/* */

PDA

View Full Version : first woman to be jailed for wearing banned Islamic veil



Marina-Aisha
04-01-2012, 08:50 PM
i think she is sooo amazing to stick to her guns and leave it on..allah will reward her for this..




32 mother , set to become first woman to be jailed for wearing banned Islamic veil
Refused to accept court sentence that she spend 15 days learning her civic duties
'Judges need citizenship lessons - not me'
Taking case to court of human rights
By PETER ALLEN




A 32-year-old mother from France is set to become the first woman ever to be sent to prison for wearing an Islamic veil.
Hind Ahmas refuses to accept the legitimacy of a Paris court which has ordered her to spend 15 days learning her civic duties.
She was sentenced by magistrates in Meaux, a Paris suburb, yesterday - after being arrested wearing an outlawed veil outside the Elysee Palace in the French capital on April 11.


Facing jail: Hind Ahmas, left, could be sentenced to two years in prison for wearing a banned Islamic head covering in France
That was shortly after Nicolas Sarkozy's government introduced a ban on all forms of Islamic head coverings, including the niqab and the burka.
Ahmas was not allowed into the hearing at Meaux Criminal Court because she refused to remove her face covering.
But prosecutors made it clear to her lawyer, Gilles Devers, that Ahmas now faces two years in prison and a £27,000 fine.
'There is no possibility of me removing the veil,' Ahmas said.
'I'm not taking it off. The judge needs citizenship lessons, not me.'
Ahmas, who has already refused to pay a fine of around £100 for wearing a veil on another occasion, intends to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
She has launched a pressure group, Do Not Touch My Constitution, along with Kenza Drider, another veil wearer who wants to run for president in the Spring.


New law: Ahmas, 32, pictured with would-be presidential candidate Kenza Drider, is taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights
If Ahmas does become the first woman in the world to go to prison for wearing a veil, then it will be seen as a huge propaganda coup for Islamic-rights campaigners.
Mr Sarkozy said the ban on head coverings was not aimed at persecuting Muslims, but merely to make France a more tolerant, inclusive society.
When it was introduced, he said the ban was aimed at stopping criminals – from terrorists to shoplifters – disguising their faces from security staff and CCTV.
But the sight of a young mother being led away to the cells merely because she refuses to take off her veil will cause outrage around the world.
Mr Devers said the veil ban was 'unconstitutional', while senior police officers have told judges that it is unenforceable without persecuting women.
France became the first country in Europe to outlaw the veil, while similar legislation has since been passed in Belgium and Holland.
One has been mooted in Britain by a number of politicians, including Conservative backbenchers, but there are no immediate plans to introduce one.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...amic-veil.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
04-01-2012, 09:16 PM
Jailed for wearing extra clothes.. what will they think of next?
Reply

Marina-Aisha
04-01-2012, 09:17 PM
lol i know i cant believe there is ban there, i dont know who sisters cope living there.
Reply

Muezzin
04-01-2012, 09:17 PM
Hey, French legislature and judiciary:

It's. A. Piece. Of. Cloth.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
karimium
04-08-2012, 10:56 PM
Muslim women shoulder just wear the surgeons mask, like the Japanese sometimes wear in public to protect other people from catching their diseases.
Reply

crimsontide06
04-09-2012, 01:51 AM
he said the ban was aimed at stopping criminals – from terrorists to shoplifters – disguising their faces from security staff a
Yeah because criminals are gonna abide by the law :hmm:
Reply

Darth Ultor
04-09-2012, 02:53 AM
What the ****, France?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-09-2012, 05:07 AM
So they have topless beaches, but you can't wear a head veil? That doesn't sound at all fair.
Reply

Periwinkle18
04-09-2012, 05:23 AM
they should do this...



lol its so funny they're afraid of a piece of cloth :P
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-09-2012, 01:31 PM
Or wear those V for Vandetta masks, and they'll think you are part of Anonymous.
Reply

Sunnie Ameena
04-09-2012, 04:07 PM
I think that making women uncover their heads is absolutely ignorant. So I guess that means they will stop everyone from head wear. Baseball caps, hoodies, beanies, slouch hats. Dumb laws. Why must they always try to tell people how to run their lives. I guess they are trying to say that if a women covers her face, that she may be hiding something really bad under it. Really? They need average people, who knows what's really happening in the world to run the countries.
Reply

Muslim Woman
04-09-2012, 04:46 PM
:sl:

may Allah help the sis and reward her in this life and hereafter.


Facing jail: Hind Ahmas, left, could be sentenced to two years in prison for wearing a banned Islamic head covering in France

Reply

Pygoscelis
04-09-2012, 07:28 PM
Since I may be the only one here who sees both sides of this issue (though I side with the women's right to wear the veil), I'll lay out some of the reasons non-muslims, and especially the French would be in favour of such a ban.

1. Xenophobia. People fear what is different and like to go against outgroups. This is basic tribalism and it is very much at work here. It is inexcusable if used to try to ban anything.

2. Cultural Misunderstanding. A lot of people in the west see a woman wearing a veil and immediately leap to the conclusion that she is being forced to do so. Why? Because they would not do so voluntarily. They don't realize that many women who wear such veils do it because they want to, and that they even find it empowering. From a western perspective what is seen is a woman from a male dominated society making herself invisible because men don't want to be tempted by her. If it is the men who can't control themselves then why is it the women who have to fix that? Why don't the men just learn to control themselves or wear blinders like on horses if they are so concerned about seeng her face? That is the kind of thinking you will get. Whether it is misplaced is debatable. I don't think it a valid reason to ban the veil, but other westerners disagree.

Now for the rest of this post put the above factor aside (which is big) and try to imagine them wearing a mask other than this one, say a ski mask, sugeon's mask, fencing mask, motorcycle helmet with dark visor etc, and you can see that there ar some valid concerns that go beyond mere bigotry, xenophobia, or culture.

3. Security concern. This is the one concern that resonates the most with me. Most of us in the west are ok with somebody dressed like the above photo if she's just walking down the street. Especially those of us in colder climates. We cover ourselves like that all the time. But I think most of us, and probably many of you, would be far less comfortable if they walked into a store, or especially a bank, and didn't remove the mask. People who hide their faces, who hide their identity, start to look suspicious. Ocassionally you get stories about muslim women who don't want to take it off for voting or for driver license etc and that goes beyond any secular (and I would argue any rational) justification.

4. Interpersonal Distance. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of non-verbal social signals and expressions done with the face when you speak with people. The eyes alone should help a little, but really... it seems to me that a lot would be lacking. And when I speak to people I look at their face and it just wouldn't feel comfortable not having a face to speak to. This would be even more important to the French, as they have a very expressive and touchy feely sort of culture (where even men kiss each other on the cheek to say hello). That is on a personal level though and you could simply say we don't have to become their close friends, and being their friends or not has nothing to do with banning them from wearing the veil.

5. Social Distance. The fact that a woman is wearing a head veil tells me she doens't want me looking at her face. It immediately makes me wonder what other social taboos she carries around with her. Can I look at her eyes? Can I shake her hand? Can I speak to her if her husband isn't with her? A lot of these questions I've found answers to since coming to forums like this one but your average non-muslim won't know and may feel very unconfortble even looking in her direction for fear of some unintentional offending to her. That doesn't seem to be any reason to ban the veil though either.

So, personally I fully support your right to wear whatever you want, but others will disagree. And before you see me as totally in your camp, keep in mind that I also fully support the rights of nudists ;D I'm for freedom of a woman to choose how she dresses (or not) and frankly don't see it as any of my business or concern.
Reply

Marina-Aisha
04-09-2012, 08:11 PM
another article french ban turns out to be toothless

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...toothless?bn=1
Reply

Muhammad
04-09-2012, 10:28 PM
Greetings Psygoscelis,

Thanks for your post - it is helpful to understand the other side.

I think the security concern partly comes down to culture - some people are not used to seeing women wearing a veil so they might misjudge why they are wearing it. People with bad intentions who hide their identity have a tendency to do so in ways very different to that of a Muslim woman. In the latter's case, it is not the norm for veiled women to commit crimes, hence their covering up should not automatically raise suspicion.

As for interpersonal and social distance (in the context of men approaching women), one might argue this is the whole point of wearing the veil or Hijab in the first place. The word Hijab itself literally means barrier if I am not mistaken.

Regards.
Reply

Galaxy
04-10-2012, 12:15 AM
:sl:

It's not fair but what do they expect from them?
Reply

marwen
04-10-2012, 09:30 PM
They want to make it seem as if muslims are against the law. But in reality, muslims do respect the laws, but these governments continuously invent new laws custom-designed to antagonize muslims freedom, even though these new laws are even against the main principles of freedom and human rights that Europe, and France in particular, allegedly supports.
Reply

AbdulazizB
04-10-2012, 11:21 PM
I like what The Italian minister said: The reason behind the opposition to the headscarf ban, clear and simple that the Virgin Mary the mother of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him used to put the veil on her head, too, the holiest woman in history, the woman USANascent mentioned by name in the Quran
He added: "If the Virgin wears one, ask me how any woman who refused to wear hijab."
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-12-2012, 12:41 PM
"If the Virgin wears one, ask me how any woman who refused to wear hijab" isn't coherent. Typo?
Reply

Scimitar
04-14-2012, 08:38 PM
FED UP OF HIJAAB BANS? THEN HAVE YOUR VOTE COUNTED NOW



The Govt of New Zealand is running an online POLL on yahoo to know our opinion about the banning of the Hijaab in their country...


...Please, let's help our sisters un New Zealand by voting "NO".


http://yhoo.it/9vvJNA


Scimi
Reply

farah786
04-15-2012, 12:00 PM
:raging: Osama bin laden do something!
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-16-2012, 08:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by farah786
:raging: Osama bin laden do something!
LOL! What? ;D
Reply

onetwo
04-18-2012, 07:58 AM
If you don't like it don't go there. Doesn't Saudi Arabia ban christianity?
Reply

Mister Agenda
04-18-2012, 03:49 PM
I like the woman's statement that it's the judge's who need to learn their civic duties. Good for her!
Reply

جوري
04-18-2012, 03:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by onetwo
If you don't like it don't go there. Doesn't Saudi Arabia ban christianity?
The same way Vatican city bans Islam, what's your point? Furthermore she's a native frank where do you propose she go?

no shortage of recycled & ailing rhetoric ...
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-19-2012, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by onetwo
If you don't like it don't go there. Doesn't Saudi Arabia ban christianity?
Saudi Arabia is honest about its closed minded tribalism. France isn't. That is the difference.

France claims to be multicultural but then pulls garbage like banning women from wearing what they want to wear for no other reason than they are from an unfamiliar culture.

Saying "Sauda Arabia does it too" is no excuse for France or for any other nation. Do we really want to equate ourselves with Saudi Arabia? :skeleton:
Reply

جوري
04-19-2012, 03:04 PM
:lol: at your jealous rage..just can't stand that there's a portal of the world where the devil you worship isn't gyrating naked with some woman bowing to a man made idol?.. Saudi Arabia isn't as conservative as all that unfortunately.. I know it is defiled everyday by your ilk & surely the mushrikoon and kaffirs are rijis fajtanibooh. I have lived there for four years and seen with my own eyes unfortunately your devil will circumambulate there invited by despots..

Qul man rabbu alssamawati waalardi quli Allahu qul afaittakhathtum min doonihi awliyaa la yamlikoona lianfusihim nafAAan wala darran qul hal yastawee alaAAma waalbaseeru am hal tastawee alththulumatu waalnnooru am jaAAaloo lillahi shurakaa khalaqoo kakhalqihi fatashabaha alkhalqu AAalayhim quli Allahu khaliqu kulli shayin wahuwa alwahidu alqahharu
13:16 Say------------: "Are the blind equal with those who see? Or the depths of darkness equal with light?" Or do they assign to Allah partners who have created (anything) as He has created, so that the creation seemed to them similar? Say: "(Allah) is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible."




There are non in the world more intolerant than kaffirs and mushriks, for the unenlightened, unseasoned and unreasoning by their very nature are obtuse, loud, and hypocritical. They profess accolades they don't possess, they proclaim 'freedom of speech' yet imprison and drone others for it, they demand freedom of religion but in truth it is freedom from religion, unless it is the sort of bible thumping dark aged paganism. They claim all men are created equal yet stratify men based on their color, religion, and financial prowess, they proclaim innocent until proven guilty yet bait young men into a frenzy and imprison others without trial.. They maim, they rape, they burn bodies, they steal body part, they urinate on the dead, they pose with dead bodies, they kill civilians, they strip them of their clothes, they unleash dogs on them & for more pictures, they use illegal weapons, they withhold aid & impose sanctions so if they're not directly dying they're slowly dying, they kill thousands upon thousands of children and call them 'collateral damage' so what exactly is there to compare even to a despotic state like Saudi?

You never fail at being such a hoot.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-20-2012, 07:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by onetwo
If you don't like it don't go there. Doesn't Saudi Arabia ban christianity?
If you don't like the fact that Iran executes gays, don't go there? ^o)
Reply

Chaajo
04-20-2012, 11:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by onetwo
If you don't like it don't go there. Doesn't Saudi Arabia ban christianity?
Well doesn't Vatican ban Islam?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-20-2012, 07:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chaajo
Well doesn't Vatican ban Islam?
It probably does. But it doesn't pretend to be open to anything that conflicts with its official dogma. France does. The hypocracy is what strikes me here. France pretends to be more open minded and less tribal than the Vatican or Saudi Arabia (or the artist formerly known as Bluebell), and to welcome all cultures and then it pulls something like this. :hiding:
Reply

جوري
04-20-2012, 07:50 PM
we can't all belong to that rare 10% cultivated other tribe of yours, so thank God for your presence here!

best,
Reply

sister herb
04-20-2012, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
"If the Virgin wears one, ask me how any woman who refused to wear hijab" isn't coherent. Typo?
As being honest, I have to agree. Muslim women don´t use hijab being similar than virgin Mary in Catholism, but please Allah.
Reply

True-blue
04-21-2012, 08:20 AM
The perspective on hijab is usually very negative in the West. It shows you how much brainwashing has been done to them by the Media. For some it is oppression, for some it is radical Islam, (ironically) for some it does not give women any identity.

On the other hand, throughout history, hijab has been a garb of honour in the practising Muslim society which gives beautiful and proper identity to Muslim women.

Anyway, it seems like that this passionate war between (proper) Muslims and the anti-Hijab non-Muslims will continue for a long time. The day is probably not far away when there will be a literal war for hijab.
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-03-2012, 04:42 PM
It's not your country.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
05-03-2012, 04:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
It's not your country.
USA is not your country either, stolen it from the indians.
Reply

marwen
05-03-2012, 04:53 PM
wait ... my trollometer detect something !


a troll is around !






Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Alrighty now I know how it is. I'm going to get banned because I'm voicing out my FREE opinion and you muslims hate it because I am a westerner. I am now assumed to be a troll because I have different beliefs, great can't wait to get banned.

It's not your country how would you like it if I came to your society and started drinking alcohol in public? Wouldn't like it would ya?
And we don't steal lands^.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-03-2012, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Alrighty now I know how it is. I'm going to get banned because I'm voicing out my FREE opinion and you muslims hate it because I am a westerner. I am now assumed to be a troll because I have different beliefs, great can't wait to get banned.

It's not your country how would you like it if I came to your society and started drinking alcohol in public? Wouldn't like it would ya?
And we don't steal lands^.
Greetings of peace,

Just to clarfiy, many members on board are also westerners and also muslims, not sure exactly where you came up with the 'we muslims hate all westerners'.

It's not your beliefs, perhaps the way you come across, ever taught of that? There will likely be agreement or disagreements but surely we can try keep our calm and inshaa'Allaah speak in a good manner.

lol @the analogy of drinking alcohol, no sane person would think a drunk person is considered okay out in public, perhaps remain in your home?
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-03-2012, 06:00 PM
Ok thanks for the calm approach.
Yes the analogy was bad but my point is that you cannot simply go to a country and try to change the way of life there. If I was to go to a muslim country would you be happy with me trying to voice out my opinion to establish gambling, bars and brothels? of course not!
Reply

Predator
05-03-2012, 06:40 PM
If I was to go to a muslim country would you be happy with me trying to voice out my opinion to establish gambling, bars and brothels? of course not!
Again the analogy is wrong . Gambling,bar and brothrels are all forbidden . Gambling squanders away wealths which could have benefited the poor . Brothrels only give you only STDs and the alcohols in the bar destroys your liver and brain. The reason those pleasures are forbidden is because they do more damage than good,which you cannot prove wrong

002.219 They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit."


Looks you are just afraid that if Islam spreads , then you can no longer enjoys those "pleasures" .
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-03-2012, 06:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Ok thanks for the calm approach.
Yes the analogy was bad but my point is that you cannot simply go to a country and try to change the way of life there. If I was to go to a muslim country would you be happy with me trying to voice out my opinion to establish gambling, bars and brothels? of course not!
You are welcome,

Of course not, but have you tried understanding why? You see this is where we always conclude with a load of stuff that is a lie or make the other seem like they're completely messed up. why a certain country would not accept a city running with gambling, bars and brothels? The thing is we always fight and argue over such issues, but we never find a solution, if we only tried to listen to each other.

Here are a few reasons why such things would not be allowed, because they have no benefit to ones soul by gaining nothing, whereas there are permissible ways or alternatives. I'm sure one would argue, well it's 'fun', but what kind of fun is that? sleeping around with some stranger, getting drunk, waking up the next day and having no idea what you did the night before, or going around and wasting a load of money you could've spent on those who are in need, what benefit is there in wasting money? If you ask me I'd prefer to stick to the 'ban gambling' law rather 'permit gambling' into a society..

Here are alternatives, get married, give charity, do what's right for you and avoid the useless stuff, by benefiting yourself and those around you and much more.
Reply

Scimitar
05-03-2012, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Alrighty now I know how it is. I'm going to get banned because I'm voicing out my FREE opinion and you muslims hate it because I am a westerner. I am now assumed to be a troll because I have different beliefs, great can't wait to get banned.

It's not your country how would you like it if I came to your society and started drinking alcohol in public? Wouldn't like it would ya?
And we don't steal lands^.
Thats considered jaywalking in you country and is an arrestable offence... fail.

DOUBLE STANDARD MY FRIEND.

Scimi
Reply

Futuwwa
05-03-2012, 09:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
It's not your country.
You presume much. Have you verified that no single member of this forum is a French citizen?

But let's presume for the sake of argument that none here is. Therefore?

Is there some cosmic law which states we are not allowed to have opinions or affect things going on in other countries? Does national sovereignty include being free to violate established basic human rights like freedom of religion?

If you think so, then you will practice what you preach and take no issue with the fact that certain Islamic countries ban conversion from Islam to Christianity.
Reply

Futuwwa
05-03-2012, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Alrighty now I know how it is. I'm going to get banned because I'm voicing out my FREE opinion and you muslims hate it because I am a westerner.
Well, I'm a westerner too, and white enough to qualify as a poster boy for the SS. And I'm voicing out free opinions from time to time too, but I'm mostly liked. Try being less presuming, try listening before dictating. A little humble pie gets you a long way.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-03-2012, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
It's not your country.
Hi,

Who does it belong to then?

format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Alrighty now I know how it is. I'm going to get banned because I'm voicing out my FREE opinion and you muslims hate it because I am a westerner. I am now assumed to be a troll because I have different beliefs, great can't wait to get banned.[
I personally do not hate your opinion and hope you do not get banned. I like the exposure the Internet provides with different views. It's interesting.

It's not your country how would you like it if I came to your society and started drinking alcohol in public? Wouldn't like it would ya?
And we don't steal lands^.
I was born in Britain. This makes me a British citizen who happens to practice Islam. I have rights to express myself. Therefore, I'm allowed to advocate that I do not approve of alcohol and that it drinking alcohol in public should be banned. In this case, I'm simply taking advantage over the rights that have been granted to me.
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-04-2012, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
Here are a few reasons why such things would not be allowed, because they have no benefit to ones soul by gaining nothing, whereas there are permissible ways or alternatives. I'm sure one would argue, well it's 'fun', but what kind of fun is that? sleeping around with some stranger, getting drunk, waking up the next day and having no idea what you did the night before, or going around and wasting a load of money you could've spent on those who are in need, what benefit is there in wasting money? If you ask me I'd prefer to stick to the 'ban gambling' law rather 'permit gambling' into a society..
Obviously this is a culture clash so I will try my best to avoid offending people here.
In the western society bars are generally seen as a means of relaxation and it's acceptable here in the west. I am aware that every now and then some attendants do consume too much alcohol but you cannot ban alcohol because of this. There are bound to be stupid people breaking the barrier. Honestly I have no idea why drinking alcohol can be seen as sinful so long as it is done in moderation.
Gambling and Brothels I cannot say much since I actually do not gamble or visit brothels myself however I do admit gambling addiction is a huge problem in our society and I definetely would not mind strict limitations to help people not gamble their future away.
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-04-2012, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
You presume much. Have you verified that no single member of this forum is a French citizen?
No I thought all Muslims in Europe were immigrants. ^o)

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Is there some cosmic law which states we are not allowed to have opinions or affect things going on in other countries? Does national sovereignty include being free to violate established basic human rights like freedom of religion?
Look at the culture clashes between Islam and the West.
Reply

Futuwwa
05-04-2012, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
No I thought all Muslims in Europe were immigrants. ^o)
Then you've learned something new today. Congrats. :)

But beside that, immigrants tend to get citizenship eventually. After which an immigrant is legally a full and equal member of society, a shareholder in the state, not a guest under any obligation to give the hosts the right of way.

format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Look at the culture clashes between Islam and the West.
I can see that there is one going on. Therefore?
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-04-2012, 08:30 PM
Greetings of peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
In the western society bars are generally seen as a means of relaxation and it's acceptable here in the west. I am aware that every now and then some attendants do consume too much alcohol but you cannot ban alcohol because of this. There are bound to be stupid people breaking the barrier. Honestly I have no idea why drinking alcohol can be seen as sinful so long as it is done in moderation.
I'm sure your aware that in the present day (and past) alcohol has caused numerous harms to the society.

Is that saying that there are no other ways of relaxation? I'm very sure you don't need alcohol to relax, as their are plenty of alternatives.

It's not a really a clash of cultures, probably religion and culture , it's people who drink it out of choice, a matter of choice, matter for individuals to decide upon for themselves.

One of the reasons it is sinful as it has more harm than good. By allowing alcohol, who's gonna stop the crazy ones? it's not gonna stop them is it? Or the amount of harm it causes to the body, here you have another reason to do so and maybe more.

Do you know the amount of harm that would be avoided if it ever was? Ever ponder upon that?

Fact is as we all know well, is that it has done more harm than good, otherwise there wouldn't be a limit to how much one should take, it still remains a drug and a great addiction at that.

However, this may just be an opinion of mine, so feel free to disagree all you want.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-04-2012, 10:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
In the western society bars are generally seen as a means of relaxation and it's acceptable here in the west. I am aware that every now and then some attendants do consume too much alcohol but you cannot ban alcohol because of this. There are bound to be stupid people breaking the barrier. Honestly I have no idea why drinking alcohol can be seen as sinful so long as it is done in moderation.
Alcohol is the main reason why there is a high crime rate in Britain.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJus...tion/DG_181558

^ Source.
Reply

LauraS
05-05-2012, 02:17 PM
We must remember France has put a ban on all religious symbols, not just the hijab, but the hijab has recieved the most publicity. I can understand the country's antipathy towards religion and they've had issues with it since the revolution, but how does banning people from expressing their religion make you any better? Let's hope something is done for this woman.
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-09-2012, 02:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Alcohol is the main reason why there is a high crime rate in Britain.
So I guess Islam rules are going to work in the USA too right? ;D
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-09-2012, 02:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
We must remember France has put a ban on all religious symbols, not just the hijab, but the hijab has recieved the most publicity. I can understand the country's antipathy towards religion and they've had issues with it since the revolution, but how does banning people from expressing their religion make you any better? Let's hope something is done for this woman.
So I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet but a woman with a burqa can?
If a police officer is trying to identify who I am I can simply put on a Burqa and claim that it would be "racist" to be pulling it off?
Reply

~ Sabr ~
05-09-2012, 02:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by marina-hadeya
A 32-year-old mother from France is set to become the first woman ever to be sent to prison for wearing an Islamic veil.
She is the daftest woman I have ever seen. Seriously. When the hijab is banned, why wear it and put yourself in Jail?! How dumb. :heated:
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-09-2012, 02:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Haafizah
She is the daftest woman I have ever seen. Seriously. When the hijab is banned, why wear it and put yourself in Jail?! How dumb.
Good post buddy.
This is about respecting the laws. If you hate the rules then just leave the country?
It's common sense.
Reply

~ Sabr ~
05-09-2012, 02:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
If you hate the rules then just leave the country?
Or, Islamically just make Hijrah, like Muhammad :saws: did when the people of Makkah did not let him do anything.
Reply

Muhaba
05-09-2012, 02:58 PM
what happened to the wests claim that they give freedom to people??? where's the freedom? truly this is an attack on all civilized people and all civilized people regardless of religion should protest against this. In the West women are supposed to have the right to wear what they want !
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-09-2012, 06:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Haafizah

She is the daftest woman I have ever seen. Seriously. When the hijab is banned, why wear it and put yourself in Jail?! How dumb. :heated:
AsSalaamu Alaaykum sis,

So sister's should stop wearing hijaab?
Reply

marwen
05-09-2012, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
AsSalaamu Alaaykum sis,

So sister's should stop wearing hijaab?
I think sister Hafizah is talking about niqab not hijab.

format_quote Originally Posted by Haafizah
She is the daftest woman I have ever seen. Seriously. When the hijab is banned, why wear it and put yourself in Jail?! How dumb.
My sister Haafizah, I hope you don't mind if I had a slightly different opinion here :
being jailed for your religion is not dumb.
Such people who face trials are the only front of defense of Islam.
If every muslim thinks only about his personal safety and doesn't make sacrifice for this religion, then nothing will remain, because the enemies of Islam think and also want us to think that every part of Islam is not necessary and is not the "basics of Islam", until we abandon all the deen.

We have the right to personally seek our safety. But if we see someone sacrifice for his deen, we should honor him and encourage him. Because he is defending all of us.

Personally I think this women is more courageous than a lot of men. And if there is only one beneficial thing about what she did, it would be that she let all the world know about this unjustice in Europe (political and intellectual unjustice).

Now about the full face veil, let us remember that, no matter anti-muslims make stupid arguments about how it is not practical and dangerous, let us keep in mind that it's part of Islam. Not a fundamental, but defending niqab means defending islam against future agressions.

From an Islamic perspective, some Ulama' see niqab/burka (full veil) as Wajib(obligatory) and they have their respectable daleels and arguments, other Ulama' see it's not Wajib. But ALL OF THEM see it as Mustahab(recommanded). Some sisters chose niqab and they understood that it's obligatory for them to do. That's their personal freedom, and their legal understanding of hijab that no one can affirm they are wrong or doing something unnecessary, because they took a strong opinion supported by a lot of Ulama'. Therefore, no one can prevent them from practicing their religion the way they do.
Reply

Insaanah
05-09-2012, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by WRITER
In the West women are supposed to have the right to wear what they want !
Supposedly, but not if you're a Muslim it seems.

format_quote Originally Posted by Haafizah
She is the daftest woman I have ever seen. Seriously. When the hijab is banned, why wear it and put yourself in Jail?!
To stand up for what you think is right, to show that you will not be oppressed, will not give in, will not stop practising what some deem to be a necessary practice of our faith just because they say it's wrong, to expose their so-called freedom that cannot tolerate a piece of cloth, to show that we will fight to wear it and so we are not forced to wear it.. etc...
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-09-2012, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Good post buddy.
This is about respecting the laws. If you hate the rules then just leave the country?
It's common sense.
A women is free to wear what she likes?

All a women with a 'face veil' is asking for is some respect, It's simply a cloth over her face, she will remove it if she must, but grant her rights first!
Reply

LauraS
05-09-2012, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
So I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet but a woman with a burqa can?
If a police officer is trying to identify who I am I can simply put on a Burqa and claim that it would be "racist" to be pulling it off?
If, for security reasons, a woman needs to take off her hijab, then surely she should go into a separate room with a female member of staff? Of course Muslim women should be identified like everyone else but we need to meet in the middle.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2012, 04:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
If, for security reasons, a woman needs to take off her hijab, then surely she should go into a separate room with a female member of staff? Of course Muslim women should be identified like everyone else but we need to meet in the middle.
I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle". There should be no special rules for or against anybody due to their religion. Religion should be their own private affair. We should not force our way into it and it should not force its way onto us. We should not put up special bans on muslim dress, nor should we put up special allowances.

What if there is no female member of the staff readily available? Just now much should we inconvenience the bank to accommodate the muslima? Perhaps muslims could open a bank that takes the security risk of people walking around in them covering their faces. If there are legitimate reasons to require her to show her face, then she should have to show her face, or not bank there. No special rules. She can wear her niqab where I can wear a ski mask.
Reply

Hulk
05-10-2012, 05:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle". There should be no special rules for or against anybody due to their religion. Religion should be their own private affair. We should not force our way into it and it should not force its way onto us. We should not put up special bans on muslim dress, nor should we put up special allowances.
Why must we pretend that religion doesn't exist? Don't people have the right to be able to practice what they believe in or don't believe in? I'm not saying that it should be at the cost of risking the lives of others, or even at the cost of causing great inconvenience to others but there should at least be some understanding involved.

To say that wearing a niqab and wearing a ski mask is the same thing is a clear sign of blinding oneself from a person's intention. One has the intention of practicing her faith while the other has the intention of robbing. Intentions may be invisible but we can still evaluate actions. If a woman in niqab chooses to enter a bank then she should also be willing to understand if the staff wishes to see her identity and she should be cooperative as well as long as it is with a female member of the staff.

If a man enters a bank in a ski mask what do you think his intention is? Practicing his faith? Fashion statement? Robbing the bank?

I understand you're talking about "equal" treatment but "equal" doesn't always equate to "fair".
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2012, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
One has the intention of practicing her faith while the other has the intention of robbing.
You don't know that. The man in the ski mask could be cold. He could have a disfigured face. The woman in the islamic dress could be a security risk. She may not be muslim (if it gets out that this is a way you can enter a bank unidentified). She may even be a man. I don't think we should get int he business of implying intentions. Simple fair rules, such as the requirement to show your face where security is an issue, should apply to all. As I said before, no special rules for or against anyone based on religion.

If a woman in niqab chooses to enter a bank then she should also be willing to understand if the staff wishes to see her identity and she should be cooperative as well as long as it is with a female member of the staff.
She should be cooperative period. Or she should not be there. Others should not be put at risk due to her personal beliefs that they don't share. The bank should not be forced to provide a female member of the staff to be on hand at all times, and should not be required to have a female member of the staff to take the muslima aside (I would presume in another room where others won't see her) and do the check.

If it is her personal belief that causes the extra needed expense or inconvenience, then it is herself that should address the needed expense or invonenience. She could have a friend who doesn't wear a burka go into the bank for her, or bank electronically where that is available, or have fellow muslims set up a bank where everybody is allowed to cover their faces (including the guy in the ski mask).

And please don't think this is an anti-muslim thing. I also strongly oppose Ontario's recently allowing Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers where the rest of us can not carry knives. Religion should not be an excuse to allow people special rights others do not have, and your religion should not enable one to impose against the rights of others.

I understand you're talking about "equal" treatment but "equal" doesn't always equate to "fair".
It does here.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-10-2012, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle".
You remind me of most people. They promote equality but keep equity out of the discussion. Sometimes, they confuse the two.
Reply

Futuwwa
05-10-2012, 09:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Good post buddy.
This is about respecting the laws. If you hate the rules then just leave the country?
Again: Do you think the same about prohibitions certain Islamic countries have on Muslims converting to Christianity? I mean, if you don't like the fact that you'll get executed for it, just leave the country? ^o)

Or, to further explore the implications of what you are advocating: Should the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies either have respected the British law or left the country?
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
05-10-2012, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle". There should be no special rules for or against anybody due to their religion. Religion should be their own private affair. We should not force our way into it and it should not force its way onto us. We should not put up special bans on muslim dress, nor should we put up special allowances.

What if there is no female member of the staff readily available? Just now much should we inconvenience the bank to accommodate the muslima? Perhaps muslims could open a bank that takes the security risk of people walking around in them covering their faces. If there are legitimate reasons to require her to show her face, then she should have to show her face, or not bank there. No special rules. She can wear her niqab where I can wear a ski mask.
And I completely and strongly disagree too with your narrow-minded and racist views.

Religion cannot be one's private affair if it includes every aspect of one's life. If religion was a private affair for a Muslim then Muslim men won't grow beards and Muslim women won't wear the veil as an act of religious duty; a duty that isn't confined to an action of the heart. When you see a Muslim you not only see the image as something different from your culture but each and every action a Muslim does is different according to what your own perception of conduct has taught you. The actions of a Muslim is based upon the Quran and Sunnah, actions which teach us how to deal with our lives spiritually and otherwise and actions that encompass each and every affair in life.

In case you haven't realised, for a Muslim woman to be forced to take off her veil in front of a man is forcing her way into her religion; whereas requesting for a female member of staff is a request that will not burden anyone in any way. With all the feminists today making so much noise about equality, I fail to believe not having a female member of staff is an acceptable excuse.

The niqab is recognised around the world as an act of adhering to one's religious teachings, something that some Muslim women deem obligatory. The ski mask is made for the purpose of protecting one's skin from cold or to maintain warmth during sports. This mask is otherwise worn by murders and thugs that are usually men. No one in the world identifies the balaclava as a religious clothing and it, therefore, has no basis to be compared as a form of clothing that should be acceptable to wear without reason and purpose (compared to the niqab).

You're argument therefore holds no weight.

I advise you watch your tone. If you can't accept the niqab as a religious practise then you know where the door is. If you can't find it then I'll gladly show you.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-11-2012, 05:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
And I completely and strongly disagree too with your narrow-minded and racist views.
There is nothing racist about anything I have posted above. I have spoken in regard to principles of fairness and I have not even focussed it exclusively on muslims, never mind a race. Your allegation of racism is hyperbole with no foundation, and I think you know that.

In case you haven't realised, for a Muslim woman to be forced to take off her veil in front of a man is forcing her way into her religion
Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote? I did not say that she should be forced to take off her veil. I believe very strongly that she should NOT be. She should be allowed to wear her veil. She should be allowed to wear whatever she wants. But she should not be allowed to do so at the expense of others. Your rights stop where they impose themselves on me, unless there is a MUCH better justification than them simply being your personal or religious beliefs. If there is a legitimate security reason for requiring people to have their faces visible, and if she can not accept that, then she should not be there. I gave a number of alternatives she could try which would inconvenience herself instead of the rest of us who do not share her views.

No one in the world identifies the balaclava as a religious clothing
Which is exactly why it is used in this example. The face covering being done for religious reasons, like anything else done for religious reasons (such as walking around armed with a Sikh Kirpan), should not allow people special rights that others do not have. There should be no discrimination against OR for people based on religion. I will stand with religious people who are persecuted for their religion, and I will stand against them if they seek special rights based on their religion. This is simple fairness to all.

I advise you watch your tone. If you can't accept the niqab as a religious practise then you know where the door is. If you can't find it then I'll gladly show you.
This is pure projection. I have been completely polite. Your threat is noted.
Reply

Hulk
05-11-2012, 11:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You don't know that. The man in the ski mask could be cold. He could have a disfigured face. The woman in the islamic dress could be a security risk. She may not be muslim (if it gets out that this is a way you can enter a bank unidentified). She may even be a man. I don't think we should get int he business of implying intentions. Simple fair rules, such as the requirement to show your face where security is an issue, should apply to all. As I said before, no special rules for or against anyone based on religion.
A man walks into a bank in a ski mask and the first thing that runs through your minds is that maybe he has a cold? ;D If it so happens that he has a disfigured face and chooses to wear that ski mask then what is wrong with him letting the staff know and go through the same procedure as a woman in Niqab? A lot of your statements involve "we shouldn't do this" or "we shouldn't do that" but you never mention why except for implying that it is unfair. Really? So if a person in a wheelchair were to be allowed in front of a long queue would say thats unfair? I'm not saying we should assume someone's intention but we can calculate probability can't we? Why pretend to be a fool? A man in a ski mask walks into a bank and you think maybe he has a cold?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
She should be cooperative period.
I agree with this, but not with your idea that it doesn't matter whether it is a man or woman who verifies her identity. Is this what humans have come to? No compassion or emotion? And its a bank, you really think there won't be any female member of the staff? Really? If that were the really the case then I can understand, and the muslim woman can choose a different bank but what are the odds of that?

In my country Sikhs in the military are excused from wearing berets, as well as wearing helmet when riding a motorbike. These things are otherwise illegal yet we don't see people going "If he can wear a turban instead of a beret I can wear a baseball cap."

Is this logical to you?

Also.. I don't think what you said was meant to be racist but rather a very flawed logic in my point of view but if you insist on pretending religions don't exist, that people don't have the ability to differentiate whether someone has a cold or about to rob a bank, you are free to have your perspective.
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-11-2012, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Should the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies either have respected the British law or left the country?
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
If, for security reasons, a woman needs to take off her hijab, then surely she should go into a separate room with a female member of staff? Of course Muslim women should be identified like everyone else but we need to meet in the middle.
That doesn't happen enough.*

*I tried responding to your Private message but unable too due to my status on this website.
Reply

UnitedStates#1
05-11-2012, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Thirteen Colonies either have respected the British law or left the country?
Irrelevant. This was 300 years ago. Our founding fathers were subject to colonization. They won their independence fair and square.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-11-2012, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
And I completely and strongly disagree too with your narrow-minded and racist views.
Salaam,

There is nothing racist about his post.

I advise you watch your tone. If you can't accept the niqab as a religious practise then you know where the door is. If you can't find it then I'll gladly show you.
There is nothing wrong with his post. He has remained polite and has not resorted to personal attacks. You may disagree with him on certain issues, but I'm certain it is not against the forum rules to disagree respectfully. I advise you to watch your tone and not to make baseless accusations.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2012, 01:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
You remind me of most people. They promote equality but keep equity out of the discussion. Sometimes, they confuse the two.
Reading your post and Hulk's post I see that there can be some civil discussion on this, so let's examine things a bit further and see how far we can go in such discussion before the super moderator "shows me the door" for not sharing his views.

I agree that equal treatment doesn't always mean fair treatment. Some people face an unfair disadvantage, such as Hulk's example of a person in a wheelchair, and need special help in order to be treated fairly. It is important to consider the nature and source of the special need to determine if special treatment should be allowed. Physical disability and self chosen belief system or world view are not the same thing. It is important to consider to what degree they themselves can do the accommodating. How much effort will it take them to avoid imposing it on the rest of us? And it is important to consider the extent that the special treatment affects others. Tolerance, Accommodation, and Imposition are not all one and the same.

The specific question here in this thread is: To what extent should we allow people to impose on others due to their beliefs.

My answer is far less than your answer I would presume from what has been written above (correct me if I make a false presumption). I would group "beliefs" together and zero in exclusively on religious beliefs, and we may differ there as well.

Give me your thoughts on some cases:

1. The women walking down the street in Burkas: Yes. I am completely with those women on this issue. The source of the action is mere personal belief (and not a physical handicap) but the request is not asking for any sort of real imposition on the rest of us. There are some issues especially in French society, as I outlined earlier in the thread, but I think they are easily outweighed here. And there is really nothing they could do, short of staying home all the time, to avoid the rest of us facing the issue. This is a mere case of tolerance and should be ok.

2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.

3. The Sikh man with Kirpan: Here is a case that falls in between the women with burkas on the street and the woman in the bank with the burka. Highly religious Sikhs demand to carry ceremonial daggers with them at all times. Laws are in place banning the rest of us from carrying knives. Should a special allowance be made? I say no. The reason for the request is again a personally chosen belief system. The ability to accommodate oneself is restricted (like the burkas on the street). The imposition is a major security risk (like the burka in the bank). I fall on the side of saying they shouldn't be allowed. You may disagree?

4. The man in the wheelchair: Here is Hank's case, an easy one. I say yes and I presume you do too. I am completely with the handicapped when they need special parking spaces and wheelchair ramps, etc. Their request is made from an actual physical need and not from a freely chosen belief or worldview. This means some real imposition makes sense and is fair. I *DO* believe they should have to justify their disability, and that people shouldn't be allowed to get handicap parking stickers without truly being disabled, as happens too often though. Like the case of the women in burkas on the street, short of always staying home, there is really nothing the man in the wheelchair can do to avoid the rest of us facing the issue.

5. The blind man with seeing eye dog: Here the imposition is even stronger. Now we are allowing somebody to bring a dog into our stores, restaurants, and other places. This could make other customers uncomfortable. This could be a sanitary issue in a restaurant, etc. But again I would be for it, because the need stems from a physical disability and not just a freely chosen belief system. Some thought should be given to electronic devices or other replacements for the guide dogs to reduce the imposition on the rest of us. In time once these are highly efficient and availalbe, I would change my mind on the right of the blind man to bring the dog in the store.

6. Homosexual Marriage: This is an easy yes from me. For you it may be a no. I would like to know if there is any reason for that on my criteria above, or if is just a no because your religion says so, or if I am mistaken and it is a yes for you. Here they are making the request based on what some may call physical condition (like the handicap people above) and others may call a freely chosen belief (like the religious examples above). The ability for them to self accommodate isn't really there. It is debatable how important being married is (perhaps it is not as dire a need as banking). The key here though is the imposition is pretty much zero. They are asking for tolerance and nothing more. Jim marrying James doesn't affect me in any way, nor does it affect my heterosexual marriage. Or maybe it does? I would like to hear how it does if you think it does.

7. Alternative medicine for kids: Here is another easy one for me. Some new age parents in the west believe in many different kinds of folk medicine, all of which they swear by, and none of which have been scientifically proved to be effective. Some parents (religious and not) will forgo life saving vaccines, blood transfusions, and other procedures, denying these to their kids, potentially harming their health, and sometimes even costing the kids their lives. Here the source is a personal belief and the imposition is dire.

8. Affirmative Action: This is a tricky one and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Racism is very real in the west (and I presume also in the east). Statistics show that black people are over represented in prison and under represented in high paying jobs. The question is why. Many argue that there continue to be strong barriers of racism and that this is enough to justify special consideration and special treatment for black applicants, taking them over white ones. Others argue that race is connected to poverty due to historical factors and that disadvantage flows from poverty and that special treatment based on race is racist against poor whites. The need for special treatment for blacks is not entirely clear (but seems to me to be genuine at least to some extent). There is no ability to self accommodate. The imposition is dire. I don't know where I sit on this.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-12-2012, 02:06 PM
well the next time anybody says islam infringes on womens rights.. just let em know.

i think it is an abuse of rights, simply because the punishment outweighs the risk.

i cant think of any burka attacks at first thought.

and shoplifters should be prosecuted... 2 years seems a bit heavy handed though.


recently saw a video of some blogger being questioned by police for open carrying in america, he was video blogging while carrying and had three clips on his belt.

he just could not see what the problem was.

..or why he would be considered suspicious.

he also refused to show id.



i dont get the point im making.


maybe personal freedoms should be enforced and some laws do require changing for the good of the people.

but im not the one to do it.. as long as they let you vote.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-12-2012, 04:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Reading your post and Hulk's post I see that there can be some civil discussion on this, so let's examine things a bit further and see how far we can go in such discussion before the super moderator "shows me the door" for not sharing his views.


I agree that equal treatment doesn't always mean fair treatment. Some people face an unfair disadvantage, such as Hulk's example of a person in a wheelchair, and need special help in order to be treated fairly. It is important to consider the nature and source of the special need to determine if special treatment should be allowed. Physical disability and self chosen belief system or world view are not the same thing. It is important to consider to what degree they themselves can do the accommodating. How much effort will it take them to avoid imposing it on the rest of us? And it is important to consider the extent that the special treatment affects others. Tolerance, Accommodation, and Imposition are not all one and the same.

The specific question here in this thread is: To what extent should we allow people to impose on others due to their beliefs.

My answer is far less than your answer I would presume from what has been written above (correct me if I make a false presumption). I would group "beliefs" together and zero in exclusively on religious beliefs, and we may differ there as well.
I personally advocate policies that are equitable and practicable.

Give me your thoughts on some cases:

1. The women walking down the street in Burkas: Yes. I am completely with those women on this issue. The source of the action is mere personal belief (and not a physical handicap) but the request is not asking for any sort of real imposition on the rest of us. There are some issues especially in French society, as I outlined earlier in the thread, but I think they are easily outweighed here. And there is really nothing they could do, short of staying home all the time, to avoid the rest of us facing the issue. This is a mere case of tolerance and should be ok.
This is an issue of dress code. If a person is wearing a particular dress code with no intention of frightening or harming another person, then that's fine. However, if a person or a group of people are wearing clothes with the intention of frightening other people, then this is not acceptable.

Your case raises another issue. There are some people that would like to walk around naked in public. My only concern is these people will could attract the wrong sort of attention, such as violence being inflicted upon them.

2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.
Intention is important. Why would you wear a ski mask in a bank? A Muslim women wears a niqaab in order to please Allah. This distinction must be considered. Where there is an issue of personal identification and security, I agree, a Muslim women should remove her face veil and checks should be made.


3. The Sikh man with Kirpan: Here is a case that falls in between the women with burkas on the street and the woman in the bank with the burka. Highly religious Sikhs demand to carry ceremonial daggers with them at all times. Laws are in place banning the rest of us from carrying knives. Should a special allowance be made? I say no. The reason for the request is again a personally chosen belief system. The ability to accommodate oneself is restricted (like the burkas on the street). The imposition is a major security risk (like the burka in the bank). I fall on the side of saying they shouldn't be allowed. You may disagree?
I do not have a problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. You may find this hard to believe. If a country permits people to carry guns, then I have no problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. Of course, I think there should be a system to govern this process of carrying daggers. Licence must be required. This sounds equitable and practicable. There would be certain places where they cannot carry a dagger such as in a nursery, bank or courts.

I say yes and I presume you do too.
Your completely right.

5. The blind man with seeing eye dog: Here the imposition is even stronger. Now we are allowing somebody to bring a dog into our stores, restaurants, and other places. This could make other customers uncomfortable. This could be a sanitary issue in a restaurant, etc. But again I would be for it, because the need stems from a physical disability and not just a freely chosen belief system. Some thought should be given to electronic devices or other replacements for the guide dogs to reduce the imposition on the rest of us. In time once these are highly efficient and availalbe, I would change my mind on the right of the blind man to bring the dog in the store.
Again, I have no problem with a blind man with a seeing eye dog coming into hotels or restaurants. If other customers have a problem, then they'll will have to deal with it.

6. Homosexual Marriage: This is an easy yes from me. For you it may be a no. I would like to know if there is any reason for that on my criteria above, or if is just a no because your religion says so, or if I am mistaken and it is a yes for you. Here they are making the request based on what some may call physical condition (like the handicap people above) and others may call a freely chosen belief (like the religious examples above). The ability for them to self accommodate isn't really there. It is debatable how important being married is (perhaps it is not as dire a need as banking). The key here though is the imposition is pretty much zero. They are asking for tolerance and nothing more. Jim marrying James doesn't affect me in any way, nor does it affect my heterosexual marriage. Or maybe it does? I would like to hear how it does if you think it does.
I'll be honest. The main reason why I disagree with homosexual marriages because it is against Islam and I do not approve of anal sex. Not that all homosexuals engage in anal sex, but in the case of men, it could lead to it. I disagree with it, but I'm willing to tolerate it. I admit, I'm interested to see the social implications of allowing homosexuals to get married.

7. Alternative medicine for kids: Here is another easy one for me. Some new age parents in the west believe in many different kinds of folk medicine, all of which they swear by, and none of which have been scientifically proved to be effective. Some parents (religious and not) will forgo life saving vaccines, blood transfusions, and other procedures, denying these to their kids, potentially harming their health, and sometimes even costing the kids their lives. Here the source is a personal belief and the imposition is dire.
Not sure...

8. Affirmative Action: This is a tricky one and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Racism is very real in the west (and I presume also in the east). Statistics show that black people are over represented in prison and under represented in high paying jobs. The question is why. Many argue that there continue to be strong barriers of racism and that this is enough to justify special consideration and special treatment for black applicants, taking them over white ones. Others argue that race is connected to poverty due to historical factors and that disadvantage flows from poverty and that special treatment based on race is racist against poor whites. The need for special treatment for blacks is not entirely clear (but seems to me to be genuine at least to some extent). There is no ability to self accommodate. The imposition is dire. I don't know where I sit on this.
All I can say is that I'm against positive discrimination.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2012, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Your case raises another issue. There are some people that would like to walk around naked in public. My only concern is these people will could attract the wrong sort of attention, such as violence being inflicted upon them.
That seems to me like blaming the victim. You could use the same line of thought to say that women shouldn't wear miniskirts because it may incite men to rape them, or that women shouldn't wear burkas because there are bigoted islamophobes who may attack them.

My only problem with people going nude in public is the sanitation issue. I don't want to sit in a chair that was just sat in my a sweaty naked person. At a public beach or a public pool I don't have this issue and would be perfectly fine with people being nude there. I think many here would be surprised at just how fast the nudity taboo can dissipate. I have been to a nudist resort and it is not the den of sexual depravity that I'm sure some here would imagine. It takes a bit of getting used to but it becomes natural. We were born that way after all. I would actually enjoy watching a discussion between a nudist woman and a burka clad muslim woman, as they'd both have so many misconceptions about the other.

Intention is important. Why would you wear a ski mask in a bank? A Muslim women wears a niqaab in order to please Allah. This distinction must be considered.
I don't think the distinction is all that important actually. I think the principle of equality trumps it. If we make it acceptable for people to wear burkas into security sensitive areas then that also opens up a Trojan horse, in that people knowing this who do mean to do wrong and are not even muslim or perhaps not even female may exploit it and dress up like muslim women in burkas to go unseen. As for the ski mask guy, there could be reasons. He could be disfigured, it could be very cold out, etc.

Where there is an issue of personal identification and security, I agree, a Muslim women should remove her face veil and checks should be made.
The question then is who is paying for these checks and who is being inconvenienced by them. And you'd also have the issue of the discomfort in people being around masked people and them wondering how good the checks are and if they are actually being done, etc.

I do not have a problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. You may find this hard to believe. If a country permits people to carry guns, then I have no problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. Of course, I think there should be a system to govern this process of carrying daggers. Licence must be required. This sounds equitable and practicable. There would be certain places where they cannot carry a dagger such as in a nursery, bank or courts.
Well sure, if people can carry guns they should be allowed to carry knives. That isn't why I fit this example in here. I put in this example because in Ontario Sikhs can carry these knives on the street and the rest of us can NOT carry around guns or knives of that size. A special exception is being made based on the Sikh having Sikh beliefs, putting the public at risk, and I oppose that.

Again, I have no problem with a blind man with a seeing eye dog coming into hotels or restaurants. If other customers have a problem, then they'll will have to deal with it.
We need to consider why they are doing it and if there are easy alternatives to it, and what risks or imposition it puts on the rest of us. If there are freely available and equally efficient electronic devices that can accomplish the same thing, then I'd say no to the blind having dogs where the rest of us are not allowed dogs.

I'll be honest. The main reason why I disagree with homosexual marriages because it is against Islam and I do not approve of anal sex. Not that all homosexuals engage in anal sex, but in the case of men, it could lead to it. I disagree with it, but I'm willing to tolerate it. I admit, I'm interested to see the social implications of allowing homosexuals to get married.
So you personally find homosexuality repugnant I gather, but would you have voted for North Carolina's recent law that officially defines marriage as only "between men and women"? That law actually says "one man and one woman" but I changed it here because I realize Islam allows for poligamy. Laws like that are explicitly aimed at denying homosexuals the same rights the rest of us have. I fully expect our grand children to look back in dismay on this and wonder how we could have thought such a way, the same way we look back on bans of inter racial marriage (or black slavery for that matter) today. I have been to a few weddings of homosexual friends of mine and I'll admit I initially found it a bit awkward seeing two men up there. But in the end the ceremony was beautiful and the love could be felt all around. A tear came to my eye when the vows had been exchanged and they kissed and led us all to start dancing.

Not sure...
I think allowances should be made for people to raise their kids as they see fit, until it crosses such a line where the child is put in real and present danger. If a child is put at risk due to beliefs of the parent I most definitely believe the state should step in. We are guardians of our children, not owners. This is where child abuse laws, etc, come from. I'd also note that refusing your child (or even yourself) a vaccination can increase the spread of what is being vaccinated against and potentially put the rest of society at greater risk.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-12-2012, 05:49 PM
Greetings of peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Well sure, if people can carry guns they should be allowed to carry knives. That isn't why I fit this example in here. I put in this example because in Ontario Sikhs can carry these knives on the street and the rest of us can NOT carry around guns or knives of that size. A special exception is being made based on the Sikh having Sikh beliefs, putting the public at risk, and I oppose that.
How about students in class, a muslim student get's up to ask permission to pray, is that wrong or giving one their religious rights?

How about schools, colleges, uni's and also work places which allow one to offer their prayer, is that a wrong doing or providing one their religious rights?

A guy carrying a kirpan, as far I know is for the reason of self-defence, he isn't suppose to use it other reasons beside that, if you want to carry a kirpan, you should perhaps convert to the sikh faith (not saying you should but trying to make my point),for example if you'd want to visit makkah you'd have to firstly become a muslim wholeheartedly or perhaps the simple alternative, learn karate, boxing and all that which serves for self-defence.

And regardless of women wearing a face veil or some dude wearing a ski mask, it is completely understandable for one to show their face due to security reasons, there is no doubt in that and women are willing to be cooperative, but you've to serve your customer right by not infringing ones rights..the security people should also be willing to cooperate, that way the security are pleased and so is the women in niqaab or the guy in a ski mask, because both rights have been given. And there is no lacking in women workers at such place as far as i'm aware..

And also I've been to a bank where a women was serving a women in face veil, the bank had no issue's with her at all nor did they ask her to remove her face veil and i'd assume this isnt the first time either..Everyone survived in the bank and all were in perfect shape, you cannot judge the whole as one. But say if she was excused to show her face, she'd be adviced to so, but in front of a women.

This does not mean I do not understand the issue of security, if she must then she would be prepared to so do, that saying the security people should also be..

Hoping you do not take offense by some of what i've said, if so apologies.
Reply

Muhammad
05-12-2012, 06:07 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.
Should laws be based upon likely occurrences or exceptions? People who wish to rob banks usually wear ski masks/balaclavas. How many times have bank robbers worn Burqas (which, it should be noted, would be a very inconvenient disguise to choose)?

4. The man in the wheelchair: Here is Hank's case, an easy one. I say yes and I presume you do too. I am completely with the handicapped when they need special parking spaces and wheelchair ramps, etc. Their request is made from an actual physical need and not from a freely chosen belief or worldview. This means some real imposition makes sense and is fair. I *DO* believe they should have to justify their disability, and that people shouldn't be allowed to get handicap parking stickers without truly being disabled, as happens too often though. Like the case of the women in burkas on the street, short of always staying home, there is really nothing the man in the wheelchair can do to avoid the rest of us facing the issue.
Beliefs are freely chosen but they are not a card that you can change any time you want. People cannot change their beliefs just to go to the bank. Who is to say that a spiritual need is any less important than a physical need?
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2012, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
How about students in class, a muslim student get's up to ask permission to pray, is that wrong or giving one their religious rights?
Will she leave the room and find a secluded area out of everyone's way to pray? Will she pray silently so nobody notices? Or will she kneel down in the middle of the classroom and pray loudly, making it difficulty for other students to focus on the lesson? As I noted above, it depends very much on if she is imposing herself on others. I think she could do this with no imposition whatsoever. I have no problem with her going to pray. She'll have to face the result of her missing part of the lesson though. We're not going to start it over when she returns or give her free tutoring to catch her up. Perhaps she won't even have to worry about that though, because we'll probably have the whole class wanting some breaks. Some will go to the washroom. Some will go for a smoke or a bite to eat. She can go pray. Nobody needs to be imposed on.

A guy carrying a kirpan, as far I know is for the reason of self-defence, he isn't suppose to use it other reasons beside that
He isn't supposed to, but that doesn't mean he won't. Nor does it mean others can't dress up like Sikhs so they can carry knives where they shouldn't. And who is to say that I want to carry my hunting knife while walking down the street for anything other than self defence? We have laws against carrying weapons. I am restricted by those laws, and the Sikh should be too.

but you've to serve your customer right by not infringing ones rights
You are not infringing on her rights by saying she must abide by the same rules as everybody else. I'm ok with the security check idea, but maybe she should pay a fee for it? That female worker has to be there, has to take time away from whatever she was doing, and has to take the muslima to another room so the check can be done. She also likely needs a little cultural training in how to best do this. In a community with a lot of muslim women in burkas, this may make economic sense for the bank to do as a courtesy, to bring in more of these women as customers. But that won't always be the case.

Hoping you do not take offense by some of what i've said, if so apologies.
No need to walk on eggshells around me. Speak your mind freely, and I won't take any offence. You are not calling me racist or threatening to ban me for disagreeing with you like the other guy was :)
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2012, 06:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Should laws be based upon likely occurrences or exceptions? People who wish to rob banks usually wear ski masks/balaclavas. How many times have bank robbers worn Burqas (which, it should be noted, would be a very inconvenient disguise to choose)?
The ski mask is just an example of a non-religious mask. You can substitute a surgical mask, a motorcycle helmet with visor, or any number of other face coverings. The point is the special pleading based on religious belief, not the statistical likelihood of somebody robbing a bank and what they were wearing. I don't think anybody has ever robbed a bank wearing a jack-o-lantern on their head, but that'd be another example (lol what an image!)

Beliefs are freely chosen but they are not a card that you can change any time you want.
No, but they are self imposed. People choose to be muslims. Nobody chooses to be in a wheelchair. If a muslim needs particular things to be muslim, then he should pay for them himself, not demand that we all take on risks or go out of our way to abide by his wishes.

Here are three more cases to be considered:

9. Vegetarian meals: Should airlines be required by law to carry vegetarian (or kosher or halal) meals for vegetarian travelers? This may be something they'll do anyway to bring in customers (if there is enough demand), but if there is no such demand and it costs the airline to the point that they make a loss in carrying these meals, should they be forced to do so?

10. Fat people on Planes: Speaking of Airlines, should fat people who can't fit in one seat and spill over onto the seat next to them be given 2 seats for the price of one? Should they have to buy two seats if their girth is above a particular size and they are likely to infringe on the space of the guy sitting next to them? This was an actual topic being hotly discussed regarding an american airline a few months ago. Going more extreme in the other direction, should airline passengers be weighed and should ticket prices be based on that weight? It costs more to move a fat guy than a tiny girl after all. Being obese is an interesting case because it is in part a choice and in part genetic.

11. No Smoking: Should smokers be allowed to smoke in enclosed public places? 20 years ago people were allowed to smoke in offices. Now they are not, due to the pressure of the rest of us not willing to choke on their fumes and 2nd hand smoke. A few years ago smoking in restaurants was banned. Now smokers huddle out in the rain in little corners outside to get their puffs. One chooses to become a smoker, but then gets addicted. Thoughts on this case? Do you think it fits into the ones above?
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-12-2012, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Will she leave the room and find a secluded area out of everyone's way to pray? Will she pray silently so nobody notices? Or will she kneel down in the middle of the classroom and pray loudly, making it difficulty for other students to focus on the lesson? As I noted above, it depends very much on if she is imposing herself on others. I think she could do this with no imposition whatsoever. I have no problem with her going to pray. She'll have to face the result of her missing part of the lesson though. We're not going to start it over when she returns or give her free tutoring to catch her up. Perhaps she won't even have to worry about that though, because we'll probably have the whole class wanting some breaks. Some will go to the washroom. Some will go for a smoke or a bite to eat. She can go pray. Nobody needs to be imposed on.
No she or he would go to a different room to pray specifically the prayer room, this isn't just about a muslim it's about all individuals who have a religious belief, it's a prayer room for all faiths.
The most it'll take is around 5-10 minutes, depending on the individual. And yes, if a prayer is during a class then one go at that moment or later on if the class is really important, in that case it would perhaps be one being flexible, but honestly during my time i've never missed out on anything important. If it was really important the teacher would inform us so i'd go after i had it explained and had it noted down. That way I didn't miss anything in class nor did I miss my prayer.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
He isn't supposed to, but that doesn't mean he won't. Nor does it mean others can't dress up like Sikhs so they can carry knives where they shouldn't. And who is to say that I want to carry my hunting knife while walking down the street for anything other than self defence? We have laws against carrying weapons. I am restricted by those laws, and the Sikh should be too.
Well, he is suppose to in his belief, if the state of 'ontaria' has allowed him to do so, i'm sure they have their reasoning or explanation. But if we looked at in a general view point, let's say he lives in a town where their's a load of crime, where he feels it's a must, i'm sure he then would, and so would any other individual regardless of faith. It's you who would end up in trouble if your intention of carrying the knife was to cause trouble, you'd be accountable for it, irregardless of being a sikh or not, you'd be accountable and not the sikh faith itself, because their clear purpose is 'self defence' and not causing harm or danger to another. It can be based on the individual's intention..but if was safe where he lives i'm sure we'd all agree he wouldn't have a need to carry a dagger around. But I can suggest that other ways of 'self defence' be considered.

It's like some so called muslims who label themselves muslims but do not act upon their name, but rather the opposite and so on with few other faiths, situations etc etc. As mentioned before a wrong is a wrong regardless of faith..whether he be a muslim or non-muslim..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You are not infringing on her rights by saying she must abide by the same rules as everybody else. I'm ok with the security check idea, but maybe she should pay a fee for it? That female worker has to be there, has to take time away from whatever she was doing, and has to take the muslima to another room so the check can be done. She also likely needs a little cultural training in how to best do this. In a community with a lot of muslim women in burkas, this may make economic sense for the bank to do as a courtesy, to bring in more of these women as customers. But that won't always be the case.
You are infringing her religious rights, she has the right to dress how she wills? A fee for showing your face? How will a fee benefit the security guys when they get paid already for doing their job? or the company? What if she is normal citizen like any other and isn't a supposed 'hidden terrorist' once the full check ups are done? If that really is that case, then perhaps the muslims should ask the gov to pay them a fee, for the body scanners which show every part of you? for infringing their rights and because none of em were actually terrorists? Even though they weren't wearing a face veil, just based on the hijaab and a beard perhaps or even the word 'muslim'? lol

If it's under the veil what you want to see, then that wouldn't take a load of time, but like i said, if she's willing to cooperate, security people do also..
she wouldn't need 'cultural' training if all she needs to do is see the womens face and well the law already promotes religious rights, or I'm i missing something? And plus it's the duty of the worker to ensure the customer is well served, is it not? no matter how much time it may take. At times it can take time to deal with customers, this isn't based on only wearing the face veil..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No need to walk on eggshells around me. Speak your mind freely, and I won't take any offence. You are not calling me racist or threatening to ban me for disagreeing with you like the other guy was
Well, i don't have the power to ban you :hiding: nor am I walking on egg shells :\
Reply

Futuwwa
05-12-2012, 08:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UnitedStates#1
Irrelevant. This was 300 years ago. Our founding fathers were subject to colonization. They won their independence fair and square.
I thought you thought so. And you have hereby demonstrated your inconsistency. You claim that people who don't accept the laws of the country should leave it (rather than protest and try to change it), yet you don't apply the same standard to your Founding Fathers.

So, how is it? Do people have a moral right to protest and oppose unjust laws, or not? Or does a different standard apply to Founding Fathers than to French Muslim women?
Reply

Muhammad
05-12-2012, 09:07 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The ski mask is just an example of a non-religious mask. You can substitute a surgical mask, a motorcycle helmet with visor, or any number of other face coverings. The point is the special pleading based on religious belief, not the statistical likelihood of somebody robbing a bank and what they were wearing. I don't think anybody has ever robbed a bank wearing a jack-o-lantern on their head, but that'd be another example (lol what an image!)
People wear different things for different reasons, whether health, religion, disability and so on. It should be a case-by-case issue, rather than a blanket rule which simply doesn't work. The Burqa is recognised as being a requirement for Muslim dress and in most cases there is no security risk. So how is this forcing an 'imposition' on anyone? Nobody is being asked to go out of their way. Other face coverings would have to be assessed for need and purpose, and they too could receive their own rule. If there was an epidemic of disease, it would be normal for people to walk in with surgical masks, as might already happen in some parts of the world.

No, but they are self imposed. People choose to be muslims. Nobody chooses to be in a wheelchair.
This is irrelevant to whether or not people should accommodate or tolerate them. In both cases there is a need albeit for different reasons.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2012, 11:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
This is irrelevant to whether or not people should accommodate or tolerate them. In both cases there is a need albeit for different reasons.
Here we disagree. I find it not only relevant but very important why they are demanding special treatment. If it is self imposed, they should pay for it themselves if possible. Any thoughts on the new cases I noted?
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2012, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
No she or he would go to a different room to pray specifically the prayer room, this isn't just about a muslim it's about all individuals who have a religious belief, it's a prayer room for all faiths.
And I would assume also for atheists do to silent non-religious meditation in as well? I'd have no problem with that if there was enough people using it to justify the expense.

As mentioned before a wrong is a wrong regardless of faith..whether he be a muslim or non-muslim.. [/quote]

Exactly. And holding a particular world view doesn't make something right for person A, when it is wrong for person B.

You are infringing her religious rights, she has the right to dress how she wills?
Her right to dress how she wills ends where my rights and the rights of other people she imposes that on outweigh that right. This applies to all of the cases I have presented in one way or another. If there is a legitimate identity or security risk that we are taking because of her choice to cover her face then we have a problem.

A fee for showing your face? How will a fee benefit the security guys when they get paid already for doing their job? or the company? What if she is normal citizen like any other and isn't a supposed 'hidden terrorist' once the full check ups are done?
If she causes the risky situation then she should pay for it. Or she could find another bank to go to that has enough demand for this service that they feel it pays to go out of their way to do it on their expense to bring her and the others in as customers.

Well, i don't have the power to ban you :hiding: nor am I walking on egg shells :\
You are very polite and courteous. I don't think I'd ever have a problem with anything you may say.
Reply

Muhammad
05-13-2012, 12:41 AM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Here we disagree. I find it not only relevant but very important why they are demanding special treatment. If it is self imposed, they should pay for it themselves if possible. Any thoughts on the new cases I noted?
But what is there to pay for in this scenario? All that Muslimahs are asking is to be left alone, there is hardly much special treatment being 'demanded'.

I'll have a closer look at the scenarios tomorrow Insha'Allaah.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-13-2012, 01:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings,

But what is there to pay for in this scenario? All that Muslimahs are asking is to be left alone, there is hardly much special treatment being 'demanded'.

I'll have a closer look at the scenarios tomorrow Insha'Allaah.
If you are referring to the OP then I agree. Same goes for the gay marriage case. Only tolerance is needed and it should not be a problem for anybody. Some of the other cases above are different though and imposition is being sought.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-13-2012, 01:23 PM
Greetings of peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And I would assume also for atheists do to silent non-religious meditation in as well? I'd have no problem with that if there was enough people using it to justify the expense.
AsSalaah is at fixed times, reasons to why we pray at certain times, although there are optional prayers which could be prayed whenever, though as I mentioned if the lesson has something important one will miss out on, one should stay to have it explained and noted down and then leave. Non-religious meditation if fixed on certain times, then do so, but again it's not something your obliged to do during class time, it can be done whenever.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Exactly. And holding a particular world view doesn't make something right for person A, when it is wrong for person B.
It is wrong if it is acted upon, What if person A cooperates for the security of person B,C,D,E, etc etc? Because they realize the seriousness of circumstances..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Her right to dress how she wills ends where my rights and the rights of other people she imposes that on outweigh that right. This applies to all of the cases I have presented in one way or another. If there is a legitimate identity or security risk that we are taking because of her choice to cover her face then we have a problem.
Then i'd see sisters not attending those banks..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If she causes the risky situation then she should pay for it. Or she could find another bank to go to that has enough demand for this service that they feel it pays to go out of their way to do it on their expense to bring her and the others in as customers.
Inshaa'Allaah there will be a bank as such near her, not now, perhaps in the near future..God willingly..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You are very polite and courteous. I don't think I'd ever have a problem with anything you may say.
I'll admit i was joking in the last line of my previous post. However, you are free to hold your views, and so am I, and everyone else. And hopefully we can respect one another regardless of disagreements..

and peace with you!..
Reply

Muhammad
05-14-2012, 07:45 PM
Greetings Pygoscelis,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If you are referring to the OP then I agree. Same goes for the gay marriage case. Only tolerance is needed and it should not be a problem for anybody. Some of the other cases above are different though and imposition is being sought.
Muslim women wearing veils cannot be grouped in the same category as gay marriages. On the surface of it, it may seem that both are not affecting anybody else and should be left alone to do as they wish. However, gay marriages do have an effect on society and connote something totally different than the veil. Dealing with the latter point first, a woman covering herself is something that is recogised with modesty and virtue, even if people today don't practice it. I am sure there are biblical references that can be used as support, most notably the image of the virgin Mary and the extant practice of nuns. And we don't have to go back very far to note that many women in the west would cover their hair before leaving the house, and would wear much looser and longer clothing than is fashionable today. In contrast, homosexuality has been regarded a criminal act by all faiths until very recently, which is why Muslim leaders are not the only ones standing against it. It clearly goes against the natural disposition upon which God created mankind. The second point is that homosexual marriages harm society as if increasing numbers of men were to do this, increasing numbers of women would not be able to marry and procreate in the natural way. The following is a good summary of the problems caused by homosexuality:

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Homosexuality - including both gays and lesbians - is seen as a perversion of the natural order which God has instituted for humanity. It is in conflict with the nature of humanity, as a creation that procreates. Hence, it is wrong from a natural perspective. Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective. Homosexuality negates the basic block of society, a family, thus it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father. Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.
On the other hand, the Burqa/veil is actually protective to society as it protects marital bonds and helps prevent family breakdown by extramarital relationships and teenage pregnancies leading to single parents and abortions etc.

I hope it is clearer why these two issues cannot be regarded as one and the same.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-15-2012, 09:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That seems to me like blaming the victim. You could use the same line of thought to say that women shouldn't wear miniskirts because it may incite men to rape them, or that women shouldn't wear burkas because there are bigoted islamophobes who may attack them.
Hi,

No, I'm not blaming the victim. The point was to be realistic. It is likely for a naked person on the streets to be treated inappropriately. That is all. This is what I mean by policies to be practicable.

I would actually enjoy watching a discussion between a nudist woman and a burka clad muslim woman,
I'm sure you would. :p:

I don't think the distinction is all that important actually. I think the principle of equality trumps it. If we make it acceptable for people to wear burkas into security sensitive areas then that also opens up a Trojan horse, in that people knowing this who do mean to do wrong and are not even muslim or perhaps not even female may exploit it and dress up like muslim women in burkas to go unseen. As for the ski mask guy, there could be reasons. He could be disfigured, it could be very cold out, etc.
I think it is important because it is about intention. Muslim women wear the Niqaab to please Allah. It is likely the person wearing the Niqaab is a Muslim women. However, it is difficult to understand why a person is wearing a ski mask. Keep in mind, I'm not saying people should not wear ski masks. In security sensitive areas, they should be removed for identification purposes. Besides, the example you presented is unrealistic. I don't know many people that wear ski masks due to being very cold.

The question then is who is paying for these checks and who is being inconvenienced by them. And you'd also have the issue of the discomfort in people being around masked people and them wondering how good the checks are and if they are actually being done, etc.
I'm sure it is not as expensive as arresting women that wear the Niqaab and putting them on trial. I dislike people bringing their dogs too close to me, but I have to deal with it.

Well sure, if people can carry guns they should be allowed to carry knives. That isn't why I fit this example in here. I put in this example because in Ontario Sikhs can carry these knives on the street and the rest of us can NOT carry around guns or knives of that size. A special exception is being made based on the Sikh having Sikh beliefs, putting the public at risk, and I oppose that.
The exception existed because it is presumed that Sikhs will not be using the Kirpan in an inappropriate manner. Again, intention needs to be considered. A Sikh views the Kirpan as a religious symbol and is unlikely to use it inappropriately. However, why would any other person carry a knife? :/ Is it for self-defence or to harm someone? Either way, it does not matter, since using a knife is fatal. Another way to resolve this is to have a licence for Sikhs to carry the Kirpan.


We need to consider why they are doing it and if there are easy alternatives to it, and what risks or imposition it puts on the rest of us. If there are freely available and equally efficient electronic devices that can accomplish the same thing, then I'd say no to the blind having dogs where the rest of us are not allowed dogs.
I still would not mind a blind person having dogs, unless if it is too close to me. There is a good reason why blind people have dogs and doubt there are electronic alternatives...

So you personally find homosexuality repugnant I gather, but would you have voted for North Carolina's recent law that officially defines marriage as only "between men and women"? That law actually says "one man and one woman" but I changed it here because I realize Islam allows for poligamy. Laws like that are explicitly aimed at denying homosexuals the same rights the rest of us have. I fully expect our grand children to look back in dismay on this and wonder how we could have thought such a way, the same way we look back on bans of inter racial marriage (or black slavery for that matter) today. I have been to a few weddings of homosexual friends of mine and I'll admit I initially found it a bit awkward seeing two men up there. But in the end the ceremony was beautiful and the love could be felt all around. A tear came to my eye when the vows had been exchanged and they kissed and led us all to start dancing.
I don't vote...no one is going to listen to me anyway. I actually find any sexual acts outside of marriage repugnant. I don't have a personal grudge against homosexuals. I know many homosexuals and I treat them like any other person.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-16-2012, 07:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings Pygoscelis,

Muslim women wearing veils cannot be grouped in the same category as gay marriages. On the surface of it, it may seem that both are not affecting anybody else and should be left alone to do as they wish. However, gay marriages do have an effect on society and connote something totally different than the veil. Dealing with the latter point first, a woman covering herself is something that is recogised with modesty and virtue, even if people today don't practice it. I am sure there are biblical references that can be used as support, most notably the image of the virgin Mary and the extant practice of nuns. And we don't have to go back very far to note that many women in the west would cover their hair before leaving the house, and would wear much looser and longer clothing than is fashionable today. In contrast, homosexuality has been regarded a criminal act by all faiths until very recently, which is why Muslim leaders are not the only ones standing against it. It clearly goes against the natural disposition upon which God created mankind. The second point is that homosexual marriages harm society as if increasing numbers of men were to do this, increasing numbers of women would not be able to marry and procreate in the natural way. The following is a good summary of the problems caused by homosexuality:



On the other hand, the Burqa/veil is actually protective to society as it protects marital bonds and helps prevent family breakdown by extramarital relationships and teenage pregnancies leading to single parents and abortions etc.

I hope it is clearer why these two issues cannot be regarded as one and the same.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You think you have legitimate reasons. I see those "reasons" as pure religiously motivated bigotry. We'll have to leave it at that and move on so not to derail the thread.
Reply

~ Sabr ~
05-16-2012, 08:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You think you have legitimate reasons. I see those "reasons" as pure religiously motivated bigotry. We'll have to leave it at that and move on so not to derail the thread.
How rude.

You've been on this forum for 6 years and still you fail to see the beautiful-ness and modest-ness of Islaam.

Truly Allah guide whom He wills.
Reply

diarfitri88
05-16-2012, 08:47 AM
In Christianity, those who devote their life to God like Nuns, cover themselves. Not sure if all of them does that but I've seen many nuns dress modestly, much like many of my Muslim sisters.

Will they(the nuns) be imprisoned too if they reside or travel in France?
Reply

M.I.A.
05-16-2012, 10:24 AM
the more i hear about the story the more mixed up i feel.

i started out pro burka but not really feeling it much... most of the argument in this thread has been nonsense though.

i mean i know its arabic dress and practical in arbia

but these are western muslims, give me the pinned scarfy any day.


not that im looking.


i dont even know the religious basis for full covering of the face.


maybe they could use semi transparent fabric so you can see the face if you look really really really hard.

anyway french law has it, you cant argue with it unless you see it being broken by someone else.


with the most respect the lady arrested is not a nun.
if it were nuns and priests we would be in a totally different situation.

...or not
Reply

Muhammad
05-16-2012, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You think you have legitimate reasons. I see those "reasons" as pure religiously motivated bigotry. We'll have to leave it at that and move on so not to derail the thread.
It isn't purely religiously motivated because common moral values also play a role. And some of it is simple fact, such as the effect on society. If you wish to leave it at this, that's fine.
Reply

Muhammad
05-16-2012, 11:12 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i started out pro burka but not really feeling it much... most of the argument in this thread has been nonsense though.

i mean i know its arabic dress and practical in arbia

but these are western muslims, give me the pinned scarfy any day.


not that im looking.


i dont even know the religious basis for full covering of the face.
The issue of Burqa and Niqab is not simply a matter of Arabic dress. With respect to the niqab, scholars agree that as a minimum it is recommended. Some go further to say it is obligatory. But to the best of my knowledge, no authority said Niqab has nothing to do with Islam.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-20-2012, 12:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
:sl:

The issue of Burqa and Niqab is not simply a matter of Arabic dress. With respect to the niqab, scholars agree that as a minimum it is recommended. Some go further to say it is obligatory. But to the best of my knowledge, no authority said Niqab has nothing to do with Islam.
it would seem the quran has been less descriptive than the authorities.

edit


...if you give people the rope, the least they can do is hang themselves.


be aware that the way people dress has probably differed in parts throughout the ages.


if the way you looked and dressed made you a muslim then everything would be perfect.
it does not.

people either look to the events they cause or the events they live through.
depends on who comes first in your life.

i feel bad for the women.

but i know through common sense that if i ever had to find a middle path or safe path. then i would bend.. not break
Reply

joboman24
05-20-2012, 12:38 PM
I mean isn't it the same thing as being jailed for NOT wearing a veil in Saudi Arabia by the religious police and a few other countries? Although both are disgustingly wrong, just wondering why I haven't seen a post made on being jailed for not wearing one. The op is using double standard don't you think? The conclusion of the matter it comes down to is that a woman has her right to do what she wants? Well she isn't getting that in france nor is she getting that in saudi arabia.
Reply

Muhammad
05-20-2012, 01:19 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
it would seem the quran has been less descriptive than the authorities.
The problem here is not with authorities, or scholars in Islam. It is with lay Muslims who do not understand how rulings are derived in Islam. For instance, hadeeth are also a source of Islamic law and are to be taken hand-in-hand with the Qur'an. If you don't agree with this, then we should not be discussing about Niqab but rather need to first establish the authority of the Sunnah.

be aware that the way people dress has probably differed in parts throughout the ages.
It was the practice of all Muslim women throughout the history of Islam to cover their face from non-mahram men. It is only within the last hundred years where this practice has no longer been followed as widely as it was.

if the way you looked and dressed made you a muslim then everything would be perfect.
it does not.
Of course, nobody is claiming this. But it doesn't alter the fact that we have to follow Islam in all aspects of life, whether it is how to pray, how to interact with other people and how to dress.

I did not understand the point you were making in the other parts of your post.

Wassalaamu Alaykum.
Reply

Muhammad
05-20-2012, 01:54 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by joboman24
I mean isn't it the same thing as being jailed for NOT wearing a veil in Saudi Arabia by the religious police and a few other countries?
No, it is not the same thing. First of all, I don't think Saudi Arabia forces the veil. On a website containing expatriate information, it says:

While it is neither necessary nor recommended for men to wear traditional Saudi dress, women are advised to wear the abaya, a loose black dress covering the whole body. Wearing a veil is definitely not required for non-Saudi women, but you might want to carry a head scarf with you in case you are asked to cover your hair.
http://www.internations.org/saudi-ar...lth-and-more-2

Secondly, Saudi Arabia is a religious country, and does not pride itself in freedom of thought and expression. European countries, on the other hand, claim to be secular. So restricting freedom while claiming to allow it is where the hypocrisy lies.
Reply

joboman24
05-20-2012, 02:27 PM
true...
Reply

M.I.A.
05-20-2012, 03:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
It was the practice of all Muslim women throughout the history of Islam to cover their face from non-mahram men. It is only within the last hundred years where this practice has no longer been followed as widely as it was.
i did not know.

im only 30 years old.

i cant live by a history iv never known.

neither do i think you can move society back hundreds of years.

i can see the benefits of women covering those parts that draw the eyes of men. but its a reflection of the nature of man when they have to go to such extremes.

i lol'd. some things never change.


anyway yours is a valid point. i dont know how it was done back in the day.

but making a religion accessible is probably important.
of muslim female reverts it is probably a minority that wear niqab and cover the face.


as for establishing the authority of the sunnah.

find a country that you think fits islam completely so we can all take lessons from there example. nobody has it 100% correct.

the west is not all evil in that respect.

you have a justice system that works on an individual level.

freedom of religion.

personal rights.

and multiculturalism.


if you cant make islam work in the west, it wont work anywhere.


look at the jews. they often dress like they are jewish. act like they are jewish and are generally... jewish.

and yet they have very little bad press and according to some, rule the world.


muslims representing islam are pretty much unanimously villains.

i doubt the people in the west all think of us like that, but you cant spread a faith by reinforcing those stereotypes.
sure the people who find it for themselves will still accept islam.

but the rest of us have been made pretty much useless.


i guess it may be like the beard. most peoples beards are individual.. and then they became complicated. we cant go back to the original beard no matter how hard we try.

its worth is probably only that of the person behind it.
and some people cant grow beards or may feel there facial hair is inadequate.

it does not make muslim.


its mostly irrelevant drivel on my part but i still cant help but feel that if a women dresses in a manner that covers her womanly parts then the least i can do is lower my gaze as she passes.

again a reflection on the peoples character rather than the womens dignity.

how else would she know?
Reply

Muhammad
05-21-2012, 09:21 PM
:sl:

You mentioned a number of points in your post... I could not relate them to our discussion and again there were some I did not understand.

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i cant live by a history iv never known.

neither do i think you can move society back hundreds of years.
Allaah (swt) has blessed us with a religion that is applicable to all times and places. The revelation that came over a thousand years ago is as relevant and applicable now as it was then. The Qur'an and the Sunnah teach us how to move forward. Ignoring their teachings is what is causing continuous decline in society.

i can see the benefits of women covering those parts that draw the eyes of men. but its a reflection of the nature of man when they have to go to such extremes.
The primary reason why women cover is because they are commanded to by Allaah (swt). Whether we understand the wisdom behind that is not important.

but making a religion accessible is probably important.
Accessible how?

as for establishing the authority of the sunnah.

find a country that you think fits islam completely so we can all take lessons from there example. nobody has it 100% correct.
That is true, but we have our example in the life of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam) and his Companions, and all those who followed them throughout history.

if you cant make islam work in the west, it wont work anywhere.


look at the jews. they often dress like they are jewish. act like they are jewish and are generally... jewish.

and yet they have very little bad press and according to some, rule the world.


muslims representing islam are pretty much unanimously villains.
And despite the bad press, Islam is still the fastest growing religion. The villains that are highlighted by the media are a minority. Who is to judge that Islam cannot work in the west - is this based on lies and propanganda that is being spread in the media?
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-21-2012, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Secondly, Saudi Arabia is a religious country, and does not pride itself in freedom of thought and expression. European countries, on the other hand, claim to be secular. So restricting freedom while claiming to allow it is where the hypocrisy lies.
This is a very good point. The hypocracy is what makes me roll my eyes at France as well. Saudi Arabia outright admits to being closed minded and repressive. France claims to be open minded and about freedom. France has more to live up to.
Reply

Muhammad
05-21-2012, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is a very good point. The hypocracy is what makes me roll my eyes at France as well. Saudi Arabia outright admits to being closed minded and repressive. France claims to be open minded and about freedom. France has more to live up to.
I wouldn't go as far to say that disallowing absolute freedom is repressive - the context here being that women should cover themselves appropriately. No government gives their citizens absolute freedom to do whatever they wish. But in terms of living up to each's idea of a model country, then France is clearly going against its secular standards, not that this is necessarily a better way of life.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-22-2012, 02:10 PM
so what exactly was the charge against the women?
the fact she wore a burka or covered her face?

if its a case of religious symbols in public then muslim and jewish men that cover there heads will also be effected.

im thinking why there has been no backlash from christians that wear crosses and jews that may or may not be effected.
will churches that display crosses outside them have to take them down?


actually i remember the news reports in part and it seemed to only apply to school children..

i had no idea about french law.. just saying so my previous posts will be put into perspective.

back to googling
Reply

Said_Soussi
05-23-2012, 12:38 PM
OP:

Ameen!

:raging:
Those stupid (western) idiots and fools (am moderate in my wordings) really do not know the meaning of
Tawheed!!
Reply

Muezzin
05-23-2012, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
so what exactly was the charge against the women?
the fact she wore a burka or covered her face?

if its a case of religious symbols in public then muslim and jewish men that cover there heads will also be effected.

im thinking why there has been no backlash from christians that wear crosses and jews that may or may not be effected.
will churches that display crosses outside them have to take them down?


actually i remember the news reports in part and it seemed to only apply to school children..

i had no idea about french law.. just saying so my previous posts will be put into perspective.

back to googling
In theory the law against religious symbols displayed in public in France applies equally to all religions, not just Islam.

In practice, the legislature and judiciary seem to do all they can to accomodate the practices of every religion except Islam. The law seems only to be enforced against Muslim religious symbols.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-23-2012, 09:09 PM
well if there is a god that finds us worthy then im sure it will be alright in the end.

all other forms of argument and debate on the subject seem worthless.


..maybe a good defense team is second choice.

and a good to great memory at election time the third choice.


but maybe this is not the best strategy..



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3619988.stm

edit*

Sikhs argue that their turbans are not religious symbols.

Young Sikh Ranjit, 15, went to the Jean-Rostand school in the Parisian suburb of Villepinte on Thursday morning to get his new timetable, wearing a thin strip of material on his hair rather than his customary turban, AFP news agency reports.


...i found that quiet funny. men are ok in scarfs apparently.


i missed out sikh's being effected but i guess they are probably finding ways to "integrate"?
Reply

danieldemol
05-27-2012, 01:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by لميس
I know it is defiled everyday by your ilk & surely the mushrikoon and kaffirs are rijis fajtanibooh.

I was wondering what you meant since your sentence was only partially English, so after a bit of detective work I found that the term "rijis fajtaniboo" occurs in the holy Qur'an in Surah 22:30. Yusuf Ali translates the term as the "abomination of idols".

Back substituting into your sentence reads, "surely the mushrikoon and kaffirs are the abomination of idols". Were you trying to say that people who don't follow your brand of Islam and those who are non-Muslims are abominable?
Reply

danieldemol
05-27-2012, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ

No she or he would go to a different room to pray specifically the prayer room, this isn't just about a muslim it's about all individuals who have a religious belief, it's a prayer room for all faiths.
Even members of the Baha'i Faith? That would be awesome :) When does such a prayer room get introduced into Islamic countries?
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-27-2012, 01:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by danieldemol
Even members of the Baha'i Faith? That would be awesome :) When does such a prayer room get introduced into Islamic countries?
Yes, do you have certain times you pray? Where you stop everything to go to the service of God? Does your faith teach you this?

The prayer room in islamic countries was introduced long ago is known as the mosque/ Masajid. You can also pray anywhere as long as it's purely clean, when I say 'anywhere' as in the world, this earth belongs to God allmighty, as long as it's not an unclean place i.e: Washrooms etc.. Usually people stop everything to pray, their stores etc etc.
Reply

danieldemol
05-27-2012, 02:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
So, how is it? Do people have a moral right to protest and oppose unjust laws, or not? Or does a different standard apply to Founding Fathers than to French Muslim women?
That is a fascinating question, and to exhibit such a line of reasoning shows you have excelled a substantial portion of Muslims who do not apply consistently that it is a fundamental human right to protest that which is unjust.

In order to protest that which is unjust, freedom of speech is required. If the peoples who commit an injustice thought it was injust, they are less likely to have comitted such actions in the first place. Thus it clearly follows that in order for the human right - to protest injustice - to be protected, one has to provide people with the right to protest that which they consider to be unjust even if the majority believes the action coming under protest to be just. In other words, in order to protect this fundamental human right, freedom of speech is essential.

Would you therefore suggest freedom of speech be introduced in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan etc?
Reply

danieldemol
05-27-2012, 02:20 AM
Hi Gareebah,

I'm afraid I must have been replying when you posted. Yes, Baha'is have obligatory prayer, and no, in many Islamic countries we are not allowed to say our prayers in Masjids (or even washrooms).
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-27-2012, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by danieldemol
Hi Gareebah,

I'm afraid I must have been replying when you posted. Yes, Baha'is have obligatory prayer, and no, in many Islamic countries we are not allowed to say our prayers in Masjids (or even washrooms).
Oh I see, I thought you meant for muslims, i misunderstood.

I also stated that we do not pray in unclean places such as washrooms.

In the post you first quoted me, I was referring to prayer rooms provided by schools, colleges, work places etc in the west.

If the muslim's do not allow you, you can perhaps pray elsewhere? There are alternatives?
Reply

danieldemol
05-27-2012, 03:22 AM
Although I support the idea of a prayer room for "all faiths" (your suggestion) being set aside in schools (and I'm happy to devote personal funds to such an excercise if atheists don't wish it to come from tax money), I can't see why you call for such an interfaith prayer room to be introduced in the west for the benefit of Muslims on one hand, yet suggest Baha'is and other non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should find "other alternatives". If other alternatives are suitable for non-Muslims, why aren't they suitable for Muslims? If introducing an interfaith prayer room is suitable for non-Muslims, why isn't it suitable for Muslims? Do not Muslims consider themselves to have an obligation to lead by example?

Kind regards.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
05-27-2012, 04:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by danieldemol
Although I support the idea of a prayer room for "all faiths" (your suggestion) being set aside in schools (and I'm happy to devote personal funds to such an excercise if atheists don't wish it to come from tax money), I can't see why you call for such an interfaith prayer room to be introduced in the west for the benefit of Muslims on one hand, yet suggest Baha'is and other non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should find "other alternatives". If other alternatives are suitable for non-Muslims, why aren't they suitable for Muslims? If introducing an interfaith prayer room is suitable for non-Muslims, why isn't it suitable for Muslims? Do not Muslims consider themselves to have an obligation to lead by example?

Kind regards.
I'm not suggesting that alternatives aren't suitable for muslims. If there is no prayer room, one would pray at any clean spot.

If a Bahai, jewish, christian etc etc individual has to pray during class or whenever, I have nothing against this, they have a right to practice their faith. If they wish to enter a mosque, they are free to do, but that is the case with the mosque and not myself. I am not totally sure of the ruling regarding a non-muslim praying in a mosque,however I do know a non-muslims is allowed to enter a mosque, so i'd let someone with knowledge respond to that.

And yes, muslims are supposed to, but we are humans and aren't perfect. But in that sense we have the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to lead by an example.
Reply

danieldemol
05-27-2012, 06:58 AM
Thanks Ghareebah,

I very much appreciate that you value freedom of religion. I like to hope that when you hear nominally Muslim sheikhs forbid freedom of religion you will speak out against them when safe to do so.
Reply

Muhammad
05-27-2012, 05:33 PM
Greetings Daniel,

format_quote Originally Posted by danieldemol
That is a fascinating question, and to exhibit such a line of reasoning shows you have excelled a substantial portion of Muslims who do not apply consistently that it is a fundamental human right to protest that which is unjust.
Which substantial portion are these and how do you know they are not applying it consistently?

In order to protest that which is unjust, freedom of speech is required. If the peoples who commit an injustice thought it was injust, they are less likely to have comitted such actions in the first place. Thus it clearly follows that in order for the human right - to protest injustice - to be protected, one has to provide people with the right to protest that which they consider to be unjust even if the majority believes the action coming under protest to be just. In other words, in order to protect this fundamental human right, freedom of speech is essential.

Would you therefore suggest freedom of speech be introduced in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan etc?
'Freedom of speech' can also be used to oppose what is just, and is not always a cause of betterment. But before suggesting such freedom be introduced in other countries, we must first ask ourselves why those countries purporting to already allow such freedom are not even doing what they say.

I'm afraid I must have been replying when you posted. Yes, Baha'is have obligatory prayer, and no, in many Islamic countries we are not allowed to say our prayers in Masjids (or even washrooms).
A Masjid is a place to worship Allaah (swt), and is not the same as a multifaith prayer room which is simply a private area for anybody to come and use. There is no reason why Bahai's need to pray in a Masjid in the same way that Muslims do not go to temples or churches to offer theirs.

Regards.
Reply

Orangeduck
05-27-2012, 05:37 PM
If I may make a comment without trying to start an argument, why do muslims (not all muslims, but a very large number in my experience) get angry when a law seems unfair to them (like a ban on veils) but doesn't care in the least bit when a law is unfair against another religion ( like the death penalty for a muslim becoming a Jew for example)?
Reply

danieldemol
05-28-2012, 11:01 AM
Hi Muhammad,


1.
The portion of the population in the countries I mentioned who do not support free speech are a good place to start. I know they do not apply it consistently because people who speak of their religions in such countries face severe persecution.


2.
Yes freedom of speech can be used in an attempt to oppose that which is just, allbeit not effectively, for as the holy Qur'an states, "Truth stands out clear from falsehood" (Surah 2:256).


Cars may be used to speed, and a portion of the popultation do speed when they drive. In fact the state of New South Wales in Australia has 141 speed cameras, of which 38 alone collect $10 million revenue per year 1. You wouldn't ban the freedom to drive just because people may use that freedom for dangerous ends instead of constructive ends owing to the practical obstacles which arise if such a ban was imposed. Relating this back to our discussion, I would like to propose that just because freedom of speech can be used for negative purposes does not mean that it should be banned (as this would rule out the benefits of freedom of speech and also because their are practical obstacles which arise from such a ban which render the ban under discusssion destructive).


I would like to examine an example from the early days in Medina which has been posted by a Muslim on a Muslim forum very similar to this one. I hope you will consider from the commentary I will add to it how very different history may have been if a ban on freedom of speech in Medina at the time was upheld.


As quoted;
'Mus’ab ibn Umayr (RA) was the first of ambassador of Rasul Allah (SAW) in Madinah. Before Rasul Allah (SAW) had arrived in Madinah, Mus’ab (RA) taught ahl al-Madinah about Islam and they began to enter the Deen.
This enraged Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaadah, one of the chieftains of Madinah. He sheathed his sword and set off for the head of Mus’ab ibn ‘Umayr (RA). When he confronted Mus’ab (RA) he threatened, “Stop this nonsense you speak or you shall find yourself dead!”'


From this it is clear that this chieftan initially banned freedom of speech. Had he upheld this ban (which many Muslims today would) a certain companion would have likely had his head removed, and Medina would have had a very different history. We read on;


'Mus’ab (RA) replied in the way that should be a lesson for us all. This man before him did not stop at rudeness and ignorance, he wanted to slit his throat.
Mus’ab (RA) said, “Shall you not sit and listen for a few moments. If you agree with what I say then take it, and if not, we shall desist from this talk.” Sa’d sat down.'


This demonstrates the value of free speech, if one agrees with a statement, new learning is gained. If no agreement is reached, the mature response is to desist and go one's seperate ways.


'Mus’ab (RA) spoke about Allah and His messenger (SAW) until the face of Sa’d ibn Ubaadah’s face shone like a full moon and he said, “What should a person do who wishes to enter into this Deen?” After Mus’ab (RA) had told him he said, “There is a man, if he accepts this Deen, there shall be no home in Madinah that will not become Muslim. Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh.”


When Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh heard what was happening, he was infuriated. He left his home to go and kill this man called Mus’ab ibn Umayr (RA) for the dissention he had caused. He entered upon Mus’ab (RA) and announced, “You shall desist of this religion you speak of or you shall find yourself dead!”'


Once again note the ban on freedom of speech, and ponder how the history of Medina would have been altered for worse had this ban been upheld.


'Mus’ab (RA) replied, “Shall you not sit and listen for a few moments. If you agree with what I say then take it, and if not, I shall desist from this talk.” Sa’d sat.


Mus’ab (RA) spoke about Allah and His messenger (SAW) until the face of Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh’s face shone like a full moon and he said, “What should a person do who wishes to enter into this Deen?”...
...Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh went home to his Madinan tribe that night and announced to them all, “Everything of yours is Haram upon me until you all enter into Islam.”


That night, every home in Madinah went to bed with Laa ilaaha illa Allah…"'


If you carefully examine the early history of Islam, you will no doubt find that wherever the authorities upheld the ban on free speech, their peoples fell into perdition, yet where the expression of a contrary opinion was permitted, a part of the people were drawn close to Allah.


There are other clear practical considerations from the holy Qur'an;


In Surah 24:16 it states; "And why did ye not, when ye heard it, say? - "It is not right of us to speak of this: Glory to Allah. this is a most serious slander!" To object that a statement which has been made by someone is not based in fact is to express a contrary opinion to that person. All human beings are prone to error. Even sheikhs are human beings, capable of transgressing beyond bounds if the faith they profess with their lips is not the faith professed by the hidden recesses of their hearts. Giving someone a title "sheikh" is not an abracadabra that magically makes a person immune to sin. The relevance of this to what I am saying is that if a sheikh slanders a non-Muslim community, they are not above the law of the holy Qur'an, and thus the holy Qur'an gives the believer a clear obligation to express a contrary opinion and denounce it as slander. Without the freedom of speech to express a contrary opinion to even a religious leader of Islam, it would prevent a person from fulfilling this divinely revealed obligation should a sheikh fall into sin. Being a sheikh in a Muslim country is like being the Pope in a Catholic country in the sense that it is a position of prestige, and people who are attracted to prestige in the eyes of men may be attracted to this position for reasons not authentically spiritual. Thus preventing freedom of speech shuts of the opportunity for a believer to fulfill this divinely revealed obligation in certain cases.


Here is another reason, related to slander;
"O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done." If it was the faith or community of a non-Muslim being slandered by a person who is in a purely nominal sense a so called "Muslim", how would other Muslims (or even non-Muslims) have the chance to ascertain the truth if the people's of that faith community were forbidden from speaking up in defense of their faith?


I have dwelt at some length on the subject of slander only because of the weight Islam gives to how negative slander is, it must be noted that I am not raising the matter in criticism of anyone on this forum.


Here is a reason related to the natural diversity of humanity for why freedom of speech is essential;
From Surah 49:13 "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)"


As stated by the holy Qur'an the reason for different nations being created is that they may come to know one another. If one is not freely permitted to express his/her opinions, how can one come to know them? Thus by forbidding free speech, one would prevent man from fulfilling one of the purposes of his creation. The reference to "nations" above, is clearly within the context of Muslims and non Muslims getting to know one another.


Now many Muslims state that insult to one's religion is sufficient reason to ban free speech (although a large portion of such people are often purely concerned with insults to Islam and will not speak up when the religions of others are insulted). They may assert that the shariah revealed via the holy Prophet upholds the ban on insult to people's religion. I do not know whether or not this is true, however I differ from Muslims in that Muslims believe that the purely social portions of the Islamic shariah meet the needs of all ages from the time of the holy Prophet onwards, whereas I believe that the purely social portions of the Islamic shariah were revealed to meet the needs and requirements of a prior age which lasted from the time of His holiness Muhammad untill 1844 A.D


Thus if we assume for the sake of the present discussion that it is true that the holy Prophet forbid insult to religion, I believe that this was done as humanity in a prior age did not have the same collective capacity as the peoples of today, and were largely not able to respond maturely to insult as the peoples of today are able. When Bibles are burnt, or Christianity is insulted, masses of Christians do not go on a rampage killing people and destroying property. Thus we see the capability of the masses to respond maturely to insult. If your grandmother (May Allah bless her) were to walk down the street, and I were to (God forbid!) senselessly kill her, I could not claim that such an action is justified as proven by the fact that she walked down the street and was brutally murdered as many grandmothers walk down the street and many rational sane people do not kill them under the pretext of them walking down the street. Likewise, the fact that when the holy Qur'an is burnt (a senseless and stupid act no doubt!), Muslims cannot claim that when a portion of them go on a rampage killing people and destroying property it was justified under the pretext of insult to religion, as many masses of mature reasonable people in this age such as the Christians of the west do not behave in such a manner when their faith is insulted. What I am trying to say here is not to take a swipe at the immaturity of that portion of Muslims, but rather to point out that the social conditions and social capacities and maturity of the masses are such that there is no longer authentic justification for banning free speech on the basis of insult, and to pre-empt any statements such as, "look at the number of deaths caused by insult to religion" as they are clearly not justified.


Now one may well say, "okay, so humans are collectively mature enough to respond constructively to the insults of the immature and the senseless, but even so, is there really any benefit in allowing insult to faith that would make permitting it worthwhile?"
To such a constructive question (and apologies if you do not happen to agree with the question in which case I'm knocking down a bit of a straw man with this next answer), I could only offer a frank examination of my own western history.
Only a few centuries ago it was against the law in Europe to insult the Christian faith (punishable by death). For this reason Newton was unable to publish his disagreement with the trinity, as to do so was considered deeply insulting to Christians. In spite of this it didn't bother Christians in the slightest that Christian leaders published a number of treatises which where very much insulting to various non-Christians faiths.


Now Muslims are human beings just like Christians (or even Baha'is for that matter, not singling anyone out here). Thus it is possible for Muslims to fall into sins and make mistakes just as Christians do. In fact there is an interesting Hadith which states just that;
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (Peace be to Him) said:


“Indeed, you will follow the practices of those who came before you - handspan by handspan, armspan by armspan - to the point that if they follow the lizard into its hole, you would follow them in this.” We said: “O Messenger of Allah, are you referring to the Jews and Christians?” He replied: “Who else?”


Thus if it was possible for certain Christians to be arbitrarily insulted when there was no authentic need to be, it is also possible (and if the above hadith is to be believed it is also likely) that Muslims may at times prevent the expression of a valid opinion owing to them arbitrarily feeling insulted when there was no authentic need to be.


Another part of the value of allowing freedom of speech is that religious misinterpretations and superstitions are not the only forms of mistake in human thinking. Established scientific hypothesis are sometimes also disproven, and for valid scientific opinions contrary to the scientific establishment to be promulgated it is necessary for freedom of speech to be permitted. It is very relevant to this discussion then, that a conservative Muslim website recently published an article on scientific renaissance in the Gulf which states, "Today, however, the Muslim world produces only one per cent of global scientific output. The decline may have begun with the 13th-century Mongol invasion of Baghdad, or subsequent fighting between caliphates, or a fear that science would lead to a rejection of faith." 2 The insistence of those in the Islamic faith circles that freedom of speech be supressed, may well be having such an impact on retarding scientific development in the Islamic world that a single western university such as harvard publishes more scientific papers in a year than does the entire Islamic world in modern times. With such a fact in mind, one may well ask the question, can Muslims afford to forbid free speech?


3. The suggestion to pray in Masjids came not from me but from Ghareebah on the basis of Ghareebah's misunderstanding of an earlier post of mine as post #116 of this thread makes clear. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if I can not say a Baha'i prayer in a Masjid. Having said you are most welcome to attend a Baha'i temple on a day when the verses of the holy Qur'an are recited there in spite of Baha'is having their own holy Scripture seperate to the Qur'an.


Kind regards :)

1 I am not allowed to paste links yet as I have not made a sufficient number of posts, however I am happy to email anyone the link who doubts the reference
2 As per comment for above reference, although anyone who googles this quote will easily find the article on Islamic website
Reply

جوري
05-28-2012, 03:54 PM
Danieldelmol:

Freedom of speech is fine & dandy but not without its limitations it can actually be in breech of the law. Just ask our brother Tareq Mehanna or Anwar Al Awlaqi. Both taken down in different styles in the s-called civilized west merely for expressing their opinion.
Take me also for example. Yesterday I wrote a reply to you which admin didn't think was contributory to the thread in a positive way and although it was in my humble opinion goo and would on the lowest common denominator corrected your faulty views on both religion & grammar I accepted his logic that it might be construed as hurtful.
There's also such a thing as libel and slander.

(as I am free to my speech & opinion) I don't personally believe you subscribe to a divine religion that was revealed on any prophet, you're by virtue of your free well allowed to subscribe to the so-called religion of your choice.
But look at what deviants say in Syria (Alawais) the minute they're given leverage they've exercised their freedom to kill civilians mock the dominant religion of the land and declare Bashar God. Do you desire that kind of abberancy everywhere merely to accommodate your concept of 'freedom of speech'
Now, let me pose you this question. If a Bast ard thief and known criminal came to proclaim rights to your parents & your inheritance what would you personally do? Accommodate him/her in your house, give them a part of the deed, have them change their name to your family name simply because they know some aspects about your family life which are readily available to anyone in the world at all?

Thus your brand of 'freedom of speech' should be exposed for what it is and made clear and manifest into all. You can certainly petition on the street corner of your choosing with your desired posts of protest, that's usually as far as such freedoms go. As we all know in a 'free democratic society' the law isn't based on the exception and minority voice isn't what mobilizes the law of the land!

best,
Reply

Muhammad
06-06-2012, 09:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Orangeduck
If I may make a comment without trying to start an argument, why do muslims (not all muslims, but a very large number in my experience) get angry when a law seems unfair to them (like a ban on veils) but doesn't care in the least bit when a law is unfair against another religion ( like the death penalty for a muslim becoming a Jew for example)?
The law in France actually applies to all religious symbols, so when Muslims argue against the ban on veils, other religious groups who may be affected by the ban may be benefitting too. The death penalty is not a good example here because it is actually a part of Islamic Law, occurring within a Muslim community, and not something a secular government has imposed on another religious group.
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!