France's ban on burqas, niqabs takes effect

[Ansariyah]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/eu...ban/index.html

[Ummu Sufyaan]

i heard about this...it just broke my heart :(

[Ali Mujahidin]

:sl:

Personally, I feel that a Muslim woman in France should wear a burqa in public so that the ban can be challenged in a court of law. Offhand, I would say she can build her defense on the following points:

1. There is no evidence to prove that wearing a burqa is a threat to security.

2. There is no evidence to prove that not wearing a burqa is a guarantee of not being a threat to security.

3. Banning the burqa is an infringement on personal practice of religion.

4. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa has any impact on other people's liberty to practice their own personal choice of religion.

5. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa is the result of coercion ie there is no evidence that a woman is forced against her will to wear a burqa.

I hope that there are some brothers or sisters here who can convey this idea to our Muslim brethren in France. I am sure there must be Muslims all over the world who are prepared to contribute to a war chest to take this case to court.

In the meantime, let us all beg Allah to give our Muslim brethren in France the strength to stand up for their right to practice Islam. Ameen, ameen, ameen ya Rabbil alamin alhamduliLLahi Rabbil alamin.

[Trumble]

Personally, I feel that a Muslim woman in France should wear a burqa in public so that the ban can be challenged in a court of law. Offhand, I would say she can build her defense on the following points:

1. There is no evidence to prove that wearing a burqa is a threat to security.

2. There is no evidence to prove that not wearing a burqa is a guarantee of not being a threat to security.

3. Banning the burqa is an infringement on personal practice of religion.

4. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa has any impact on other people's liberty to practice their own personal choice of religion.

5. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa is the result of coercion ie there is no evidence that a woman is forced against her will to wear a burqa.

While I agree with your sentiment that this ban is both a restriction of personal freedom, and utterly ludicrous, I'm afraid none of that would constitute a 'defence' for an individual. In that instance the role of the Court is solely to decide if the defendent is guilty of breaking the law as it stands, not assessing whether the law itself is reasonable. Higher Courts can sometimes assess whether a law acted as legistators intended in a particular instance, and reverse decisions if they judge it did not, but here there seems little doubt as to the politicians' intentions.

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

[Ali Mujahidin]

:sl:

Update:

Looks like our Muslim brethren in France have already started fighting for their right to practice Islam. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397

Does anyone know where I can send a donation to their war chest?

[Danah]

Is that the "freedom" and "liberty" Western countries always bragging about? <_<

I can't imagine how sad our sisters there will be!

[GuestFellow]

I wonder how the European Court of Human Rights might respond to this...

[Fivesolas]

The question to me is if the law violates the constitution of France. If it is in accordance with their laws, then the citizens of France need to work towards greater religious freedom.

[Sol Invictus]

i don't quite believe that this is an attack on the religious freedom of muslims and if i recall this correctly, the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. as far as i know, one can still wear the hijab in public (except for in schools) and this is what is crucial in islam (correct me if i'm wrong) and not the burqa. that said, not everyone will be happy with this decision (and personally i don't mind it all that much as long as they also haven't banned women from wearing the hijab) and that is to be expected. one of the most pleasing things about a truly free society is the fact that its constituents have the ability to demonstrate in order to change legislation.

Is that the "freedom" and "liberty" Western countries always bragging about?

now, now, on the whole the west is pretty good with balancing the rights of individuals with the legislation they pass so it would be somewhat wrong to pretend that people are being persecuted here. the fact is, i'd much rather live in the west where i have considerably more freedoms than i'd have in most of the middle east. all this to say, if this one instance is enough to bring into question the whole foundation of the west, then conversely, the many human rights violations within the middle east should make us far more worried about these governments than whatever the state of france has passed.

[Salafi1407]

i don't quite believe that this is an attack on the religious freedom of muslims and if i recall this correctly, the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. as far as i know, one can still wear the hijab in public (except for in schools) and this is what is crucial in islam (correct me if i'm wrong) and not the burqa. that said, not everyone will be happy with this decision (and personally i don't mind it all that much as long as they also haven't banned women from wearing the hijab) and that is to be expected. one of the most pleasing things about a truly free society is the fact that its constituents have the ability to demonstrate in order to change legislation.


now, now, on the whole the west is pretty good with balancing the rights of individuals with the legislation they pass so it would be somewhat wrong to pretend that people are being persecuted here. the fact is, i'd much rather live in the west where i have considerably more freedoms than i'd have in most of the middle east. all this to say, if this one instance is enough to bring into question the whole foundation of the west, then conversely, the many human rights violations within the middle east should make us far more worried about these governments than whatever the state of france has passed.

Mate, call me crazy but the way I see it, its yet another sick move in this worldwide war against Islam. I mean ok, even though I do not agree with the banning of the niqab I do get where they are coming from. They do have a point about being able to see the face etc for security reasons. I repeat I see the point but I do not agree with it. But then the question arises why ban the burka? Do the officials needs to see body figure of the woman as well for security reasons? Banning the niqab is one thing that can be argued, but banning the burka shows what this is really about.

Oh and what on earth have minarets ever done to harm Switzerland?

[GuestFellow]

i don't quite believe that this is an attack on the religious freedom of muslims

Of course it is. Hijab has been banned and now the Niqaab. Muslim women cannot practice Islam properly.

and if i recall this correctly, the french have styled this more along the lines of a security

There are only 2000 women that wear the Niqaab in France. The Niqaab itself attracts more attention rather than a disguise in western countries. So please do explain how this move to ban the Niqaab will make life safer for everyone.

now, now, on the whole the west is pretty good with balancing the rights of individuals with the legislation they pass so it would be somewhat wrong to pretend that people are being persecuted here.

The sister made a valid point. How is this ban compatible with religious freedom?

No one is claiming that Muslims are being persecuted.

[sur]

Q:24:31:And say thou unto the believing women that they shall lower their sights and guard their private parts and shall not disclose their adornment except that which appeareth thereof; and they shall draw their scarves over their bosoms; and shall not disclose their adornment except unto their husbands or their fathers or their husbands fathers or their sons or their husbands sons or their brothers or their brothers sons or their sisters sons or their Women or those whom their right hands own or male followers wanting in sex desire or children not acquainted with the privy parts of women; and they Shall not strike their feet so that there be known that which they hide of their adornment. And turn penitently unto Allah ye all, O ye believers, haply ye may thrive!


Q:33:59:O prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over themselves "عَلَيۡہِنَّ " (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (59)

Abu dawood:27:4092: Chapter : How much beauty can a woman display.

Narated By 'Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin : Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.

[Sol Invictus]

Of course it is. Hijab has been banned and now the Niqaab. Muslim women cannot practice Islam properly.

the hijab is banned in schools (along with all other religious paraphernalia), not in public nor private (though by public we mean outside the education system). for more on this, see my latter point concerning the similarities of this practise with those of middle eastern governments.

There are only 2000 women that wear the Niqaab in France. The Niqaab itself attracts more attention rather than a disguise in western countries. So please do explain how this move to ban the Niqaab will make life safer for everyone.

first off, here is my quote in full: the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. the matter of the number of people who actually wear the burka isn't that big of an issue for the point could quite easily be turned around to argue that if this were truly an attack on islam they would ban the hijab completely instead of going after the small number of individuals who wear the burqa (and even the smaller number of people who wear other things which restrict one from seeing the face of the other in public--such as ski masks etc.).

The sister made a valid point. How is this ban compatible with religious freedom?

i would think that seeing as the french have styled this as an issue of equality and security, they would see this as taking precedence over religious freedom in a not too dissimilar fashion that most muslim states would categorize proselytizing towards muslims as a security issue (i.e. sowing discord in the land) to warrant the death penalty on the accused even if banning proselytizing means that one cannot practise christianity perfectly. if the ban on the burqa is not in keeping with religious freedom (which might very well be the case) it is far more evident that the issue of religion within predominantly muslim lands is far more pressing. yet this topic doesn't quite relate to what we are in fact discussing and was only brought up to show one facet of the logic which could lead to such a decision by the french and how this self-same logic can be seen in predominantly muslim countries. whether this is good or bad is not necessarily the question and so far we are concerned only with the similarity.

No one is claiming that Muslims are being persecuted.

hmm, if the following does not evoke a sense of perceived persecution than we simply have different opinions on this subject:

Looks like our Muslim brethren in France have already started fighting for their right to practice Islam.

Mate, call me crazy but the way I see it, its yet another sick move in this worldwide war against Islam.

the question then becomes, can one attack islam without attacking muslims and if you answer yes on this then i suppose that this is all well and good but i for one would think that an attack on islam would be an attack on muslim and as such given the supposed "worldwide war against islam" one can only make the assumption which i had made. if we indeed are in agreement on this assumption than my point stands (this of course depends on whether you agree with me that an 'attack' on islam is an 'attack' on muslims).

Oh and what on earth have minarets ever done to harm Switzerland?

greetings salafi1407, correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think i spoke concerning minarets. if however you meant to get into a discussion on the minaret thing in switzerland then i certainly can't stop you but your sentence seemed to imply that i spoke a word concerning this issue when i did not.

[Ramadhan]

Well of course christians do not see it as an attack on religious practices.

Christians have long ago attacked and destroyed the practices of their own prophet Jesus (as) to the point where todays christians do not practice what Jesus (pbuh) taught and practiced.

[GuestFellow]

the hijab is banned in schools (along with all other religious paraphernalia), not in public nor private (though by public we mean outside the education system).

Yes, I'm aware. It means Muslim women cannot practice Islam properly in Islam. Therefore, religious freedom in France has been "attacked" or restricted. :/

i would think that seeing as the french have styled this as an issue of equality and security, they would see this as taking precedence over religious freedom in a not too dissimilar fashion that most muslim states would categorize proselytizing towards muslims as a security issue (i.e. sowing discord in the land) to warrant the death penalty on the accused. if the ban on the burqa is not in keeping with religious freedom (which might very well be the case) it is far more evident that the issue of religion within predominantly muslim lands is far more pressing. yet this topic doesn't quite relate to what we are in fact discussing and was only brought up to show one facet of the logic which could lead to such a decision by the french and how this self-same logic can be seen in predominantly muslim countries. whether this is good or bad is not necessarily the question and so far we are concerned only with the similarity.

I'm not sure what your talking about. o_o What other Muslim countries have to do with this issue?

Whatever it is your saying, it does not change the fact that some western countries do not truly believe in their own principles, such as human rights, democracy, freedom, etc.

hmm, if the following does not evoke a sense of perceived persecution than we simply have different opinions on this subject:

Guess I was wrong. :p:

[Sol Invictus]

I'm not sure what your talking about. o_o What other Muslim countries have to do with this issue?
Whatever it is your saying, it does not change the fact that some western countries do not truly believe in their own principles, such as human rights, democracy, freedom, etc.

greetings guestfellow, i brought out the issue of muslim countries to show how similar this logic really is and that the absolutely proper practise of religion does not seem to be the primary goal of the state when it sees this to be in conflict with the security of its constituents. the fact that rarely do i see muslims take issue with the ban of people of a different faith proselytizing to muslims makes me believe that muslims largely support this and as such i have drawn an appropriate comparison between the underlying logic between these. if one agrees with the logic of predominantly muslim countries then it would be inconsistent to somehow disagree with what is happening in france. because i believe that we all like to maintain some sense of consistency, i showed how the logic of the french is the same logic that most muslims accept when the matter of proselytizing in predominantly muslim lands comes up. so once more for clarity: it is not necessarily a case of what happens in 'muslim countries' (as i had said repeatedly) but rather of trying to show the logic behind the legislations in question for the fact that if you agree with one, you cannot necessarily (and broadly speaking) disagree with the other. so all that we are interested in is the matter of consistency.

if we accept the argument from consistency then we would be forced to accept your words and apply it to the islamic practise of banning the proselytizing of muslims as a travesty of human rights etc. and while i do believe this to be the case, these are your words (rather the outcome of your logic) and not mine.

one will note that naidamar's post also had to do with the matter of consistency (i.e. that it is perfectly consistent for christians not to see this as an infringement of religion given that they supposedly do not care about the pure practise of religion in the first place). so while his post makes a series of presuppositions that would need to be defended (yet this matter is for a different thread) before he could make his point, he has at the very least provided me with a good enough example to bolster my argument.

[Dagless]

the hijab is banned in schools (along with all other religious paraphernalia), not in public nor private (though by public we mean outside the education system). for more on this, see my latter point concerning the similarities of this practise with those of middle eastern governments.


first off, here is my quote in full: the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. the matter of the number of people who actually wear the burka isn't that big of an issue for the point could quite easily be turned around to argue that if this were truly an attack on islam they would ban the hijab completely instead of going after the small number of individuals who wear the burqa (and even the smaller number of people who wear other things which restrict one from seeing the face of the other in public--such as ski masks etc.).

Taking away human rights for security? Besides which there is no evidence that there will be increased security with the ban.

i would think that seeing as the french have styled this as an issue of equality and security, they would see this as taking precedence over religious freedom in a not too dissimilar fashion that most muslim states would categorize proselytizing towards muslims as a security issue (i.e. sowing discord in the land) to warrant the death penalty on the accused even if banning proselytizing means that one cannot practise christianity perfectly.

How does it encourage equality and security? and why are you comparing it with Muslim states? Are you saying taking away freedom is ok because another country does it?

if the ban on the burqa is not in keeping with religious freedom (which might very well be the case) it is far more evident that the issue of religion within predominantly muslim lands is far more pressing. yet this topic doesn't quite relate to what we are in fact discussing and was only brought up to show one facet of the logic which could lead to such a decision by the french and how this self-same logic can be seen in predominantly muslim countries.

Again this makes no sense. We are discussing France, not other countries. You could say North Korea has awful freedoms but that doesn't change the fact that France is supposedly a free country which has now taken away some freedoms.

if one agrees with the logic of predominantly muslim countries then it would be inconsistent to somehow disagree with what is happening in france. because i believe that we all like to maintain some sense of consistency, i showed how the logic of the french is the same logic that most muslims accept when the matter of proselytizing in predominantly muslim lands comes up. so once more for clarity: it is not necessarily a case of what happens in 'muslim countries' (as i had said repeatedly) but rather of trying to show the logic behind the legislations in question for the fact that if you agree with one, you cannot necessarily (and broadly speaking) disagree with the other. so all that we are interested in is the matter of consistency.

Well actually, yes you can. France is part of the EU which promotes itself as a free and democratic union with religious freedom for all. Therefore we hold it to those standards. Saudi Arabia has never said it is a democratic nation with religious freedom for every faith, so we have no reason to compare it with France.

[Sol Invictus]

How does it encourage equality and security? and why are you comparing it with Muslim states? Are you saying taking away freedom is ok because another country does it?

greetings dagless, please do read my post again because i specifically said that this hadn't necessarily to do with the matter of what happens in predominantly muslim countries but rather to show the similarity in logic and how this matter of the french can be understood and moreover not really be complained against if one also subscribes to the argument against proselytizing of muslims. i never in fact called the matter ok. i only recall mentioning how the french argued their position and drew a similarity with what most muslims seem to accept in the first place. the force of my argument is the issue of consistency for i only highlight that the french and muslims are functioning under the same logic and as such, one can't really criticize the other when both seem to subscribe to the same beliefs.

Again this makes no sense. We are discussing France, not other countries. You could say North Korea has awful freedoms but that doesn't change the fact that France is supposedly a free country which has now taken away some freedoms.

the matter of the muslim countries does enter the discussion given that this is a muslim board and the discussion was moved to the question of consistency and how this ban on the niqab and burqa can be understood and more importantly discussed given what most muslims seem to agree with.

Well actually, yes you can. France is part of the EU which promotes itself as a free and democratic union with religious freedom for all. Therefore we hold it to those standards. Saudi Arabia has never said it is a democratic nation with religious freedom for every faith, so we have no reason to compare it with France.

and this perhaps is your best point but it must first be said that i did not speak of saudi arabia and more importantly, we are speaking of human rights. if you agree with the practise of not allowing non-muslims to proselytize towards muslims then one would think that you would find some means of justifying this and certainly not claim that this is a human rights violation. if i am correct on this account, then the matter of consistency would invariably be brought up to show how, given your own beliefs, you could possibly truly decry the practise of the french. this is not too dissimilar to the atheist who would claim that there is no objective right or wrong but be quick to denounce anyone who steals from him as having committed an objective wrong against his person. once again what needs to be dealt with here is the matter of consistency. i will note that you do not actually tackle this presupposition and instead evade it. in your next post, could you speak more towards my argument based on consistency. so as a recap, this is not an issue of democracy but rather one of human rights (for a democracy need not necessarily be an exponent of a particular set of human rights etc.).

[Dagless]

and this perhaps is your best point but it must first be said that i did not speak of saudi arabia and more importantly, we are speaking of human rights.

Whichever country you were speaking of, the point remains the same.

if you believe that the practise of not allowing non-muslims to proselytize towards muslims then one would think that you would find some means of justifying this and certainly not claim that this is not a human rights violation. if i am correct on this account, then the matter of consistency would invariably be brought up to show how, given your own beliefs, you couldn't possibly truly decry the practise of the french.

You are not correct because you are not comparing things which are alike. If the French said 'we do not believe in religious freedom' then I would have no issue with the ban. The point is you cannot say one thing and do another.

this is not too dissimilar to the atheist who would claim that there is no objective right or wrong but be quick to denounce anyone who steals from him as having committed an objective wrong against his person. once again what needs to be dealt with here is the matter of consistency. i will note that you do not actually tackle this presupposition and instead evade it. in your next post, could you speak more towards my argument based on consistency. so as a recap, this is not an issue of democracy but rather one of human rights (for a democracy need not necessarily be an exponent of a particular set of human rights etc.).

It is an issue of saying one thing and doing another. You also cannot compare proselytizing and wearing the veil. Wearing the veil is necessary to practice the religion - it is a requirement for everyday life. Not proselytizing does not stop you practicing your religion - it is not a requirement for life. See the difference?

[Sol Invictus]

Whichever country you were speaking of, the point remains the same.

greetings dagless, you seem to not have read what i had written seeing as even in the very passage of mine that you cite i claimed that this discussion was inherently centered on human rights and not primarily the practices of various countries (yet given that we are speaking of human rights it is therefore impossible not to mention the concept of countries and as such your rebuttal does not work).

You are not correct because you are not comparing things which are alike. If the French said 'we do not believe in religious freedom' then I would have no issue with the ban. The point is you cannot say one thing and do another.

the point comes down to whether the practise of forbidding non-muslims to proselytize muslims is islamic or not. if it is then is this a violation of human rights? if yes then this leads to our discussion concerning consistency. if no, then this once more leads to our discussion concerning consistency. either way my point is made given that whichever options you choose, your presuppositions do not allow you to objectively condemn the french ruling.

It is an issue of saying one thing and doing another. You also cannot compare proselytizing and wearing the veil. Wearing the veil is necessary to practice the religion - it is a requirement for everyday life. Not proselytizing does not stop you practicing your religion - it is not a requirement for life. See the difference?

dagless, you have to read what it is that i'm responding to. the thread is concerned with the burqa (and the niqab). my points all rested on a discussion of the burqa (and the niqab) and as i understand it, neither the burqa nor the niqab are absolutely necessary to the practise of islam and as such your point does not work. furthermore, seeing as the matter of proselytizing was spoken of in regards to christianity, i would once again have to say that you are in error for proselytizing is a requirement of christianity and to ban the christian from engaging in this is to inhibit the full practise of his religion. so no, your point does not work.

once again, could you begin to speak of the matter of consistency within your next post?

[Sethi]

Sol Invictus,

Although I understand that proselytizing is a requirement within Christianity, I think it cannot be viewed as a self-regarding action, as it is by definition attempting to convert others to your world view. The wearing of the burqas or the niqabs is a more personal decision.

However, in a global discussion I do not think it is productive to counter one issue by pointing to another. France is a secular state that has no established religion, and freedom of religion has been guaranteed there since the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

They are going against their own values. That they would chose to go against their long standing values at this time, and against Islam, is worth note. Some Islamic nations may have different values and restrictions on freedom of religion, but that is probably best as its own topic.

Respectfully,
Sethi

[Dagless]

greetings dagless, you seem to not have read what i had written seeing as even in the very passage of mine that you cite i claimed that this discussion was inherently centered on human rights and not primarily the practices of various countries (yet given that we are speaking of human rights it is therefore impossible not to mention the concept of countries and as such your rebuttal does not work).

You quoted many times about Muslim countries, and I responded by giving Saudi as an example. You then said that you did not specify which country so I felt it necessary that you clarify which countries you meant. We are speaking of human rights only in relation to France. There is no point in comparing it with other countries because their records are not the issue.

the point comes down to whether the practise of forbidding non-muslims to proselytize muslims is islamic or not. if it is then is this a violation of human rights? if yes then this leads to our discussion concerning consistency. if no, then this once more leads to our discussion concerning consistency. either way my point is made given that whichever options you choose, your presuppositions do not allow you to objectively condemn the french ruling.

No it doesn't. That's crazy. They are 2 completely different things (which I mentioned in my last post but you don't seem to have read). It's like if someone is protesting about racism and you accuse them of being cruel to animals. The argument is completely invalid because it's not about the topic at hand. You are trying to shift focus away from the real topic - which is France and if they're taking away a freedom.

dagless, you have to read what it is that i'm responding to. the thread is concerned with the burqa (and the niqab). my points all rested on a discussion of the burqa (and the niqab) and as i understand it, neither the burqa nor the niqab are absolutely necessary to the practise of islam and as such your point does not work.

Wrong again. Some people believe it is a requirement. Therefore not wearing it would be a sin.

furthermore, seeing as the matter of proselytizing was spoken of in regards to christianity, i would once again have to say that you are in error for proselytizing is a requirement of christianity and to ban the christian from engaging in this is to inhibit the full practise of his religion. so no, your point does not work.

I thought the only rule was accepting Jesus. Please can you tell me where it says proselytizing is a requirement of Christianity? (ie. that it is a sin NOT to proselytize).

[Sethi]

I thought the only rule was accepting Jesus. Please can you tell me where it says proselytizing is a requirement of Christianity? (ie. that it is a sin NOT to proselytize).

As I child I spent a couple years as a couple years as a Lutheran (Christian Protestant), and I was taught that proselytizing was a requirement. I can't link the url yet, but wiki Religious_conversion#Responsibilities

Most Christians believe that proselytism, understood to be sharing the Gospel, in word or in deed, of Jesus Christ, is a responsibility of all Christians. According to the New Testament, Jesus commanded his disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations" [Matthew 28:19], generally known as the Great Commission.

I am not saying that there is an equivalency here, but offering to explain were Sol may be coming from with stating that it was a requirement for the Christian faith.

-Peace

[Sol Invictus]

greetings sethi,

Although I understand that proselytizing is a requirement within Christianity, I think it cannot be viewed as a self-regarding action, as it is by definition attempting to convert others to your world view. The wearing of the burqas or the niqabs is a more personal decision.

the issue of proselytizing was only brought about because it was claimed that what france was doing was inhibiting the pure practise of religion and thus i showed how what was typically understood as wholly right within islam also netted out to an prohibition in the pure practise of the religion of the other. this is not a discussion of what other countries are doing but rather about the logical grounding of those who would complain with the actions of france yet agree with the actions of the predominantly muslim states which subscribe to the same principles as employed by the french.

However, in a global discussion I do not think it is productive to counter one issue by pointing to another. France is a secular state that has no established religion, and freedom of religion has been guaranteed there since the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

i did not counter the issue by pointing to another for that would be a tu quoque. instead i showed how similar practises which muslims agreed with net out to exactly what france is doing. as such i then question the logical foundation for how the french could be questioned on this account by the muslim (and not whether what the french were doing was right or wrong). this is the issue of consistency. i'm not seeking to make a normative claim on the issue of the ruling but rather to question the presuppositions and foundations of those who question the actions of the french while actually holding the same views when it comes to certain other affairs (i.e. that of proselytizing in muslim lands). to this point, i gave the example of the atheist who claimed that no objective values existed but would later on claim that stealing from them was an objective wrong. we would first then have to question the basis on which the atheist could at all make such a claim. this is the same thing that i have done within this thread by showing how the muslim lacks the appropriate foundation for truly condemning the french (to which no response has been given other than to say that we should not focus on the underlying presuppositions which clearly show the french and the muslim to subscribe to the same ideology; in this regard at least).

They are going against their own values. That they would chose to go against their long standing values at this time, and against Islam, is worth note. Some Islamic nations may have different values and restrictions on freedom of religion, but that is probably best as its own topic.

you'll note that i have not made any claim on the part of the french except to show on what basis they rest their judgement. i then showed how the muslim position itself agrees with this judgement and then showed how, given the same foundation that the french state and the muslim condemnation on proselytizing rely on, the muslim cannot truly decry the practises of the french state without first showing how their beliefs are exempt from this. without such evidence, their claims would be inconsistent with their beliefs and they would be accused of hypocrisy. all that which i have done is really basic to any discussion(i.e. the analysis of one's presuppositions). i did not defend the actions of the french but rather engaged in a discussion in how at all the muslim could make the claims that they have made without being called hypocritical and all that i have been met with is posts to the effect that we should ignore this matter.

thanks for your post, it was a nice change in tone and i quite appreciate that.

You quoted many times about Muslim countries, and I responded by giving Saudi as an example. You then said that you did not specify which country so I felt it necessary that you clarify which countries you meant. We are speaking of human rights only in relation to France. There is no point in comparing it with other countries because their records are not the issue.

greetings dagless. read my posts again. i specifically mentioned over and over how the issue is not muslim countries but rather whether the muslim subscribes to this ideology (of disallowing proselytizing) which can best be seen in the example of muslim countries. you do not understand the argument in that you believe that my point deals with comparing muslim countries to france when my point actually deals with comparing the ideological reasons for why france is doing what it is and how these are completely similar to practises which the majority of muslims accept. if then both the french and the muslims work from the same foundation then how is it that you would be able to decry the actions of the french without showing yourself to be hypocritical (hence my example of the atheist who claimed that no objective values existed but turned around and said that he was objectively wronged when someone stole from him---this is an example of inconsistency). throughout your post you seem to not understand what my argument consists in and as such i hope that this has clarified my position.

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the point comes down to whether the practise of forbidding non-muslims to proselytize muslims is islamic or not. if it is then is this a violation of human rights? if yes then this leads to our discussion concerning consistency. if no, then this once more leads to our discussion concerning consistency. either way my point is made given that whichever options you choose, your presuppositions do not allow you to objectively condemn the french ruling.

No it doesn't. That's crazy. They are 2 completely different things (which I mentioned in my last post but you don't seem to have read). It's like if someone is protesting about racism and you accuse them of being cruel to animals. The argument is completely invalid because it's not about the topic at hand. You are trying to shift focus away from the real topic - which is France and if they're taking away a freedom.

once again you seem to not understand what i'm getting at. the problem is one of presuppositions and one's foundation for making the normative claims that they are making. you seem to think that i wish to start talking about muslim countries and the numerous human rights violations thereof when i am simply talking about the beliefs of muslims in general. you will notice that i have repeatedly made comparisons between the ideological foundation of the french as it comes to this legislation and the ideological foundation of the muslim and showed how they both are grounded on the same principle. if then both are grounded on the same principle and you agree with one, you cannot therefore agree with the other (unless you can show how these differ, which the participants within this thread have yet to do). this once again returns the discussion to the matter of consistency and not of what muslim countries do or don't do.

Wrong again. Some people believe it is a requirement. Therefore not wearing it would be a sin.

the fact that there is uncertainty as to whether or not this is a requirement does not hurt my point in the least. if this is a requirement then this only strengthens my point in that you argue that because it is a requirement, the french cannot base their argument on the issue of security and thus the legislation cannot pass yet you however would argue that even though that proselytizing is a requirement on the christian, the christian still cannot proselytize to muslims in muslim lands because this falls under the security clause of "sowing discord in the land". hence we see that your ideological basis and that of the french is completely the same and as such you cannot condemn the actions of the french and stay clear of the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy. this is the point of my post. i am not trying to vindicate or condemn the french rather before we could even engage in either, the proper form of an argument is to see whether one's presuppositions square off with one's claims for if they do not than they can't possibly make the series of normative claims that have been made within this thread.

I thought the only rule was accepting Jesus. Please can you tell me where it says proselytizing is a requirement of Christianity? (ie. that it is a sin NOT to proselytize).

now we are getting into a discussion on christianity and it is rather ironic that you would do so when you accuse me for supposedly changing the topic of the thread but anyway, you seem to not have much knowledge of christianity seeing as if we are to follow and accept the teachings of christ than we must engage in proselytizing:

"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” --- Matt. 28:16-20 NIV

so you are in fact wrong on this account as well. that said, i have been very explicit in what it is that my argument is actually about and i would quite like it if you could address this in your next post.

[Dagless]

greetings dagless. read my posts again. i specifically mentioned over and over how the issue is not muslim countries but rather whether the muslim subscribes to this ideology (of disallowing proselytizing) which can best be seen in the example of muslim countries. you do not understand the argument in that you believe that my point deals with comparing muslim countries to france when my point actually deals with comparing the ideological reasons for why france is doing what it is and how these are completely similar to practises which the majority of muslims accept. if then both the french and the muslims work from the same foundation then how is it that you would be able to decry the actions of the french without showing yourself to be hypocritical (hence my example of the atheist who claimed that no objective values existed but turned around and said that he was objectively wronged when someone stole from him---this is an example of inconsistency). throughout your post you seem to not understand what my argument consists in and as such i hope that this has clarified my position.

I have read your posts, and all I see is you trying to confuse a very simple issue. You keep mentioning proselytizing but fail to understand that it is a separate issue.

I'm going to make it very easy though. Let's hypothetically make it exactly the same issue and say Muslims do not allow Christians to wear a certain item of clothing in Muslims countries. People could STILL say "I agree that Christians cannot wear this item of clothing in a Muslim country but I disagree that Muslims cannot wear the veil in France". This is entirely acceptable because France follows a common set of laws for religious freedom. Whether any other country or belief does or not is irrelevant. Will it finally sink in?

once again you seem to not understand what i'm getting at. the problem is one of presuppositions and one's foundation for making the normative claims that they are making. you seem to think that i wish to start talking about muslim countries and the numerous human rights violations thereof when i am simply talking about the beliefs of muslims in general. you will notice that i have repeatedly made comparisons between the ideological foundation of the french as it comes to this legislation and the ideological foundation of the muslim and showed how they both are grounded on the same principle. if then both are grounded on the same principle and you agree with one, you cannot therefore agree with the other (unless you can show how these differ, which the participants within this thread have yet to do). this once again returns the discussion to the matter of consistency and not of what muslim countries do or don't do.

You fail to see that it's not a conflicting belief. One can agree with something not being allowed in a Muslim country yet disagree when it's not allowed in a supposedly free country. The reason for this is not hypocritical because it is only living up to what the country advertises itself as. You just can't have it both ways. Freedom in the EU is judged by it's own set of guidelines.

the fact that there is uncertainty as to whether or not this is a requirement does not hurt my point in the least. if this is a requirement then this only strengthens my point in that you argue that because it is a requirement, the french cannot base their argument on the issue of security and thus the legislation cannot pass yet you however would argue that even though that proselytizing is a requirement on the christian, the christian still cannot proselytize to muslims in muslim lands because this falls under the security clause of "sowing discord in the land". hence we see that your ideological basis and that of the french is completely the same and as such you cannot condemn the actions of the french and stay clear of the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy. this is the point of my post. i am not trying to vindicate or condemn the french rather before we could even engage in either, the proper form of an argument is to see whether one's presuppositions square off with one's claims for if they do not than they can't possibly make the series of normative claims that have been made within this thread.

It worries me that you can still miss the point. I hope there aren't too many like you. The argument of security has not been proven (especially since no other EU country has this law). Secondly, Sarkozy himself has always talked about French identity and stopping the oppression of women when talking about this law. I have never heard him mention security alone as a major motivator.

now we are getting into a discussion on christianity and it is rather ironic that you would do so when you accuse me for supposedly changing the topic of the thread but anyway, you seem to not have much knowledge of christianity seeing as if we are to follow and accept the teachings of christ than we must engage in proselytizing:

"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” --- Matt. 28:16-20 NIV

so you are in fact wrong on this account as well. that said, i have been very explicit in what it is that my argument is actually about and i would quite like it if you could address this in your next post.

I'm not sure how I'm wrong since I only asked you to back up what you said. Well it looks like every Christian I know is sinning. I'll have to remember to remind them. Regardless, the argument is invalid for the reasons mentioned earlier.

I'll leave it here since it's only us responding in this thread and I feel I've made my points very clear and your replies only have me repeating them.

[abdullah_001]

:sl:

If it were me I would migrate to an Islamic state asap. Usually when the government itself prohibits moral values things tend to get bad really fast. I would feel concerned for the imaan of the Muslim women there.

:sl:

[Trumble]

The question to me is if the law violates the constitution of France.

I believe that has already been tested, and it doesn't.

I mean ok, even though I do not agree with the banning of the niqab I do get where they are coming from. They do have a point about being able to see the face etc for security reasons. I repeat I see the point but I do not agree with it. But then the question arises why ban the burka? Do the officials needs to see body figure of the woman as well for security reasons? Banning the niqab is one thing that can be argued, but banning the burka shows what this is really about.

Actually, I'm afraid the answer to your second-to-last sentence is arguably 'yes'. Men (both terrorists and, indeed journalists - although I think we can assume the latter are not the issue) have used the burka as a disguise in the past.

Personally, although I am opposed to this ban, I would support it (and in the UK) in two areas only, nursing children and teaching young children. In both instances it is essential that kids are not denied the huge amount of additional information, and/or comfort that can be provided by facial expressions.

If it were me I would migrate to an Islamic state asap. Usually when the government itself prohibits moral values things tend to get bad really fast. I would feel concerned for the imaan of the Muslim women there.

As has been pointed out, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here. I'm struggling to think of any 'Islamic state' that prohibits fewer 'moral values' (which isn't really an accurate phrase here anyway) than does France. It just depends whose 'moral values' they are, and that generally tends to go hand-in-hand with "tyranny of the majority", as J S Mill put it, wherever you are.

[abdullah_001]

As has been pointed out, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here. I'm struggling to think of any 'Islamic state' that prohibits fewer 'moral values' (which isn't really an accurate phrase here anyway) than does France. It just depends whose 'moral values' they are, and that generally tends to go hand-in-hand with "tyranny of the majority", as J S Mill put it, wherever you are.

First of all, my post wasn't intended towards you but towards any Muslims living in France so as to give them sincere advice. Second, I'm not even sure what you mean by "Fewer 'moral values'", unless you really mean immoral values to which I'd have to ask what is the point of you even pointing this out. I didn't say Muslims should leave the country because other people are permitted to do immoral acts, I said Muslims should leave France because they can't practice their religion. As far as the subjectivity of moral values goes, it should be very clear that the criteria for my moral value is the Qur'an and the Hadith since my advice was given to other Muslims.

Lastly, your entire point is moot since you're arguing moral values being subjective varying with people while my gauge is the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I'm not even sure why you replied to my post.

[Sol Invictus]

have read your posts, and all I see is you trying to confuse a very simple issue. You keep mentioning proselytizing but fail to understand that it is a separate issue.

I'm going to make it very easy though. Let's hypothetically make it exactly the same issue and say Muslims do not allow Christians to wear a certain item of clothing in Muslims countries. People could STILL say "I agree that Christians cannot wear this item of clothing in a Muslim country but I disagree that Muslims cannot wear the veil in France". This is entirely acceptable because France follows a common set of laws for religious freedom. Whether any other country or belief does or not is irrelevant. Will it finally sink in?

you have once more ignored my argument. the matter i am arguing is on what basis you can condemn the practises of the french given that both you and the french state subscribe to the same ideology. you once again wrongly assume that i'm making any normative claims on the legislation passed by the french. rather i am asking you to provide a logical basis for why your comments do not show you to be inconsistent and hypocritical.

It worries me that you can still miss the point. I hope there aren't too many like you. The argument of security has not been proven (especially since no other EU country has this law). Secondly, Sarkozy himself has always talked about French identity and stopping the oppression of women when talking about this law. I have never heard him mention security alone as a major motivator.

oh dear, it does not matter whether this is proven or not (seeing as we haven't even begun to talk about whether france is right or not) but rather how their argument is extremely similar to the argument that muslims themselves admit when it comes to their position on the proselytizing of muslims on the part of non-muslims. i could be accused of missing the point if i had decided to defend the french (though this again could be debated) but not when i am drawing a contrast with your very own beliefs to show how you do not possess the moral credibility to truly condemn what the french are doing given that you yourself adhere to the same ideology. once again, you must first show how it isn't inconsistent and hypocritical for you to condemn the french and not whether the french are right or wrong. i have repeatedly said that this is my argument and seeing as you wish to want to respond to me properly, hopefully you will respond to this in your next post.

[Trumble]

Lastly, your entire point is moot since you're arguing moral values being subjective varying with people while my gauge is the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Like it or not, moral values are subjective whatever your or anybody else's gauge of them may or may not be. We don't have to look any further than this particular case for an example. This ban will apparently effect some 2,000 women. Presumably, as the other 2.5 million or so muslim women in France do not wear burka or niqab, there is a difference in opinion on values even without straying from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

[abdullah_001]

Like it or not, moral values are subjective whatever your or anybody else's gauge of them may or may not be. We don't have to look any further than this particular case for an example. This ban will apparently effect some 2,000 women. Presumably, as the other 2.5 million or so muslim women in France do not wear burka or niqab, there is a difference in opinion on values even without straying from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

You are still missing the point entirely. My reply was to your statement, "It just depends whose 'moral values' they are...". My first post was intended towards other Muslims hence why I said my criteria was the Qur'an and the Sunnah when you said morals are subjective. Get it? Morals might be subjective but when I'm talking to other Muslims our morals are same through the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

And why would I even argue about morals being subjective? That's just common sense.

[Zuzubu]

Tunisia, Turkey, France, Denmark, what's next?

[Trumble]

Get it? Morals might be subjective but when I'm talking to other Muslims our morals are same through the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

I'm afraid the only thing I 'get', I'm afraid, is that you seem to neglecting to read what you quoted. The topic of this thread illustrates clearly that 'your' morals are NOT always the same . The vast majority of muslim women in France feel no moral obligation to wear burka or niqab. Some do. Hence there is a clear moral difference. Obviously, the vast majority would support the right of women to wear them if they choose, but everyone here agrees with that muslim or not.

[Ramadhan]

I'm afraid the only thing I 'get', I'm afraid, is that you seem to neglecting to read what you quoted. The topic of this thread illustrates clearly that 'your' morals are NOT always the same . The vast majority of muslim women in France feel no moral obligation to wear burka or niqab. Some do. Hence there is a clear moral difference. Obviously, the vast majority would support the right of women to wear them if they choose, but everyone here agrees with that muslim or not.

niqab or hijab is a matter of fiqh, not moral values.

But of course, you would not understand, although you will pretend you do and will say it's all the same.

[abdullah_001]

I'm afraid the only thing I 'get', I'm afraid, is that you seem to neglecting to read what you quoted. The topic of this thread illustrates clearly that 'your' morals are NOT always the same . The vast majority of muslim women in France feel no moral obligation to wear burka or niqab. Some do. Hence there is a clear moral difference. Obviously, the vast majority would support the right of women to wear them if they choose, but everyone here agrees with that muslim or not.

Yes, the Muslims have a common code which commands and guides what is right and what is wrong. Regardless of what some Muslim (or non-Muslim) women may or may not think, the moral values of Muslims are not based on opinions of people but rather on the divine revelation of God Almighty and the teachings/actions of the final messenger (pbuh). Some Muslims might smoke cigarettes but that doesn't imply it is okay for all Muslims to smoke cigarettes because our distinction of what is right and what is wrong is not based the opinions of people but it is based of what God Almighty has decreed as right and wrong for us.

At this point, I think you are just arguing for the sake of the argument.

[Trumble]

niqab or hijab is a matter of fiqh, not moral values.

Perhaps you might direct that to abdullah_001, who seems to disagree? I'm not 'pretending' anything, although I do find it curious you do not consider whether or not to comply a moral issue. But of course, no doubt I just don't understand.

Yes, the Muslims have a common code which commands and guides what is right and what is wrong. Regardless of what some Muslim (or non-Muslim) women may or may not think, the moral values of Muslims are not based on opinions of people but rather on the divine revelation of God Almighty and the teachings/actions of the final messenger (pbuh). Some Muslims might smoke cigarettes but that doesn't imply it is okay for all Muslims to smoke cigarettes because our distinction of what is right and what is wrong is not based the opinions of people but it is based of what God Almighty has decreed as right and wrong for us.

I'm sorry, but if fiqh is not based on the matter of opinions of people, then what is it? The fact the sources are the same (and in the case of hadith, even that isn't necessarily true) does not mean interpretations are the same, and what are differening interpretations but different opinions?

At this point, I think you are just arguing for the sake of the argument.

At this point you just don't seem to have an argument! So we had perhaps best leave it there.

[ansar.tajudeen]

:sl:

Personally, I feel that a Muslim woman in France should wear a burqa in public so that the ban can be challenged in a court of law. Offhand, I would say she can build her defense on the following points:

1. There is no evidence to prove that wearing a burqa is a threat to security.

2. There is no evidence to prove that not wearing a burqa is a guarantee of not being a threat to security.

3. Banning the burqa is an infringement on personal practice of religion.

4. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa has any impact on other people's liberty to practice their own personal choice of religion.

5. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa is the result of coercion ie there is no evidence that a woman is forced against her will to wear a burqa.

I hope that there are some brothers or sisters here who can convey this idea to our Muslim brethren in France. I am sure there must be Muslims all over the world who are prepared to contribute to a war chest to take this case to court.

In the meantime, let us all beg Allah to give our Muslim brethren in France the strength to stand up for their right to practice Islam. Ameen, ameen, ameen ya Rabbil alamin alhamduliLLahi Rabbil alamin.

Asalamualaikum bro,

I agree with your nice statement,jazak allah hairun for sharing with us .

[smile]

can't even wear MASKs
what they gonna do at halloween
lol

thank god everyday i live in Afirca

[Danah]

31 posts after my last post? I don't think that I can read everything posted after my last post because I need to leave now, so I might repeat what others said above. Sorry about that.

I know its permissible somewhere in Europe to be almost naked in public!! not only that, but also in some "public" swimming pool on Germany, I have been told that they are okay with people there totally naked +o(
forgive me for this word but this is just reminding me of "animals" who are like that!

So why they don't permit people to be totally covered?
Forget about the religious reasons now, I wonder if any person in Europe wear some odd custom and walk on the street painting their faces like ghosts or something claiming that they are following some kind of crazy "fashion"!! I wonder if anyone will talk to them....

What kind of contradicted world we are living in?

One funny thing in this whole issue!! its when they say: "women are not allowed to wear niqab in public"
in public???? who on earth said that we wear niqab in our home when there is no strange men are around? Niqab is only meant to be wore on public where there will be non-mahram men (those who are not relating to woman like father, son, uncle, husband...etc)


oh and lets not forget that this is not surprising from a man whose wife had a nude portrait photo for her available in auction. So I am kinda understanding the inferiority complex this man have!

[mammyluty]

31 posts after my last post? I don't think that I can read everything posted after my last post because I need to leave now, so I might repeat what others said above. Sorry about that.

I know its permissible somewhere in Europe to be almost naked in public!! not only that, but also in some "public" swimming pool on Germany, I have been told that they are okay with people there totally naked +o(
forgive me for this word but this is just reminding me of "animals" who are like that!

So why they don't permit people to be totally covered?
Forget about the religious reasons now, I wonder if any person in Europe wear some odd custom and walk on the street painting their faces like ghosts or something claiming that they are following some kind of crazy "fashion"!! I wonder if anyone will talk to them....

What kind of contradicted world we are living in?

One funny thing in this whole issue!! its when they say: "women are not allowed to wear niqab in public"
in public???? who on earth said that we wear niqab in our home when there is no strange men are around? Niqab is only meant to be wore on public where there will be non-mahram men (those who are not relating to woman like father, son, uncle, husband...etc)


oh and lets not forget that this is not surprising from a man whose wife had a nude portrait photo for her available in auction. So I am kinda understanding the inferiority complex this man have!

asalam alaikum sister,


so true wat u wrote......they cant c how they behave themselves...are they going to arrest the nuns as well for wearing wat they where?or the jews?

and how is not wearing the niqab going to make identification easier in the public?even if i wasnt wearing a niqab in the streets y would a stranger want to know my identity?almost all people walking in the streets dont even know each other!.hws niqab a threat to security.i have never heard a niqabi shop lifting or robing a bank or pick pocketting.

MAY ALLAH GRANT THE SISTERS IN FRANCE A BLANKET OF PROTECTION AND KEEP THEM FIRM UPON TAWHEED.AMIN

[Predator]

I know its permissible somewhere in Europe to be almost naked in public!! not only that, but also in some "public" swimming pool on Germany, I have been told that they are okay with people there totally naked +o(forgive me for this word but this is just reminding me of "animals" who are like that!

!

Those are nude beaches . There are plenty of them in the world .

These animals have a problem with our sister dressing up like Mary the mother of their "God" Jesus but are ok to allow public nudity and so we are officially in the season of Bikini Christianity, and Muslims are targeted for not dressing sexually like the followers of Paul, and the Western society. Christianity has given birth to the social corruptions by offering a "free ticket to Heaven". There is no other explanation for the high rate of crime, murder, rape, and fornication. All of these evils destroy the possibility of world peace, and the reason why Christians sin because they believe Jesus "died for their sins". The Christian women are commanded to dress modestly in accordance with Biblical teachings (1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3-4)


I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, (1Timothy 2:9)

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. (1Peter 3:3-4)


Islam is the religion that prevents rape; it upholds the dignity and honor of women by commanding them to cover themselves. Women in Islam are not oppressed, but only the Christian women are oppressing themselves by dressing half-naked.

　
The Christian missionaries are converting Muslim woman to the bikini, and have her (God forbid) getting raped by men who lust on sex and money. The only solution is wearing the Islamic dress, and thereby accepting Islam as the Divine Truth.

The missionaries want our sisters to walk around exposing themselves shamelessly in the same manner that kafir women do. They want our sisters to leave their homes and wander the streets. They want us to disbelieve in the Revelation and they want to extinguish the light of truth that is Islam. They are calling us to the to hellfire

Christianity is a license to sin. We have good reason to believe that Christianity, in its framework, has the seeds of its own destruction. Christian women are sex objects in the West, and Christianity promotes the freedom to "dress how you feel like"

　

God says they will never get away with causing social corruption. (Al-Quran 29:2)

Amazingly, the Bible rebukes today’s Christians in the following verses:


For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. (1 Peter 4:3)

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. (Ephesians 5:3)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1)

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. (1 Corinthians 6:18)

We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. (1 Corinthians 10:8)

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

[Trumble]

The Christian missionaries are converting Muslim woman to the bikini, and have her (God forbid) getting raped by men who lust on sex and money.

Ever so often you read something so utterly, mind-numbingly ludicrous on these forums it's impossible to think what to say.

[Danah]

Those are nude beaches . There are plenty of them in the world

ewww....I thought that its only in public swimming pool which are inside buildings..now that I know that there are whole nude beach and there are plenty of them?? Astaghfirullah! That is really disgusting. Alhumdulilah for the grace of Islam which treat us like humans

[purple]

Ever so often you read something so utterly, mind-numbingly ludicrous on these forums it's impossible to think what to say.

:sl:
LOL I don’t necessarily believe burkha or nigab prevents rape. Otherwise he is intentionally calling himself an animal.
France has always been aggressive toward religion and religious symbols. It is in the core of their institution. So this was bound to happen. France is intolerant and racist country.

:wa:

[Frenchy]

Assalaamou alaykoum,

France is becoming a racist country, but some peoples are working for it since a long time. That's what french peoples don't understand.

[Maryan0]

:sl:
LOL I don’t necessarily believe burkha or nigab prevents rape. Otherwise he is intentionally calling himself an animal.
France is intolerant and racist country.

:wa:

Very true. It seems like the far right are becoming increasingly powerful in these countries. The forceful rounding up and expulsion of the gypsies or roma people was in even more disgusting action than the banning of the niqab. France is becoming increasingly racist and xenophobic and not just to Muslims.
The Muslimahs there should commit mass civil disobedience.
Salam

[Cabdullahi]

All the french sisters should come to england

[IslamicRevival]

All the french sisters should come to england

LOL ^o)


Dunno whether to laugh or cry

[Cabdullahi]

LOL ^o)


Dunno whether to laugh or cry

whats so funny?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Decent video on the whole subject - Its an old video but its very relevant.

[Ami]

This is a solution from a sister :
If there is a law banning how much we can cover then there should be a law banning how much we can uncover. Otherwise its clearly a double standard.

The problem is understanding each side. We have to understand that France is a very secular society but France also has to be true to its values in relation to human rights and freedoms - It is not only an attack on women who wear the burqa/niqab but it is an attack on all people who believe humans rights are important in our society. I don't think this law will make relations in France any better because even though only 2000 women wear it, because its all over newspapers, people around the world still focus on Islam and it singles out Islam as being a problem. I hope other countries don't follow this way.

[GuestFellow]

^ Salaam.

That is a great solution. =) It would be funny to see how the French President would react to this.

[MSalman]

^but akhi did you hear someone chanting: "uncovering is not a threat to security" ;)

[Verdetequiero]

The French ban is against the ideals of individual choice. How a woman chooses to cloth herself isn't any business of mine. The only exceptions should be in areas in which continual identification is required and even then it should be up to the individual owner how they want to handle it. If France really believes that women are being coerced they should set up self help lines, women's shelters, identity protection programs, and self defense programs for women who feel like they are being coerced, but to violently force someone's clothing who is posing no harm in the moment is wrong.

[Beardo]

Well, the ban is sad, but at the same time, I appreciate how this ban will be carried out. the women will not be abused. They will not be forced to remove the veil. They have the right to go to the police station and remove their veil there appropriately. And they may be fined 150 pounds. At least there's diplomacy?

[Ali Mujahidin]

:sl:

Update:

Police said they gave the 27-year-old woman a ticket that requires her to pay a 150-euro (£133) fine or register for citizenship classes within a month.

Please read the complete news report here.

So it looks like a Muslim French woman wearing the burqa in public is given a choice of paying for the privilege of covering her face in public or attending a citizenship class. Does this mean that the French authorities consider a Muslim French woman who wears the burqa in public as not quite up to the standard of what they consider to be a citizen? Does this mean that they are questioning her loyalty to France? How would they react if a non-Muslim French woman covers her face in public?

WaLLahu aklam.

[Ami]

:sl:


Does this mean that they are questioning her loyalty to France? How would they react if a non-Muslim French woman covers her face in public?

France is a very secular society and nationalism is important there. You have to be assimilated so that you become French. Basically to them wearing the burqa is not the french way of doing things so these women need to take citizenship classes to understand what it is to be French and the importance of nationalism.

Pretty intolerant.

[tw009]

It hurts to see your own people against you.

[Cabdullahi]

It hurts to see your own people against you.

the mona girl is disgusting!

[S.Belle]

It hurts to see your own people against you.

that mona lady seems to not understand the religion that she claims to follow.

[Pygoscelis]

The question to me is if the law violates the constitution of France. If it is in accordance with their laws, then the citizens of France need to work towards greater religious freedom.

Agreed.

I can understand a ban on full face coverings, for security reasons. But I can not get behind any kind of ban on face veils directed specifically at muslims. And I can't get behind a ban on covering one's hair. You should be able to wear a muslim face veil anywhere I can wear a ski mask. And you should be allowed to wear a hair covering anywhere I can wear a baseball cap.

[Pygoscelis]

Oh and what on earth have minarets ever done to harm Switzerland?

LOL That is the most blatant and ridiculous one of all. It really underscores the PR problem Islam has, or war on Islam as you put it.

[Pygoscelis]

ewww....I thought that its only in public swimming pool which are inside buildings..now that I know that there are whole nude beach and there are plenty of them?? Astaghfirullah! That is really disgusting. Alhumdulilah for the grace of Islam which treat us like humans

Had you seriously never heard of nude beaches? I have been. It isn't what you may be imagining. It is in no way sexual or carnal ("animal"). It is actually very natural, relaxing and freeing, and even spiritual.

I have actually always wanted to see a debate between a devout muslim such as yourself and a nudist. There are so many misconceptions of both of these groups and each probably holds all misconceptions of the other. It would be really fascinating to see them try to dispell some of them.

I also like to throw the nudist's view at westerners who balk over muslims wanting burkas/hajibs. The muslim woman covering her face and hair is really just doing the same thing as the western woman covering her breasts. One is no more objectively rational than the other. It is all about culture. I have heard that there are actually some subculures in Africa where women will be very careful to cover their hair and showing it is taboo, yet leave their breasts uncovered without shame.

The culture in question sets the rules. In France, it would seem that the norm is to have the face visible. If we're going to oppose a ban on covering the face, I think it is only fair to also oppose any ban on public nudity. As one of you above said, if we're going after the one extreme, lets be consistent and go after the other as well, and if we're going to approve of the one extreme then why not the other.

[GuestFellow]

I loved the ending.

"Mona keeps saying I believe, I believe, I believe, well we don't make laws based on what Mona believes or what anyone believes."

^ HAHAHAHAHA....

May Allah guide Mona.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Assalaamu Alaaykum

This is messed up :-\, why people dont use their brains? :-\

By banning Niqaab,Burka, they are obviously taking away the rights of the women. Just for security reasons ? :-\

They can just ask to check/see the women in Niqaab and Burka in private by having a female security guard check her, so she can verify there is no danger, instead of fining her for completely being innocent, or not giving the individual the right to practice their faith freely or other reasonable reasons. Then the women in Niqaab can peacefully go her way and also the security people, and all will be at peace.

I know it may sound silly, but i think its silly banning something which clearly is against the will of the citizen, person. Human rights Act should be thrown in the bin unless the french dont have it in the first place, and other countries that dont follow the Human rights Act in any way.

It is indeed sad to hear this news.

may Allaah protect the sisters in France who have to deal with this Aameen

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

It hurts to see your own people against you.

Assalaamu Alaaykum

Subhaan'Allaah

She detests the Niqaab because she feels its not part of the faith etc etc.

She should be made aware that the wives of the Prophet(may the blessings of Allaah be unto them) the wives of the companions (may the blessings of Allaah be unto them) wore the Niqaab. It angers me that people speak regarding their faith in issues that they have no knowledge of..

Wallaahi it saddens me. may Allaah guide this women to the real Islaam, guide her to learn her deen, to learn that she musnt speak without knowledge, guide those who are on the same path as herself Ameen

Such peoples mindsets are soo messed up, they are soo free in this western world, they forget about their deen, they just follow the world, the dunya as if they will remain in it for ever, but it will only cause destruction. It only increases hate for one another!

Astagfirullaah

[Insaanah]

that mona lady seems to not understand the religion that she claims to follow.

She describes herself on her website as a liberal Muslim. She is a secularist, a reformist, a feminist, and was a board member of the now disbanded Progressive Muslim Union of North America, which endorsed the mixed gender salaat that was led by Amina Wadud as a female "imam".

Even though the niqaabi sister didn't get equal time to speak, what she was able to say, in less time and words, was strong, powerful and logical.

May Allah guide Mona, ameen.

[Ramadhan]

LOL That is the most blatant and ridiculous one of all. It really underscores the PR problem Islam has, or war on Islam as you put it.

This is the most blatant and ridiculous statement of all.
Following your logic, the blacks in the 50s only had PR problem when they were not allowed to sit in the same area of any public facilities because the whites thought they were disgusting.

Just because some people cannot use the little brains they have does not mean the rest has a problem.

[Danah]

Had you seriously never heard of nude beaches? I have been.

No I was totally clueless of such disgusting thing....Thanks God that I was not!
Knowing everything is not a pleasant thing sometimes ^o)

It isn't what you may be imagining. It is in no way sexual or carnal ("animal"). It is actually very natural, relaxing and freeing, and even spiritual.

Seriously? that is funny knowing that everyone will mind there own business+o(.....even if what you are saying is true, its still degrading the level of humanity by throwing out the shyness and modesty of the human being in the beach water!

The culture in question sets the rules. In France, it would seem that the norm is to have the face visible. If we're going to oppose a ban on covering the face, I think it is only fair to also oppose any ban on public nudity. As one of you above said, if we're going after the one extreme, lets be consistent and go after the other as well, and if we're going to approve of the one extreme then why not the other.

We don't see modesty as a cultural thing, its one of the main teachings of Islam so its a part of our faith not culture...oh and that's not only in Islam but also in all Abrahamic religions. Modesty is an instinct that every human being born with, but due to being influenced by some sick society norms many people gave up their modesty.

[Maryan0]

Agreed.

I can understand a ban on full face coverings, for security reasons. But I can not get behind any kind of ban on face veils directed specifically at muslims. And I can't get behind a ban on covering one's hair. You should be able to wear a muslim face veil anywhere I can wear a ski mask. And you should be allowed to wear a hair covering anywhere I can wear a baseball cap.

How do you equate the niqab with the ski mask and the hijab with a baseball cap? Is there something I'm missing. Is there a religion or a belief system that tells its followers to wear a ski mask or baseball cap?
Salam

[Pygoscelis]

How do you equate the niqab with the ski mask and the hijab with a baseball cap? Is there something I'm missing. Is there a religion or a belief system that tells its followers to wear a ski mask or baseball cap?
Salam

The point is exactly that. We should be treated equally and religion should not be given special rights or special bans. I see no reason to oppose your covering your hair. I do not care why you choose to cover your hair and that you do it because of your religion is none of my business. I should not stop you from doing so JUST because it is part of your religion. I should have to have a good valid reason to oppose it, that has nothing to do with religion, such as opposing the face veil for security reasons. And by the same token, you should not be allowed to do something others can not do JUST because your religion says you should. I very much oppose the Ontario decision that allowed Sikhs to carry around their Kirpan (ceremonial dagger) in sensitive public places, where I would not be allowed to carry my own knife.

As I said, wherever you can cover your face, so can I. And wherever you can cover your hair, so can I. Hence the ski mask and baseball cap comparisons.

[Maryan0]

The point is exactly that. We should be treated equally and religion should not be given special rights or special bans. I should not oppose your covering your hair. I do not care why you choose to cover your hair. That is none of my business, and if you want to do it for religious reasons, I should have no right to stop you. And by the same token, you should not be allowed to do something others can not do JUST because your religion says you should.

Religions are not given special rights but certain allowances are made for religious people. As a child I was allowed to play on the monkey bars even though I wore a headscarf once in a while. Other children who were not Muslim were not allowed to wear scarfs because it could be a safety hazard. I was allowed to do this because it was a part of my religion. Sikhs can carry the kirpan in Canada does that make it okay for others to walk around with daggers? What purpose does walking around with a ski mask serve and why should allowances be made for that. I still don't understand how the niqab in the ski mask can be equated.
Salam

[Ali Mujahidin]

:sl:

I read somewhere that there are some primitive tribes who take part in an annual ritual wearing baseball caps. They would sit in a semi-circle around a shrine. The shrine glows and displays images of their gods. They would watch with rapt attention the moving images of their gods. Now and then they would chant with religious fervor in praise of their gods.

Most likely, I read wrongly because my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be.

[Maryan0]

] I very much oppose the Ontario decision that allowed Sikhs to carry around their Kirpan (ceremonial dagger) in sensitive public places, where I would not be allowed to carry my own knife.

Did not see that you added this. Sikhs's are allowed to carry the Kirpan because it's a religious requirement for them whereas you carrying your knife isnt which is why the Supreme Court made an allowance in this case. I'm still not getting the comparison. There is no religious obligation for a non-sikh to carry a knife.
Salam

.

:sl:

I read somewhere that there are some primitive tribes who take part in an annual ritual wearing baseball caps. They would sit in a semi-circle around a shrine. The shrine glows and displays images of their gods. They would watch with rapt attention the moving images of their gods. Now and then they would chant with religious fervor in praise of their gods.

Most likely, I read wrongly because my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be.

lol :hmm:
Salam

[GuestFellow]

Sikhs to carry around their Kirpan (ceremonial dagger) in sensitive public places, where I would not be allowed to carry my own knife.

For Sikhs it is part of their religion to carry a Kirpan. You are not a Sikh, so why would you carry a dagger in the first pace? I highly doubt carrying a dagger is part of your culture.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

For Sikhs it is part of their religion to carry a Kirpan. You are not a Sikh, so why would you carry a dagger in the first pace? I highly doubt carrying a dagger is part of your culture.

What do you expect? He's a secularist, they have a habit of foaming at the mouth when they see public expressions of faith.

His rationalisations are little more than a polite way of saying this

[Pygoscelis]

Religions are not given special rights but certain allowances are made for religious people.

Semantics.

If you are allowed to do something (cover your face, carry a weapon, overfish, whatever) that I am not allowed to do, then you have special rights I do not have. Religion should not confer such special treatment. I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Sikh people usually keep a dagger in their house, not sure if they carry it around with them. But the reason so is for protection.
A sikh carrying a dagger/sword is very different to a women covering herself. I dont know why we should put these two together.

However, a women covers herself for her own protection, for the sake of modesty, obeying her creator many other reasons and a Sikh keeps a dagger/sword in their house for protection. The big difference is between a mans opinion against the command of the creator.

Ofcourse in the Uk carrying a dagger maybe a sign of danger, but the Niqaab, Burka is not. If so, like i mentioned in my previous post have a check up between the person in an appropriate manner.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Semantics.

If you are allowed to do something (cover your face, carry a weapon, overfish, whatever) that I am not allowed to do, then you have special rights I do not have. Religion should not confer such special treatment. I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.

The thing is they have a reason to do so. A fireman covers himself for the sake of going into a building and from the protection of the gas. People can carry a weopon for many reasons, have you heard of the knife crimes in the Uk? If your on a battlefield you would most probably carry some sort of weapon. Weapon can be carried in a good way and a bad way. For the sake of killing someone or for the sake of protection. Im sure you know very well why women wear the Hijaab/Niqaab etc.

Religion in this case Islaam, gives us a perfect reason to cover our face and wear the Hijaab. Covering your face as a fireman gives us a perfect reason to why they should do so. As long as you have a good reason to do what you want to do, a logical and good reason, then do so. Nobody should stop you, especially when you have a good intention and are sincere about it and wont cause harm to anyone, then that is justifiable insha'Allaah. Note: i did say 'cause harm to anyone' i mean yourself and those around you , then in this case you should not do it.

[Pygoscelis]

Im sure you know very well why women wear the Hijaab/Niqaab etc.

Yes I do know. And I also understand that other, non muslim people may wish to cover their faces for similar reasons or for entirely different good intentioned reasons.

I do not care what the reasons are, as we do not have the time or resources or ability to know the minds and intentions of all people. As has been brought up before in this thread there is nothing stopping people from lying about their motives or dressing up as something they are not. Either covering ones face is or is not a security concern. Either we do or we do not allow it. If we disallow it we apply that rule evenly to all people with no special treatment for anybody.

If you are allowed to weark a burka, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask. If you are not allowed to cover your face, I should not be allowed to cover mine.

I stand with you against bans on hajib, not because your religion tells you to wear hajib, but because I can think of no rational reason to stop you. That will not carry over to all religiously motivated activities. What would you say to somebody who refused life saving surgery or a blood tranfusion for their child or who did genital mutilation on their daughter because their religion told them to? And what would you say to somebody who said their religion told them not to pay their taxes (but who nevertheless stayed in the society and drew its benefits)?

[Maryan0]

Semantics.

If you are allowed to do something (cover your face, carry a weapon, overfish, whatever) that I am not allowed to do, then you have special rights I do not have. Religion should not confer such special treatment. I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.

You are not typically allowed to carry a knife or cover your face in public places but allowances are made based on people being allowed religious freedom. The Supreme overturned the ban on the Kirpan because there was significant cause to do so in that it infringed on the right of a religious group to practice their religion freely. If you feel that not wearing a ski mask or baseball cap infringes on your rights as a citizen then perhaps you should also take your issue to the Supreme Court.
and are you referring to the natives on overfishing? do you feel they are not entitled to special rights based on their history?
Salam

[MSalman]

as-salaamu alaykum

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but really subhaanAllah - may Allah Azza wa Jal makes things easier for our sisters in France, ameen

[Cabdullahi]

She describes herself on her website as a liberal Muslim. She is a secularist, a reformist, a feminist, and was a board member of the now disbanded Progressive Muslim Union of North America, which endorsed the mixed gender salaat that was led by Amina Wadud as a female "imam".

Even though the niqaabi sister didn't get equal time to speak, what she was able to say, in less time and words, was strong, powerful and logical.

May Allah guide Mona, ameen.

The keyword i was looking for thanks very much

+o(

[Dagless]

If you are allowed to weark a burka, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask. If you are not allowed to cover your face, I should not be allowed to cover mine.

That maybe your opinion but it's not how things work. Religious exceptions are a real thing. If you say it's part of your religion to wear a mask then you maybe able to go through the same channels as other religions and have some kind of exception applied. Other than you have no reason to wear a ski mask unless you're skiing.

I stand with you against bans on hajib, not because your religion tells you to wear hajib, but because I can think of no rational reason to stop you. That will not carry over to all religiously motivated activities. What would you say to somebody who refused life saving surgery or a blood tranfusion for their child or who did genital mutilation on their daughter because their religion told them to? And what would you say to somebody who said their religion told them not to pay their taxes (but who nevertheless stayed in the society and drew its benefits)?

Obviously it's within reason, as has been mentioned many times in this thread. If the practice is harming others or there is some other overwhelming reason then it may be stopped. The niqab has been labelled as a security risk in some situations which is why that has been addressed and people have agreed to remove it in places where there is a concern (airports, banks, courts, etc).

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Yes I do know. And I also understand that other, non muslim people may wish to cover their faces for similar reasons or for entirely different good intentioned reasons.

I do not care what the reasons are, as we do not have the time or resources or ability to know the minds and intentions of all people. As has been brought up before in this thread there is nothing stopping people from lying about their motives or dressing up as something they are not. Either covering ones face is or is not a security concern. Either we do or we do not allow it. If we disallow it we apply that rule evenly to all people with no special treatment for anybody.

If you are allowed to weark a burka, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask. If you are not allowed to cover your face, I should not be allowed to cover mine.

I stand with you against bans on hajib, not because your religion tells you to wear hajib, but because I can think of no rational reason to stop you. That will not carry over to all religiously motivated activities. What would you say to somebody who refused life saving surgery or a blood tranfusion for their child or who did genital mutilation on their daughter because their religion told them to? And what would you say to somebody who said their religion told them not to pay their taxes (but who nevertheless stayed in the society and drew its benefits)?

Greetings of peace to you

If you do not care, then i dont see the point of discussion regarding someone who is basing their claim on a reason. If we are being even in applying that rule on everyone, that means we must give everyone their rights, what about Human rights? giving the people the right to practice their faith freely.

I agree you can wear ski mask if we are allowed to wear a Burka. But the difference is you will be wearing a ski mask if your skiing. But if you wish to wear a ski mask in the normal day, then the difference is the muslim women will be wearing it for a reason, such as covering herself so no non-mahram will stare at her, also requiring her to lower her gaze, but if you wear a ski mask, what are your reasons? Because if the muslim women have the right to cover their face, you feel you have the right not because of her but of your own free will, even though you do not have a perfectly good explanation for it and saying your doing it because they are. I dont think it makes any sense at all, but nobody is against you wearing a ski mask in public you may do so. but keep in mind the reasons are very different.

If you stand with us against the Hijaab bans, then keep in mind it means you are supporting the muslim women and the muslims and you know the reasons for hijaab are good. You cant just support everyone without knowing why your sticking up for them. Its good that you are, but you make it look like wearing the Hijaab is a bad thing especially when you say "but because I can think of no rational reason to stop you." What i mean is do you understand why the religion tells the women to wear Hijaab?

This is an Islamic board, please talk about the issue regarding Islaam. If i were to support someone i would do some research on what they are, who they are, why they are doing this etc.

Apologies if i didnt make sense , feel free to ask any questions.

[Pygoscelis]

But if you wish to wear a ski mask in the normal day, then the difference is the muslim women will be wearing it for a reason, such as covering herself so no non-mahram will stare at her, also requiring her to lower her gaze, but if you wear a ski mask, what are your reasons?

I argue that my reasons are not relevant, and that the laws should apply equally to both of us. What if I have very personal reasons that I do not wish to share (say for example if I was horribly disfigured but don't to tell people that), should I be forced to state my reason for wearing a mask? Or in a fair society should I simply be allowed the same freedoms you are?

And no, I do not recognize "free exercise of religion" as being something that should trump any other valid law. And I am ashamed of my country's top courts for allowing that to be the case here. You should be allowed to exercise your religion freely, but only to the point that you are not infringing on the rights of others, and only if you keep within what is otherwise legal. Now, If those laws forbid something your religion demands, then I am all for a closer look at the law to see if it is reasonable, and if it isnt, then strike it down for all, not just for some special class of religious people.

If you stand with us against the Hijaab bans, then keep in mind it means you are supporting the muslim women and the muslims and you know the reasons for hijaab are good.

The reasons are not relevant to me. I stand with you Muslims on this because such a ban against hajib would be discrimination against you based on religion. I do oppose discrimination for you based on religion, but I equally oppose discrimination agaisnt you based on religion. This is consistent. This is fair.

Its good that you are, but you make it look like wearing the Hijaab is a bad thing especially when you say "but because I can think of no rational reason to stop you." What i mean is do you understand why the religion tells the women to wear Hijaab?

I don't say it is a bad thing. I say it is a cultural thing, a religious thing, and a personal choice that harms no one. Yes, I do understand why muslim women wear the hajib (they see it as decency and keeping prying eyes of men off of them etc), but I don't find that at all relevant.

As to if I personally think it is "good", I really don't judge it. If it is what muslim women are comfortable with then I support it for them. Keep in mind, however, that I feel the same way about nudists going naked (if that is their personal choice). I would oppose either of these styles of dress/undress being forced on anyone, but I don't see any reason to believe that either is.

If i were to support someone i would do some research on what they are, who they are, why they are doing this etc.

I don't need to identify with you or agree with you or share your views to support your basic human rights. I can support the muslima's right to be free of persecution and to have equal rights under the law just like I can support the homosexual man's right to be free from persecution and have equal rights under the law.

Apologies if i didnt make sense , feel free to ask any questions.

You are well spoken. We simply have different vantage points.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace to you Pygoscelis

I argue that my reasons are not relevant, and that the laws should apply equally to both of us. What if I have very personal reasons that I do not wish to share (say for example if I was horribly disfigured but don't to tell people that), should I be forced to state my reason for wearing a mask? Or in a fair society should I simply be allowed the same freedoms you are?.

You are missing the point, it is far away from the point. Wearing the Niqaab and Burka are worn for totally different reasons to what reasons you are trying to proove. I do understand what your saying but it is very different. If the person wants to wear a mask, they may do so. There choice.
People have hairstyles these days, where you can hardly see any part of their face.

And no, I do not recognize "free exercise of religion" as being something that should trump any other valid law. And I am ashamed of my country's top courts for allowing that to be the case here. You should be allowed to exercise your religion freely, but only to the point that you are not infringing on the rights of others, and only if you keep within what is otherwise legal. Now, If those laws forbid something your religion demands, then I am all for a closer look at the law to see if it is reasonable, and if it isnt, then strike it down for all, not just for some special class of religious people..

To what point? to the point that the women dresses as she wills? without no force, but by her own will. What rights are muslim women infringing on? Yes if there is a reason for it, they can be reasonable and fair in having checks like they do in airports etc. But they cannot take away the right of a citizen, who lives and causes no harm to society.

The reasons are not relevant to me. I stand with you Muslims on this because such a ban against hajib would be discrimination against you based on religion. I do oppose discrimination for you based on religion, but I equally oppose discrimination agaisnt you based on religion. This is consistent. This is fair..

It is indeed fair when they are being fair. Taking away the rights of the women who are disatisfied isnt fair nor justified. The women are just like any sister on this board or any other women innocent out there.

I don't say it is a bad thing. I say it is a cultural thing, a religious thing, and a personal choice that harms no one. Yes, I do understand why muslim women wear the hajib (they see it as decency and keeping prying eyes of men off of them etc), but I don't find that at all relevant. .

You dont find that relevant, but be sure there are those who who do and they do what they can to get justice. We are all people, we have different natures, nor are we perfect.

As to if I personally think it is "good", I really don't judge it. If it is what muslim women are comfortable with then I support it for them. Keep in mind, however, that I feel the same way about nudists going naked (if that is their personal choice). I would oppose either of these styles of dress/undress being forced on anyone, but I don't see any reason to believe that either is. .

The muslim women who wear the veil and burka themselves, and those who are (may Allaah forbid) are nudists by their own desires, they are those who have no morals values, they do what pleases them whereas the case of the one that obeys her creator does what pleases her and her creator. The muslim wears the veil due to the command of her lord, she knows that her creator who created her knows her nature better than her, yours and mines, so he knows whats best for us, what does the other women know? I know where you are coming from, but sometimes you have to look at if from perspective that benefits the person aswell. Realise that we will all die one day, we have to quickly look at what we will take with us. We need to realise the reason to our creation, why we are here.

I don't need to identify with you or agree with you or share your views to support your basic human rights. I can support the muslima's right to be free of persecution and to have equal rights under the law just like I can support the homosexual man's right to be free from persecution and have equal rights under the law..

Indeed you have the right as anyone has the right to speak of their own opinions, but some opinions are not right, some are also wrong as they are not causing justice. We all have the same rights as individuals under the law, i agree, but its us individuals who take the rights away from ourselves, the law takes no rights away from us, but people are taking away the rights of others and some even of themselves.

.. peace ..

[GuestFellow]

If you are allowed to do something (cover your face, carry a weapon, overfish, whatever) that I am not allowed to do, then you have special rights I do not have. Religion should not confer such special treatment. I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.

Special rights serve a purpose. It is beneficial to a particular group of people, but not others. Why would you carry a Kirpan? Your not a Sikh.

There is no fixed style of Kirpan and it can be anything from a few inches to three feet long. It is kept in a sheath and can be worn over or under clothing.

The Kirpan can symbolise:

• Spirituality
• The soldier part of the Soldier-Saints
• Defence of good
• Defence of the weak
• The struggle against injustice
• A metaphor for God

For a Sikh the fact that the Guru has instructed the Sikhs to wear the 5 Ks is an entirely sufficient reason, and no more need be said.

The symbols have become greatly more powerful with each passing year of Sikh history.

Every Sikh remembers that every Sikh warrior, saint, or martyr since 1699, and every living member of the Khalsa, is united with them in having adopted the same 5 Ks.

Source

[Aadila]

Perhaps you might direct that to abdullah_001, who seems to disagree? I'm not 'pretending' anything, although I do find it curious you do not consider whether or not to comply a moral issue. But of course, no doubt I just don't understand.


I'm sorry, but if fiqh is not based on the matter of opinions of people, then what is it? The fact the sources are the same (and in the case of hadith, even that isn't necessarily true) does not mean interpretations are the same, and what are differening interpretations but different opinions?



At this point you just don't seem to have an argument! So we had perhaps best leave it there.

Praise be to Allah,

What you wrote offends me my friend. First off all, there is no subjectivity in the morals of Islam, there is only one united belief in Islam and anyone who is not part of that are not Muslims. All the people who believe the banning of the burqas are not Muslims. The women who you claim to be Muslim that do not choose to wear the burqas are not Muslim. They are betrayers and the slaves of western world. If there are only 2,000 women who wear the burqas then there are only 2,000 women in Islam. I notice you are a Buddhist, have you considered converting to Islam? The Western nations are disgusting, it is only a matter of time before we Muslims will convert them. Why should children not be allowed to wear the burqas? Would you sacrafice Allah just for petty human learning interactions and this made up western psychology of learning from faces? Psychology is just invented by sex crazy western animals who want to see decent Muslim women face so they will rape and go crazy. The burqas is our protection and the president of France wants to take that away, who himself is a evil women raping monster, he is married to a past nude model.

Islam is a religion that will stand up for itself unlike Buddhism that rots in it's anti-war and non-violence even against the oppressors. The one's who take action are always more worthy than those who do not. Buddhism is a lazy religion that will die and will not sustain itself. Have you read the Quran?

[Sol Invictus]

The women who you claim to be Muslim that do not choose to wear the burqas are not Muslim. [...] If there are only 2,000 women who wear the burqas then there are only 2,000 women in Islam.

i was always under the impression that this was not true. so a woman is only a real muslim if they wear a burqa? as it relates to the rest of your post i simply do not know what to say other than shake my head at the lack of charity presented. going out of one's way to insult the beliefs of others and effectively call a whole nation of people disgusting certainly is not the right way of sharing the islamic brand of love and charity. if we can not agree with one another then at the very least we should respect one another. but hey, that's just me, and i certainly can't make you adhere to this but i would have thought that islam taught the same thing. hopefully i'm not wrong.

[Hamza Asadullah]

Praise be to Allah,

What you wrote offends me my friend. First off all, there is no subjectivity in the morals of Islam, there is only one united belief in Islam and anyone who is not part of that are not Muslims. All the people who believe the banning of the burqas are not Muslims. The women who you claim to be Muslim that do not choose to wear the burqas are not Muslim. They are betrayers and the slaves of western world. If there are only 2,000 women who wear the burqas then there are only 2,000 women in Islam. I notice you are a Buddhist, have you considered converting to Islam? The Western nations are disgusting, it is only a matter of time before we Muslims will convert them. Why should children not be allowed to wear the burqas? Would you sacrafice Allah just for petty human learning interactions and this made up western psychology of learning from faces? Psychology is just invented by sex crazy western animals who want to see decent Muslim women face so they will rape and go crazy. The burqas is our protection and the president of France wants to take that away, who himself is a evil women raping monster, he is married to a past nude model.

Islam is a religion that will stand up for itself unlike Buddhism that rots in it's anti-war and non-violence even against the oppressors. The one's who take action are always more worthy than those who do not. Buddhism is a lazy religion that will die and will not sustain itself. Have you read the Quran?

This post is misleading, false and incorrect and it is clear that you are overcome with emotion and have therefore not used knowledge wisdom or tact in any of your reply. Firstly there is a difference of opinion regarding whether or not niqaab is either obligatory or just preferrable but those who choose not to wear it are entitled not to because they take the other valid opinion of scholars on this matter so for you to state that any Muslim women who chooses not to wear s not a Muslim then you are classing most Muslim women in this world as not being Muslim. The rest of your post is nonsensical.

Please learn basic knowledge before making such a false and misleading assertions and you have no right to make takfir classing any women who does not wear niqaab as not Muslim. Anything a Muslim accuses another of which does not apply to them goes back to the accuser.

[GuestFellow]

Salaam

What do you expect? He's a secularist, they have a habit of foaming at the mouth when they see public expressions of faith.

Salaam,

I've heard many people say secularism is about separating religion from politics but I disagree. For now people have been able to practice their religion but I suspect secularism will start to govern how people should live, thus making it difficult for people to practice their faith. Secularism does not equate to tolerance at all.

His rationalisations are little more than a polite way of saying this

I like the picture lol.

[S.Belle]

Praise be to Allah,

The women who you claim to be Muslim that do not choose to wear the burqas are not Muslim. They are betrayers and the slaves of western world. If there are only 2,000 women who wear the burqas then there are only 2,000 women in Islam.

I am deeply offended by this.
I am muslim just as you just because you choose to wear niqab or burqa doesnt make you a better muslim.
It is the heart of the woman who is wearing the hijab, burqa, or the niqab that matters because a woman who is wearing hijab could be more pious than a woman wearing a burqa.

They are betrayers and the slaves of western world. If there are only 2,000 women who wear the burqas then there are only 2,000 women in Islam.

I am only a slave to Allah.

It is reported on the authority of Ibn `Umar that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). [Muslim]

Please watch who u make accusations about bc in the end it could turn around and bite you on the bottom.

Good Day