Racism veiled as liberation

[aadil77]

It sends a shiver down the spine. France's lower house has passed a law banning the wearing of the full Islamic veil – covering the face – in public places. The hope has to be that this extraordinary decision never actually reaches the statute book given that France's highest constitutional body, the council of state, warned some months ago that a ban would infringe constitutional rights and the measure could be challenged in the European court of human rights. Belgium and Spain are also considering bans on the veil. What makes the decision in France so disturbing is that it fits into a pattern emerging across Europe of a particular paranoia, as an open letter published today on Comment is Free and signed by more than 30 academics and commentators warns.

The veil debate is making it entirely legitimate to pillory, mock and ridicule a tiny number of women on the basis of what they wear. French politicians described the full veil as a "walking coffin"; on comment threads online there is contempt and sneers for the full veil and those who wear it – "hiding under a blanket", "going round with a paper bag over your head". In France it is estimated there are only 2,000 women who cover their faces with the burqa or the niqab out of a Muslim population of five million. The response is out of all proportion.

Let's be clear: the niqab and burqa are extreme interpretations of the Islamic requirement for modest dress; few Islamic scholars advocate their use, and many – including Tariq Ramadan – have urged women not to use them. They are as alien to many Muslim cultures as they are to the west. And yes, there are instances of patriarchy where some women might be encouraged or even forced to wear a full veil by their husbands or fathers. But generalisations don't fit. Increasingly, young women are choosing to wear the full veil, seeing it as a powerful statement of identity.

Invoking the full weight of the state to police dress codes in public is an extraordinary extension of state powers over an aspect of citizen behaviour which is largely regarded as your own business. Provided you are wearing some clothing, western public space is a free-for-all, and across every capital in Europe that is strikingly self-evident.

Women wearing the skimpiest of mini-skirts sit down on buses next to other women in saris, business suits, salwar kameez. None of these cultural codes expressed in dress are regarded as the business of the state. Nor should they be. Public space in the west has been crucial to the generation of a civic culture of tolerance; this is where strangers rub shoulders, sometimes sharing nothing but geographical space for a period of time – five minutes in a bus queue. We have negotiated and tolerated differences – of class, culture, nationality and race – in our streets and squares, and the lapses from that crucial ambition have been shaming.

It is not difficult to see the racism which permeates this debate. It is about assertion of identity – under the soubriquet of protecting "our way of life" – and crucial to that is forcing a choice: do you subscribe or don't you? Sign up or get out. But such choices are notoriously slippery. Who gets to decide what our way of life is exactly?

The Tory backbench MP Philip Hollobone, who is proposing a private members' bill to ban the veil in the UK, said that part of the British way of life is "walking down the street, smiling at people and saying hello". How many UK streets ever matched up to his rosy nostalgia? It exposes the absurdity of politicians trying to legislate some idealised past back into existence.

The irony is that these bans reveal a fixation on identity and the face at a time when more people spend more time than ever interacting online with complete anonymity. We can remodel our faces through cosmetic surgery or adopt an entirely new image for our virtual life. Most people navigating urban public spaces studiously avoid each other's eye. Yet many of those advocating bans have insisted that exposure of the face is crucial to interaction.

It is not too hard to understand that some women – a small minority – might find the pervasive sexualisation of western culture deeply offensive, and might want to signal by their clothing their disengagement and alienation. They don't want their face surveyed by that western glance which sizes up and categorises – to be dismissed or desired. Yet this is a choice which largely male politicians in France have chosen to remove (less than 20% of the French lower house are women).

French politicians insisted on Tuesday that women need to be liberated from the full veil. Forcing people to be free has a long and undistinguished history – well described by many, including George Orwell – yet too many times an age is blinded by its own prejudices and forgets that liberation can never be imposed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...freedom-france

She speaks some sense

[جوري]

screw france

[syed_z]

Pure Islamophobia and hate....

They are worried, that by looking at the modest Muslim girls, the french women are learning to be modest, and therefore their own women are being lost to Islam... which they fear...

[Cabdullahi]

sarkozy is in trouble with the corruption allegations and they needed something to distract the french people from the real issue....

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Rhubarb Tart]

Wow

I thought their current crisis of their economic state would have been their first priority. I guess I was wrong, the Nigab must be really important to them huh?

[~Raindrop~]

One of my room-mates was French. She told us that instead of forcing the Muslim women in France to start unveiling, these idiotic rules have just forced practicing Muslim ladies to stay in their homes. As much as they can.
But I forget. This is liberation.

[titus]

sarkozy is in trouble with the corruption allegations and they needed something to distract the french people from the real issue....

This law is bigotry, plain and simple. You don't liberate by not allowing someone to do as they wish, especially when that action hurts nobody. It is the other way around.

So yes, it looks like a pathetic attempt to distract the people from important issues by playing to their base fears and making it look like the government is actually accomplishing something.

screw france

And any other country that has laws that discriminate based on religion.

[جوري]

And any other country that has laws that discriminate based on religion.

here here............

[aadil77]

One of my room-mates was French. She told us that instead of forcing the Muslim women in France to start unveiling, these idiotic rules have just forced practicing Muslim ladies to stay in their homes. As much as they can.
But I forget. This is liberation.

I guess they don't care about that, they probably already knew it and want these muslim women forced into their homes than be outside in a veil

[Pygoscelis]

The veil debate is making it entirely legitimate to pillory, mock and ridicule a tiny number of women on the basis of what they wear. French politicians described the full veil as a "walking coffin"; on comment threads online there is contempt and sneers for the full veil and those who wear it – "hiding under a blanket", "going round with a paper bag over your head". In France it is estimated there are only 2,000 women who cover their faces with the burqa or the niqab out of a Muslim population of five million. The response is out of all proportion.

I have to agree. The ban on the islamic veil is motivated by a strong prejudice and distrust towards muslims. It is blatantly obvious because they are singling this out instead of addressing the basic idea of covering your face, for which there are legitimate security concerns. But anywhere I am allowed to wear a ski mask a muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full face veil. This is just one example of the PR problem islam has in the west, extending from 9/11 and continuing on today.

[Zafran]

I have to agree. The ban on the islamic veil is motivated by a strong prejudice and distrust towards muslims. It is blatantly obvious because they are singling this out instead of addressing the basic idea of covering your face, for which there are legitimate security concerns. But anywhere I am allowed to wear a ski mask a muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full face veil. This is just one example of the PR problem islam has in the west, extending from 9/11 and continuing on today.

prejudice against Islam was there way before 9/11. Its odd how some people cannot think of Islam beyond 9/11.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

prejudice against Islam was there way before 9/11. Its odd how some people cannot think of Islam beyond 9/11.

Correct, it goes back centuries, but the most recent manifestation has been since the 1970s, (Islamic revolution in Iran is one example)

And much of the so called 'PR problem' is actually promoted by western media/intellectual classes for various reasons, commercial (big bad Muslims coming to get you, lets make some bucks), ideological (Muslims dont bow down easily to western norms, hence tantrums), political (eg. control of Middle east resources).

So yeah not new phenomena.

[Hugo]

I have to agree. The ban on the islamic veil is motivated by a strong prejudice and distrust towards muslims. It is blatantly obvious because they are singling this out instead of addressing the basic idea of covering your face, for which there are legitimate security concerns. But anywhere I am allowed to wear a ski mask a muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full face veil. This is just one example of the PR problem islam has in the west, extending from 9/11 and continuing on today.

You may be right but you also may be wrong. One would hardly wear a ski mask when you are shopping would you and nowhere are there spiritual injunctions about it. Why is it impossible to see that the ban might be motivated by ideas about freedom and liberation or 101 other reasions? One might be more disposed to see the Islamic view if one could find Muslims demanding that women say in Saudi Arabia could have a choice in the matter. The idea that it is racism I find very odd and I have said this elsewhere, if its racism to ban the burka its also racism to ban genital mutilation or other so called religious practices since these might be seen as religious injunctions.

The point perhaps is that wearing the veil or head covering is a decision not a choice. For my part I don't care what they do as long as they allow the same freedom for others though the whole idea of a complete covering as a mark of piety is an absurdity to me.

[aamirsaab]

....
The point perhaps is that wearing the veil or head covering is a decision not a choice. For my part I don't care what they do as long as they allow the same freedom for others though the whole idea of a complete covering as a mark of piety is an absurdity to me.

Doesn't matter if you think it is absurd or not. It's not about popularity contests, it's a personal decision. Plus, it's not like they are wearing gimp suits, or prostituting themselves or getting slashed out of their mind and so on.

It's a piece of cloth; get over it.

[Pygoscelis]

prejudice against Islam was there way before 9/11. Its odd how some people cannot think of Islam beyond 9/11.

Most of us in the west thought very little about islam (good or bad) prior to 9/11. It wasn't praised or scolded. It was seen as irrelevant to most of us. The hard truth is that 9/11 put Islam on the map for many of us. Islam suddenly became a major issue in our media. It was mostly ignored before and nobody I know really cared one way or the other about it. I certainly had no interest in it (no more than I have in Jainism or Confucionism today).

Today, after 9/11, and the US invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan and the ongoing Israel/Palestine issue (and reports of suicide bombers etc) constantly flooding the airways, everybody I know has an opinion about Islam, some are sympathetic to muslims being demonized, others are interested (some convert), others are concerned and feel threatened, and others (especially far right evangelical christians I know) demonize muslims to the point that its truly sickening. I saw none of that ten years ago. Like it or not, Islam's PR problem has grown tenfold in the past decade, and the bigotry and bans on veils etc are a symptoms of that.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Wrong as mentioned earlier that it has been going on for some time.

One obvious example is the Iranian revolution, read the papers back then, for the secular ideologues it was a real trauma.

I think the demonisation has more to do with control of the middle east resources more than anything else, Nasser and his secular nationalism was the main enemy till its failure in 1970s, to be replaced with the Islamic revival which became the new bogeyman.

Books of interest.

"The theme is the way in which intellectual traditions are created and trans-mitted... Orientalism is the example Mr. Said uses, and by it he means something precise. The scholar who studies the Orient (and specifically the Muslim Orient), the imaginitive writer who takes it as his subject, and the institutions which have been concerned with teaching it, settling it, ruling it, all have a certain representation or idea of the Orient defined as being other than the Occident, mysterious, unchanging and ultimately inferior." --Albert Hourani, New York Review of Books

This was prinited in 1979

Professor Said is adept at holding a mirror up to American attitudes toward Islam.... [He] skillfully traces the origins of American misinformation about Islam to the way that Orientalist scholarship is financed and organized in this country. And finally he pleads eloquently for the instrumentality of all historical knowledge and the needs of all scholars to be aware of their objectives in order to acquire that knowledge usefully. This plea amounts to a prescription for cultural self-awareness that will be wasted on none of us. -- The New York Times Book Review, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt

This was printed in 1981

Countless other examples could be given (Arabs in American films anyone? Delta Force?).

So no the 'bad PR' in its most recent form has gone back decades.

[Hugo]

Wrong as mentioned earlier that it has been going on for some time. One obvious example is the Iranian revolution, read the papers back then, for the secular ideologues it was a real trauma. I think the demonisation has more to do with control of the middle east resources more than anything else, Nasser and his secular nationalism was the main enemy till its failure in 1970s, to be replaced with the Islamic revival which became the new bogeyman.

Professor Said is adept at holding a mirror up to American attitudes toward Islam.... [He] skillfully traces the origins of American misinformation about Islam to the way that Orientalist scholarship is financed and organized in this country. And finally he pleads eloquently for the instrumentality of all historical knowledge and the needs of all scholars to be aware of their objectives in order to acquire that knowledge usefully. This plea amounts to a prescription for cultural self-awareness that will be wasted on none of us. -- The New York Times Book Review, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt

Of course there is despicable stereo typing but often it goes both ways. I have read Said's book and for quite a while it was held in high esteem in Universities but perhaps you ought to also read "Defending the West - A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalist" (ISBN 9781 59102 484 2 published 2007) and I have rarely read a more devastating critique of any author and Said is shown to fall short in almost every scholarly way and his work is now discredited.

What is perhaps a bit odd here is that Albert Hourani (died in 1993) who you mention, a noted and highly regard historian and Orientalist strongly criticised Said's work.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Thats your view Hugo and judging by your record Ill take what you say with a pinch of salt :p. I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work.

An immense work, well worth reading.

But anyway getting back on topic. . . .

[جوري]

Salaam

Thats your view Hugo and judging by your record Ill take what you say with a pinch of salt :p. I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work.

An immense work, well worth reading.

But anyway getting back on topic. . . .

Yes all critiques by orientalists are 'devastating' according to him, of course he never actually articulates those devastating blows because one of two things will happen
1- you'll discover that he hasn't actually read the book (happened before and we busted him on it)
2- if he read it the argument will crumble with a few concise statement even from the youngest member of this forum..

you are absolutely right not to waste your time on him and here is to hoping that the mods will take into consideration popular opinion and ban this troll!

:w:

[Hugo]

Thats your view Hugo and judging by your record Ill take what you say with a pinch of salt :p. I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work. An immense work, well worth reading.

Yes it was my opinion but I also gave you the sources so you could check it out yourself and it was you that brought a quote from Albert Horanni but only the bit that propped up you view. The people who spoke against Said's work were not nobodies, they are or were internationally recognised scholars from the best Universities in the world, they are not men who speak without knowledge. But yes, lets get back on topic

[Zafran]

Most of us in the west thought very little about islam (good or bad) prior to 9/11. It wasn't praised or scolded. It was seen as irrelevant to most of us. The hard truth is that 9/11 put Islam on the map for many of us. Islam suddenly became a major issue in our media. It was mostly ignored before and nobody I know really cared one way or the other about it. I certainly had no interest in it (no more than I have in Jainism or Confucionism today).

Today, after 9/11, and the US invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan and the ongoing Israel/Palestine issue (and reports of suicide bombers etc) constantly flooding the airways, everybody I know has an opinion about Islam, some are sympathetic to muslims being demonized, others are interested (some convert), others are concerned and feel threatened, and others (especially far right evangelical christians I know) demonize muslims to the point that its truly sickening. I saw none of that ten years ago. Like it or not, Islam's PR problem has grown tenfold in the past decade, and the bigotry and bans on veils etc are a symptoms of that.

maybe you didnt know about Islam before - but many people did, especially the people that were writing about Islam in the media - plaestine and Isreal has always been one sided - now its slowly changing - the salman Rushdie affair - The anti islamic hate has always been there - You just noticed it after 9/11.

Edward said is a great example of showing the bias aginst Islam before 9/11 in the media.

The right wing evangelicals have always been there - you must ahve heard about the moon God.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Ok heres another example from The Winston Churchill, (for anybody who doesnt remember this person strongly approved the gassing of 'uncivilised tribes' in Iraq when Britain controlled it in the 1920s)

Winston Churchill On Islam

A quote from an 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Another fine example of Orientalism, this was the point Edward Said is trying to make. Regretably this type of thinking is quite common among certain westerners (the burka/Niqaab debate is a good example).

Right no more derails from me sorry!

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, so Islam has always had a PR problem in the west. You will have noticed it because you come from that direction and were aware of it. I only noticed it post 9/11 as things ramped up to mass hysteria. My point was that Islam suffers a PR problem in the west and its rampant and getting completely out of control with things like this ban on veils (and presumably only veils and not other head covers).

Perhaps Islam and the west are incompatible. If so then I don't understand why muslims would move to the west. And if not then I hope this image can be repaired.

[جوري]

perhaps since Muslims can and have been born in the west (and it is for all intents and purposes their home) as well many convert at a rate of 20,000 a year.
Islam will not acquiesce to the west least of which when the west alleges its principles are based on 'freedom of' and lastly.. it is something the west should have considered long ago when they decided to colonize the other half in their name.. when you have little colonies here and there and steal the wealth of other nations a funny thing happens.. those little colonies and their citizens become automatically citizens of the mother colonial settler state!

can't have it both ways!

[Pygoscelis]

Islam will not acquiesce to the west

Good for Islamic lands. I'm all for keeping your own culture and I'm all against the west's interference in foreign lands.

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations? It isn't as if they are being forced over today. If you move to another land you are subjecting yourself to that culture. That sounds a lot like aquiescence to me.

[جوري]

Good for Islamic lands. I'm all for keeping your own culture and I'm all against the west's interference in foreign lands.

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations? It isn't as if they are being forced over today. If you move to another land you are subjecting yourself to that culture. That sounds a lot like aquiescence to me.

I don't know what the immigration status is for Muslims moving in the west unless they are christian Arabs seeking refugee status, the U.S doesn't let anyone on its soil unless they have absolute brilliance to offer.. as such and according to govt. consensus, Muslims in the U.S are actually doing better than the natives.
If you want to look at who is coming in and going out, that would be interesting, but I am not going to work with a hypothetical!

all the best

[Hugo]

perhaps since Muslims can and have been born in the west (and it is for all intents and purposes their home) as well many convert at a rate of 20,000 a year. Islam will not acquiesce to the west least of which when the west alleges its principles are based on 'freedom of' and lastly.. it is something the west should have considered long ago when they decided to colonize the other half in their name.. when you have little colonies here and there and steal the wealth of other nations a funny thing happens.. those little colonies and their citizens become automatically citizens of the mother colonial settler state!

A question, when the Muslim armies invaded and conquered those around then did they become citizens. For example, can a Tunisian claim he was conquered my Muslim forces emanating from what is now Saudi Arabia and go there and claim full citizenship rights?

[جوري]

A question, when the Muslim armies invaded and conquered those around then did they become citizens. For example, can a Tunisian claim he was conquered my Muslim forces emanating from what is now Saudi Arabia and go there and claim full citizenship rights?

Muslims have only Islam as their identity silly troll, or have you not come across that from your orientalist education?

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

the U.S doesn't let anyone on its soil unless they have absolute brilliance to offer.. as such and according to govt. consensus, Muslims in the U.S are actually doing better than the natives.

Can we please not equate the west with the USA? Immigration in the USA is its own special problem (these people want to build giant fences to keep mexicans out lol)

[جوري]

Can we please not equate the west with the USA? Immigration in the USA is its own special problem (these people want to build giant fences to keep mexicans out lol)

Well Europe from my understanding is even less welcoming.. do see my comment otherwise on the consequences of colonialism!

all the best!

[Karl]

Good for Islamic lands. I'm all for keeping your own culture and I'm all against the west's interference in foreign lands.

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations? It isn't as if they are being forced over today. If you move to another land you are subjecting yourself to that culture. That sounds a lot like aquiescence to me.

Maybe the Muslims traveling to the West are trying to compete with the Jews that have dug in, in the past for political power. As the Christian kings the defenders of the faith have all gone and democracy and secularism now exist in the West. It's a numbers game now. When you have enough Muslims in the West then it will be ruled by them. Christianity was not the original religion of the Western nations so turning to Islam is no big deal.
Or maybe a lot of those Muslims going West are just chasing the dollar. And as for Western converts who knows?

[Pygoscelis]

But the west, with some exceptions (notably the southern US) holds separation of church and state and secularism as a key value. That undercuts any religious group, be it Christian, Jew, or Muslim from ruling. Theocracy is the antithesis of democracy and the west seeks to transcend religious tribalism (and fall into other sorts of tribalisms but that is another thread).

[Muhammad]

Let's be clear: the niqab and burqa are extreme interpretations of the Islamic requirement for modest dress; few Islamic scholars advocate their use, and many – including Tariq Ramadan – have urged women not to use them. They are as alien to many Muslim cultures as they are to the west.

This bit isn't true at all.

[Karl]

But the west, with some exceptions (notably the southern US) holds separation of church and state and secularism as a key value. That undercuts any religious group, be it Christian, Jew, or Muslim from ruling. Theocracy is the antithesis of democracy and the west seeks to transcend religious tribalism (and fall into other sorts of tribalisms but that is another thread).

Systems come in waves, we have had the powerful secular forces of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other collectivist crazys fighting for supremecy. Now it seems to be Zionism and Global hegemony of the Plutocrats, disguised as democracy and "freedom". We have a Godless global collective growing and it is kicking and scratching at the religious and playing very dirty, hiding under catch cries and slandering the faithful and the Prophets.
How can you have the separation of Church and State? If I was a Christian how can I support Anti Christian laws and government, sounds crazy to me.
Just as crazy as Muslims putting up with Anti Islamic law and government in majority Muslim areas.
The Jews have a Jewish State, so why don't the Christians want Christian States and the Muslims want Islamic States.
The Jews may be obnoxious and zealous and diabolical at times, but I admire them for their guts and dedication to their cause.
Btw banning the Muslim clothing is provocative and pathetic.

[Lynx]

We have a Godless global collective growing and it is kicking and scratching at the religious and playing very dirty, hiding under catch cries and slandering the faithful and the Prophets.

there's more to the decline of religion than this.

How can you have the separation of Church and State? If I was a Christian how can I support Anti Christian laws and government, sounds crazy to me.
Just as crazy as Muslims putting up with Anti Islamic law and government in majority Muslim areas.
The Jews have a Jewish State, so why don't the Christians want Christian States and the Muslims want Islamic States.

Because the only time laws are anti-christian are when Christians are stopped from practicing certain things. Other than that people are free to worship however and whatever they want. A society where people believe in different things cannot last if religion is used to make laws. Everyone who chooses to live in a Western country has to accept this unless they want to live in Israel where a group of people can kick out another group of people from their homes cause their Bible says so. Secular laws that help everyone indiscriminately should always come before religious rulings.

Btw banning the Muslim clothing is provocative and pathetic.

It's also very idiotic.

[Karl]

there's more to the decline of religion than this.



Because the only time laws are anti-christian are when Christians are stopped from practicing certain things. Other than that people are free to worship however and whatever they want. A society where people believe in different things cannot last if religion is used to make laws. Everyone who chooses to live in a Western country has to accept this unless they want to live in Israel where a group of people can kick out another group of people from their homes cause their Bible says so. Secular laws that help everyone indiscriminately should always come before religious rulings.






It's also very idiotic.

Ok, so under secular laws everyone can worship any God(s) but must live under atheist oppression. They cannot live by the tenets of their religion but are instead totaly controlled and subsumed by anti religous government. For example the banning of the veil. Even in the Christian established West there have been traditions that Christians have followed that have either been directly prescribed from the bible OR have not been condemned by it that the atheist oppressors have subsequently outlawed in contemporay times!
So at the end of the day a secular government only caters to the atheists and only left wing busybodys at that.

[Lynx]

Ok, so under secular laws everyone can worship any God(s)

Exactly.

but must live under atheist oppression.
They cannot live by the tenets of their religion but are instead totaly controlled and subsumed by anti religous government.

I am not sure where you live or what you're watching on T.V. but most western countries let people pray 5 times a day, whether they are at school or work or anyplace; people are allowed to build places of worship; people are allowed to follow the dress code of their particular religions and they are allowed to preach their religions. So when you say 'atheist' oppression I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you missed the point of my earlier post; since many people of different faiths live under a secular country, the government can't create laws that just benefit one religious group. This would lead to society being fragmented and destroyed. Democracy works cause everyone is made happy. That's why secular law works: it creates a set of laws that are universal for all people trying to maximize happiness and utility.

For example the banning of the veil. Even in the Christian established West there have been traditions that Christians have followed that have either been directly prescribed from the bible OR have not been condemned by it that the atheist oppressors have subsequently outlawed in contemporay times!

Most western countries have not banned the veil so don't generalize unless you're trying to create strawmen. Yes, laws from the Bible should be removed if they don't promote overall good for the citizens. I don;t think you quite understand what you're recommending. If my religion says taht I should be able to kill anyone I want to, are you going to let me follow that practice?

So at the end of the day a secular government only caters to the atheists and only left wing busybodys at that.

this is plainly false and i dont know if you're trolling because i don't typically read your posts to see if this is the type of stuff you say but look around you and tell me if the law allowing freedom of religion caters to atheists. oh and tell me if a presidential candidate would be elected in USA if he said he was an atheist. :)

[جوري]

You don't have to ban something to perpetuate hatred by other means.. Not sure who suggested the idea of building a mosque where the twin towers where, but certainly the rabid news crew especially the good folks at fox are having a field day with it and have taken it to the streets.. =)
it is amazing to me what individuals get away with here when Muslims are the subject of the matter and what riots and civil wars would have been had it been any other minority...The west has been founded on racism and hatred for people it deems inferior.. the irony is how they reached their civility and how long they have held on to it, if at all!

[Pygoscelis]

So at the end of the day a secular government only caters to the atheists and only left wing busybodys at that.

Freedom of religion requires freedom from the other guy's religion. That is secularism. Secularism is the opposite of theocracy.

Secular government caters to anybody who doesn't share the same religion as the zealot making the laws. In a society where Christianity or Judaism (or Hinduism or what have you) is the majority religion, secular government benefits muslims as much as it does atheists. Secularism benefits you as much as it does me.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

My point was that Islam suffers a PR problem in the west and its rampant and getting completely out of control with things like this ban on veils (and presumably only veils and not other head covers).

PR problem is an odd term to use, its like saying Palestinians have a PR problem with Zionist colonisers (well yeah naturally)

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations?

Well for money, what else? My grandparents came to Britian because they were invited to come, the economy was booming and somebody had to do the jobs that the native population werent willing to do.

Freedom of religion requires freedom from the other guy's religion. That is secularism. Secularism is the opposite of theocracy.

Secular government caters to anybody who doesn't share the same religion as the zealot making the laws. In a society where Christianity or Judaism (or Hinduism or what have you) is the majority religion, secular government benefits muslims as much as it does atheists. Secularism benefits you as much as it does me.

Nice theory, but in practice its can be quite different story altogether, Soviet Union and China had 'secular' governments (viruently so). Turkey and Iran were 'secular' as well, or should I say an 'enforced secularism' with 'westernisation' added in for good measure. If you read secular ideologues (dawkinites and what not) they are quite open about wanting to use the power of the state to secualrise society (France etc). In fact they have been doing this successfully for decades. You only have to observe the pitful state of Christianity in Europe.

So no the idea that the secular state is benign to the relgious believer is open to question.

[Zafran]

Salaam

Yeah Iran was a secular government in the 50s before the shah - it was overthrown by the western powers becasue it was working against there interests in the region - I cant believe i keep forgeting that one.

[Karl]

Exactly.



I am not sure where you live or what you're watching on T.V. but most western countries let people pray 5 times a day, whether they are at school or work or anyplace; people are allowed to build places of worship; people are allowed to follow the dress code of their particular religions and they are allowed to preach their religions. So when you say 'atheist' oppression I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you missed the point of my earlier post; since many people of different faiths live under a secular country, the government can't create laws that just benefit one religious group. This would lead to society being fragmented and destroyed. Democracy works cause everyone is made happy. That's why secular law works: it creates a set of laws that are universal for all people trying to maximize happiness and utility.



Most western countries have not banned the veil so don't generalize unless you're trying to create strawmen. Yes, laws from the Bible should be removed if they don't promote overall good for the citizens. I don;t think you quite understand what you're recommending. If my religion says taht I should be able to kill anyone I want to, are you going to let me follow that practice?



this is plainly false and i dont know if you're trolling because i don't typically read your posts to see if this is the type of stuff you say but look around you and tell me if the law allowing freedom of religion caters to atheists. oh and tell me if a presidential candidate would be elected in USA if he said he was an atheist. :)

Ok if secularism is so freedom loving why can't you have more than one wife? Why not have polygamy? Why are there marriage age laws? That is a domestic issue not a public one, therefore it is the fathers decision, not the states! Most religions do not have any issue with these practices but atheists DO. Secularism is a euphemism for interloping socialist oppression. Secular states impose millions of oppressive laws that religion would not have even dreamt up. Secularism is nothing but tyranny.
Btw democracy is just mob rule so you can have up to 49% of the population oppressed by the 51%. In the USA most people don't even bother to vote 'cos they know nothings going to change. The system is just a farce and a lot of people are just waiting for it to fall over. It would be a lie to assert that democracy and secularism isn't despised by many people.

[Karl]

Democracy works cause everyone is made happy. That's why secular law works: it creates a set of laws that are universal for all people trying to maximize happiness and utility.

Is this a joke??? EVERYONE is happy? If so why do so many people moan and winge about politics and democracy?
Laws that are universal cannot work simply because there is no such thing as universal values and cultures etc.

[Seeker1066]

Maybe the Muslims traveling to the West are trying to compete with the Jews that have dug in, in the past for political power. As the Christian kings the defenders of the faith have all gone and democracy and secularism now exist in the West. It's a numbers game now. When you have enough Muslims in the West then it will be ruled by them. Christianity was not the original religion of the Western nations so turning to Islam is no big deal.
Or maybe a lot of those Muslims going West are just chasing the dollar. And as for Western converts who knows?

Excellent point. All of Europe was Pagan before Christianity. Europe didn't stamp out Paganism until after 1,000ad. Which they did by the sword by the way. People think the only Crusades were against the Muslims but the Teutonic knights launched a Crusade

The Baltic Crusades started in the early 12th century, not as a planned and proclaimed holy war but only a general expansionist movement, as Denmark and various German states moved aggressively into the lands of the pagan, Slavic Wends (what's now the Baltic coast of Germany). Beyond the Wends, they encountered other peoples: Prussians, Livonians, Lithuanians, and Estonians (reading west to east along the southern shore of the Baltic).

Missionaries went east to convert these pagans to Christianity and to European feudal society. But the pagans didn't always want to be converted; sometimes they resisted, violently. Threats to the missionaries led Pope Alexander III to preach a crusade against the Baltic pagans in 1171, a full crusade on the Outremer model, with remission of sins and everything, the first of a series that became almost continuous in the next two centuries.

[Pygoscelis]

Europe didn't stamp out Paganism until after 1,000ad.

Small nitpick, paganism was never completely stamped out in Europe. Its still there today, though yes, its was reduced so much and forced to hide that few would have noticed it wasn't gone.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Interesting article that favours the Burkha/Nigab I found on the telegraph...

Just avoid the Comment section:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...-the-veil.html

[Woodrow]

Just cleaned up the war zone. Some of the deleted posts were innocent, however they contained quotes or referred back to deleted posts.

You may now return to posting but check your hats, firearms and tempers at the door before coming in.

[Pygoscelis]

I was actually fascinated by somebody taking the position that people own their children and that the state should not interfere, even if they abuse them.

Karl, is this just your individual view or do you think it is in any way representative of Islam?

[Karl]

I was actually fascinated by somebody taking the position that people own their children and that the state should not interfere, even if they abuse them.

Karl, is this just your individual view or do you think it is in any way representative of Islam?

It is my individual position, but also it is a position that is widely viewed by some people, both out and inside of Islam, particularly the Shafi'i school of thought.

I don't know why so many people get freaked out over such a fundamental concept. I would have assumed that most parents would have considered their offspring as belonging to them. I would have assumed that they would have considered themselves as naturally entitled in having complete authority over their very own young. Then again I suppose socialism is so entrenched now in the Western psyche, its intrusiveness has been bludgeoned into the masses for so so long, having increased its reign of terror since the close to the French Revolution, so I guess I shouldn't really be all that surprised that contemporary people would find my position to be bizarre.

[Pygoscelis]

It is extreme is all. I think many of us would agree with libertarianism (I do agree with most libertarian views) but when it comes to children (or other people) being abused or killed we feel a need to protect them - even if that means interfering with a parent's role over their children. We'll even take children away from abusive parents and arrest the parents and I'm down with that.

You got me thinking though, that Islam to me seems anti-libertarian generally and yet you are a libertarian muslim and that is fascinating to me. Would you also embrace the libertarian view that such acts as sodomy, marijuana, prostitution, self mutilation, etc should not be attacked by the state so long as they are kept out of the inter-public and done in the privacy of one's home?

[Rhubarb Tart]

Of course the state should interfere if a child is being abused in ALL forms. Subhallah, imagine a child being sexually abused by her father. Don’t worry let not get involved, the child belongs to him! Islam does not give a leeway for parents to abuse their children in any forms. Children are human beings, and they are entitled to taken care of by their parents. But if the parents abuse their position it should be absolutely the authority business. why shouldnt it be? Children are not toys.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Subhaan`Allaah!. . . . .

[جوري]

This reminds me of a topic I just read today:

Blind Couple Reunited With Baby Taken Away by State

by Tom Henderson (Subscribe to Tom Henderson's posts) Jul 23rd 2010 5:09PM
Categories: Newborns, Medical Conditions, In The News, Amazing Parents
PrintEmailMore

Text Size:

Erika Johnson and Blake Sinnett's daughter, Mikaela Sinnett, was returned to them after 57 days in foster care. Credit: David Eulitt, Kansas City Star / MCT



Erika Johnson and Blake Sinnett of Missouri had a baby. For two days. Then they had a nightmare. State authorities took their baby away because both Johnson and Sinnett are blind.

Following a public outcry, little Mikaela was returned to her parents this week, and authorities were reminded of an ancient truism: None are so blind than those who will not see.

But Johnson tells the Kansas City Star she's not bitter.

Blake Sinnett is guided to his mother's van with Erika Johnson as the two parents left for their Kansas City, Missouri apartment with their 2-month-old daughter. Credit: David Eulitt, Kansas City Star / MCT


"I'm a forgiving person," she says. Nonetheless, she adds, she resents the lingering prejudice people in power have against the handicapped.

"Disability does not equal inability," she tells the newspaper.

Mikaela was born May 21 at Centerpoint Medical Center in Independence, Mo. The Star reports doctors let Sinnett "see" his daughter's birth by feeling the crowning of her head.

According to the newspaper, Johnson's first attempts at breast-feeding were clumsy. A nurse noticed Mikaela's nostrils were covered by Johnson's breast, and Johnson felt that something was wrong. She switched the baby to her other side, but not before Mikaela turned blue.

A nurse wrote on a chart: "The child is without proper custody, support or care due to both of (the) parents being blind, and they do not have specialized training to assist them."

That notation kicked the system into auto-pilot and plunged the new parents, both 24, into a nightmare. It would be 57 days before they were reunited with their baby.

When Johnson held Mikaela again July 20, the Star reports, the new mother couldn't stop crying.

"We never got the chance to be parents," she tells the newspaper. "We had to prove that we could."

Although they were able to return to their home in Independence that day, they still faced an adjudication hearing to determine whether or not they would have to basically share custody of their baby with the state.

However, the Star reports, they got a call from their attorney, Amy Coopman, saying the state had dropped the case.

"Every minute that has passed that this family wasn't together is a tragedy -- a legal tragedy and a moral one, too," Coopman tells the Star. "How do you get 57 days back?"

Arleasha Mays, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Social Services, tells the newspaper she can't comment on what happened because of privacy rules. Still, she insists, "the only time we recommend a child be removed is if it's in imminent danger."

Johnson tells the Star questions from a social worker started flying as soon as Mikaela was born.

How could they take the baby's temperature? With a talking thermometer. How would they get her to a doctor? In an emergency, they'd call an ambulance. For a regular appointment, they'd call a cab or ride a bus.

Johnson tells the paper those solutions weren't enough for the social worker. She and Sinnett were told they would need 24-hour care by a sighted person at their apartment. Johnson responded they couldn't afford such help and didn't need it.

"I needed help as a new parent, but not as a blind parent," Johnson tells the Star.

Soon, Mikaela was gone. The Star reports her parents weren't even allowed to hold her as she left the hospital. All they could do was touch her arm or leg.

Advocates for the blind were quickly on the case.

Gary Wunder, the president of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri, tells the Star he found the story almost too incredible to believe.

"I needed to verify their whole story," he tells the newspaper. "We had to do due diligence. I found the couple to be intelligent and responsible. We knew this was an outrage that had taken place."

Wunder and other advocates rallied other associations for the blind nationwide. More than 100 people at a National Federation of the Blind national convention in Dallas volunteered to travel to Kansas City to protest and testify, both as blind parents and as the sighted children of blind parents.

They also hired Coopman, who tells the Star this is not the end of the story. Legal action will be taken.

"Whether a couple is visually impaired or deaf or in a wheelchair, the state should not keep them from their children," she adds.

Related: Woman Having Babies from 2 Separate Wombs

Source

[Pygoscelis]

Of course the state should interfere if a child is being abused in ALL forms. Subhallah, imagine a child being sexually abused by her father. Don’t worry let not get involved, the child belongs to him! Islam does not give a leeway for parents to abuse their children in any forms. Children are human beings, and they are entitled to taken care of by their parents. But if the parents abuse their position it should be absolutely the authority business. why shouldnt it be? Children are not toys.

Glad to see you write this and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Karl]

It is extreme is all. I think many of us would agree with libertarianism (I do agree with most libertarian views) but when it comes to children (or other people) being abused or killed we feel a need to protect them - even if that means interfering with a parent's role over their children. We'll even take children away from abusive parents and arrest the parents and I'm down with that.

As I said, I will defend my private property rights frantically to the death! And I don't care about what those who would aggress my parental authority happen to actually call themselves, be it of a religion or of atheism. It makes NO difference to me. As far as I am concerned my offspring have absolutely NOTHING to do with either YOU, or SWEET or any of your other little busybody state worshipping friends. In fact I am so passionately protective of my inborn parental authority that if any invading usurper attempted to aggress that, and my back finally became up against the wall and I could no longer hold my private property battlement, as a last resort I would need to carry out familicide (including myself) before my enemies finally smashed down my walls. A Masada job, in other words. That is how strong I feel about the preservation of my inherent parental authority.

You got me thinking though, that Islam to me seems anti-libertarian generally and yet you are a libertarian muslim and that is fascinating to me.

I don't know why you seem to be impliying that there is some kind of contradiction. Some things just so happen to be approved by both religion and libertarianism alike. So what?

Would you also embrace the libertarian view that such acts as sodomy, marijuana, prostitution, self mutilation, etc should not be attacked by the state so long as they are kept out of the inter-public and done in the privacy of one's home?

Sharia law only affects matters of public behaviour, not domestic behaviour in the privacy of PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is because under Sharia law trespass is not permissible. Under Islam one needs to gain permission to enter your property. So basically if someone actually wished to indulge in these illegal activities, who's simply going to KNOW anyway?

[Karl]

Of course the state should interfere if a child is being abused in ALL forms.

As I said to Pygoscellis, I regard that as simply none of your or anyone elses business if you are meaning to imply it towards me and my own offspring. PERIOD.

Subhallah, imagine a child being sexually abused by her father.

He is the master of the house. She is his offspring, his biological property. Therefore that is his private prerogative if he so wishes. Personally I am not into incest, but if I DID happen to be into it, it would be NONE of anyones business whatsoever. And if they wanted to ever MAKE it their business then they would receive by me something that I will refrain from giving description to all the ghastly details of what I would do to them. Answer me this: Do you think the Taliban would be ones to bow down to your state authority if they were being threatened to have their offspring seized from them because of some apparent mistreatment of their offspring? I bet you they wouldn't! They too would fight you to the death.

Don’t worry let not get involved, the child belongs to him! Islam does not give a leeway for parents to abuse their children in any forms.

Prove it then. You obviously are unaware that some sects and schools of Islam support my position and that there is an exemption when it comes to offspring! I would have never converted to Islam in the first place if I ever thought that that proviso was not included. Private property rights and the attached absolute parental authority are utterly sacred to me and I would never give that up for anything in the world.

Children are human beings, and they are entitled to taken care of by their parents. But if the parents abuse their position it should be absolutely the authority business. why shouldnt it be?

Because as far as I'm concerned my offspring have no inherent connection to you or to your society. I put a very heavy emphasis on clan, I am not a collectivist or a monogenist. So another part of my fundamental reason for this is that I object to different species of hominid laying judgement on what I do in my private affairs and how I raise my own biological offspring. I don't regard a different species of hominid to have the inherent right to judge how I conduct my private affairs. They have no more right to judge me than I have any right to judge a rhinosaurus which I deem to be mistreating its own offspring.

Children are not toys.

I don't care if you wish to speak that on behalf of your own offspring. Just don't speak on behalf of MINE. That is a no go zone for you, sorry. *I* will be the one to decide such matters, not you.

[nousername]

You are an absolutely disgusting man. saying a CHILD should suffer sexual abuse at the hands of his/her own father or other realative. in Islam he would be be sentensed to death for this. So those pervs who like to take pics of themselves abusing their own children then posting it on the net for other pervs to see is ok for you? those kids shouldn't be rescued from this situation, or any other sexual assult?

[Trumble]

Private property rights and the attached absolute parental authority are utterly sacred to me and I would never give that up for anything in the world.

Children are NOT 'property', they are a responsibility. I you really hold the attitudes you have presented, may I seriously suggest you seek psychiatric help before somebody gets hurt and/or you get locked up? You are sick.

[nousername]

I don't want the above member to give the impression to nonMuslims that incest is "allowed" and should be "tolerated". this is the Islamic perspective:

This is Islamqa.com fatwa regarding those that molest relatives:

Undoubtedly what your uncle did is a crime that deserves punishment in this world and torment in the Hereafter. Many people’s religious conscience has been weakened by what they see and read, which provokes their desire, so they fulfil their desires in ways that Allaah has forbidden. One of the most abhorrent and evil examples of that is incest between a man and his mahrams (female relatives to whom marriage is forbidden), which is deserving of a severe punishment in the Hereafter.

a question about a father molesting his daughter
Praise be to Allaah. Firstly:
Undoubtedly what the husband did to this small child – if it is proven – is a serous crime, for which he deserves to be stoned to death. Perhaps such incidents indicate how far such scum are from the laws of Allaah. Hence the Muslim should be careful with regard to marriage, and he should be caution and be careful about letting female relatives of the wife be alone with people who are weak in faith, even if they are small.



and also

What is the hadd punishment for incest? Can there be any repentance from that?.

Praise be to Allaah. Firstly:
Zina with a mahram relative is a graven sin that zina with a non-mahram, because it is severing the ties of kinship, and an act of aggression against those with whom we are enjoined to uphold ties of kinship. Hence some of the scholars are of the view that the one who commits zina with a mahram should be executed in all cases, whether he was married or unmarried. This was narrated from Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him). The majority are of the view that he should be subjected to the hadd punishment; so if he was married he should be stoned and if he was not married he should be given one hundred lashes, even though his sin is greater.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Karl, maybe you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you're real agenda is? are you an apostate by any chance?

[Ramadhan]

Children are NOT 'property', they are a responsibility. I you really hold the attitudes you have presented, may I seriously suggest you seek psychiatric help before somebody gets hurt and/or you get locked up? You are sick.

This is one of those very rare opportunities that I totally agree with you.

[Karl]

You are an absolutely disgusting man. saying a CHILD should suffer sexual abuse at the hands of his/her own father or other realative.

"Sexual abuse"... what a very Islamic cliche THAT is, how UN-feminazi! LOOOOOOL!!! Ummm, btw where did I say they "SHOULD" suffer at the hands of their father??? I never said that. Read what I said CLOSER. I said that in such a case that DID by any chance happen that it is simply no business of any other creature on earth. It is purely up to Allah to judge that as far as I am concerned. I am a stauch subscriber to PATRIA POTESTAS (the absolute power of the father). You will never ever break my pride and spirit.

in Islam he would be be sentensed to death for this.

Not under some jurisdictions. Shafi'i school of thought, for example.

So those pervs who like to take pics of themselves abusing their own children then posting it on the net for other pervs to see is ok for you?

It is simply NONE of my business to begin with. It is purely of the parents prerogative. Nothing to do with me nor you nor any other busybody commie. It's as simple as that.

those kids shouldn't be rescued from this situation, or any other sexual assult?

NO absolutely NOT. Now I know to some this might sound like "trolling", but I truly and staunchly hold my position of absolute parental authority. So if I hold this position, how can I therefore possibly agree with busybody socialist violation of my absolute parental authority position ?? I simply CAN'T. Of the worldy level, my offspring are completely MY property and I shall raise them by what ever way I see fit!! How I raise them is NOT your business. I can't believe the utter audacity and arrogance of some of you here. And just because anyone declares that their offspring are 100% their property does NOT automatically denote that they wish to actually harm them. To interpret my absolute parental authority position as automatically meaning that would be utterly naive and ridiculously presumptuous!

[Karl]

Children are NOT 'property',

Ok yours aren't, but MINE ARE. Got that?

they are a responsibility.

Yes mine are my responsibility alone, not yours.

I you really hold the attitudes you have presented, may I seriously suggest you seek psychiatric help

No I won't take your most kind suggestion. I am fully confident in my position and utterly inexorable on it. So you are completely wasting your time if you think you can convert me to your ways.

before somebody gets hurt and/or you get locked up?

What?? Where did I ever say that I had intentions of harm??? WHERE did I say that?? Locked up? So now even just holding my mere VIEW is a crime as well??? You crack me up completely.

You are sick.

You are just jealous that I have pride and will stand up against the busybody socialist hordes who would aggress my absolute parental authority. And you are their servile slave. Don't blame me for subordinating yourself to them.;D

[Karl]

Karl, maybe you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you're real agenda is?

No agenda at all. Just merely stating my inexorable position of my 100% parental authority and that I would never tolerate my absolute authority being aggressed by my enemies (no matter how "good" they might claim their cause to be). And I would defend my inherent parental authority to the DEATH if I have to. So yes, no "agenda", just a firm position.

are you an apostate by any chance?

No. Are you suggesting for me to do that because of my Patria Potestas position that I utterly refuse to give up?

[جوري]

No agenda at all. Just merely stating my inexorable position of my 100% parental authority and that I would never tolerate my absolute authority being aggressed by my enemies (no matter how "good" they might claim their cause to be). And I would defend my inherent parental authority to the DEATH if I have to. So yes, no "agenda", just a firm position.


:w:

No. Are you suggesting for me to do that because of my Patria Potestas position that I utterly refuse to give up?

:sl:

you should know that the Islamic position, that of the prophet from his hadith, is that you should play with them for 7, teach and discipline 7 and then befriend them.. nowhere in there does it say that they are property of you, in fact we all belong to Allah swt

[Karl]

:sl:

you should know that the Islamic position, that of the prophet from his hadith, is that you should play with them for 7, teach and discipline 7 and then befriend them.. nowhere in there does it say that they are property of you, in fact we all belong to Allah swt

Yes I agree that on the bigger scheme of things we are all property of Allah swt. All life on earth and the universe belongs to Allah swt. However, even though Islamic position might not have said that offspring are the worldy property of parents, on the same token neither did it say that offspring AREN'T the worldy property soley of the parents as well.

Also prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was known for his PERSUASIVE approach (rather than a threatening gun to the head approach) towards parents he deemed to be harsh or mistreating of their offspring. For example Zaide helped a family out financially and persuaded a father not to kill his daughter because he couldn't afford to feed her. This diplomatic approach by Zaide, instead of being DEFIED by the father was met instead by his greatest APPRECIATION for Zaide's help. It tends to be human nature to be receptive towards persuasion, but hostile and defiant against antagonism and threats.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

No. Are you suggesting for me to do that because of my Patria Potestas position that I utterly refuse to give up?

no because the posts that i have thus far read from yours, seem to reek of the typical "trollism" traits.

you are just really ignorant or you are a troll trying to make Islam look bad by stubbornly defending your stance.

[Rhubarb Tart]

As I said to Pygoscellis, I regard that as simply none of your or anyone elses business if you are meaning to imply it towards me and my own offspring. PERIOD.



He is the master of the house. She is his offspring, his biological property. Therefore that is his private prerogative if he so wishes. Personally I am not into incest, but if I DID happen to be into it, it would be NONE of anyones business whatsoever. And if they wanted to ever MAKE it their business then they would receive by me something that I will refrain from giving description to all the ghastly details of what I would do to them. Answer me this: Do you think the Taliban would be ones to bow down to your state authority if they were being threatened to have their offspring seized from them because of some apparent mistreatment of their offspring? I bet you they wouldn't! They too would fight you to the death.




Prove it then. You obviously are unaware that some sects and schools of Islam support my position and that there is an exemption when it comes to offspring! I would have never converted to Islam in the first place if I ever thought that that proviso was not included. Private property rights and the attached absolute parental authority are utterly sacred to me and I would never give that up for anything in the world.




Because as far as I'm concerned my offspring have no inherent connection to you or to your society. I put a very heavy emphasis on clan, I am not a collectivist or a monogenist. So another part of my fundamental reason for this is that I object to different species of hominid laying judgement on what I do in my private affairs and how I raise my own biological offspring. I don't regard a different species of hominid to have the inherent right to judge how I conduct my private affairs. They have no more right to judge me than I have any right to judge a rhinosaurus which I deem to be mistreating its own offspring.




I don't care if you wish to speak that on behalf of your own offspring. Just don't speak on behalf of MINE. That is a no go zone for you, sorry. *I* will be the one to decide such matters, not you.

Disgusting!!!!!!! And why shouldn’t I get involved? Any human being with sick attitude like yours should be corrected.
Subhallah, now you making the father of the house into God himself! I don’t give a flying monkeys who is the master. That still does not mean he is allowed to abuse his children. Your stance is horrific.

Yes I am aware of some sect and schools; no wonder Yemen and Saudi government policies are abhorrent. But does that mean it is correct?

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...an-lateef.html

Child abuse is forbidden in Islam. Islam teaches love and affection ... I quote the hadith in which the Prophet SAW narrated "show respect to your elders and affection to your youngers" and the one in which a man who witnessed the Prophet SAW showing affetcion to children, approached the Prophet and sai "o Prophet I have ten children (please forgive me if i have quoted wrongly and let m kno ) ten children and i have neva kissd them (or shown affection to them in any way)The Prophet SAW was displeased at this and advised the Sahaba that shower your love on your children. The Prophet himself was full of love affection and patience amongst young AND old.
We must also remember tyhat it is a fathers duty to discipline his children and give them the correct tarbiyat so they grow to be beautiful practical muslims. He must do this with love and affection, and show understandin and patience towards his children. But there may come a time when a child's actions and ways need correction, he must try his best not to resort to violence. In no circumstance should heavy extreme beating of a child be allowed. But a not so severe (lightly) smackd bottom allows a child to realise they have done wrong. And a father will not be held to answer for smacking his child (when its not in the extreme) whereas he will be held to account if he does not discipline his child and give him tarbiyat.
Allahu A'lam

How the parents take of the child later depends how the child lives and contributes in society. There is connection and always will be.
If a father is abusing his child sexually, physically and emotionally then that child later grows up to think that was okay. There is higher chance the child will do the same to others or become disruptive and abnormal individual amongst us. It is absolutely authority business.

Your stance along with some of Yemeni cleric stance is completely vile.

[Karl]

no because the posts that i have thus far read from yours, seem to reek of the typical "trollism" traits.

That is a completely unfair and subjective accusation. I could say the same thing about a great many trolls and imposters who post here, but I can tell you I am definately NOT one of them.

you are just really ignorant or you are a troll trying to make Islam look bad by stubbornly defending your stance.

So you think defending a personal stance stubbornly is the sign of a troll?? Trolls certainly don't support Patria Potestas, Trolls attack Islam. I don't attack Islam, I instead attack those who would dare aggress my absolute parental authority position. I don't consider that trolling. And sorry if you think it is. A troll makes inane platitudinous attacks against Islamic conventions-- their typical catch cries being "the veil is a violation of woman's rights, and such and such was a warlord, rapist and killer...all that sort of stuff). I fight against those slanderers. Please never get the idea that I am somhow linked to them. Those despicable scoundrels make me sick and I would fight them to the death probably with more determination than even you would.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Karl
You are horrendous! And you need a slap several times over!

[Pygoscelis]

Guys, please stop with the insults towards Karl. He has his view and its a unique and interesting one and though I completely disagree with it I'm enjoying the opportunity to explore his mind on this. Woodrow has already cleaned this discussion out once due to people emoting and mudslinging.

Karl, what do you say to the opposite of parental authority? Would you wish the state to interfere to protect parents from their children? What if a family lives together until the children are adults and the parents are old and the children then abuse the parents?

[Rhubarb Tart]

Imagine what the country would be like if it was to be controlled by people like Karl...

Would a child in this country be safe?

Would a woman in this country be safe?

Would elderly in this country be safe?

Would a vulnerable disabled adult be safe?

I doubt it.

Karl, what do you say to the opposite of parental authority? Would you wish the state to interfere to protect parents from their children? What if a family lives together until the children are adults and the parents are old and the children then abuse the parents?

Good question, I bet he would say a complete different answer to this as the children are not head of the house like a father is.

[aamirsaab]

Erm all of this is irrelevant. Like 4 pages worth.

You know what time it is?

CHICO TIME. Nah I'm just kidding, it's actually thread locking time.