable in the context you have just given. You have by far made the most reasonable argument in favor of the ban that I have read thus far with that comment.
Finally got there =) It’s a complex issue.
Unfortunately this issue gets reduced to the ban being about Islamophobia and a general attack on Islam, whereas its about monitoring and controlling certain known Salafist groups. Again, only Salafist groups demand the full face veil.
Indeed, R. It is unfortunate that people who argue for the ban clog the discussion with their fears, insecurity and ignorance of the issue at hand.
Sarh, yes, on BOTH sides, including highly intelligent Slafists who deliberately play the race card because they know Westerners are sensitive to the issue – and who ignore their own sectarian supremacist attitudes which regard all non-Salafi as dogs.
Part of the problem is that the Western media does not explain the intricacies of Islam. But then, prejudice involves generalizing and demonizing. Of course, there’s plenty of that from the Muslim side as well. WE are all Crusader dogs under the sway of Zionist pigs. LOL.
And all our daughters are whores, prostitutes and drug addicts.
Who display themselves like pieces of meat, or so Sheikh Hillaly of the Lakemba mosque (Australia’s largest) was so tactfully said. And again, if a woman wears the veil for political reasons, she is agreeing that Western women are whores.
nay, they are saying all women not dressed like them are whores no matter the race or creed
If we look into some of the fudamentalist Christans they are no differnet. It is the fundamental mind stuck in a little box that thinks like that. If you are not from my clan/tribe/reigion you are my enemy.
I don’t support anyone, including women, who support fundamentalism of any description. I do not support women who are right-wing Catholics, nutjob Evangelicals, orthodox Jews, high caste Hindu women, etc, etc. Its about the beliefs they hold. And what they wear is often a symbol of what they believe – a decision to set themselves apart.
I do not support such people either, I just attack the situation differently.
Quote from: Thread Starter
the thing is, sarah, is that there is no indication if your method is better. when dealing with human beings it’s trial and error. the thing is to take a stand and that is what france is doing. burqua has been banned in belguim without much uproar even though their muslim community is so small. they have taken a stand and that is what countries do, they decide the direction of their country.
That is what Nationalism is yes
That raises another question, Is Nationalism always right?
Quote from: Thread Starter
yes, and there is no nation without nationalism.
maybe not, but that is currently the state of affairs
there are arguments that make sense for and against nationalism. the is a painting called ‘the oath of the horatii’
basically portrays nationalism as being more important than family at times.
A, my method worked for me as it did for several other people that are no longer in religion. I didn’t just sit there and come up with this just now. I lived it and experienced it.
One thing about Belgium. I am unsure why the banning wasn’t such a world-wide problem. Probably because of the fact of it being such a small country that it was merely a blip in time. But that is an interesting phenomena.
As for earlier… points on Sharia Law. Sharia law is based completely and wholly on the teachings of the prophet and what is written in the Quran. All decisions made in Sharia court are a direct result of interpreting the laws and guidelines and those sources so that they would fit within today’s world. In effect, it is to modernize it so that it may be applicable to the lives of modern day citizens. If you Imam or Sheiks tells you to do something and it is in direct contradiction with what is taught in the Quran and the Hadiths, then you do NOT have to follow it. I repeat, in the world of Islam, theoretically, the word of Sheik and Imam are not law. As for Iran and the several scholars, that is a direct result of the cryptic ancient Arabic of the Quran which is needed for interpretation and it is because of the several countries in which Islam has embedded itself. During the times before the Ottoman Empire came to unite all of Islam, Islam started to change and mutated and merge with the local indigenous culture. Even the Quran started to change. The Turks put an end to all that, but there still exists different schools of thought. As for Iran, that country is run completely by Shi’ts. That sect believe in a completely different Islam. They do not believe in Mohammad as the prophet therefore they do not follow his teachings. The only thing that they have in common with other Islamic sects is that they follow the Quran to some extent.