/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Spotlight: Anti-Niqab Agenda



Muhammad
09-20-2013, 02:58 PM
The following articles are taken from Islam21c's page: Islam21c's counter narrative of the Anti-Niqab Agenda


Why the Niqab is Religious not Cultural
and why the right to wear it should be supported by those who care about Liberty

Sheikh Shams Adduha Muhammad


Once again, Muslims of Britain are under the microscope. This time it is the niqab, the face covering worn by many Muslim women. Calls to ban it, have a national debate about it etc are being made by non-Muslims and so called ‘progressive Muslims’ like Yasmin Alibhai Brown [1]. Neither of these two groups of people have any idea why a Muslim woman wears a niqab and proceed with their tirade based on their own assumptions; preaching to Muslims about their own faith. What positive outcome they think they will get out of this; quite how this will promote community cohesion and understanding is beyond anyone. What irony! They offend Muslims, propose to limit their freedom, and yet still talk about social cohesion and freedom in the same breath. In a country where women have won the right to bar ealmost everything, we have a proposal to ban people from covering almost everything. People’s freedoms are being limited in the name of emancipating them. The newspaper that has Page 3, is campaigning for the niqab ban on page one. Male MPs want to tell women what they can’t wear; ‘progressive Muslims’ i.e. non-practising Muslims are the new Muslim theologians; and practising Muslims are the extremists.


It’s a tired and familiar old story. With hugely important events occurring around the world to report on, the media jumps on every little scrap that either makes Islam and Muslims look bad or puts pressure on them by making their way of life look more and more incompatible. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy; make your own demons and then fight to banish them. Muslims will respond by fighting the oppression and repelling the false liberators. As things stand, the Muslims are fighting for the heart of Britain, for freedom and human rights. Should they along with the sane voices in British society fail and the extreme voices in British society prevail, it will simply add to the ever increasing proof of the British establishment’s hypocrisy as, on the one hand, it seems to be taking lessons in suppression from its despotic and autocratic allies in whose lands Muslims indeed struggle for basic freedoms; and yet on the other hand it marauds around the world, hand in hand with the US in the name of freedom and democracy. Now it is simply bringing all that ugly mess home. Muslims of Britain simply need to stick to their value-rich faith. Good people will respect us for our principles, and the haters and hypocrites will continue to expose themselves plain for all to see.


Yet while we will continue to fight for a woman’s right to wear the niqab, there is growing confusion about whether Muslim women are fighting for a cultural practice or a religious one. Although this distinction should make little difference in a democratic country, it is a pertinent question for us as Muslims to understand. Every time this issue makes the headlines, some Muslims who are vocal in the media make a point of stating that it is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam.
It is time to clear this up, and it is very simple.


In Surah al-Noor [2], Allah (SWT) commands believing men and women to lower their gazes and guard their chastity. Then He tells women to not expose their beauty except that which is normally apparent. There are two interpretations for the ‘normally apparent’. Ibn ‘Abbas (RA) says it means the face and hands. However, Ibn Mas’ud (RA) interprets it as whatever is apparent after the face is covered. [3]


In Surah al-Ahzab [4], the Prophet (SAW) is commanded to tell his wives, daughters and the women of the believers to ‘bring their outer garments close to them’ so that they can be recognised as noble women and not be harmed. In response to the verse, the women of Madina were reported to have come out with their faces covered in different ways. [5]


In light of the above, Muslims scholars have differed on whether or not covering the face is obligatory for women. This is true also of the four famous and currently practised schools of thought. The Hanafi and Maliki schools do not consider covering the face to be obligatory. The Shaf’i and Hanbali schools declare it obligatory. Later Hanafi jurists preferred the obligatory ruling due to an increase in immorality resulting in the need for women to be more prudent and protective over themselves. [6]


The above difference of opinion based on varying interpretations is not unique to this issue, thousands of issues are differed upon in exactly the same way. Muslims accept both positions as acceptable interpretations. Preference is either based on an academic leaning or based on precaution and prudence. The fact that there is disagreement does not take any matter outside of the pale of the Islamic tradition. In the case of men, the same is true of the beard, the cap, wearing trousers above the ankles. All of these are issues that have differing views, yet all of these issues are part and parcel of Islam and all are issues wherein the current practice of Muslims is diverse. To suggest that any such issue is cultural and not religious demonstrates an overwhelming ignorance of Islamic teachings. In some instances it also indicates crass-pragmatism and an inferiority complex owing to an inability to cope with issues presented by modernity. There will be those ‘progressive Muslims’ who give little importance to the hadith literature and claim to only be following the Qur’an, interpreting it in whichever fanciful way suits their preference. The contradiction they have to overcome is that the Qur’an itself was preserved by the memories of the Prophet’s companions and their oral tradition. Thus if one accepts the Qur’an as being preserved through the memories of these most trustworthy of human beings then how can one choose to ignore the weight of their testimony in other matters relating to the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).


On any Islamic issue where there is a difference of opinion, the individual chooses what to do. There is no force or coercion. In the matter of the niqab, many women find it more conducive to Islamic teachings around modesty, chastity, and neutralisation of sexual attraction, and so wear the niqab as a mark of their commitment to these ideals and their piety. It doesn’t even have to mean they consider it obligatory; nor does it mean that those who do not wear the niqab are less chaste or modest. It is about one’s personal feelings about themselves and how they manage their own spirituality. Many of my students know that I do not consider it obligatory. I see them join my classes without the niqab, soon after, they start wearing the niqab. I don’t even know why they did it. Ultimately, it’s their choice and none of my business. But it is a religious choice and not a cultural one, which means a woman makes the choice to adopt an Islamic teaching in the hope of being rewarded by Allah (SWT). This is the essence of any religious practice.


The idea that women are being forced to wear the niqab is laughable. I’m sure some wear it because their husbands or fathers want them to. But choosing to respect their wishes does not mean they are forced. Maybe the would-be heroes who seek to emancipate niqab-wearing Muslim women should actually talk to niqabi women to find out how they feel rather than excluding them. An act that is so undemocratic, one wonders what kind of government these MPs think they represent?


In my fifteen years as an active imam and teacher with thousands of students, I have rarely come across a woman who complained that she was being forced to wear the niqab. Given that I do not hold it to be obligatory; I would be an obvious imam to consult for such women. Ironically, the complete opposite is true: women regularly complain that they choose to wear the niqab but their husbands or fathers pressurise them to take it off. They ask whether they have the freedom in Islam to hold their ground. If the niqab gets banned, these MPs would have succeeded in taking away their freedoms and would have played in to the hands of patriarchy, something that would never have occurred to them.


At the root of it is ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance of what the niqab really is about, and arrogance that leads to imposing one’s own views, preferences and anxieties upon the freedoms of others. Whatever happens, Muslims will adapt and we’ll move on. We’ve seen and been through worse. Britain as a whole needs to think carefully about what it stands to lose if it goes down this path. As far as I am concerned, democracy, human rights and liberal values are now being interpreted in a very dubious way. Muslims just have to stick to their principles. We were around before modernity and many other aspects of new-age conventional thinking, we will not be dictated to by it, we have not given in to it like Christianity and other faiths, and indeed we have no need to do so. Furthermore we will be around the day they have moved-on and become unrecognisable to westerners whose ancestors fought for them. It seems they are already moving on, albeit a move backwards.




Notes:
Source; www.islam21c.com

Islam21c requests all the readers of this article, and others, to share it on your facebook, twitter, and other platforms to further spread our efforts.

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...m-8817963.html
(2) Surah al-Noor (24:31)
(3) Tafsir Tabari
(4) Surah al-Ahzaab (33:59)
(5) Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 4481
(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhdb0-w8Rg4











Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:07 PM
Niqab debate: ‘Sometimes you have to force people to be equal’


Birmingham Metropolitan College’s decision last week to reverse its ban on the veil was met with outcry and condemnation in many of this weekend’s newspapers with some politicians and columnists taking umbrage at the policy reversal.

The Daily Mail, Independent, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun and Guardian all featured opinion pieces questioning the logic behind the decision with some writers expressing outright Islamophobic and racist views.

Newspaper commentary is supplemented with political interventions with Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne, calling for a ban on the wearing of the veil in public places and Conservative MP for Totnes, Dr Sarah Wollaston, urging national guidance on the wearing of face veils in Britain.

Commentary on the niqab, fusing the events at Birmingham Metropolitan College and Blackfriars Crown Court last week, comes thick and fast in the papers with pieces by Theodore Dalrymple, (whose real name is Anthony Daniels), in the Daily Telegraph, Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent, Sarah Wollaston pens a guest column for the Daily Telegraph, Victoria Coren-Mitchell in The Observer and Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail.

Dalrymple pens a piece peppered with incendiary phrases, referring to the student protests that prompted the college to back down “religious thuggery” while questioning whether events herald “…the triumph of a regressive view of human existence whose adherents use the rights and protections of a liberal society to destroy those very rights and protections, with the ultimate aim of imposing an intolerant vision on the world?”

An “intolerant vision of the world”, which Dalrymple elsewhere in his column refers to as “aspiring totalitarianism”.

Indeed, for Dalrymple “niqab is symbolic of a strong desire not to integrate in Western society” and manipulate by Muslim women who seek to fuse “medievalism with modernity”.

Unwilling to accept that Muslim women would choose to veil their faces, Dalrymple insists that many “wear it often because they have little choice and are coerced”.

On the question of choice or coercion, Sarah Wollaston wades in complaining of what we are to do with those “…once the niqab becomes an accepted norm, are pressured into compliance as a badge of piety or purity? It would be naive to think that a thirteen year old would have complete freedom to reject family or peer group pressure.”

For Wollaston, the niqab places on the majority the responsibility to insist on “our cultural belief that women should fully and equally participate in society…Women should be clear that the burka is a symbol not of liberation but of repression and segregation.”

One can only wonder at how many Muslim women who wear niqab and burqa Wollaston has spoken to in reaching her conviction that it is “a symbol not of liberation but of repression and segregation”?

These sentiments are echoed by Melanie Phillips in her last article for the Daily Mail, in which she argues “…the over-riding rule of a liberal society is that minority customs should be tolerated — but only if they do not interfere with the values of the majority.”

But as Jogchum Vrielink in an article for Open Democracy wrote, in a review of the burqa ban in Belgium, “Fundamental rights ultimately exist to protect minorities, unpopular minorities in particular, against the tyranny of the majority. A boundary is crossed when rights of individuals are simply sacrificed to majority sentiments.”

It is a point worth reinforcing to those who use arguments on the values of ‘liberal’ democracies to undermine the rights of women to exercise liberty in practising religion in the way they choose.

Such is the tack taken by Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who in a column in The Independent argues the ‘choice’ exercised by women is the result of an ideology “well funded by sources based in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states” in which “manmade injunctions [are] followed by unquestioning women”.

But as numerous interviews with women who wear face veils show, they are certainly not to be regarded as ‘unquestioning’ in the choice they have made.

Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun treads a similar path, decrying the College’s move of caving in to “intolerant fanatics” and being “dragged back to the dark ages of superstition and repression.”

In a confused piece which draws together such disparate issues as ‘honour’ killings, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, Kavanagh claims the niqab and burqa “are first and last an overt testimony to male oppression. The imply women are property. Objects with no public identity outside the household, controlled at all points in their daily lives by fathers, husbands, or brothers.”

In an amusing irony, Kavanagh’s column appears alongside The Sun’s editorial column in which the paper celebrates the fact that half of Liberal Democrat councillors “DON’T want to ban page 3”.

Kavanagh laments feminists’ silence on the college decision, but it would seem his interest in feminist opinion extends only to opinions on the niqab.

Nick Clegg, adding to comments made last week on the College’s ban making him “uneasy”, adds:

"My own view, very strongly held, is that we shouldn't end up like other countries issuing edicts or laws from parliament telling people what they should or should not wear.

"This is a free country and people going about their own business should be free to wear what they wish. I think it is very un-British to start telling people what pieces of clothing they should wear.

"I think there are exceptions to that as far as the full veil is concerned - security at airports for instance. It is perfectly reasonable for us to say the full veil is clearly not appropriate there.

"And I think in the classroom, there is an issue of course about teachers being able to address their students in a way where they can address them face to face. I think it is quite difficult in the classroom to be able to do that."


Other prominent opponents of the ban include Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne, who thinks an outright ban on the veil in public needs to be debated. The minister tells the Daily Telegraph:

“I think this is a good topic for national debate. People of liberal instincts will have competing notions of how to protect and promote freedom of choice,"

“I am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice. That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain.

"But there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married.


"We should be very cautious about imposing religious conformity on a society which has always valued freedom of expression."


In all the comment pieces written, the most sensible contribution comes from Victoria Coren-Mitchell, writing in The Observer, about her own wrestling with conventions and patriarchy.

Reflecting on her ‘veil epiphany', Coren-Mitchell writes:

“That it's a strong and happy choice; that their grandmothers (or young cousins in Saudi Arabia) might not have had that choice, but they do in Britain today and they make it in glad and grateful acknowledgement that it isn't mandatory.”

Noting the ‘false choices’ all women are made to make, Coren-Mitchell reflects on her own choice to adopt her husband’s surname and the feminist reaction such choices elicit vacillating between “oppressive when it's obligatory, but confident and happy as a choice”.

Seeing her own dilemma in the eyes of Muslim women who choose to veil their faces, Coren-Mitchell describes her epiphany: “I will recognise her as very familiar – only, perhaps, having made her choices more decisively than I make mine.”

Perhaps a glaring omission in all the commentaries written is the viewpoint of women who veil their faces. Let’s hope, should a national debate be sparked on the issue, that their voices, so absent in the media, are granted the public space to challenge perceptions of their subjugation, oppression, stunted careers etc…



Notes: This article has been sourced from www.iengage.org.uk

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

Reply

Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:11 PM
The Niqab - a convenient veil for Islamophobia?

Uzma Aslam


If I wasn't someone with first hand experience, being a niqab wearing women myself, I would think that Muslims were a tad paranoid in saying that politics and the media run a recurring cycle of Islamophobic jabs. As a woman who has worn the niqab in England, it appears that when there's little left to say , then the rather heated, yet over played topic of the niqab is a grand one to throw on the table. After years of bashing and negative coverage, more and more people have come to the exaggerated conclusion that the niqab is hugely detrimental to society, and few stop to ponder over the legitimacy of what the media portrays.

So is it just paranoia on our behalf. I for one can recall the first day I wore the niqab on the London underground over 15 years ago. I was a bit nervous, but happened to sit in front of a ‘punk’ lady, tattooed all over with pink hair. I clearly remember the pause as we stared at each other, followed by a sudden mutual smile as we found peace in each other's uniqueness (you can tell when a niqabi smiles by the eyes). I never had any problems in those days, though a few years later I would find myself dodging tube cabins with groups of intimidating looking yobs . Now, sad to say, it's not the typical skin head taking a jab at a single harmless woman, but just about anyone who feels it is totally ok to insult the woman in niqab. It would take a real emergency for me to get on the tube alone with my niqab these days. Recently, Conservative back-benchers brought forward a bill discussing a ban on the full face veil. The usual rhetoric of women being forced to wear it or it being a security risk has long been quashed by statistics proving that a large percentage of the women are British born, educated and often converts to Islam. As for the issue of security it should be acknowledged that much of the Muslim world operates with women fully covered, with hundreds of thousands passing through security checks every day. These women would not and should not have a problem in verifying their identity to female staff members, and this is typically done in airports or banks all of the time. MP Philip Hollobone who called for a ban in 2010, stating that British people like to smile and greet one another in the street. He obviously has had precious little else to do since then, as the issue has been burning on his mind for the last 3 years, no doubt he was gleeful when he finally got his private members bill discussed last Friday.[i]

The argument against the Niqab has often run parallel to immigration, and the idea that the presence of non-Brits has led to a number of problems here. It may look good to use a picture of niqab wearing women to show a group of immigrants, but this has also led to a huge amount of confusion and been detrimental to us. It is vital that we clarify that not all niqab wearing women are immigrants and that to vent the frustration felt towards the issue of immigration on a group, simply because they look the most foreign is unfair and unwarranted. From the hundreds of veiled women that I know, they are generally British born, educated, religious, focussed and courageous people, who have taken the brave step to pursue what they believe in. They are void of bad language, promiscuity, crime or abuse, and more than often are devoted to raising a wholesome family and contributing to society. It is about time that Britain took heed of this. If only they would look around society they would have to admit that veiled women are the least of their concerns.

Generally, the argument boils down to the fact that many Brits just don’t like the veil. But surely that alone cannot justify a ban, and it is worrying that the argument has reached parliament without really having a valid reason. For me, it highlights peoples deeper dislike towards Islam as a whole. Furthermore the idea that someone is so committed to Islam that they can abandon Western dress and liberal values it boasts, is interpreted by many as a rejection and degradation of British lifestyle. What needs to be clarified here is that when most women wear the niqab it is done to achieve a religious station of submission and modesty that is promoted by Islam, and not to spite society at all. The Niqab and hijab is worn in public, in gender mixed environments, outside of this many of these women observe a very British dress code, and lifestyle too as long as it does not oppose any matter from their faith.

It would be interesting to know how many of the people in parliament arguing the ban actually knows a lady who wears niqab. Most likely, their knowledge of the niqab extends from a skewed image from the media, and that within itself is bias. Also, who qualified certain people to sit back and dictate what is or isn’t good for a people who are in actual fact causing no harm. If what is occurring is indeed a reflection of Islamophobic tendencies then Muslims should stand beware of what they may dare ban next.

If we look at France, we ask exactly what did they achieve from banning an extremely small sector of society from wearing their religious choice of dress? The answer is nothing more than a gleeful jab at Muslims just because they could. France did not improve integration, instead it further ostracised veiled women, and clearly demonstrated its Islamophobic colours.

Our message to Parliament today, is not only to preserve the liberties that Britain so proudly boasts, but also to preserve the harmless and conforming rights of the Muslim woman to actively practise her religion. One may not choose that lifestyle for themselves but to ban it, when promiscuity and indecency are far greater harms to society, seems absurd.


Notes:

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[i] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...Hollobone.html


Reply

Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:15 PM
The Niqab ban at Birmingham Met College : Bigotry or genuine security threat?

Adam Belaon


Students who wear the niqab are no longer welcome at Birmingham Met College. Dame Christine Braddock DBE the principal of Birmingham Met College said:

“Safeguarding is a priority…This needs individuals to be easily identifiable at all times when they are on college premises and this includes the removal of hoodies, hats, caps and veils so that faces are visible.”

Apparently people wear hats on their faces at Birmingham Met College – but let’s leave this quirky observation to one side for a moment.

It’s easy to understand that the college may wish to set a level of decorum and thus baseball caps, hats and hoodies may signify an element of ‘street culture’ that may not be conducive with a college. However, this is not her reasoning. She claims it is to do with faces being visible. If this is true then one must ask whether a hat which has been banned covers more of the face than a hijab that has not been banned. Is this not a logical inconsistency? Not that I’m arguing for hijabs to be banned, but I’m interested in probing the logic. I have worked in a large sixth form college before, and I can tell you that most students are either looking at their phone or engrossed in discussion with their immediate circle of friends to pay too much attention to all of the faces walking around in every direction. The idea that they would be on edge because someone is wearing a face veil is quite unrealistic. Every student would have to get through security at the door going through metal detectors and requiring an electronic pass so it’s pretty secure. Furthermore, in this instance the girls wearing niqabs suggested the compromise of revealing their faces at the door so they could be granted entry with additional checks.

Christine Braddock thinks people will be safe from one another as long as they can see one another’s face. Perhaps she doesn’t know that the vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have their face uncovered and on display for all to see.

Has Christine Braddock considered that most students are not known to other students in such a large college. Thus, seeing someone’s face does not make them automatically identifiable. Furthermore, one cannot judge a person by their face. One is not safer because they can see someone’s face. From their face you won’t know whether they are concealing a weapon, what propensity to violence or aggression they may have.

I suppose if you were assaulted then it would be easier to describe your attacker, however this would assume there are genuine concerns of niqabi women carrying out frequent assaults on fellow students and getting away with it! A claim yet to be made and intuitively unlikely.

The college should be questioned: how many criminal acts by people wearing religious face coverings have occurred on their premises in the last 5 years? How many thefts that were got away with because security cameras couldn’t identify the culprit due to a religious face covering? Were there any improper items that went against college policy concealed under the veil?

The upshot is that the college is suggesting a random student wearing a veil poses more of a danger to fellow students than a random student not wearing a veil. Presumably, there are statistics and incidents to back this up. If the school cannot demonstrate this then they must be in clear breach of their own equality and diversity policy, as they are infringing unnecessarily on their own student’s right to religious practice.

The principle bleets: "We have a very robust Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Policy at Birmingham Metropolitan College but we are committed to ensuring that students are provided with a safe and welcoming learning environment whilst studying with us.

In doing so, she starkly contradicts herself. She proclaims inclusion, but has not catered for the needs of a much bullied minority, she proclaims a welcoming learning environment, yet she has made clear that girls wearing a niqab are most unwelcome. She has been reckless with these girls education and shown a deficiency in her duty of care. She has placed an unnecessary burden on these few young women and forced them to choose between what they felt was guidance from their God over a bigoted bit of school legislation.

It is hard to ignore that this incident occurs when recently a private members bill discussed in parliament discussed the possibility of banning the face veil in public. The principal needs to listen to the voices of reason and not the voices of intolerance.

Colum McGuire, NUS Vice President (Welfare): "Whilst it is important to ensure safety on campuses, it should not mean that students lose the right to express their religious beliefs and practises. It is unacceptable for a college to enact a policy that, perhaps unintentionally, has a disproportionate impact on a specific group of students due to their faith or belief.

“No group of students from any community should feel specifically targeted due to an institutional policy. NUS believes in progressive learning environments and recognises the importance of safe, cohesive campus relations which are open to all.”

MP Khalid Mahmood said,

"I am seriously concerned that the college has taken this approach," he said. "If there is an issue of security in identifying students for exams then there are other procedures for this. We do not have a legal ban like France so I don't know why the college would want to do this."

"I see no reason why young women should not be able to practice their faith and wear what is appropriate for their religion," Mahmood continued. "It is about freedom to protect your rights."

"The college should demonstrate and encourage respect of belief, colour and background. [The decision] is not an example to set to students."

Finally, it should be noted that there is nothing in principle that could prevent such a ban being extended to hijabs in the future, in actual fact to be more consistent the college may assert that it is only fair to ban hijabs since less obfuscating hats are already banned. Muslims need to stand up for therights of their fellow Muslims, even in religious opinions they may not hold, and stand up for the struggle for equal citizenship.



Notes:

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[1] http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...-veils-5872305
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...?utm_hp_ref=uk
[3] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428...security-fears
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-reasons.html
[5] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...hes-parliament



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
Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:23 PM
10 Reasons Why The Niqab Does Have a Place In Modern Britain

Adam Beloan


The Islamophobes in the Tory party otherwise known as ‘the nasty-party’ tabled a private members bill for debate on Friday, on whether face coverings should be banned.[1] Here are a few points that their narrow minded bigotry wouldn’t permit them to consider:


1. The niqab does not conflict with principles of feminism if it is a woman's chosen form of dress. A significant aspect of feminism is giving a women the right to choose what she wishes to do with her own body. Many women who wear the niqab regard it as empowering, claiming that those they encounter, give greater value to their speech over their cosmetic appearance. That may seem strange to some people, but is it stranger than nudist beaches, pole dancing clubs or barely clad ladies staggering home in stilettoes after a night out on the tiles? Cultural conditioning and social constructions alone seem an unfair method of determining that which is ‘normal’.


2. The idea that banning the niqab is required for women’s liberation is patronising to those who choose to wear it. The idea that all such women are forced to wear the niqab is delusional. Many community leaders will know of examples of Muslim women who are ostracised by their families for taking up the dress. In fact far more than the few who may be forced. When the facts disagree with ones ideological bigotry, it is often tempting to ignore the facts and create fiction, cue the Tory party.


3. Does the niqab present a security risk? Well how many bank heists do you know of involving a religious face covering? Precisely none!


4. Some people say the niqab is a barrier to communication and therefore it should be banned. It may well be a barrier to communication, but so what! Turning off my phone is a barrier to communication; does that mean we should ban it? I’m sure GCHQ would love the idea so they can track our movements unhindered but personally nah. If a women feels the niqab is a means of her living a more aloof existence, a shield from becoming too engrossed in the day to day on goings in society, if a women finds it helps with focusing on spiritual development then surely a liberal society should have no issue with that.


5. The right to wear a niqab is in-keeping with people’s freedom of expression which supposedly a modern day Britain seeks to preserve.


6. The right to wear a niqab is preserved under religious freedoms which supposedly a modern state should seek to uphold if it wants to remain in keeping with the UN charter. If a women believes it to be foremostly an act of submission and dedication to their God, then I see no argument for a modern Britain to interfere.


7. Such debates tend to whip up a media frenzy over what is ultimately a small number of women who choose to wear a niqab, it is creating animosity towards this minority. This has given rise to verbal abuse and even physical attacks. It is nothing short of the bullying of a minority, yet ironically is supposedly done for their liberation.


8. We live in an overly vain culture that is having a detrimental effect upon the mental health of young women. We live in an overly promiscuous society in which abortion rates keep going up along with sexually transmitted diseases. It is a reality that some women may choose to opt out completely of this culture because they find it burdensome and exhausting on the spirit.


9. Modern society is failing women and this has social consequences, no wonder the majority of people turning to Islam in the West are women, and no wonder that many of the women who wear the niqab are British born converts.


10. Many have observed that today, modern Britain is responsible for objectifying women as sexual objects. The nations favourite newspaper still offers a daily dose of page 3 and it has been estimated that 13% of all internet searches have erotic content[2]. Indeed when google releases the top 10 search strings of the year they have to discount all of the ones relating to porn otherwise all 10 would be un-publishable. Most of these sites have of course been developed by western companies seeking profits. You would have thought the Tory party would have plenty to keep themselves busy with as regards the furthering the plight of women. At least they would do if they all weren’t so busy watching it. A freedom of information request from the Huffington Post[3] revealed that the House of Commons authorities acknowledged that users of the Parliamentary Network servers, including both MPs and their staff, have repeatedly attempted to access websites classed on Parliament's network as pornographic between May 2012 and July 2013. The number of attempts to access pornographic websites via the Parliamentary network peaked for 2012 at 114,844 last November and at 55,552 in April for 2013. Perhaps someone should send them some niqabs so they can cover their faces in shame.



Notes:

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[1] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...hes-parliament
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/julieruv...ally-for-porn/
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3859837.html



Reply

Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Important Advice in Light of the Veil Ban

Reposted Declaration


In light of the ongoing anti-veil agenda we the undersigned would like to present the following important advice to the Muslim community here in the UK, irrespective of school of thought, sect or organisation.


1. The Muslim community should remain united regardless of its differences and opinions about the veil. This request is in response to the countless number of Quranic and Prophetic traditions that command Muslims to be united. Among these is the Quranic verse that says, ‘Hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah and do not be disunited.’ [translation of 3:103]

2. We strongly condemn any attempt by any individual or organisation to create disunity in the Muslim community. We see such a move as an attempt to create friction and disruption in the whole society through indirect discrimination. It is the nature of modern pluralistic societies to be constituted from different communities coexisting peacefully as a single political entity. It is completely irrational, when trying to achieve community cohesion, to instigate disunity and racial tension.

3. The veil, irrespective of its specific juristic rulings, is an Islamic practice and not a cultural or a customary one as is agreed by the consensus of Muslim scholars; it is not open to debate.

We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution in this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief. Not practicing something enjoined by Allah and His Messenger (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) - regardless its legal status (i.e., whether obligatory, recommended or praiseworthy) - is a shortcoming; denying it is much more serious. Allah says in the Qur’an: ‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain error.’ [translation of 33:36]

4. We recognise the fact that Muslims hold different views regarding the veil, but we urge all members of the Muslim community to keep this debate within the realms of scholarly discussion amongst the people of knowledge and authority in the Muslim community. Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘When there comes to them news of some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they spread it (among the people); if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have understood it from them (directly).’ [translation of 4:83] In another Quranic verse, we read the following instruction, ‘So ask those who know if you know not.’ [translation of 16:43 and 21:7]

5. Furthermore, we warn Muslim individuals and organisations to avoid seeking to capitalise on this debate in order to further political or personal interests. Such despicable tactics are judged by Islam as working against the interests of our faith and the Muslim community, and are, accordingly, a matter condemned in the strongest possible terms. Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘The believers, men and women, are Awliya' (allies, helpers, friends, protectors) of one another.’ [translation of 9:71] The Prophet (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, ‘A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim; he does not oppress him, betray him, mislead or fail him.’

6. We would like to call upon all members of the Muslim community to show solidarity against criticising the veil or any other Islamic practice as this might prove to be a stepping-stone towards further restrictions. Today the veil, tomorrow it could be the beard, jilbab and thereafter the head-scarf!

Such a strategy, unfortunately, has been widely used by many European countries. Similarly, we feel that this campaign may be employed to gauge the response of the Muslim community. Therefore, our reply should be firm, sending a clear and powerful message to those who are trying to promote the banning of the veil or any other common Islamic practice. We, the Muslim community, will not tolerate such attitudes nor will we compromise on our values and common customs. All Muslim women, especially those who wear the veil, should play a major role in this response since their voice will be the most effective.

7. We understand the viewpoint of those who may find the veil a barrier to communication. However, we believe that the level of discomfort caused is insignificant, particularly when compared to the discomfort and problems that result from other common and less widely condemned practices such as sexual promiscuity, nudity and alcohol consumption by other segments of society. Moreover, we feel that it is against the interests of the whole society to single out a significant part of it, such as the Muslim community, or to put them under the spotlight and abuse them for their practices, as is now an oft- recurring theme in the media.

8. The unexpected and ruthless reaction of the media over the past few weeks on this issue gives an indication that there is a political agenda behind this campaign. It is very disappointing that the media and many politicians dealt with this issue as if it is the greatest national concern. This becomes more apparent when observing the already tense climate facing Muslims, which is contributing towards creating hostility in the wider society against the Muslim community. Therefore, Muslims should take this matter seriously and defend the veil with all their ability. This could be a battle of 'to be or not to be' for Muslims in the UK. {We urge all brothers and sisters to strive in countering these attacks by utilising the various avenues open to them including sending letters to the relevant authorities, their MPs, human rights activists, and so on. The most important guideline to observe is to react in a wise, sensible and responsible manner and avoid any action that might be used as an excuse for furthering any unfavourable agenda.

9. We would like to advise the sisters who observe the veil/ niqab in the work-place or in educational premises to avoid making it a matter of dispute between them and their employers or school authority. Such disputes will attract more unnecessary media attention, and thus may cause various negative consequences including the imposition of certain dress codes in work places, and in turn, used as justification to legislate further restrictions on wearing it in other areas.

10. Finally, let it be noted that {quotes}we appreciate the noticeable level of understanding and tolerance shown by considerable parts of the wider society towards many Islamic practices. However, we ask all society to deal with the Muslim community without prejudice, and to exercise genuine openness and tolerance towards Islamic practices, even those they may not like, as this is the real test of tolerance to others.{/quotes}

Furthermore, we urge people to be supportive for a woman’s right to wear the veil as on one hand, this complies with the values upon which western civilization was founded - the protection of human and religious rights; and on the other hand, these practices aim to promote values of modesty, decency and good-manners all of which should be the aspiration of any peaceful society.

We conclude by asking Almighty Allah to guide us to that which is better and to make truth and justice prevail in British society as a whole.

25th Ramadan 1427
17th October 2006

Signed (in alphabetical order):

1. Dr Daud Abdullah
Deputy Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

2. Khurram Bashir Amin
Trustee and Editor, Monthly Dawn, Central Mosque, Birmingham

3. Munir Ashi
Chairman, Dar ul-Isra Islamic Centre, Cardiff

4. Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari
Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

5. Shakeel Begg
Imam, Lewisham Mosque, London

6. Mufti Mohammed Zubair Butt
Sharia Adviser, Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence, Bradford

7. Moulana Ilyas Dalal
Head teacher, Ilaahi Masjid, Dewsbury

8. Dr. Khalid Fekry
Imam, al-Taqwa Organization, London

9. Sulaiman Gani
Lecturer in Islamic Studies, Tooting Islamic Centre, London

10. Moosa Gora
Islamic Scholar, Jame Mosque Batley, West Yorkshire

11. Dr. Haitham Al-Haddad
Director of Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF), Judge (Islamic Sharia Council U.K. & Ireland), London

12. Dr. Suhaib Hasan
Secretary, Islamic Sharia Council U.K. & Ireland; Chairman, Masjid and Madrasa Al-Tawhid Trust, London

13. Muhammad ibn Ismail
Imam, Al-Medinah Masjid, Brighton

14. Hafeezullah Khan
Editor-in-chief, Sirat-e-Mustaqeem, Monthly Magazine, Birmingham

15. Dr Khalid Khan
Imam, Lambeth Islamic Cultural Centre, London

16. Wakkas Khan
President, Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS)

17. Shaykh Amjad Mohammed
Head Teacher of Olive Secondary School, Bradford

18. Shaykh Ashraf Osmani
Imam, Markazi Masjid Northampton (MMN), Northampton

19. Ismail Patel
Chairman, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Leicester

20. Shaykh M. Abdul Qayum
Head Imam and Khateeb, East London Mosque, London

21. Abdul Fattah Saad
Director of al-Muntada al-Islami Trust, London

22. Qari Zakaullah Saleem
Imam, Green Lane Mosque, Birmingham.

23. Massoud Shadjareh
Chair, Islamic Human Rights Commission

24. Mohammad Sawalha
President, British Muslim Initiative (BMI), London

25. Shaykh Haytham Tamim
Chairman of Utrujj Foundation, Educational, Training and Research Institute, London

26. Mawlana Abdul Hadi Umri
President - Islamic Judiciary Board, Birmingham
Reply

Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:32 PM
The Niqab: A Barrier to Integration?

Osman Ahmed




One of the multitudinous quasi-reasons given by a certain Conservative MP in the UK and many others for why Muslim women shouldn’t wear the niqab is that it is, in the words of one observer, ‘a blatant obstacle to integration’. This seemingly unequivocal (and ‘factual’) statement is trotted out not only by right-wing MPs, but many a Muslim called upon by the media to offer their two pence worth in the debate. The argument may hold some water if only someone were able to define quite what integration is. Of course there is a lexical meaning which defines integration as “the bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization...”1 Or, indeed, as in Tito’s communist Yugoslavia or Zhivkov’s Bulgaria, which of course Britain isn’t, or isn’t supposed to be. To start to address this argument one would start by having to define integration in our context, only to stumble across the first hurdle – there isn’t a consensus definition for integration in the sense that it is being used.

The authors of a report on integration commissioned by the Home office and carried out by a team at the University of Oxford, are a bit more honest about how unambiguously the term can be used as it is:

‘...it must be emphasised that there is no single agreed understanding of the term ‘integration’’2
Castles et al are also helpful in dispelling the ‘when in Rome’ notion of integration:

“Integration is a two-way process: it requires adaptation on the part of the newcomer but also by the host society. Successful integration can only take place if the host society provides access to jobs and services, and acceptance of the immigrants in social interaction. Above all, integration in a democracy presupposes acquisition of legal and political rights by the new members of society, so that they can become equal partners. Indeed, it is possible to argue that, in a multicultural society, integration may be understood as a process through which the whole population acquires civil, social, political, human and cultural rights, which creates the conditions for greater equality. In this approach, integration can also mean that minority groups should be supported in maintaining their cultural and social identities, since the right to cultural choices is intrinsic to democracy.”

With this elucidation, the onus of integration, at least in part, is placed not upon those being integrated as much as it is upon the host society. However, herein lays another dilemma. Much of the discourse regarding integration deals with the issue of migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities integrating into society. What then of third generation “immigrants” who are British and may already have been ‘integrated’ and then decide to wear the veil? Or of white British Muslims upon whom many of the parameters of ‘integration’ do not apply? One politician on a radio interview cited the veil as being discourteous to the ‘host society’. What then if the lady behind the veil is an Emma with a double-barrelled surname who is very much part of the ‘host society’? Many cannot accept the notion that the women wearing the veil are in the main not refugees who have been forced to wear it under duress, but British women who have chosen to wear it out of religious conviction.

Castles et al helpfully contribute to the discourse by setting out a list of criteria against which the degree of integration can be measured – a sort of checklist of indicators that determine the extent of integration with indicators of education, training and employment; social integration; health, legal , political and overall integration. The irony is that there may be women wearing the veil who may tick all the boxes by being educated, working in the public and services sector, voting and being good neighbours, yet be considered not to have integrated because of the niqab. Furthermore, if the veil is an obstacle to integration, the implied meaning by those who use this word loosely is that they will not be able to integrate at all, whilst in the academic sense of the word they may be more integrated into the workings of British society than many thousands of young white working class English (the so-called ‘Chavs’) whose integration may never been questioned on the basis of their appearance. For a politician to assert that Muslim women are not integrated because they wear the niqab and do not converse with male strangers on a street is somewhat of an over-simplification to say the least.

One of the problems in the discourse is that whilst often referring to integration, many of its proponents actually mean assimilation, a totally different concept and certainly not one to be expected in what is supposed to be a democratic country in a post-colonial era that has described itself as being multicultural3. As expounded on by Professor Modood (University of Bristol), assimilation involves the ‘newcomers’ becoming as much like their hosts as possible while not disturbing the host society, with the least change in the attitudes of the latter. Integration is a two-way process, while assimilation is a one-way process. What is regrettable is that it is the voices within the Muslim community that are the most vocal advocates of assimilation (whilst still talking of ‘integration’) to an extent that even the generality of British society does not demand of Muslims in 21st century Britain.

There are many reasons for this, and certainly one of them is a pathological sense of inferiority that has persisted, albeit in subtle form and especially amongst South East Asian communities, despite decades having elapsed from the end of colonial rule where the subjugated Asian held the white Sahib in awe. There is a subliminal message that in their difference, there is somehow something superior about British society and Muslims are to integrate upward in to it – in contrast to a lateralised mutual accommodation – and adopt its ways, and aspects of Muslim culture are looked down on and denigrated as being inferior. The niqab and the Muslim women’s dress is certainly a case that illustrates this conflict, what with it being described as medieval and backward. A certain lack of confidence in their own heritage makes many Muslims echo these same sentiments.

The glaringly obvious reality of the Hollobone bill and the brouhaha surrounding the niqab across Europe is that it is not motivated by altruistic concerns about social cohesion or courtesy or women’s rights. If so, then banning the English Defence League, countering racism, promoting respect and allowing people to practice their religion in peace are more worthy causes to promote. This is no more than a further symptom of the swelling problem of anti-Islamic xenophobia that is spreading across Europe, with a growing far-right and a dangerous rise in anti-Muslim sentiment that is catalysed by a biased media and closet racists in mainstream parties. It may be argued that with so much Islamophobia around, Muslims should not fan the flames by wearing attire that is seen as divisive. But that is a flawed argument, as it is precisely this argument that gives in to the racist far-right and emboldens them further. It is for this very reason – this dangerous Islamophobia in Europe – that Muslim women should not be allowed to be bullied into taking off the veil, and that Muslims, whatever their views, should support them. It is tremendous naiveté if Muslims think that by a handful of women taking off the veil the racists and Islamophobes will back off or that the growing xenophobia that Muslims are being subjected to will somehow abate.

These law-abiding women have been forced to the cold front, and are taking the bullet for the rest of the Muslim community simply for adopting attire they believe is recommended by Islam and a tradition of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The honourable thing to do for anyone with any sense of justice and concern for both the Muslim community and social cohesion overall is to support them and not let the racists and xenophobes claim a pathetic victory.



Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com


1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/integration. Accessed 10 Sep. 10
2. Castles S, Korac M, Vasta E, Vertovec S. Integration: Mapping the field. Report of a Project carried out by the University of Oxford. 2002. Home Office online report 28/03. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/onlinepubs1.html. Accessed 10 Sep. 10
3. Modood T. Remaking Multiculturalism after 7/7. 2005. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflic...alism_2879.jsp. Accessed 10 Sep. 10
Reply

Muhammad
09-20-2013, 03:40 PM
Discussing the 'Symbol of Subjugation'

Shaikh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad


In a speech delivered on the 22nd of June the President of France said, “the burqa is not a religious sign’ — it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”

Having already banned the Hijab in public schools, France seems eager to move even further with a complete ban on the niqab and as a result we feel it is necessary to provide some advice on the matter so that Muslims living in the West are not caught unaware and unable thereby to articulate an accurate Islamic perspective on the issue.

Generally speaking there are three methods to answering questions when being interviewed: (1) focusing on the content; (2) the delivery of the content and, (3) the perception of the audience. Muslims who are interviewed on Islamic matters tend to focus solely on how the audience will receive their answers and tend to lose track of the real content that needs to be addressed. In stark contrast the Quranic dialogue with non-believers is very much content focused; delivered in an awe-inspiring way. We too, as followers of the Qur’an, are commanded to “Speak the truth” albeit with wisdom and eloquence. Our prophet told us that whoever tries to please the people at the expense of Allah’s pleasure will certainly displease Allah and also find that the people eventually dislike him and that whoever speaks the truth to please Allah will find that the people will end up liking him.

In light of this I would like to provide some answers to questions that are often asked by non-Muslims, be they our neighbors, colleagues, or from the media. It is hoped that these answers will empower us to take the debate forward in a constructive manner.


1) Why do Muslim women wear the Burqa (face veil)?

All of us, we believe, have been created by an all-Knowing all-Wise being who blessed us with a short life here on Earth and then an eternal life in an abode in the Hereafter. The purpose of this life is to achieve success in passing the trials and tribulations God has decreed for us; the greatest test being sincere submission to His divine Will. Abiding by the guidelines and legislation decreed by God brings harmony and tranquility to the hearts of the believers which is then followed by eternal happiness in paradise. Every piece of guidance legislated by God has copious amounts of goodness and wisdom behind it including the dress code specified for both men and women.

Muslim women who adopt the face veil, for example, have a deep conviction that they are following the guidance of their Creator. The wisdom behind the injunction, such as protecting women from abuse and harassment, are of peripheral value as the main aim is to seek the pleasure of God.

2) Would you like all women in the western society to cover themselves up?

We would like all of mankind to live by the guidance of their Creator and understand their purpose in life. Many Muslim women including those who accept the message of Islam do chose to adopt the traditional Islamic dress code.

Interestingly the majority of converts to Islam are women. I recall once a lady had made an appointment with us to take the testimony of faith. When we went to meet her we found a woman fully dressed with Islamic attire. When we asked her if she knew of a non-Muslim woman wanting to become Muslim she replied that it was in fact her!

3) Does the Qur’an speak about the Niqab?

It is very saddening to see so called ‘Islamic experts’ categorically deny the mentioning of the face veil in the Qur’an when it is in fact mentioned in two specific verses.

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex."

Therefore, one cannot deny the fact that covering the face is an authentic orthodox opinion held by a great number of scholars based on Quranic texts.

Even if one was to deny its place in the Qur’an this by no means shows that it hasn‘t been legislated elsewhere in the prophetic guidance, the Sunnah. For instance the Qur’an does not specify the number of daily prayers as being five or the obligatory annual charity as being 2.5% but such fundamentals were learnt from the prophetic guidance and are not disputed over by any Muslim.

4) Is the Niqab obligatory?

The question is somewhat irrelevant as there exists a consensus amongst jurists that observance of the Niqab is a legislated act within Islamic jurisprudence, that is to say, it is not merely cultural attire as many ignorant individuals claim. Though a great number of scholars opined that it is mustahab (recommended), many others thought it was obligatory. Thus, whether it is obligatory or not is not the issue as every Muslim woman has the right to adopt the Islamic dress code regardless of the opinions of others. The question concerns those who want to adopt it and would like to clarify their position so as to provide theological grounding.

5) Is the ‘Non-Niqabi’ immodest?

The women who champion the Niqab are raising the standards of modesty in their respective communities. If we say that modesty is essentially covering up ones beauty than inevitably the face veil does this more so than any other garment. However, modesty must be defined in the framework of Islamic tradition which means that while the Qur’an and the Sunnah provide a general guideline for how to be modest (for instance the word Jilbab is mentioned in the Qur’an and refers to a single garment that covers the body) the specifics of style and manner can depend on the cultural norms of the society.

A common pitfall Muslims find themselves in is when they simply refer to the Niqab and Hijab as a means of being modest without providing any sense of the general guidance of Islam on the matter. This implies that clothing is completely relative and so what is modest in Saudi Arabia is inappropriate in Miami since a revealing dress in Miami could, in all seriousness, be deemed modest given that the norm there is a Bikini!

6) Why don’t men have to wear the Niqab?!

Men have been commanded to lower the gaze and to cover that which is between the navel and knee but women have been commanded to cover much more. Why? Because they are physiologically and physically distinct and so the legislation, logically, encapsulates these differences.

7) Do Muslim men force their women to adorn the Niqab?

We encourage each other to perform acts of piety and righteousness. If I felt that my nearest and dearest were going off the rails I would help them and actively advise them do change their ways. I would advise the women in my family to adhere to Islamic dress code because it is a call for righteousness.

8) Is the Niqab a security issue?

There should always be a spirit of tolerance and forbearance in people, especially the natives as where ever there is a will there is a way. Muslim women who are accepted for who they are will be more appreciative of the state and help to develop stronger ties of cohesion in their communities. Forcing Muslim to uncover their faces will sow seeds of mistrust and even hatred with the state. And so banning the Niqab would be grossly counterproductive.

9) Is Niqab a symbol of subjugation?

The word subjugation, when spoken of in the West and addressed to Muslims or non-Westerners smacks of a colonial will to dominate through a preponderance of the view that European values are not only better than those of others, but that their being ‘better’ elevates their imposition on to others to the status of liberation.

What is frustrating to many Muslims is that over and over again Muslim women have spoken out claiming that what they wear is out of their own choice and a deep sense of spirituality. Yet the media and prominent figures in the West continue to ignore these voices and imply that only ‘they’ truly know what is going on inside Muslim women’s head, something which even the Muslim women – subjugated as they are – are not privy to. This obscene hypocrisy highlights the continuing Orientalism that still operates in the West when it comes to its discourse on Islam.

From a Muslim perspective (although many non-Muslims agree), the tyranny of fashion shows, billboards with air-brushed pictures, the use of scantily clad bodies to sell consumer products is a form of subjugation for Western women, who, if not dominated by men are certainly dominated by the demands and dictates of the market.

How, at any rate, is one to decide whether someone is subjugated or not? Banning a religious practice in a society where no Muslim is demanding its imposition seems more a fundamentalist move than a liberal one, but then perhaps that is exactly what we are witnessing: the fundamentalising of liberalism. What’s more is that Muslim ought not to feel cowed by media pressure or hawkish tactics by commentators who merely claim that such Islamic dress codes are oppressive – the onus of proving this, after all, lies with them and not with Muslims.

For our part we have firsthand accounts of women who have donned the burqa/hijab/niqab who repeatedly pronounce their individuality and choice as well as the fact that the majority of women who seem to be adopting the burqa are Western educated women all born and brought up in countries like France and Britain many a time at odds with their mothers from the East. So, is the Burqa an Eastern or Western phenomena?!

__________________________________________________ _________
Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com
The following has been adapted from a recent lecture delivered by Dr Haitham al-Haddad on the 30/06/09
Reply

Muhammad
11-03-2013, 03:53 PM
The Power of Words: Unveiling the Politics of Dehumanisation


“It is true that the Jew is a human being but so is a flea a living being – one that is none too pleasant ... our duty towards both ourselves and our conscience is to render it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.”

These were the words of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda under Hitler. Such comments were typical of the discussions that abounded in Nazi circles about ‘the Jewish Question’. In what was a deliberate strategy of dehumanisation, the Nazis also described and portrayed the Jews as rats and vermin, bringing plague, disease and death with them wherever they went.

In 1994, during the genocide of almost one million Tutsis in Rwanda, state controlled radio routinely described the minority Tutsis as inyenzi and inzoka, Kinyarwandan words meaning 'cockroach' and ‘snake’ respectively. Around the same period, Serbs in Bosnia were slaughtering Croats and Muslims who they routinely characterized as ‘subhuman’. More recently, Buddhist Monks butchered Rohingya Muslims in Burma spurned on by leaders who described the minority as “mad dogs”. [1]

Any study of an episode of ethnic cleansing or genocide in history is likely to demonstrate that the massacres were proceeded by a deliberate campaign of dehumanisation, a psychological process whereby the enemy Other was viewed as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. For it is the denial of the humanity of others that is the initial step that permits killing with impunity. The universal human abhorrence of murder of members of one's own group is overcome by treating the victims as less than human.

It should therefore be of great concern to us when we see any minority group dehumanised in such a way and compared with or equated with animals or beasts. For this line of attack to come from elements of the vitriolic tabloid press is unfortunately to be expected. It is when mainstream commentators associated with the Left draw such parallels that alarm bells should be ringing.

Last September, the Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown wrote a piece [2] in which she described veiled Muslim women as a “guerrilla army of Muslim Salafists”.

Following a debate on the niqab in Britain last week, Alibhai Brown used the same phrase to describe the audience of veiled women, but with a slight difference. She replaced the words ‘Muslims Salafists’ with ‘bats’. Her tweet [3] in full read

“Still #c4news after fleeing the guerrilla army of bats, a niqabi came up & was just lovely and honest. If she takes it off we'll be besties”

Mrs Alibhai Brown has every right to express her disagreement with those who choose to don a piece of cloth across their faces in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, by resorting to such crude remarks, not only does she undermine any strength in her own arguments but also engages in the tactics of dehumanisation of the minority Other that was implemented with catastrophic results in Nazi Europe, Rwanda and the Balkans.

As an award winning journalist and writer, Alibhai Brown would know the power of words and the images that they can evoke. Her deliberate use of the term ‘guerrilla army’ implies rebellion, foreign, hostility, violence, subversive and terrorism. Her calculated use of the word ‘bats’ raises images of evil, death and disease. Conjoining both phrases to label a minority of the Muslim minority in this country, amidst a climate of growing intolerance and xenophobia, is both irresponsible and dangerous. Words can create all kinds of powerful symbolic imagery, create the image of a threat that desperately needs to be dealt with, and dehumanise a people so effectively that inhumane treatment seems not only justifiable but necessary.

As philologist and Nazi victim Victor Klemperer has noted, “Nazism … crept into the flesh and blood of the masses by means of single words, turns of phrase and stock
expressions which, imposed upon the people a million times over in continuous reiteration, were mechanically and unconsciously absorbed by them.”

Alibhai Brown’s tweet should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a growing pattern from mainstream commentators and politicians from across the political spectrum. At the Channel 4 niqab debate Alibhai Brown sat on the same side of the table a man who once described her as “the stupidest woman in Britain”,[4] Douglas Murray. At one point in the debate, Murray responded to a veiled woman discussing the European Convention of Human Rights with the following:

"There is something fundamentally ludicrous about somebody dressed as you are to talk about human rights."

For Murray, far from being afforded the protection of human rights, veiled women should not even talk about such matters. The insinuation is that human rights belong to humans, not those he perceives to be subhuman. Murray stopped short of calling for a complete ban on wearing the niqab in public but simply said that it should be “discouraged” without detailing how.

We should be wary. Murray is a writer with a chequered history of rabble rousing and inciting hatred against Muslims. He has previously described [5] Islam as “the AIDS of the West” and demanded that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board” and that “all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop”. He is someone who has defended [6] the English Defence League (EDL) referring to it as the kind of "grassroots response" to Islamism he would like to see.

Commentators such as Douglas Murray should not be permitted to air their inciteful views on national television. By placing him alongside the slightly more respectable Alibhai Brown, Murray’s views are deemed acceptable. But when Alibhai Brown resorts to the same tactics of dehumanisation, we, as a society, should be concerned.

Last year, academics at the University of Leicester found evidence [7] of a correlation between the niqab ban in France and increased levels of anti-Muslim hostility towards veiled Muslim women in the UK. No such ban yet exists in Britain but nevertheless, an increasing number of Muslim women in hijab and niqab are being verbally and physically attacked on our streets, their assailants justifying their actions by reference to the statements of politicians and the press. Most people of reason would refer to such actions as Islamophobia. Not Douglas Murray. For him, this is a “nonsense term” [8]. Alibhai Brown would probably disagree with Murray on this but by equating the victims with animals, she is complicit in the violence.



Notes:



Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

1- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/wo...rity.html?_r=0

2- http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...mmentReference

3- https://twitter.com/y_alibhai/status/393481734269853696

4- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/do...an-in-britain/

5- http://web.archive.org/web/200802011...ves/000809.php

6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wlSS61X9eg

7- http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/p...eicester-study

8- http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/251/full


http://www.islam21c.com/politics/133...dehumanisation



Reply

Pygoscelis
11-03-2013, 05:09 PM
Interesting articles. Some very poor arguments for banning the veil have been put forward by some very islamophobic people I see. I did find the story of the lady in face veil meeting the punk lady having a moment of mutual understanding and smiling, both having chosen to be so different in their society, in different ways. I wonder if that kind of mutual understanding would exist between the misunderstood veiled muslim (who is accused to being repressed) and the misunderstood nudist (who is accused of being perverse).

Having read all of the above, I think there are only two valid reasons to be weary of face veils: Security and Identity.

A few of the articles above mention security, and dismiss the concern noting there are not many bank robberies in face veils and that muslimas are not a serious criminal element. But that seems to miss the point. If other face coverings are banned for security reasons, and face veils are given an exception, that opens the door for people who are NOT muslimas, perhaps not even women, to wear the veil to hide their identity for nefarious purposes.

The issue of identity is only mentioned by one of the articles I saw above. It says that identity is not a major issue in muslim lands because female staff are hired everywhere to check identity under veils. That may be a good solution, but infringes on the rights of others, forcing them to spend resources on hiring these female staff and having them spend their time doing this. Perhaps a fee should be charged to the muslima to compensate for this? Yes, as the one article above says, integration should include full rights and some accommodation for minorities, but that should not include special rights, and certainly not special rights that come at the cost of the rest of society.

The third reason I see for wanting to ban face veils is prejudice against muslims. Fair or not, Islam has a reputation of being ultra-conservative, intolerant, and violent. I know this isn't true of all muslims, but the image is engrained on western society following 9/11, violent reactions to cartoons, etc. The face veil is very much a symbol of Islam and an easy one to target and oppose for the above two (legit) reasons. I think that is why we see people calling for widespread bans instead of just bans in security or identity sensitive areas (like banks for security or voting or driver's licenses for identity)

This prejudice also meshes with the feminist attack on the veil. The articles above do a very good job at pointing out that very few women who actually wear veils are interviewed or complain, and the feminists just assume they are repressed, to afraid to speak up, etc. They see Islam as a repressive and sexist religion and so they assume the veil to be a symbol of that. That is more the prejudice of the feminists than anything to do with the muslimas. I expect they wouldn't have any problem with women walking around in hats with scarves, if they were western style, or nuns for that matter who also cover a lot of themselves (and also for religious and modesty reasons).
Reply

~Zaria~
11-03-2013, 06:45 PM
:salam:

:jz: for sharing these informative articles with us.

Im really grateful that my home country is relatively more tolerant towards different dominations of faith, versus the current situation in many parts of Europe.

Specific to niqaab, I personally think that some responsibility lies with muslims themselves - with regards to how it is perceived by other groups of people:

1. Unfortunately, the niqaab is still donned by only a minority of practicing muslim women.
Even though there is more consensus amongst scholars regarding the importance of niqaab in islam, this point is not emphasized enough amongst our ummah.
The end result being that those few women who decide to wear the niqaab, are seen as 'extremists' in their interpretation of the deen.

A young woman who chooses to adopt the niqab, more often than not, meets more criticism by her own family and muslim friends and colleagues, than anyone else in real life. Out of ignorance, they are often told that the niqab 'has no role in islam' , that it is 'a cultural symbol (of the arab)', rather than a religious indictment, etc.
In many cases, a woman in niqaab feels isolated - even within her own community. E.g. if one has to attend a muslim wedding/ family gathering/ islamic event, the woman in niqaab stands relatively alone - surrounded by a much more modernized (and accepted) version of hijab.

If our own ummah cannot unite upon its own teachings, or at the very least, respect differences in opinion, then I think it becomes that more difficult to convince the world that this particular practice in Islam is important to us, and that it forms an integral part in the life of a muslim woman.

At the moment, the niqaab is perceived by others, as an 'option' rather than an obligation.
^ And the core of this perception lies with us (to some extent).

2.
There are many reasons for this, and certainly one of them is a pathological sense of inferiority that has persisted, albeit in subtle form and especially amongst South East Asian communities, despite decades having elapsed from the end of colonial rule where the subjugated Asian held the white Sahib in awe. There is a subliminal message that in their difference, there is somehow something superior about British society and Muslims are to integrate upward in to it – in contrast to a lateralised mutual accommodation – and adopt its ways, and aspects of Muslim culture are looked down on and denigrated as being inferior. The niqab and the Muslim women’s dress is certainly a case that illustrates this conflict, what with it being described as medieval and backward. A certain lack of confidence in their own heritage makes many Muslims echo these same sentiments.

^ I think this is an important point - and it applies to many other countries where British colonization has occurred.

Being 'different' to the rest of society, sometimes creates a sense of being 'inferior' to others.
I personally have experienced this from time to time - more-so, when being surrounded by wealthy, 'upper-class' folk - dressed in their designer gear, and poshed in every manner.
In a society which 'grades' their women by their outer appearances, it means that a woman in niqaab has to really dig deep within herself to ward off these feelings of 'inferiority' and to have strong conviction for why she chooses to be different from the rest.
If it is not done, solely for the sake of seeking the pleasure of Allah, then there is always the risk of falling back into the mainstream way of thinking.

-----------

Having said this, there is no doubt, that the current anti-niqaab drive is founded upon intolerance to others and their beliefs, and is a direct attack upon islam itself.
In the UK, there has been suggestions that this is a means of indirectly urging a growing number of muslim ex-pats to return to their home-lands, by clamping down on what is most important to them - their religion.

From our part, I think that there needs to be a more united front in demonstrating the integral place that the niqaab holds in islam - by advising our muslim sisters to leave behind the 'westernised' version of hijab, and to dress in the manner that will ultimately please Allah.

So long as non-muslims view the niqaab as an 'optional' part of worship in islam, that is practiced by only a minority of muslim women (and especially taking into consideration the security concerns, as mentioned above) - this makes the challenge a lot more difficult.


:wa:
Reply

ardianto
11-04-2013, 10:43 AM
Although rare, sometime I saw niqabi women in public area like shop or marketplace. Yes, if they did something wrong I could not identify their faces, but I could identify their companion faces.

Frankly, everytime I saw niqabi women in public area in my city, I saw that they were always accompanied by someone or some people with 'open face'. They never alone like I see in some photos about niqabi in the West.

Maybe accompanied by 'open face' people can reduce suspicion toward niqabi when they are in public area.
Reply

Muhammad
11-04-2013, 02:00 PM
Greetings,

Thanks for reading and commenting on the articles. If anyone wants to see the debate mentioned in the last article, it can be viewed here:
http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thou...-muslim-woman-

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Having read all of the above, I think there are only two valid reasons to be weary of face veils: Security and Identity.

A few of the articles above mention security, and dismiss the concern noting there are not many bank robberies in face veils and that muslimas are not a serious criminal element. But that seems to miss the point. If other face coverings are banned for security reasons, and face veils are given an exception, that opens the door for people who are NOT muslimas, perhaps not even women, to wear the veil to hide their identity for nefarious purposes.
I do think there is a valid point in those arguments where they are pointing out that we are reacting to, or weary of, a problem that does not exist. There are not many other face coverings that people wear in this scenario, so I don't think there is much of an exception.

The issue of identity is only mentioned by one of the articles I saw above. It says that identity is not a major issue in muslim lands because female staff are hired everywhere to check identity under veils. That may be a good solution, but infringes on the rights of others, forcing them to spend resources on hiring these female staff and having them spend their time doing this. Perhaps a fee should be charged to the muslima to compensate for this? Yes, as the one article above says, integration should include full rights and some accommodation for minorities, but that should not include special rights, and certainly not special rights that come at the cost of the rest of society.
But does it really infringe on the rights of others, and is it really a special right? I think airports tend to have female staff appointed for searching female passengers anyway, and I reckon women in general would prefer it that way (and vice versa for men).

It's important to highlight that Muslimahs are willing to cooperate with the authorities as far as security and identity risks are concerned. The issue just needs to be handled with understanding of both sides.
Reply

Independent
11-07-2013, 10:10 AM
The escape of a man under security restrictions, concealed by a burka, is a very negative development for the wearing of religious clothing in western countries:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24847388

Whether he is correctly accused or not, this man has abused the privilege of the burka. By doing so, he highlights exactly the security concerns that have been raised by opponents.

If such a garment is ever used in a similar way for a direct terrorist act then the call for a ban would be irresistible.
Reply

Karl
11-08-2013, 01:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
‘progressive Muslims’ like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
Wouldn't apostate be a better term? You can't tweak Islam. Love it or leave it. She sounds like a poisonous feminist.
Britain is a Zionist country so you can't expect the constant attacks upon Islam to go away, but to attack females because of their clothes is a very low blow.
The British are known to be two faced in all their affairs and will never be honest with you. They will never show you their cards or their real feelings or intensions. Only the lowest class will let fly with their bigotry and hate, which is an honest reflection of the pyramid of power that is anti Islam.
If Britain was just a WASP country like it was in the past, things would be a lot easier. But with adopting Zionism and liberal lefty agendas things have got messy.
I can see two paths that Britain can take. It either melts down to a socialist internationalist multi cultural police state. Or a rise in nationalism where the WASPs want their country back as a mono cultural right wing police state. I think it will be the former as the Zionists are pushing it in that direction.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 02:25 AM
I think any man who dresses in Niqab is easily found out. Women no matter how niqabed up is still a woman there's no concealing it even if the features can't be made out.
here it is donned by Non-Muslim 'Royals'



here it is worn by Jews:



At any rate there's only one reason niqab isn't compatible with the western world (btw I don't wear niqaab and a shopholic at that) bottom line is if women aren't being sexualized or objectified or made to dress to impress men or show off in front of their lady friends then they're not partaking in western economics which is based on sell sell sell, sell your bodies if you've to and how dare you be a slave to God instead of capitalism .. that's really all there is to it.. 'all about the money money money and it doesn't matter at what price, your dignity, your sanity, your finances, & dignity of your age

btw can anyone mistake those Jewish women for men? their clothes are pretty concealing they're still very obviously women, they're built like women and walk like women I wish the kaffirs would stop with their nonsense!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 09:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
I think any man who dresses in Niqab is easily found out.
What's the point in trying to claim this when it's just happened? While someone like myself would find it hard to pass for a woman unless I somehow lost a foot in height, there are many men who could get away with it.

And one of them just did.

In any case, the threat to religious dress is not just men using it as a disguise. It's also women themselves acting as terrorists. Curiously, it's often western women converts who seem more inclined to act this way. For example Amanda Lewthwaite, who is wanted in connection with the Nairobi shopping mall massacre.

In the event of a similar incident in the west, the pressure on banning/restricting any concealing clothing would be immense.

For instance, many organisations have long ago banned motorcycle couriers from entering their offices without removing their helmets, because of theft and other security issues. (Which come to think of it is a very good parallel with the niqab argument.)

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
there's only one reason niqab isn't compatible with the western world (btw I don't wear niqaab and a shopholic at that) bottom line is if women aren't being sexualized or objectified or made to dress to impress men or show off in front of their lady friends then they're not partaking in western economics
Obviously untrue. Capitalism has only been around the last few hundred years (although what passes for acceptable clothing has changed any number of times for both men and women over the centuries).
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 01:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
What's the point in trying to claim this when it's just happened?
It is just happened but he was found out puts a dent in your theory all together no?

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
In any case, the threat to religious dress is not just men using it as a disguise. It's also women themselves acting as terrorists. Curiously, it's often western women converts who seem more inclined to act this way. For example Amanda Lewthwaite, who is wanted in connection with the Nairobi shopping mall massacre.
Terrorists at shopping malls happen all the time with or without niqaab. You've no way of finding people's intent based on clothing which makes this one of the dumbest arguments you've made to date!


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Obviously untrue. Capitalism has only been around the last few hundred years
when people were producers and not just consumerists their garb was appropriate - when they became nothing but sexualized objects more and more of it came off!

best,
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 02:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
It is just happened but he was found out puts a dent in your theory all together no?
I always make the mistake of assuming you will bother to read things properly. Let's go through it again:

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was under house arrest using a tagging system. To escape, he cut the tag and used the burqa disguise to get past the surveillance cameras. They only realised it was him in the burqa when they examined the video footage to find out what had happened. By which time he had already escaped.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Terrorists at shopping malls happen all the time with or without niqaab. You've no way of finding people's intent based on clothing which makes this one of the dumbest arguments you've made to date!
Once again, you have missed the point entirely. It's got nothing to do with normal everyday Muslims. The problem is the possibility it could be used as a disguise. A burqa could be used to hide weaponry. And a niqab could be used to disguise identity whilst preparing the attack, or to evade surveillance cameras on the way in. They don't even have to be Muslims. The risk factor is in the clothing, not the person who wears it.

If a lethal terrorist attack should ever happen by this method, then there would be irresistible pressure for banning such clothing in certain areas.

That's why Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed is to be condemned, because by his actions he has placed at risk the freedom of Muslim women in general in the west to wear religious clothing.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 03:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was under house arrest using a tagging system. To escape, he cut the tag and used the burqa disguise to get past the surveillance cameras. They only realised it was him in the burqa when they examined the video footage to find out what had happened. By which time he had already escaped.
Even if the story were true and not some propagandist BS to follow suit from their anti Islamic rhetoric targeting Muslim women it would be no different from any burglar/killer wearing a ski mask and that happens daily most criminals have no desire to reveal their identity. My mistake is presuming you can think in abstract form!


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Once again, you have missed the point entirely. It's got nothing to do with normal everyday Muslims. The problem is the possibility it could be used as a disguise. A burqa could be used to hide weaponry. And a niqab could be used to disguise identity whilst preparing the attack, or to evade surveillance cameras on the way in. They don't even have to be Muslims. the risk factor is in the clothing, not the person who wears it.
See above response. This is just a sick excuse to target and further alienate Muslims and then based on that faulty premise speak of how they can't integrate into society!


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
If a lethal terrorist attack should ever happen by this method, then there would be irresistible pressure for banning such clothing in certain areas.
Lethal terrorist attacks happen daily mostly by people like you white lonely males who spend their time niggling over trifles & confabulating on the net!
see here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...a-map/2820423/

The law doesn't change based on the exception unless in very racist societies who are impotent to do anything about their obvious and repeated problems and would rather target a small population of women based on one attack!
I don't know how your brain functions truly!

best,
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
it would be no different from any burglar/killer wearing a ski mask
As a form of disguise, wearing a ski mask in central London leaves a lot to be desired. Use your brain!

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
This is just a sick excuse to target and further alienate Muslims and then based on that faulty premise speak of how they can't integrate into society!
By his actions, Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed has already damaged the idea that there is no security risk to concealing garments. It is him you should condemn because it's Muslim women in general who will suffer.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 03:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
As a form of disguise, wearing a ski mask in central London leaves a lot to be desired. Use your brain!
Is it illegal? I don't want to waste my time over your feelings or emotions. I want to know if the govt. legislates whether or not presumably psychotic white males and as I have shown above are the number one culprit for most violent attacks are kept from dressing as they desire and what studies were made to link their outfits to the crimes they commit~ You're the last person to speak about using brains and you should really quit taking my statements and using it on me as if you'd an original and independent thought looming in your head!



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
By his actions, Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed has already damaged the idea that there is no security risk to concealing garments. It is him you should condemn because it's Muslim women in general who will suffer.
As I stated and I so hate to repeat myself on the account that all things written simply bounce over the idea you already have formed in your mind. laws aren't amended based on the exception and if they're then everyone can clearly see in this particular case that this is a system of bigotry, xenophobia and frank outward hatred of Islam- A system that professes 'freedoms' that it obviously doesn't possess in fact one that is completely antithetical to the values of tolerance, individualism and freedom which by definition should denote readiness to coexist peacefully with those who do not share your values.
Reply

greenhill
11-08-2013, 03:36 PM
Salaam,

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
The contradiction they have to overcome is that the Qur’an itself was preserved by the memories of the Prophet’s companions and their oral tradition. Thus if one accepts the Qur’an as being preserved through the memories of these most trustworthy of human beings then how can one choose to ignore the weight of their testimony in other matters relating to the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
Never thought about it that way.... Thank you for the simple logic that should make those who deny the sunnah think a little bit more.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Many of my students know that I do not consider it obligatory. I see them join my classes without the niqab, soon after, they start wearing the niqab. I don’t even know why they did it. Ultimately, it’s their choice and none of my business. But it is a religious choice and not a cultural one, which means a woman makes the choice to adopt an Islamic teaching in the hope of being rewarded by Allah (SWT). This is the essence of any religious practice.
I see why it is a religious choice as opposed to cultural (although it 'may' have begun as cultural).


format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Perhaps a glaring omission in all the commentaries written is the viewpoint of women who veil their faces. Let’s hope, should a national debate be sparked on the issue, that their voices, so absent in the media, are granted the public space to challenge perceptions of their subjugation, oppression, stunted careers etc…
If I can pin point on why niqab is viewed in such light, could be summed up by -

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Having read all of the above, I think there are only two valid reasons to be weary of face veils: Security and Identity.
It would be similar to walking around and seeing people in balaclavas. Due to the association of using masks to hide identity, it makes people nervous and makes the paranoid react unreasonably. Incessant complains and expression has garnered attention which has triggered negative awareness as a result of these paranoid comments.

Personally, I feel, these people are living other people's fears. Let the security people figure away to ensure safety, a system can be put in place that can accommodate such things. We are such an advanced society. I refuse to believe that with all the equipment we have, we cannot get through a simple veil over a face.^o)

If I am to be honest, it does not appeal to me. And in a way, it is good because the person wearing it holds no interest to me except to question why she is wearing it? Whereas girls who do not allows me to stare and .....

:embarrass

Peace
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 03:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Is it illegal?
No, wearing a ski mask is not illegal and neither is the niqab/burqa. But unlike the niquab/burqa, a ski mask is of no value as a form of disguise outside of a ski resort. A ski mask in central London is so far from a disguise, it would ensure everybody looked at you. Frankly it's a stupid comparison and I wonder why you persist with it.

This man Mohammad has set a dangerous precedent which, if others follow, will obviously undermine the argument that the niqab/burqa does not represent a security risk. It's got nothing to do with whether the person is a Muslim or not (although Mohammad is).
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
No, wearing a ski mask is not illegal
Ok great that is all I wanted to read. Until that is made illegal by a governmental mandate can we have this dialogue. I am not interested in where it is donned otherwise it is irrelevant!
Most criminals disguise their identity not sure why you persist on ignoring that fact- sales of any covers including neck gaiters which many wear during winter months should also be made illegal by your brand of logic!







btw is anyone confused about the genders of those heavily clad dudes? Maybe in a society of homosexuals it is difficult for some to tell a woman from a man!
Reply

ardianto
11-08-2013, 04:20 PM
Last year in Indonesia. 23 'women' with niqab visited Jakarta police headquarter to meet few terrorists that detained there. The guards did not see their faces. But their mistake was they did not realize that those niqabi have been 24 when they left detention center. Rocky, one terrorist that detained there escaped with wearing niqab.

Indonesian national Intelligence also report that niqab often be used by terrorists when they move from one place to another place.

But we don't think to ban niqab in public place. We don't blame the niqab, we blame the terrorist that use niqab for the wrong things.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 04:41 PM
I find that story a little hard to believe. Firstly people who go to visit 'terrorists' it is done under very strict guidelines as they're supposedly the most dangerous criminals, their meetings are supervised and the things they bring to jail are checked in and out. So called Islamic countries like Egypt are simply simpatico with western agenda to malign Muslims and ruin society from within, thus I am not surprised that the story is courtesy of your 'Indonesian National Intelligence' and what sort of intelligence is it, if a woman goes in and comes out a man?

sob7an Allah.. I am surprised by the things written by Muslims!
Reply

ardianto
11-08-2013, 05:01 PM
Rocky has been arrested again. Guards in Indonesian prison and detention center are not as good as in other countries. Prisoner escape is common stories.

Yes, I am Muslim and I have big sympathy to the innocent niqabi who become victims of other people action.

In the past I've heard positive comment about women who wore niqab from my mother, female cousins, and other women who ever meet niqabi women.

But now?. I heard complain from some niqabi women because people look at them with suspicion. It's happen after the emergence of radical group which explode bombs and cause fear among peope. The worse is, all women in the group wear niqab!.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 05:06 PM
prisoner escaping being a common story in Indonesia is then a problem with prison guards and the way the system is run in Indonesia and that is what should make the news not the fact that 20+ niqabis went in and one prisoner got out. Seems like women are an easy scape goat and those who are the most fragile (attacked east and west, family & strangers alike) are the most targeted.
Like the logic or lack thereof of that other guy. Completely ignores the massive postal attacks by single white males and focuses with all his bravado on the one story where a criminal donned a niqab!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 05:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
I find that story a little hard to believe
Your difficulty in facing up to reality in general has been a feature of this forum for some time.

The fact is that this man did escape in disguise under a burqa. It's a waste of everybody's time to keep saying it couldn't happen, because it just did. Please stop wasting space with irrelevant pictures that demonstrate nothing. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.

A disguise which draws attention to the wearer is no use as a disguise. So stop wasting time with irrelevant comparisons.

The problem you should be focusing on is the behaviour of this man, himself a Muslim, who therefore should know better than to bring more difficulties on the lives of Muslim women in the west.

it's pointless to argue there are no security implications when a man with suspected links to Al Shabab has used the burqa in this way. If people are killed as a result of a similar incident, it is obviously going to cause immense difficulties.

Let's hope that no other Muslim, at least, will abuse the privilege of the burqa.
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2013, 06:19 PM
Can I request we do not turn this into another argument! By all means present your views but please try to do so without insulting the other person.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
That's why Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed is to be condemned, because by his actions he has placed at risk the freedom of Muslim women in general in the west to wear religious clothing.
I agree that, whatever the intentions behind them, such actions have placed at risk the freedom of Muslim women, especially at a time when it is in the spotlight. There is already growing pressure and suspicion on Muslim women even without these incidents. But it is rather strange that a 'ban' seems to be on the tip of everyone's tongue regarding this topic, as if no other option is conceivable or worth trying. It sounds almost as if people have already decided in their own minds what the outcome should be, and finding the excuses to justify it.

I thought these points were important to note:

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
The law doesn't change based on the exception
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
But we don't think to ban niqab in public place. We don't blame the niqab, we blame the terrorist that use niqab for the wrong things.
I also came across this quote from Salma Yaqoob, formerly a Birmingham city councillor, from an article in the Guardian:


"The women who do wear the face veils are a tiny minority within a minority, so the thought that they're any kind of threat to British society as a whole is beyond laughable. But at the same time, [these debates] do, of course, increase the vulnerability of Muslim women as a whole. Time and again, verbal and physical attacks on Muslim women increase when we have these so-called national debates. In emotional and psychological terms, I think it does a huge amount of damage."
Women who wear the veil "are trying to observe what they feel are their religious convictions", she says, "but are made to feel that they are somehow imposing on the whole of society and that they are the biggest problem. And, of course, that isn't conducive to integration, belonging and a positive atmosphere. It doesn't foster cohesion, I think it does the very opposite, and ironically it actually stifles healthy discussion and debate."
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2013, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by greenhill
Salaam,

I see why it is a religious choice as opposed to cultural (although it 'may' have begun as cultural).
:wasalamex

Why do you say it 'may' have begun as cultural?
It would be similar to walking around and seeing people in balaclavas. Due to the association of using masks to hide identity, it makes people nervous and makes the paranoid react unreasonably. Incessant complains and expression has garnered attention which has triggered negative awareness as a result of these paranoid comments.
I disagree with the comparison to balaclavas. Balaclavas are typically worn for criminal activity and little else. But the Niqab is worn for a particular (religious) reason and not associated with criminals. Yes, it has garnered negative attention due to negative portrayal, but it's still not the same as balaclavas. Not all concealing clothing creates paranoia - the example of nuns was mentioned in the other thread.
Personally, I feel, these people are living other people's fears. Let the security people figure away to ensure safety, a system can be put in place that can accommodate such things. We are such an advanced society. I refuse to believe that with all the equipment we have, we cannot get through a simple veil over a face.^o)
I agree.
If I am to be honest, it does not appeal to me. And in a way, it is good because the person wearing it holds no interest to me except to question why she is wearing it?
I didn't follow here. We as Muslims must respect the Niqab as it is at the very least a recommended action in our religion. We should understand why Muslim women are wearing it and support them too.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 06:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
"The women who do wear the face veils are a tiny minority within a minority
Indeed, I see such folks as focusing on an ant whilst ignoring the elephant in the room and I have no other explanation for that save frank bigotry, Islamophobia and the marginalizing of a minority so that all they accuse them of especially lack of integration becomes nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 08:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
But it is rather strange that a 'ban' seems to be on the tip of everyone's tongue regarding this topic, as if no other option is conceivable or worth trying. It sounds almost as if people have already decided in their own minds what the outcome should be, and finding the excuses to justify it.
I agree with most of what you say, however...

The worst possible outcome is that an Amanda Lethwaite type figure takes a bomb onto the Underground and creates a terror spectacular. if that happens, I don't see how any government could stand against the clamour for action, which would surely involve some degree of restriction if not an outright ban.

Therefore, the greatest danger to Muslim women's freedom comes from the potential actions of other Muslims like Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed. Otherwise, no matter what you may read in the media, the UK is not even close to imposing any kind of ban and i can't see how it would come about. The tabloid press operate in a state of perpetual hysteria. They'll be bored of it by next week. It's a strange thing to have to say in this forum - but don't believe everything you read in the media.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
The women who do wear the face veils are a tiny minority within a minority, so the thought that they're any kind of threat to British society as a whole is beyond laughable
It doesn't even have to be a Muslim, or a woman, that takes advantage of these garments. It's the concealment that matters - not the religion, the sex, or the ethnicity.

To give a slightly bizarre comparison - during the IRA attacks on London, litter bins on the Underground were used to plant explosives because they provided a place of concealmen. In reaction, all litter bins were "banned" ie removed.

The fact that only a tiny minority of people (one in a million) ever used a bin to plant a bomb does not mean that removing them was either unreasonable, disproportionate or illogical.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
It's the concealment that matters
As stated before criminals don't go on advertising their identity the garment has nothing to do with it! there's just one type of garment on your mind obviously if the law extends itself to Burkas then it should extend itself to any form of concealment, whether in OR's in the winter months, to cancer patients etc. and let's see how well that fares at large!
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-08-2013, 08:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
As stated before criminals don't go on advertising their identity the garment has nothing to do with it! there's just one type of garment on your mind obviously if the law extends itself to Burkas then it should extend itself to any form of concealment, whether in OR's in the winter months, to cancer patients etc. and let's see how well that fares at large!
I agree with this. We should not single out a particular garment. The ban, if there is to be one, should be on the act of concealing your identity by wearing a mask, regardless of what sort of mask. And if we would allow people to walk about in a particular area wearing other face and body coverings, I see no reason not to let them do so in a burqa. And if we are talking about in banks or airports or for driver's photos, etc, where its important not to let people hide their identities, no special ban or exception should be made for religion.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 09:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I agree with this. We should not single out a particular garment. The ban, if there is to be one, should be on the act of concealing your identity by wearing a mask, regardless of what sort of mask. And if we would allow people to walk about in a particular area wearing other face and body coverings, I see no reason not to let them do so in a burqa. And if we are talking about in banks or airports or for driver's photos, etc, where its important not to let people hide their identities, no special ban or exception should be made for religion.
You won't have good luck with that when you're no longer talking about a minority within a minority by a majority of people who by profession or for medical reasons or personal reasons need to sport that kind of garment. If you're going to a bank with a ski mask it seems a little odd but should you be asked to reveal your identity to a guard of your gender then you're obliged to do so. Given that societies at large are composed of folks who follow one brand of religion or another, no special accommodations should be given to liberals and the amoral to appease their anxiety that's what psychiatrists and anxiolytics are for!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 09:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
As stated before criminals don't go on advertising their identity the garment has nothing to do with it
And as i have stated before, it's any form of concealment that provides the opportunity to carry/plant munitions that matters, whether clothing based or otherwise.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The ban, if there is to be one, should be on the act of concealing your identity by wearing a mask, regardless of what sort of mask
I wondered about that too, although it wouldn't be easy to draw up such open ended legislation. It would absurd to ban ski masks in a ski resort, or diving masks in a diving school. But motorcycle helmets are banned for security reasons by many organisations (although this is not prescribed in law, it's their own initiative on their own premises.) There are also restrictions on wearing 'hoodies' in certain urban areas which is prescribed by local by law. But no one has complained that hoodie wearers have been singled out over, say, anorak wearers.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
And as i have stated before, it's any form of concealment that provides the opportunity to carry/plant munitions that matters, whether clothing based or otherwise.
And as I have already stated & REPEATEDLY:

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

You won't have good luck with that when you're no longer talking about a minority within a minority by a majority of people who by profession or for medical reasons or personal reasons need to sport that kind of garment. If you're going to a bank with a ski mask it seems a little odd but should you be asked to reveal your identity to a guard of your gender then you're obliged to do so. Given that societies at large are composed of folks who follow one brand of religion or another, no special accommodations should be given to liberals and the amoral to appease their anxiety that's what psychiatrists and anxiolytics are for!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
You won't have good luck with that when you're no longer talking about a minority within a minority by a majority of people who by profession or for medical reasons or personal reasons need to sport that kind of garment. If you're going to a bank with a ski mask it seems a little odd but should you be asked to reveal your identity to a guard of your gender then you're obliged to do so.
No ban would be so clumsily constructed as to ban doctors from wearing masks in hospital, for instance. Any security based ban is likely to focus on areas of public access, especially transport.

As I've said before, I'm very much opposed to a ban myself because I think the risk is too small in relation to the infringement on personal freedom. But if a terrorist were to imitate Mohammed and exploit the privilege of the veil, then the balance of that equation would change.
Reply

Ahmad H
11-08-2013, 10:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
As I've said before, I'm very much opposed to a ban myself because I think the risk is too small in relation to the infringement on personal freedom. But if a terrorist were to imitate Mohammed and exploit the privilege of the veil, then the balance of that equation would change.
If the veil was banned because only one woman out of all of the Muslim women wearing it being dangerous would be discrimination. There are more men who wear face masks and rob convenience stores, commit murder in mall shootings, theater shootings (like what happened in the US), etc. So this ban would be clear discrimination because it would be viewed that any Muslim women with the face veil is a potential threat.

The difficulty in identifying suspicious behavior due to the face veil, seems to be the only reason for banning it, and for identification purposes. But that can be avoided by searching them when necessary due to security reasons. Furthermore, the problem with banning the face veil for this reason is that it is an assumption on the part of Western governments to think that such an attack will happen from such women.

In Islam, it is an obligation on women to cover up. When the ruler passes a law against one of the laws of Islam, then Muslims are not obligated to follow it. So whether they pass this law or not, the true Muslimahs will not abandon their face veils either way. They will wear it in defiance because they regard the law of Allah above the laws of men. Sharia does not require any government to pass any laws for it, it is followed regardless of the laws of the land being for it or against it.

All I can say is that anyone who uses the face veil as an excuse to commit a crime, I hope that Allah will reward them with disgrace because they will have tried to disgrace His religion which He revealed to the Seal of the Prophets (saw). No Muslim condones the actions of such people, unless they are one of those who oppose the Shari'a. The Shari'a does not permit using Islamic behavior to disguise oneself for a crime against humanity.

Just remember the terrorists who use the name of Islam to commit murder have not only hijacked the safety of non-Muslims, but they have hijacked both the faith and security of Muslims, and have created fear in the hearts and hatred of non-Muslims towards Muslims. So Muslims have more to lose either way.
Reply

Ahmad H
11-08-2013, 10:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Especially in france a country where passing a law is almost like prolonged and difficult labor yet passes such a ban against niqab overnight.. What is your point? Is it state the obvious day?
Don't forget the province of Quebec in Canada is trying to make a ban on all religious symbols, from public services for so-called "religious neutrality". They admit this is so they can ban the niqab and hijab. They do this for their own cultural sentiment, so that "the culture of Quebec is protected against foreign cultures". Yet, they do not protect religious sentiments against the cartoons on Prophet Muhammad (saw) by printing them because not doing so infringes on "free speech". They do as they please with their Quebec charter.

And now Muslim women are afraid to go into public in Quebec because they are insulted by non-Muslim white French Canadians. This is the problem with double standards and hypocrisy. The West is very good at being hypocritical when it comes to telling Muslims what to do.

I say let them cry out all they want to ban the Niqab and Hijab, no Muslim woman should ever remove it because they tell them to do so. They should wear it despite the laws. Even if the disbelievers hate the women wearing them, they should wear it out of protect to show the despicable attitudes towards women's rights the West has.

On the one hand, Muslim women are forced to wear the Niqab in some countries and not discard it, and now in other countries when they want to wear it they are told to discard it. I wonder, when will Muslim women be given their full rights? The West is no better than the East in their attitudes towards women. I don't feel bad if European or Canadian culture suffers from our influx. I hope we outnumber and overtake their cultures. It is full of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, and underlying racism. Let it disappear if they think this way. No love lost, I say.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2013, 10:36 PM
I remember a guy from med school and he was pretty affable otherwise, one time he was asking me about Niqabis and with such hatred in his face and speech, he was like I can't stand what they wear or how they look and he made sure to say so before an audience I am not sure if he were hoping to cause me harassment but I asked him if he felt the same way about Latvian nuns or it was just a Muslim exclusive thing with him. It really killed him because everyone labeled him a racist bigot from that day on and he spent the entire pre clinical years trying to dispel that. For what it is worth I don't think he was malicious just a git!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2013, 11:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
The difficulty in identifying suspicious behavior due to the face veil, seems to be the only reason for banning it, and for identification purposes
As i say, personally I am opposed to a ban. But I am predicting that, if an act of terrorism is committed by someone using religious clothing as an aid (for instance a suicide bomb on the London Underground) then at that point it becomes redundant to say the risk is minimal or imagined - because it will have already happened. To be honest, I think a ban would be unnecessary even then - no veiled woman would dare go on the Tube after such an event.

It's not reasonable to say it can't happen, we already have the example of Amanda Lethwaite (who is British).

On the other hand, I am absolutely certain that no ban will happen in Britain unless there is some signficant new development of this type. Britain is different from France - France makes very active efforts to preserve French culture in a host of ways, not just related to Muslims (see the history of the Acadamie Francaise, for instance).

format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Just remember the terrorists who use the name of Islam to commit murder have not only hijacked the safety of non-Muslims, but they have hijacked both the faith and security of Muslims, and have created fear in the hearts and hatred of non-Muslims towards Muslims. So Muslims have more to lose either way.
I completely agree that Muslims in the west would suffer very greatly in the event of such an act.

Unfortunately, some terrorists may see this as advantage, not a negative, because it will help increase the alienation of Muslims from western society and increase support for their cause. (You can see exactly the same process in other terrorist campaigns, such as the IRA.)
Reply

greenhill
11-09-2013, 08:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
If I am to be honest, it does not appeal to me. And in a way, it is good because the person wearing it holds no interest to me except to question why she is wearing it?
I didn't follow here. We as Muslims must respect the Niqab as it is at the very least a recommended action in our religion. We should understand why Muslim women are wearing it and support them too.
I guess I was not very clear here. I do not mean that I do not support them, what I mean is that they would not attract my attention and hence would not put me in a position where I may need to lower my gaze. So, in effect, for every person that I come across wearing a niqab, is one person less that I may pick up sins for what my eyes may feast on, if you get what I mean...:embarrass



format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Why do you say it 'may' have begun as cultural?
Because I am totally ignorant of the origins of the niqab but am aware of the necessity of hijab, and the differences in opinion with regards to them both, it may have been 'adopted' as a better way to please Allah (I am not sure how to put it down).

Peace
Reply

~Zaria~
11-09-2013, 09:15 AM
:salam:

This discussion is focussing very much on the 'security' issues surrounding the niqaab.

The perceived risk of terrrorism by means of the niqab falls on its face (no pun intended) - when we consider those muslim (and other) countries where a larger proportion of women are in niqab. In these countries, it simply has NOT equated into an increased risk of crimes by means of concealment. Concealment of guns and bombs can occur by means of ANY clothing, bags, etc.

Another reason why the niqab does not actually equate to an increased risk in crimes is because of heightened security measures that are already present in most public places - security cameras, metal detectors, body scans (e.g. at airports), sniffer dogs (at airports, in search of drugs that may be concealed under ANY clothing. I was once pulled out at an airport because a sniffer dog smelled the mutton curry that my mum had prepared for me, lol. (Indian mums - they are always worried if their kids are well fed :) ) I thought that the reaction from the on-lookers was quite interesting as the dog began to circle me.....as I probably fit the public 'profile' of 'terrorist'....anyways, I was more upset cos they took my food away from me :/ )

In addition, I live in a country that has one of the highest crime rates (not taking into account countries in civil war).
Almost all crimes here take place with the perpertators face completely EXPOSED. There are no attempts made at all to conceal their identities - this includes crimes such as hijackings, house break-ins, 'smash-and-grab' incidents that occur at traffic lights, rape, etc.
The reason for this, is because the criminal wants to 'blend into' the crowd, so that the victim is caught off guard. In other words, there is actually no need for them to try to conceal their identities because day-to-day criminal acts occur easily in this manner.....and they still dont get caught! ;/


The call to ban the niqab and the intolerance towards muslims in general in Europe, stems from deeper reasons – that have little to do with the concern of ‘women in niqab being oppressed’ (do we really think that a society that has reduced women to pieces of flesh and slavery to male desires, are concerned about their oppression? A contradiction of note!), and little to do with concerns about them not ‘being able to communicate efficiently with others’ …..or the baseless ‘security’ concerns (apart from the above, there is no direct evidence by means of surveys/ stats that link the niqab to increased incidence of crime).

So, what are the actual reasons behind these various attacks on Islam:

There are growing concerns regarding the rapid rise of islam in Europe and the States (both by means of immigrants as well as the fact that muslims generally have bigger families).
In recent years, there have been more and more reports of: ‘The Changing Face of Britian/ Europe’ – in fact, a few months ago, national statistics showed that Muhammad is now the second most common name in Britian. Alhamdulillah! (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/421...ular-boys-name)

This short video explains this very well:




(Ps. I cannot confirm the accuracy of the figures mentioned in the video.....but I think that the message is what is important.)


There are many videos on YT of late that are expressing similar concerns by the kuffaar: e.g: 'Welcome to London - The New Muslim Capital of Europe'
(here the uploader has simply recorded the large numbers of muslims going for Jummah - what is very interesting (and sad) to read are the viewers comments. It gives one a good feel of some peoples perceptions to muslims in the UK).

The bottom line is: they want you guys (muslim expats) out of their lands - to preserve their culture (where there are few rules that govern ones way of life, dress code, food, marriage, etc....Im not sure if this can actually be called 'culture', or it represents a lack there-of), and to keep foreigners to a minimum (the idea was just to use foreigners for cheap labour - not that they take over and prosper in their lands, which by the will of Allah is happening. Alhamdulillah!)

So, be ready and be strong in shaa Allah.

Allah is with those who are striving in His cause, and how fortunate are those who gain His pleasure, and how great are His rewards.



:wa:
Reply

Insaanah
11-09-2013, 11:35 AM
Probably never in the history of mankind has there been such debate, and in some quarters, such hatred, over what is, in effect, less than a square foot of fabric. It is absurd.
Reply

Independent
11-09-2013, 11:36 AM
Greetings Zaria

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Another reason why the niqab does not actually equate to an increased risk in crimes is because of heightened security measures that are already present in most public places - security cameras, metal detectors, body scans (e.g. at airports), sniffer dogs (at airports, in search of drugs that may be concealed under ANY clothing.
It is impossible to extend that level of security to the London Underground and other transport systems, or public areas in general.

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
This discussion is focussing very much on the 'security' issues surrounding the niqaab
I am saying that a major security incident (eg bombing) would be the cause of such restrictions. if there is no such incident, there won't be a ban (in the UK at least). If there is such an incident, it will be redundant to argue it can't ever happen. Recent events (Amanda Lethwaite and Mohammed) suggest that such an incident is possible. But hopefully, it won't ever come to pass.

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
So, what are the actual reasons behind these various attacks on Islam:

There are growing concerns regarding the rapid rise of islam in Europe and the States (both by means of immigrants as well as the fact that muslims generally have bigger families).
In recent years, there have been more and more reports of: ‘The Changing Face of Britian/ Europe’
The UK has one of the most open policies of any state in the world regarding immigration. Most countries solve the problem of tension between different communities by simply never letting anybody else in. No immigrants, no tension. In the statistics it looks like they're a haven of tolerance. In fact they're xenophobic to the core.

For instance Saudi, a state which you admire and to which you have expressed a desire to emigrate, has one of the most xenophobic policies in the entire world. They are happy to let poor Phillipinos work for 20 years until they're done with them, and then send them back home. No right of residence. They don't wish to share their remarkable wealth, the fruits of their labour, with anyone else...by which I mean the oil which they happen to sit on through no merit of their own.

Most of those immigrants to the UK have come to live their lives in a positive way. But some have come to complain endlessly about the culture and denigrate every aspect of the society which was generous enough to admit them. Some immigrants are fleeing persecution, some are simply economic migrants. I do think that they owe their new community patience, tolerance and a willingness to adapt to local conditions - or else why did they come?

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
The bottom line is: they want you guys (muslim expats) out of their lands - to preserve their culture
I fail to see why it's wrong for British people in Britain to wish to preserve the essence of their culture, just like anyone else.
Reply

Ahmad H
11-09-2013, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
As i say, personally I am opposed to a ban. But I am predicting that, if an act of terrorism is committed by someone using religious clothing as an aid (for instance a suicide bomb on the London Underground) then at that point it becomes redundant to say the risk is minimal or imagined - because it will have already happened. To be honest, I think a ban would be unnecessary even then - no veiled woman would dare go on the Tube after such an event.

It's not reasonable to say it can't happen, we already have the example of Amanda Lethwaite (who is British).

On the other hand, I am absolutely certain that no ban will happen in Britain unless there is some signficant new development of this type. Britain is different from France - France makes very active efforts to preserve French culture in a host of ways, not just related to Muslims (see the history of the Acadamie Francaise, for instance).
Completely agree. I noticed this tendency among the French recently. Quebec's charter issue is another example of the French asserting their culture on foreigners.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Unfortunately, some terrorists may see this as advantage, not a negative, because it will help increase the alienation of Muslims from western society and increase support for their cause. (You can see exactly the same process in other terrorist campaigns, such as the IRA.)
Exactly. This is why I denounce terrorists as renegades as much as I can. They kill both Muslims and non-Muslims. They don't fight for any cause but for their own rise to power. Religion is merely a guise they use. Their actions speak for themselves, they follow nothing of Islam. This is why I used the word "hijack" in respect to what they have done with this beautiful religion. They haven't just instilled terror in Westerners, but they have instilled terror among Muslims for the most part.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-09-2013, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Greetings Zaria


It is impossible to extend that level of security to the London Underground and other transport systems, or public areas in general.


I am saying that a major security incident (eg bombing) would be the cause of such restrictions. if there is no such incident, there won't be a ban (in the UK at least). If there is such an incident, it will be redundant to argue it can't ever happen. Recent events (Amanda Lethwaite and Mohammed) suggest that such an incident is possible. But hopefully, it won't ever come to pass.
I dont understand why you continue to speak of events that still have not happened, and isolated incidents - as if this is a proof for something.

This has been mentioned already many times, in different forms in this thread, but here it is again:

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
The law doesn't change based on the exception....
Unless you can provide some evidence that the niqaab does indeed increase the rates of crime/ terrrorism in a country, I think it will be best to move on from this point as its becoming a tedious discussion in this manner.


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
The UK has one of the most open policies of any state in the world regarding immigration. Most countries solve the problem of tension between different communities by simply never letting anybody else in. No immigrants, no tension. In the statistics it looks like they're a haven of tolerance. In fact they're xenophobic to the core.
I do agree that the UK has very open immigration policies in comparison to many other countries, but this has stemmed from their own need as well.
Even though there has been talk of implementing tighter immigration requirements recently, policy makers also need to take this into account:

Last year the net number of immigrants dropped by 89,000 to 153,000. Net migration is the number by which the population goes up after immigration and emigration are counted.

But the fall was accompanied by warnings that limiting immigration could harm Britain’s economy in the long-term.

Earlier this month, an OBR report warned an extra seven million migrants would be needed over the next 50 years to balance the effects of an ageing population.

The figure is equal to 140,000 migrants per year.

The report concluded that without a fresh wave of immigration to boost employment and tax receipts, Britain’s public finances could become ‘unsustainable’.

The OBR’s analysis suggests that Britain’s borrowing as a proportion of GDP would rise to 99 per cent if there is a steady flow of immigrants. But if there was a complete ban on immigrants, borrowing would rise to 174 per cent of GDP.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-Cameron.html
^ Europe has itself to blame for creating the type of lifestyle that actually endangers its own survival.

The previous video cites Italy's birth per family at 1.2 - and this is so true. If you walk the streets of Italy, it is a rarity to see young children around.

The feminist revolution, as well as a culture that no longer frowns upon multiple extra-marital relationships.....which in turn results in people settling down at a much later age to start a family (which is also limited to 1/ 2 children in most cases, in an attempt to achieve a 'higher standard' of living', and to enable women to go back into the work-force) are some of the reasons for much of Europes aging demographics.

So, as much as immigrants may be in need of residence in the UK (for various reasons), so too, is the UK in need of them as a workforce.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
For instance Saudi, a state which you admire and to which you have expressed a desire to emigrate, has one of the most xenophobic policies in the entire world. They are happy to let poor Phillipinos work for 20 years until they're done with them, and then send them back home. No right of residence. They don't wish to share their remarkable wealth, the fruits of their labour, with anyone else...by which I mean the oil which they happen to sit on through no merit of their own.
I may not agree with the immigration policies of Saudi, but the fact that I still desire to reside there, should indicate that I have accepted these rules - because my intention is motivated by religious reasons rather than a need to be a citizen of the country.


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I do think that they owe their new community patience, tolerance and a willingness to adapt to local conditions - or else why did they come?
^ This was perhaps one of the gravest errors in judgement that Europe ever made (from their point of view) - expecting that muslims will reside in their lands, and over time, 'adapt to local conditions'.
Little did they realize that the laws of Allah will not be forsaken for their man-made laws.
And that Islam is not just a religion.....it is a way of life - from the moment we wake up, to every single detail of our lives (including going to the toilet, eating, relating to others)....and yes, including the way our women dress.

So, no, there will be no willingness to adapt to a lifestyle that is in regression and lacks any fiber of morality.....

Perhaps this is the reason why this Dutch politician wants to deport millions of muslims out of his country (shows what desperate measures are being considered....):



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I fail to see why it's wrong for British people in Britain to wish to preserve the essence of their culture, just like anyone else.
Its possible that my statement was a bit ambigious (and you did not quote me in entirety....), but for the sake of clarity:

Theres no problem in British people wanting to preserve their culture (or what is left of it - caused by their own secularization).
We may frown on the way your women leave their homes, almost half-naked, and the way that alcohol flows freely and diminishes the senses, and the way that it is more acceptable to be promiscuous than for a man to look after more than one women in an institute of marriage, etc.....but theres really been no attempt to ban this God-less way of life by anyone.

Yet, it seems ok, to try and strip the culture and religious practices of another group of people - backed by lame excuses?

The fact that British-born people are choosing Islam, out of their free will - and hence there is a perceived loss of British culture in this way, is no fault of the muslim immigrant.

It truly is the work of Allah (subhanawataa'la) that Islam continues to grow in number and stength - despite the propaganda, the perceived links to 'terrorism' and the perceived 'oppression' of our women.
And by the will of Allah, it will continue to grow.
Trying to ban any command of Allah upon us, is just going make us stronger :) Alhamdulillah.


Peace
Reply

observer
11-09-2013, 08:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~;1599848
Theres no problem in British people wanting to preserve their culture (or what is left of it - caused by their own secularization).
We may frown on the way your women leave their homes, almost half-naked, and the way that alcohol flows freely and diminishes the senses, and the way that it is more acceptable to be promiscuous than for a man to look after more than one women in an institute of marriage, etc.....but theres really been no attempt to [I
ban[/I] this God-less way of life by anyone.

What I do not understand, is how you can demand respect for your culture and ways when you belittle those of anyone who does not agree with you. You don't drink alcohol - others do. Why can you not respect that? You wish women to cover, others don't. Why can you not respect that? And if someone chooses not to believe in god, why can you not respect that?

If you can't respect others' ways of life, then that's fine, but you can't then turn round and get angry when others don't respect yours. It's a two-way street.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-09-2013, 09:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
What I do not understand, is how you can demand respect for your culture and ways when you belittle those of anyone who does not agree with you. You don't drink alcohol - others do. Why can you not respect that? You wish women to cover, others don't. Why can you not respect that? And if someone chooses not to believe in god, why can you not respect that?

If you can't respect others' ways of life, then that's fine, but you can't then turn round and get angry when others don't respect yours. It's a two-way street.
Which part of my statement is actually disrespectful, and not true?

The fact is, that women who walk around half-dressed - does impact on the rest of society.
'Alcohol that flows freely and diminishes the senses' - does impact on everyone else.
What exactly is wrong in stating that there has 'been no attempt to ban this God-less way of life by anyone.' - this is simply stating the reality (im not sure how it even falls into the category of disrespect?)

The point being made is that no-one has called for a ban on this type of lifestyle despite its effects on society (which in fact, demonstrates that we may not agree with it, but we do respect other peoples right to live in the manner that they see fit).


Perhaps, you can provide some views on the topic at hand, e.g. why the dutch politician (and so many others) are in such fear of the rapid growth of islam (rather than creating an apparent issue of disrespect here)?


Peace
Reply

Independent
11-09-2013, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Unless you can provide some evidence that the niqaab does indeed increase the rates of crime/ terrrorism in a country, I think it will be best to move on from this point as its becoming a tedious discussion in this manner.
You are missing the point that a SINGLE large scale incident will be sufficient to throw the situation into crisis and provoke some kind of ban/restriction. I repeat, i am personally opposed to any ban, but the actions of individuals like Mohammed Mohammed jeapordize the freedoms of ordinary Muslim women in the UK. Everyone is getting excited about a ban which is not in place and will never be in place, UNLESS there is some serious provoking incident such as an act of terrorism. In the end, it's the actions of Muslims that will decide this issue one way or the other.

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
I do agree that the UK has very open immigration policies in comparison to many other countries, but this has stemmed from their own need as well.
Even though there has been talk of implementing tighter immigration requirements recently, policy makers also need to take this into account:
I don't want to get into a general debate about the benefits or otherwise of immigration which is an immensely complicated subject. But it does get me annoyed when people point to tensions in the UK, when failing to notice the total xenophobia of so many countries who avoid problems by keeping everyone out.

Also, what you have quoted is no excuse for Saudi. Saudi, like the UK and other richer countries, began to face the problem of dealing with jobs its own people don't want to do any more. In the UK, they partly solved this problem by permitting immigration. In Saudi, they don't like to dilute their wealth. So they import the workers from poor countries who have no choice, give them minimal rights, and then throw them out when they're not useful any more. Morally, there are light years between the two positions, and Saudi is in the wrong position.

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
So, no, there will be no willingness to adapt to a lifestyle that is in regression and lacks any fiber of morality....
I can't tell you how arrogant, stupid and offensive I find this statement so i'm going to log off before I say something i regret.
Reply

observer
11-09-2013, 09:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Which part of my statement is actually disrespectful, and not true?

The fact is, that women who walk around half-dressed - does impact on the rest of society.
'Alcohol that flows freely and diminishes the senses' - does impact on everyone else.
What exactly is wrong in stating that there has 'been no attempt to ban this God-less way of life by anyone.' - this is simply stating the reality (im not sure how it even falls into the category of disrespect?)

The point being made is that no-one has called for a ban on this type of lifestyle despite its effects on society (which in fact, demonstrates that we may not agree with it, but we do respect other peoples right to live in the manner that they see fit).


Perhaps, you can provide some views on the topic at hand, e.g. why the dutch politician (and so many others) are in such fear of the rapid growth of islam (rather than creating an apparent issue of disrespect here)?


Peace

What effects do alcohol and western-style dress have on society? Whenever happiness surveys are done, Scandinavian countries come out on top - countries where western style dress and alcohol are common. So should we say that these things improve society? The top 10 happiest countries in the latest survey were the Scandinavian countries plus Austria, Holland and Australia. So can we deduce that alcohol and western dress values are all positive? Probably not, but suggesting that they are harmful to a society is just not true. The Scandinavian countries are also some of the most atheistic countries in the world - so does a lack of belief in god increase happiness? Broad-brush dismissals of societies which do not follow islamic norms is just so frustrating, particularly when such large percentages of people in those countries champion your right to do as you please. Every atheist I know supports a muslim's right to wear niqab, to live where they want and to follow their religion. Yet so many muslims decry the very people who champion them as worthless, godless animals.

I've said many times in this forum that I don't think governments should be allowed to dictate what people wear. You want to wear the niqab? Fine. No problem. But when you dismiss western women as being "half-dressed" (and others on this forum go further and call those women far, far worse) then you are doing exactly the same as those who criticise the wearing of the niqab. Women in Britain can dress as they choose. Your right to wear the niqab is no greater than a woman's right to go out in a bikini if she chooses to do so. Personally, I'm not a fan of either - but if that's what you want to do, I support your right to do it.

That Dutch politician is widely regarded as an idiot (I believe he was banned from visiting the UK because of his far-right views). There were also some reports that he'd converted to Islam. The guy's a poster boy for far-right loons and a self-publicist of the highest order. If a terrorist's martyrdom video was used as an example of islamic beliefs there'd be an outcry on this forum. It should be same for the views of such marginal bigots as this guy.
Reply

جوري
11-10-2013, 12:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
The top 10 happiest countries in the latest survey were the Scandinavian countries plus Austria, Holland and Australia
Those are the happiest countries for the same reasons western countries win the most nobel prizes. China is no less advanced than any western counterpart yet their Nobel prizes can be counted on less than two hands.
One pool from which to choose yields only one result. Sort of like countries that tote 'democracy' but have only one standing candidate..
Are they happy because of liquor and debauchery -- I imagine they would be loss of mammillary bodies amongst many other things would render any idiot very happy!

best,
Reply

observer
11-10-2013, 09:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Those are the happiest countries for the same reasons western countries win the most nobel prizes. China is no less advanced than any western counterpart yet their Nobel prizes can be counted on less than two hands.
I think we may well see more Chinese scientific advances this century - they may well be as advanced as western countries but what innovations have they produced worthy of the prize? China throughout the 20th century was hardly at the forefront of new thought and innovation. That is likely to change now and it'll be interesting to se over the next 25 years if there is a shift in where the Nobels go.
Reply

جوري
11-10-2013, 01:43 PM
As stated before the mod removed my comment, if you're fishing in one pond you'll get one type of fish. You don't know of their culture or advancement or innovations or any other culture given your ill thought out comments!
Nobel prizes are politicized and there's only two reasons they're given out!
Look for the pattern and you'll figure it out too!
Reply

~Zaria~
11-10-2013, 02:45 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by observer
But when you dismiss western women as being "half-dressed"
When a woman leaves her home in shorts and a 'strappy' top (just as an example…..we are currently in summer here, and this is a common sight at the moment), is she not essentially 'half dressed'? Has the term 'half-dressed' suddenly become offensive? I truly was not aware of this....

format_quote Originally Posted by observer
What effects do alcohol and western-style dress have on society? Whenever happiness surveys are done, Scandinavian countries come out on top - countries where western style dress and alcohol are common.So should we say that these things improve society? The top 10 happiest countries in the latest survey were the Scandinavian countries plus Austria, Holland and Australia. So can we deduce that alcohol and western dress values are all positive? Probably not, but suggesting that they are harmful to a society is just not true.
This is an over-simplistic deduction.

The apparent 'happiness' ratings in Scandinavian countries has nothing to do with their western dress and alcohol consumption (as you have mentioned), but neither can the reverse be deduced by this means either.
[This topic is not about alcohol and its effects, and I would have hoped that we were all aware of its harmful effects (that far out-weigh any possible benefits). You may refer here to learn more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-te...cts_of_alcohol]


With regards to 'What effects do western style dress have on society?':

The command for women to be covered in public is not just an islamic teaching.

This can be found in Christian, Jewish and other scriptures - in other words, the effect that women (who expose themselves) has on society (on men in particular) has been well recognized by most, if not all religious institutes.
Islam is not the exception – it is instead upholding the code of living that was ordained long before the arrival of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wasalam).

Please watch this response by Sh Ahmed Deedat (ra), to a question on hijab:









Summary:

Islam:

Quraan: Surah 33:59
O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Christianity:
1 Corinthians 11:4-16
New International Version (NIV)

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

Judaism:

“The law requires that the neck (below and including the collarbone), the upper arms (including the elbow) and the thighs and knees (when sitting or standing) of a married woman’s be covered both in public and within the confines of her own house.” (p. 48)
In addition, Jewish law also requires that “a married woman may not appear in public with her hair uncovered. She is required to wear a head-covering that hides all her hair from view. It is proper to ensure that no hair protrudes from it.” (pp. 48-49)
http://veil.unc.edu/religions/judaism/

The same can be said in Hinduism as well.


If the majority of Christians and jews have chosen to stop wearing the hijab, which THEIR religion commands them to, does not mean that Muslims will forsake the clear recommendations for our hijab from Quraan and sunnah.


format_quote Originally Posted by observer

That Dutch politician is widely regarded as an idiot (I believe he was banned from visiting the UK because of his far-right views). There were also some reports that he'd converted to Islam. The guy's a poster boy for far-right loons and a self-publicist of the highest order. If a terrorist's martyrdom video was used as an example of islamic beliefs there'd be an outcry on this forum. It should be same for the views of such marginal bigots as this guy.
I do admit that I do not follow Dutch politics.
If he has converted to Islam - then All Praise belongs to Allah for His guidance.

He may appear to have 'far right views', but actually he echoes what many different surveys are finding from the general british public. A survey last month showed that 1 in 4 young british people believed that britian would be 'better off with fewer muslims'. Many other surveys reflect similar, if not higher ratings.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
You are missing the point that a SINGLE large scale incident will be sufficient to throw the situation into crisis and provoke some kind of ban/restriction.
Our point is:
1. The call for a ban/ restriction on niqaab is already taking place in european countries - without this ‘single large scale’ event having occurred as yet.
2. Even if such a event where to occur by someone dressed in niqaab (or by the examples you have provided), this still should not be a justifiable reason to ban others from observing their religion - based on exceptional and random events.


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I can't tell you how arrogant, stupid and offensive I find this statement so i'm going to log off before I say something i regret.
This appears to be a delayed reaction to my previous statement....

You should realize that you are logged onto 'ISLAMIC BOARD.com', and so the sentiments that are expressed by the followers of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wasalam) will reflect the teachings of Islam, and not what you deem to be 'arrogant, stupid and offensive'.

I suppose you would find this comment by Nobel Prize winner, regarding the same 'regression' of society that I had referred, in the same light, no? :

Nobel Peace Prize winner “Tawakkul Karman,” ‘The mother of Yemen’s revolution,’ when asked about her Hijab by journalists and how it is not proportionate with her level of intellect and education, replied:

“Man in early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What I am today and what I’m wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It’s the removal of clothes again that is a regression back to the ancient times.


http://www.dailymuslims.com/2012/04/...-prize-winner/


Peace
Reply

جوري
11-10-2013, 03:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
This is an over-simplistic deduction.
Not only that but also inconsistent. One the one hand he points out the link you shared as an extreme case and not representative of the entire western world and by the same token uses one case of a criminal who uses Niqab as his preferred form of disguise to pass absurd laws..
Reply

Muhammad
11-10-2013, 04:39 PM
Greetings,

Going back to some earlier points (and trying to keep the discussion focused):

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Therefore, the greatest danger to Muslim women's freedom comes from the potential actions of other Muslims like Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed. Otherwise, no matter what you may read in the media, the UK is not even close to imposing any kind of ban and i can't see how it would come about. The tabloid press operate in a state of perpetual hysteria. They'll be bored of it by next week. It's a strange thing to have to say in this forum - but don't believe everything you read in the media.
The thing is that the Niqab has been subject to debate a number of times before these examples you quote even occurred. Moreover, it is not simply a case of believing the media - the issue is being discussed by parliament itself:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...ohibition.html

I fail to see why it's wrong for British people in Britain to wish to preserve the essence of their culture, just like anyone else.
It's interesting that culture has been mentioned in this discussion because it has been argued that it is among the underlying reasons, together with Islamophobia, as to why people are against the Niqab.

It doesn't even have to be a Muslim, or a woman, that takes advantage of these garments. It's the concealment that matters - not the religion, the sex, or the ethnicity.
Yet it is clearly a campaign against the 'Burka' and 'Niqab', specific forms of Muslim dress.

To give a slightly bizarre comparison - during the IRA attacks on London, litter bins on the Underground were used to plant explosives because they provided a place of concealmen. In reaction, all litter bins were "banned" ie removed.

The fact that only a tiny minority of people (one in a million) ever used a bin to plant a bomb does not mean that removing them was either unreasonable, disproportionate or illogical.
In the case of a litter bin, it is far easier to remove an inanimate object whose presence or absence does not change much, and is not connected to religious sanctity. People will still have a way of disposing of their litter. The issue of Niqab is very different from a number of angles, such as its being clouded with anti-Islamic sentiment and prejudice and being singled out.
Reply

Independent
11-10-2013, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
The thing is that the Niqab has been subject to debate a number of times before these examples you quote even occurred. Moreover, it is not simply a case of believing the media - the issue is being discussed by parliament itself:
This is a private members bill. I don't want to bore you with the intricacies of the parliamentary system, but essentially it means not only that it has no chance of becoming law, but also (as it is only 17th on the list) will probably never even get debated. The MP who has brought the bill is to the far right of the Tory party - so far right that UKIP decided not to field a candidate against him in the last election. And that tells us all we need to know about him.

The UK is not a mono culture like some countries, and a terrific range of views can gain expression. It takes time to understand where the real centre is, especially if you're not familiar with the system.

I say again - there is no chance that a public ban on the niqab or burqa will come into place in the UK, unless there is a significant additional provoking factor. That's why it probably remains in the hands of Muslims whether or not such a ban occurs.

It's a simple prediction and you're welcome to tell me 'I told you so' if it turns out I got it wrong.
Reply

Muhammad
11-10-2013, 07:19 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I hope I won't have to tell you 'I told you so'!
Reply

~Zaria~
11-10-2013, 08:14 PM
:sl:


Interestingly, two months ago the Swiss canton of Ticino, passed a ban on burkas (full body cloaks) as well as niqaabs:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ss-canton.html


"One of the main backers of the ban, former journalist Giorgio Ghiringhelli, said he wanted to put a stop to “the inevitable spread of niqabs and burkas.” (even though it is estimated that only ~100 women out of the 400 000 muslims in Switzerland wear burkas).
Reply

Independent
11-11-2013, 12:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Also, what you have quoted is no excuse for Saudi. Saudi, like the UK and other richer countries, began to face the problem of dealing with jobs its own people don't want to do any more. In the UK, they partly solved this problem by permitting immigration. In Saudi, they don't like to dilute their wealth. So they import the workers from poor countries who have no choice, give them minimal rights, and then throw them out when they're not useful any more. Morally, there are light years between the two positions, and Saudi is in the wrong position.
A strange coincidence - reports have just come in of battles in Saudi between migrant workers and police. The workers are protesting about bad treatment and life on the edge of Saudi society:

Last Monday, the authorities began rounding up thousands of illegal foreign workers following the expiry of a seven-month amnesty for them to formalise their status. Nearly a million Bangladeshis, Indians, Filipinos, Nepalis, Pakistanis and Yemenis are estimated to have left the country in the past three months....An estimated nine million migrant workers are in Saudi Arabia - more than half the workforce - filling manual, clerical, and service jobs.

Nine million people with no rights of citizenship! An amazing percentage of the population. A figure probably not seen since the days of ancient Rome.

Full report here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24888304
Reply

~Zaria~
11-11-2013, 02:46 AM
^ this thread is about the anti-niqab agenda currently witnessed in Europe.

It has nothing to do with the immigration policies of other countries (which I have already mentioned, I personally (and I'm sure many others) don't agree with).

This is an intentional off-topic post in an attempt to distract from Europes current climate.
Reply

faithandpeace
11-11-2013, 07:21 AM
Assalamu alaikum.

I don't consider there to be any form of neutrality or equality of ideas. Therefore, the right for a woman to go out in public in a burqa is not equal to the right for a woman to go out in public naked. Western thought often portrays this sense of neutrality as if multiple ideas are to be considered on an equal level. It is intellectually deadening. It would be absurd for instance to have a debate on "Is it ok to rape women?" or "Should we support or oppose human sacrifices?" and having "both sides" presented as if they are somehow equal ideas. That may be how some infidels think but it is not how Muslims think or least should not think in my humble opinion.

That being said, as far as I'm concerned there is no debate with non-Muslims about the niqab as the niqab is a part of Islam and is a part of our faith and practice of Islam. I do not wear niqab although I own one and wore it a couple of times to see what it was like. I find it disturbing when I come across so-called Muslims who oppose niqab thinking it is somehow "cultural." If a Muslim does not wear niqab then that is between them and Allah (swt) and the same goes with any other aspect of religious observance or lackthereof. The only debate we as Muslims have on niqab is whether it is required or recommended but it is not something that is simply considered optional. At a minimum, we should be wearing niqab and at most must be wearing it. Just because most of us do not wear it does not mean we disagree with what Allah (swt) has ordered for us but it may mean we have not yet submitted to those particular commands although hopefully we are always intending on increasing our obedience to Allah (swt) in all ways possible.

If a government (doesn't matter if it is a Western secular government or a "Muslim" government) passes laws prohibiting from practicing any aspect of our religion to my knowledge that results in a jihad. Such a jihad in the case of being prohibited from wearing niqab could involve deliberately violating the law prohibiting women wearing niqab by wearing it anyway and paying any fines or serving any jail time as a consequence. This is very much the case of what is going on in France right now. A common term for this is "civil disobedience." That may not be what some people in this thread want to hear but as far as I'm concerned we submit our wills to Allah (swt) and not to the will of a state.

If Muslims give in to the pressure then they keep pushing further until there is no hijab, no public prayer, no masjid construction allowed, no halal food stores, and one day you wake up and realize that simply being Muslim is considered a crime. There is a reason so many Western and non-Western secular societies are threatened by Islam. That is because they are starting to realize that their cultures are declining because those cultures have become devoid of values. Whether they want to admit it or not they know Islam is the truth. There is no more potent weapon than the truth. They can call observant Muslims "radicals" all they want. They certainly think niqabi women and bearded men are "radicals." Well guess what? The truth is radical. Islam was never designed to make the wrongdoers comfortable and we are not required to dumb down or water down our deen to make infidels comfortable around us. We should of course be positive examples and that means live our lives as Muslims with the highest level of morality and ethics. Regardless of how many people think we are "7th century" with our veils and how supposed "21st century life" is "advancement" the fact is that Islam is here and Islam does not change. Either love it or leave it. Period.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-11-2013, 07:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Which part of my statement is actually disrespectful, and not true?

The fact is, that women who walk around half-dressed - does impact on the rest of society.
In exactly the same way that women who walk around in burqas do. It attracts attention and stands out, and may offend some local tradition, etc.

'Alcohol that flows freely and diminishes the senses' - does impact on everyone else.
This is true. And that's why public drunkenness laws make sense.

The point being made is that no-one has called for a ban on this type of lifestyle despite its effects on society
That isn't true. Prohibition is rather famous example of an attempt to ban alcohol. There are conservatives still pushing for that sort of thing today. There are also nudity bans pretty much everywhere. You'll get strange looks and some rude comments if you wear a burqa downtown. You will get arrested if you go nude.

Perhaps, you can provide some views on the topic at hand, e.g. why the dutch politician (and so many others) are in such fear of the rapid growth of islam
I think it has mostly to do with 9/11, death threats over cartoons, and stuff like that. This is what the west has come to see as Islam. Most of us over here don't understand that liberal or peaceful muslims exist. It sounds like a contradiction in terms to these people.

I actually think that perception of intolerance is the biggest hurdle. Not many people will stick up for fair treatment to muslims if they see muslims as endorsing unfair treatment to others (ie, homosexuals, kafirs, etc).
Reply

observer
11-11-2013, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
When a woman leaves her home in shorts and a 'strappy' top (just as an example…..we are currently in summer here, and this is a common sight at the moment), is she not essentially 'half dressed'?
No, she is just dressed. Not dressed as you might, not dressed as islam may say she should be, but dressed. To call her half-dressed is to say dressed incorrectly and an insult. You don't want niqab wearing women to be insulted so why should women who dress in their own way be subject to insult?

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
The command for women to be covered in public is not just an islamic teaching.

This can be found in Christian, Jewish and other scriptures - in other words, the effect that women (who expose themselves) has on society (on men in particular) has been well recognized by most, if not all religious institutes.
Islam is not the exception – it is instead upholding the code of living that was ordained long before the arrival of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wasalam).
I never understand this defence. Other religions do it so it's ok for islam? As I say, if you want to cover - fine. Just don't insult those who don't.

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
[This topic is not about alcohol and its effects, and I would have hoped that we were all aware of its harmful effects (that far out-weigh any possible benefits)
And here's a link to the benefits of alcohol - moderate intake of which has been shown to be very good for health in the long term. http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health...alcohol-247552

Too much alcohol is bad for you. But then, too much sugar is as well. I accept that this isn't the thread for an alcohol discussion but just because you don't approve doesn't make it wrong.
Reply

Muhammad
11-11-2013, 06:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
There are also nudity bans pretty much everywhere. You'll get strange looks and some rude comments if you wear a burqa downtown. You will get arrested if you go nude.
I mentioned in the other thread that, 'It's not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales. Becomes offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to upset and shock.'
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...ml#post1598241

I think it has mostly to do with 9/11, death threats over cartoons, and stuff like that. This is what the west has come to see as Islam. Most of us over here don't understand that liberal or peaceful muslims exist. It sounds like a contradiction in terms to these people.
As politicans and columnists have themselves realised, this is precisely the problem with this discussion because many people are jumping on the anti-niqab bandwagon out of Islamophobia as opposed to true concern over women's welfare.

I actually think that perception of intolerance is the biggest hurdle. Not many people will stick up for fair treatment to muslims if they see muslims as endorsing unfair treatment to others (ie, homosexuals, kafirs, etc).
We have to make the distinction between expressing disapproval and condoning unfair treatment. We can all disapprove of something taking place in society but it doesn't mean we endorse unfair treatment to those individuals.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-11-2013, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
No, she is just dressed. Not dressed as you might, not dressed as islam may say she should be, but dressed. To call her half-dressed is to say dressed incorrectly and an insult. You don't want niqab wearing women to be insulted so why should women who dress in their own way be subject to insult?
If we have to literally take the body surface area that is exposed, versus that which is covered, then a woman dressing in this manner is indeed 'half-dressed/ semi-dressed/ semi-nude - whichever terminology you wish to use - to a greater or lesser extent.
This is not a phrase that I have coined myself, with any intention for use as an insult.
This phrase is used often enough in various forms of media - by non-muslims as well. (You are free to research for yourself if you so wish).

Some time ago, I was in a conversation with a group of middle-aged Christian women - and they were commenting on how indecently our young women are dressed nowadays.....even from young prepubescent girls and adolescents.

This is a society that is feeding upon the objectification and sexualization of women - and we will not be afraid to discuss this, for fear of surprisingly skewed sensitivities.

format_quote Originally Posted by observer
I never understand this defence. Other religions do it so it's ok for islam?
^ You have completely missed the point here. Please feel free to read the post and watch the vid again.


format_quote Originally Posted by observer
And here's a link to the benefits of alcohol - moderate intake of which has been shown to be very good for health in the long term. http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health...alcohol-247552

Too much alcohol is bad for you. But then, too much sugar is as well. I accept that this isn't the thread for an alcohol discussion but just because you don't approve doesn't make it wrong.

Its not wrong because 'I' dont approve.
Its wrong because Our Creator, Allah, the Most Powerful, does not approve.


As mentioned before, you are logged onto ISLAMICBOARD.com

The views expressed here reflect the teachings of the Quraan and Sunnah of our prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam), to the best of our abilities.

If you are expecting:
- Sympathy
- Rationalization
- Fear of mentioning what is haraam/ forbidden (yes, alcohol is Haraam - no matter your justifications - and this will not change)
- 'Willingness to adapt' to the morals or lifestyle governed by a society that makes its own rules as it goes along, and that go against Islam in any form, shape or manner,

then, you have unfortunately logged onto the wrong forum.

If you cannot accept this, then perhaps you should be logging here:
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/ (whose motto is: 'Only sheep need a shepherd' !......I suppose the rest of creation are just meant to wander along aimlessly.)

All the best.
Reply

Aprender
11-11-2013, 07:06 PM
Reply

جوري
11-11-2013, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
here don't understand that liberal or peaceful muslims exist
This is what 'liberal' so-called Muslims are doing in Muslim majority countries:





obviously your understanding of liberal and peaceful denotes your desire to kill and maim, pillage, rape, burn, bulldoze and make naked the women and anyone who opposes that is a terrorist.. also seems your education on what a liberal is or of Muslims in general is limited & gravitates only toward folks who share your views and agenda!
Reply

observer
11-11-2013, 08:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
This phrase is used often enough in various forms of media - by non-muslims as well.
Yes, it is. And always as a derogatory comment. How can you ask people to respect muslims' clothing choices when you are happy to insult the choices of non-muslims?

I've said before, I don't like necessarily agree with the dress choices of some women, but I respect those choices. Many here seem to demand respect for muslims whilst denying the same respect to non-muslims.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2013, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
Many here seem to demand respect
The demand here isn't respect! Check again- the demand here is for govt. to stay out of people's business, that it isn't the place of the govt. to legislate what people wear!!!!
You often miss the point or meander it as do your other pals on the thread!
Reply

observer
11-11-2013, 09:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
The demand here isn't respect! Check again- the demand here is for govt. to stay out of people's business, that it isn't the place of the govt. to legislate what people wear!!!!
You often miss the point or meander it as do your other pals on the thread!

As I've said various times on this thread, I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what people should or should not wear. It's interesting that you're the only person who's always on the point....
Reply

جوري
11-11-2013, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
As I've said various times on this thread, I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what people should or should not wear. It's interesting that you're the only person who's always on the point....
If I were the only one on the point then there would be no need for you to address others with what is apparently news to them. ---
Reply

faithandpeace
11-12-2013, 03:02 AM
I don't understand why there even is a debate let alone why non-Muslims are involved in debates regarding our own personal religious practices at all. The only time a niqab or burqa could be an issue would be if it was a safety or security issue. A safety issue would be having clothing material that could get caught in dangerous machines or could swing by fire or hot surfaces or something like that where clothing could be a safety issue. Then in such a case different accommodations could be made so that the Muslim could practice religion and safety standards are upheld. The security issue really comes down to identification such as when a police officer on the street, security at an airport, or a teller at a bank needs to verify that you are the person that is shown on your identification. Same goes with students taking tests in school as the teacher may need to know the person taking the test matches the name on the paper. The niqab-wearing Muslim can simply lift the niqab for identity purposes in front of another woman or if no woman is available then perhaps she could lift it in front of a man identifying her if other conditions are present (i.e. her mahram is present with her or she is is not in a room with a door closed, etc.). All these points aside, non-Muslims do not get to dictate our religion to us at all. If I want to wear the full veil, it is between me and Allah (swt) and doesn't involve you.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2013, 05:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
obviously your understanding of liberal and peaceful denotes your desire to kill and maim, pillage, rape, burn, bulldoze and make naked the women and anyone who opposes that is a terrorist
By "your understanding" are you referring to me personally? Do you imagine I desire to kill, maim, pillage, rape, burn, bulldoze and make people naked?

.. also seems your education on what a liberal is or of Muslims in general is limited & gravitates only toward folks who share your views and agenda!
My idea of liberal is freedom and equal treatment for all. They don't have to share my views. In fact, a muslim by definition does not share my views, since I am not muslim.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2013, 05:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
I don't understand why there even is a debate let alone why non-Muslims are involved in debates regarding our own personal religious practices at all. The only time a niqab or burqa could be an issue would be if it was a safety or security issue. A safety issue would be having clothing material that could get caught in dangerous machines or could swing by fire or hot surfaces or something like that where clothing could be a safety issue. Then in such a case different accommodations could be made so that the Muslim could practice religion and safety standards are upheld. The security issue really comes down to identification such as when a police officer on the street, security at an airport, or a teller at a bank needs to verify that you are the person that is shown on your identification. Same goes with students taking tests in school as the teacher may need to know the person taking the test matches the name on the paper. The niqab-wearing Muslim can simply lift the niqab for identity purposes in front of another woman or if no woman is available then perhaps she could lift it in front of a man identifying her if other conditions are present (i.e. her mahram is present with her or she is is not in a room with a door closed, etc.). All these points aside, non-Muslims do not get to dictate our religion to us at all. If I want to wear the full veil, it is between me and Allah (swt) and doesn't involve you.
It involves others if you come to their communities and break their social norms, in the same way that it would involve people in a muslim country should two homosexuals go there and walk around holding hands (or kiss in public). It breaks convention and some are going to be offended by it. To say it is just between you and Allah, or between those two men and them alone, and that it doesn't affect the community around it simply isn't so. What should be done about these things, if anything, is another question. I am liberal, and have no issue with either, so wouldn't do anything in either case.

It especially affects others in the community if you demand special treatment from them, such as demanding a female officer be brought in to look under face veils and confirm identities, slowing everything down for everybody and taking that officer away from her other duties. Perhaps a compromise could be met where the muslima pays a premium for this sort of service? I don't see why the bank, airport, tax payer, etc should have to pay for it.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2013, 10:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
By "your understanding" are you referring to me personally? Do you imagine I desire to kill, maim, pillage, rape, burn, bulldoze and make people naked?



My idea of liberal is freedom and equal treatment for all. They don't have to share my views. In fact, a muslim by definition does not share my views, since I am not muslim.
This comment was made by you no?
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Most of us over here don't understand that liberal or peaceful muslims exist.
These are the liberal values you espouse and the type of people you support. Liberal & peaceful is in fact a contradiction in terms and your western govt. are sponsoring these bloody coups with their so-called liberal democratic values and from the the tax payers money. If you don't see yourself as enjoying the kill then don't make such statements and hope they merely slide by while you push your idea of what is good and peaceful on the rest of us!

best,
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2013, 05:08 PM
Projecting US military atrocity on me makes about as much sense as projecting militant Islamic terrorism on you. It's just stupid.

And if both "sides" insist on seeing things that way, then there can be no hope for peaceful coexistence as the violent radicals steer the ship.

Do you want peaceful coexistence, or do you want more photos like the ones you posted?
Reply

جوري
11-12-2013, 06:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Projecting US military atrocity on me makes about as much sense as projecting militant Islamic terrorism on you. It's just stupid.

And if both "sides" insist on seeing things that way, then there can be no hope for peaceful coexistence as the violent radicals steer the ship.

Do you want peaceful coexistence, or do you want more photos like the ones you posted?
There's NO other conclusion for 'peaceful liberal Muslims' other than the one drawn- perhaps you should think twice and do research on the matter in lieu of dancing around your repeated snafus. What I want or what I care for isn't the subject of this topic!

best,
Reply

Muhammad
11-12-2013, 06:57 PM
Can we please stick to the topic of Niqab...
Reply

جوري
11-12-2013, 07:06 PM
'liberal values' are antithetical to the subject of Niqaab at least so they've proven, 'liberalism and freedom' aren't as inclusive as our pals will have you believe in fact quite exclusive and only extend themselves to a certain brand of "Muslims' who impose that agenda in blood if need be. So that's laying it down on the line and we can spare one another phony political correctness and calisthenics with words!
Reply

Karl
11-12-2013, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
'liberal values' are antithetical to the subject of Niqaab at least so they've proven, 'liberalism and freedom' aren't as inclusive as our pals will have you believe in fact quite exclusive and only extend themselves to a certain brand of "Muslims' who impose that agenda in blood if need be. So that's laying it down on the line and we can spare one another phony political correctness and calisthenics with words!
Yes conservatives would not worry about Niquaab. British females used to be humble and cover up from head to toe in the good old days. Muslims even adopted the old Christian garb when females had modesty. Any female that showed a little skin was called a Jezebel in those days. Modern conservatives are just liberals with more cash.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2013, 10:48 PM
I am not into gossip & who says what anymore than I am into govt. legislating garb or kaffirs justifying it on the account some bozo committed a crime. The whole thing is a farce from both ends. People should leave these women alone their lives are hard enough as is without others closing in on them from every angle!
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2013, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Can we please stick to the topic of Niqab...
Apparently not.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Yes conservatives would not worry about Niquaab.
LOL Riiiight.

The people in the US going on and on about "muzzie terr'ists" and burning Qurans are the conservatives, not the liberals.

The neoconservative movement that spread fear and hatred and inflamed US nationalism and led to the invasion of Iraq was also conservative.

And my mentioning liberal muslims, the ones who don't react violently to "insults" against their beliefs, and may want to live and let live, according to our friendly lady here, means I want to rape and kill people...

There really is no rational conversation with some on this board.
Reply

جوري
11-13-2013, 01:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The people in the US going on and on about "muzzie terr'ists" and burning Qurans are the conservatives, not the liberals
liberals just do it they don't have to talk about it although of late they've become more vocal. They both share the exact same agenda and I think whether you watch Bill Maher or Bill O'reilly you get the exact same **** styled differently!
If you find a nice blanket in political correctness by all means. Whether you knock extra hard on your chest in show of prowess of work in stealth the end result is one in the same!

best,
Reply

Karl
11-13-2013, 08:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Apparently not.



LOL Riiiight.

The people in the US going on and on about "muzzie terr'ists" and burning Qurans are the conservatives, not the liberals.

The neoconservative movement that spread fear and hatred and inflamed US nationalism and led to the invasion of Iraq was also conservative.

And my mentioning liberal muslims, the ones who don't react violently to "insults" against their beliefs, and may want to live and let live, according to our friendly lady here, means I want to rape and kill people...

There really is no rational conversation with some on this board.
I'm not talking about those colonial American vandals. I'm talking about the old God King and country English conservatives of the 19th century before Britain was hijacked by Zionists. London was the greatest city in the world and females if they wanted to be respectable would cover up. No one then would give a niqab a second thought but just think the wearer was very pious. Also people minded their own business back then.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-13-2013, 05:58 PM
Interesting. Do you think on the whole Britain became more or less tolerant of Islam since then? How about between then and the events of 9/11 and the London subway bombing (I'm thinking things improved for muslims but maybe not?)? And how about from then until now (I'm thinking it got a lot worse for muslims).

I don't think the United States has every been very tolerant of anything not Christian, but became a lot more hateful towards muslims following 9/11. Do I have that right?
Reply

faithandpeace
11-14-2013, 01:58 AM
The more these people oppose niqab, the more it makes me want to start wearing it. As Muslims we should know that when you try to follow or implement the truth, there will be protests. I love the niqab but I am not yet there in my level of observance. Insha'Allah someday I will but I have other religious priorities in the mean time.
Reply

Karl
11-14-2013, 11:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Interesting. Do you think on the whole Britain became more or less tolerant of Islam since then? How about between then and the events of 9/11 and the London subway bombing (I'm thinking things improved for muslims but maybe not?)? And how about from then until now (I'm thinking it got a lot worse for muslims).

I don't think the United States has every been very tolerant of anything not Christian, but became a lot more hateful towards muslims following 9/11. Do I have that right?
Britain has become less tolerant of Islam. Because of it's Zionist imperialist agendas Britain is basically at war with Islam. The United States of America is in the same boat as Britain.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-16-2013, 08:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
Yes, it is. And always as a derogatory comment. How can you ask people to respect muslims' clothing choices when you are happy to insult the choices of non-muslims?
Is this article by BBC 'derogratory' as well: "Retailers are being warned they could face legal action if they continue to sell magazines showing images of naked and semi-naked women......" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22674928
Even human rights organizations, that try to raise awareness of the exploitation of women make use of this terminology.

I find it ironical that an atheist speaks of 'disrespect' towards non-muslims on an islamic forum that has in fact shown so much respect towards all other groups.

Visit any atheist forum and you will find such vile comments and blasphemy towards Islam, and all other religions - that I think it would be more appropriate to voice your concerns there (in fact, the motto of one atheist forum is: 'Nude pics or it didnt happen').

We have far greater respect for our women, and even though we do not impose our way of life upon others, neither will we be muted about the exploitation of women, that is even being recognized and addressed by non-muslims. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20554942)


************************


As much as I agree that the various views of non-muslims on the hijab/ niqab has absolutely no bearing on our religious commandments......by contributing to this thread, it has unexpectedly helped me develop a response to questions that are posed in real life, Alhamdulillah.

As mentioned earlier, it is now summer in my country, and for some reason, women appear to respond to heat much more 'intensely' than men.
So, even though men are still able to go to work in full-sleeve shirts and trousers, women tend to shed layers of clothing in the summer seasons.

A very common question posed to muslim women who wear the niqab or hijab in summer is: Don't you feel HOT in those clothes?

Alhamdulillah, drawing from Sheikh Ahmed Deedat (ra), this will be my reply to anyone who ever asks me this question again:


Ms X: 'Zaria', its such a hot day - its 37'C outside......Dont you feel HOT in those clothes??

Zaria: Hi Ms X. Yes, it is indeed a hot day today.
However, I have chosen to dress according to Gods commandments in the Bible (if Im speaking to a Christian)/ the Torah (if Im speaking to a Jew)....as well as the Quraan.

Ms X: But the Bible does not say that women should be covered in this manner......

Zaria: Actually, it does.
In Corinthians 11:4-16, it says: 'But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.'

As I dont wish to shave off my hair, I have chosen to cover it up as commanded by our Creator.

Unfortunately, many people don't wish to observe their own religious teachings and commands from God on how we should live our lives......which I think is sad, considering how much He provides for us on a daily basis and the fact that we owe our very lives to Him alone.

Ms X: I never considered that......I think I must look into this further....
or: Ermmm.....Chat to you later!

Zaria: No problem Ms X. Take care :)

-----------

My sisters who are in niqab/ hijab and who are dressing to please their Creator, if ever you are confronted or belittled by others in any manner about your way of dress - try out this response in shaa Allah.

We will not bow down from following Islam in the manner ordained by Allah and His messenger (sallalahu alaihi wasalam), if others have chosen to forsake their own religious commands upon them.


:wa:
Reply

observer
11-16-2013, 10:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Is this article by BBC 'derogratory' as well: "Retailers are being warned they could face legal action if they continue to sell magazines showing images of naked and semi-naked women......" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22674928
Even human rights organizations, that try to raise awareness of the exploitation of women make use of this terminology.
If you had followed that story, you would know that it is about magazines peddling soft-pornography and pretending that they're not. The images they complain about are nothing to do with normal women wearing their normal clothes on a day to day basis - the images being complained about are sexual images. I happen to agree with the protest, but it doesn't support your statement at all.

I also agree that there is too much exploitation of womens' images - I don't see the way to combat this as to cover them all up however.

As for your comments about atheists' lack of respect - atheists are not a group with a code or a set of rules. You'll find many atheists who are utter idiots. You'll find plenty who are lovely. Atheism isn't a religion - there are no shared values, just a lack of belief in god. It's a common mistake for people to say "Well atheists believe..." because no, they don't. Only one thing unites atheists - a belief that there is no god. Beyond that, there is no link.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-16-2013, 01:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
If you had followed that story, you would know that it is about magazines peddling soft-pornography and pretending that they're not. The images they complain about are nothing to do with normal women wearing their normal clothes on a day to day basis - the images being complained about are sexual images. I happen to agree with the protest, but it doesn't support your statement at all.

I also agree that there is too much exploitation of womens' images - I don't see the way to combat this as to cover them all up however.

As for your comments about atheists' lack of respect - atheists are not a group with a code or a set of rules. You'll find many atheists who are utter idiots. You'll find plenty who are lovely. Atheism isn't a religion - there are no shared values, just a lack of belief in god. It's a common mistake for people to say "Well atheists believe..." because no, they don't. Only one thing unites atheists - a belief that there is no god. Beyond that, there is no link.

^ the point being made is that the apparently insulting term 'semi-naked' women is used globally (most often with the purpose of drawing attention to the exploitation of women) - without any issues raised about its use (apart from yourself).

What you mention as: 'The images they complain about are nothing to do with normal women wearing normal clothes on a day to day basis - the images being complained about are sexual images..... ',
could very well be included in our personal experiences of women at work/ in the malls/ on the beach who are dressed in the most revealing and provocative manners.

What we see in these magazines, are largely being portrayed by our society as well.
Women see what is 'in fashion' in for this summer season in the media......and this is indeed reflected in the choice of clothing that we see them wear in reality.

Again, if you wish to speak about 'respect to others' you are certainly addressing the wrong audience.
It is part of our Islamic teachings to respect others irrespective of their religious beliefs, gender, color and ethnicity.

As you have correctly mentioned, there are no shared moral values held by atheists - which is why every atheist discussion board without fail, shows the utmost disrespect to the religious beliefs of others.
This is certainly not an attempt to generalize this behavior to all atheists.
However, what is discussed in private within members of a specific group is always more revealing than what is proclaimed to others.


Peace
Reply

observer
11-16-2013, 01:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
^ the point being made is that the apparently insulting term 'semi-naked' women is used globally (most often with the purpose of drawing attention to the exploitation of women) - without any issues raised about its use (apart from yourself).

What you mention as: 'The images they complain about are nothing to do with normal women wearing normal clothes on a day to day basis - the images being complained about are sexual images..... ',
could very well be included in our personal experiences of women at work/ in the malls/ on the beach who are dressed in the most revealing and provocative manners.

What we see in these magazines, are largely being portrayed by our society as well.
Women see what is 'in fashion' in for this summer season in the media......and this is indeed reflected in the choice of clothing that we see them wear in reality.

Again, if you wish to speak about 'respect to others' you are certainly addressing the wrong audience.
It is part of our Islamic teachings to respect others irrespective of their religious beliefs, gender, color and ethnicity.

As you have correctly mentioned, there are no shared moral values held by atheists - which is why every atheist discussion board without fail, shows the utmost disrespect to the religious beliefs of others.
This is certainly not an attempt to generalize this behavior to all atheists.
However, what is discussed in private within members of a specific group is always more revealing than what is proclaimed to others.


Peace
But the article you linked to is concerned with "Lads' Mags" - semi-pornographic magazines with naked and near-naked women in sexually provocative positions. It bears no relation at all to women wearing "strappy tops" in the summer.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-16-2013, 02:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
But the article you linked to is concerned with "Lads' Mags" - semi-pornographic magazines with naked and near-naked women in sexually provocative positions. It bears no relation at all to women wearing "strappy tops" in the summer.
The definition of 'Lads Mags' itself is up for debate.
One can easily argue that magazines such as 'FHM' and 'Mens Health' - while they are not technically classified as 'pornographic' magazines, they do indeed promote the display of women in semi-naked pics.

The above example was simply to highlight the regular/ common usage of this terminology - and I think this point has now been emphasized enough.

In fact, if one does not wish to be referred to in this manner, it is quite simple: Cover up in a manner of modesty (and in a manner that is commanded by almost, if not all, religious dominations) when going to the beach/ leaving the house, etc - and then the term 'Fully Dressed' will apply :)

In shaa Allah, we can resume with the actual topic of Niqaab - the manner in which Islam protects and honors its women, and the agenda to ban this freedom to express ones religious beliefs.


Peace
Reply

observer
11-16-2013, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
The above example was simply to highlight the regular/ common usage of this terminology - and I think this point has now been emphasized enough.
Yes, it's common to describe someone as half-dressed / half-naked - when suggesting that they are being sexually provocative or improperly dressed. I think it's completely unreasonable to use it to describe normal women dressing in their own, normal way and going about their own business.

As for your suggestion that:

In fact, if one does not wish to be referred to in this manner, it is quite simple: Cover up in a manner of modesty (and in a manner that is commanded by almost, if not all, religious denominations) when going to the beach/ leaving the house, etc - and then the term 'Fully Dressed' will apply

Well, then I assume you'd accept that, following your logic, if a niqab-wearer is insulted in the street in the west for dressing as she does, then it's her own fault for choosing to dress that way. To avoid being insulted, she should dress "appropriately" in the same way as the majority around her.

Except that seems a bit like a ridiculous argument, doesn't it?
Reply

~Zaria~
11-16-2013, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
Well, then I assume you'd accept that, following your logic, if a niqab-wearer is insulted in the street in the west for dressing as she does, then it's her own fault for choosing to dress that way. To avoid being insulted, she should dress "appropriately" in the same way as the majority around her.

Except that seems a bit like a ridiculous argument, doesn't it?

These are directly descriptive words, without the use of any derogratory terminology.

If a woman in niqab is described directly as well, then she too should not find it insulting - as this is how she chooses to portray herself: 'A woman in niqab/ in hijab'.

Yet, there seems to be a strange sensitivity (on your part) for directly describing any other woman - who also chooses to dress in a manner that makes me, as another woman, need to lower her gaze.
(A muslim brother recently mentioned to me that nowadays its even dangerous to 'lower ones gaze' (as is recommended) - as one often finds that there is so little that is covered up, that one doesnt even know where to look anymore....)


It is as simple as the following:

To be described as 'fully dressed', one needs to BE fully dressed.
To be a woman in niqab, one needs to BE a woman in niqab.

The sight of women baring their arms and legs (and even hair) only emerged in the last ~ century.
Over this period, the message provided by the media is that this is 'progressive', 'sexy', 'appealing' - and that there is nothing wrong in walking around in as little coverage as one desires.

Perhaps, coming from a background of atheism, you may not be able to appreciate this (as ones code for living is purely individualistic).
However for the rest of society, who do follow one denomination of faith or another, women have always been commanded to leave their homes in modesty and covered up, for their own protection.

What is described as 'normal' by your own standards, goes against the commands of our Creator - not just from an Islamic point of view.

As mentioned, we respect peoples rights to live in a manner that they deem fit.
But when speaking directly about this topic, we speak in honesty (not in insult) of the ways of our society - as recognized by both muslims as well as a growing number of non-muslims.
Reply

observer
11-17-2013, 11:20 AM
^^^ I think we have to agree to disagree. But when you describe my sister, or my girlfriend, or my friends as "half-dressed" when they leave the house dressed for summer, that is an insult. It's an insult to me and it's an insult to them.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-17-2013, 12:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
^^^ I think we have to agree to disagree. But when you describe my sister, or my girlfriend, or my friends as "half-dressed" when they leave the house dressed for summer, that is an insult. It's an insult to me and it's an insult to them.

Yes, certainly it does not seem that we will be able to be convince you that in the same manner that:
- a sweet apple is described as - a sweet apple and,
- stale bread is called - stale bread and,
- a rusted piece of metal - is called a rusted piece of metal.....etc, etc....

in the same manner do we describe a person who is fully dressed as being: fully dressed......and one who is naked as being: naked.....and one who is in between as being - the exact description that is:::::: suddenly 'insultive' to use.

Anyhows, I doubt you will cease to hear the usage of these descriptions in the media, by both muslims (including our respected mufti below) and non-muslims - not in a derogratory sense, but in reference to the concerns that are genuinely present regarding the sexual exploitation of women in todays society.


Thought I will leave you with these 2 short videos (only 2.5 and 4 min each) that carry really important messages in relation to this topic:














****************

Women are to be respected (not just muslim women, but ALL women).

Islam treats its women as precious commodities.....as Queens, that should be valued for her position as a mother, a daughter, a sister; and to be protected from the lustful gazes of strange men who have no claim over her.

As a woman who has been on both sides of the fence (there was a time, when I too was not covered in a manner appropriate for a muslim woman)......I say this, not to reveal my sins, but to make a point - that ever since I have learnt what TRUE HIJAB is, I have experienced the type liberation that is spoken about in these videos.
ALL Praise is due completely to Allah.

And every woman who has given up this way of life willingly (not by force), solely for the sake of dressing in a manner that has been ordained by our Creator throughout the ages, will also relate the same.

Just last night, a friend of mine messaged me to say that she has decided to wear the niqaab to her place of work from tomorrow.
She was in tears as she told me of her decision - out of such joy to be able to overcome society's pressures and expectations, and her own fears of people's reactions.

There are so many women who are seeing the fake, 'photo-shopped' lifestyle that is fed by the media, for what it is - superficial and degrading, and they are turning to Islam that offers the best type of peace and protection for women in our society.


Peace
Reply

observer
11-17-2013, 02:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
in the same manner do we describe a person who is fully dressed as being: fully dressed......and one who is naked as being: naked.....and one who is in between as being - the exact description that is:::::: suddenly 'insultive' to use.

So then someone wearing the niqab is fully dressed, and anyone between that and complete nakedness, according to this logic, is half-dressed?
Reply

~Zaria~
11-17-2013, 02:58 PM
^ Its clear that you are trying to make an issue out of nothing, when the various descriptions used in the previous posts, articles and videos are all self-explanatory.

Freedictionary.com:

half-dressed
adj
partially clothed

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Reply

جوري
11-17-2013, 02:58 PM
This is a thread about legislating women dress- no one here is interested in your wife or girlfriend or courtesans or how they dress - how you manage to come out victims when victimizing others is a conundrum to me!
Reply

~Zaria~
11-17-2013, 03:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
- how you manage to come out victims when victimizing others is a conundrum to me!

Indeed, well said!
Reply

observer
11-17-2013, 04:58 PM
Time and time again on this thread I've said I fully support a woman's right to choose what to wear, be that "western" dress or the niqab. It's a personal choice. I only wish to see respect afforded both ways - describing someone who dresses in a western fashion as "half-dressed" is not respectful. It's not "a descriptive term" - it's judgmental, it's insulting and it's unnecessary.

Again, if a woman chooses to go out dressed in a niqab - she is dressed how she wants to be and should be afforded our respect.

Likewise, if a woman chooses to go out in a "strappy summer top" then she is DRESSED - not half dressed, not half naked, not inappropriately dressed but dressed how she chooses to be and she should be afforded our respect.

You have the right not to approve of her. But she has the right not to approve of the niqab. It's not necessary to resort to insults. Calling her half-dressed is insulting.
Reply

جوري
11-17-2013, 05:58 PM

There are no laws against what youbelieve is insulting-
Reply

observer
11-17-2013, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
There are no laws against what youbelieve is insulting-
No, and I'm not saying there should be. I'm not even saying that Zaria shouldn't use the terms that she uses. What I'm saying is that they are disrespectful. If she wants to be disrespectful - fine. No problem. If she wants to insult those she feels dress wrongly - again, fine. No problem.

But being disrespectful when asking for respect yourself is a little hypocritical wouldn't you say?
Reply

جوري
11-17-2013, 06:25 PM
No I don't find it hypocritical and I think if you'd read more than you write firstly you wouldn't bore us to death
You'd see what the take home message from all this and none of it has to do with feelings any feelings from any side at all rather govt. legislation of what women wear or shouldn't wear!
Reply

observer
11-17-2013, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
No I don't find it hypocritical
You know, I'm not surprised that you don't.
Reply

جوري
11-17-2013, 07:55 PM
Your compass isn't a measure by which anyone lives their lives- not sure why you felt the urge to put that down? Desire to just write something annoying I suppose!
Reply

Karl
11-17-2013, 09:45 PM
I suppose it is all about perceptions. When I see a scantily dressed female, prostitute or fast and loose and sleeps around comes to mind. If I see a female covering herself from head to toe I think of piousness and modesty and not of her as a sex object. So the anti niqab agenda is basically an attack on religious clothing of modesty and piety.
Reply

observer
11-17-2013, 10:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
I suppose it is all about perceptions. When I see a scantily dressed female, prostitute or fast and loose and sleeps around comes to mind. If I see a female covering herself from head to toe I think of piousness and modesty and not of her as a sex object. So the anti niqab agenda is basically an attack on religious clothing of modesty and piety.

Interesting. When I see a woman, regardless of how she's dressed, I tend to try and afford her the same respect as I myself would like to be afforded.
Reply

Karl
11-17-2013, 10:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
Interesting. When I see a woman, regardless of how she's dressed, I tend to try and afford her the same respect as I myself would like to be afforded.
Interesting, you think like a radical liberal perhaps? I did not say anything about respect, just perception. Most men perceive that females that are scantily dressed are fast and have loose morals.
Reply

جوري
11-17-2013, 10:42 PM
They make venetian masks and go out and party and commit lecherous acts and get away with it- that's the motto for vice whether scantily clad or completely anonymous there is no clean agenda behind it. So naturally they hate those who've consecrated their lives to God- just jealousy and hatred is all.
I have to wonder how sisters in niqab do it. They fight them everywhere. Their families hate it, their societies hate it and fast to torture them about it in so-called Muslim majority countries, forget westerners I mean bigotry is their bread and butter and they've successfully exported that everywhere but must come on board and play the victims over utter concocted stupidity & silliness!
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-18-2013, 09:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
I suppose it is all about perceptions. When I see a scantily dressed female, prostitute or fast and loose and sleeps around comes to mind. If I see a female covering herself from head to toe I think of piousness and modesty and not of her as a sex object.
All about perception indeed. When many in the west see women dressed head to toe, including masks, they think these women oppressed and radical. Their perception is probably wrong. Yours probably is as well. We should guard against such prejudice.

I would also note that there is a difference between dressing sexy and dressing minimally. A nudist woman who wears no make up and no frills, does not look nearly as sexualized as a much more dressed woman with make up and frills.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-18-2013, 09:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
These are directly descriptive words, without the use of any derogratory terminology.
Sometimes people irrationally react so some descriptive words in different ways than others that mean the same thing.

If a woman in niqab is described directly as well, then she too should not find it insulting - as this is how she chooses to portray herself: 'A woman in niqab/ in hijab'.
She could also be described as woman wearing a mask or a woman hiding herself. She could be described as a woman subjugated to her culture and religion. If her eyes are visible, she can also be properly called "not fully dressed", since part of her body is exposed. She can also probably be called "uncomfortably dressed". All of this is true. Some of it will draw negative reaction.

And the woman in shorts and a tshirt can be called "half dressed" or she can be called "unencumbered" or "comfortably dressed" or "au naturel"

The sight of women baring their arms and legs (and even hair) only emerged in the last ~ century.
Depends what culture you want to look at and how far you want to go back, really. Ancient Greece, most of Afircan history, etc have had nude or near nude women as normal. Let's not look to the middle ages and deem that the norm or origin.
Reply

ardianto
11-18-2013, 09:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
All about perception indeed. When many in the west see women dressed head to toe, including masks, they think these women oppressed and radical. Their perception is probably wrong. So is yours.
I have read a number of comments about niqab from people in the West. Yes, they think niqabi women are oppressed and radical.

But this perception actually is not true.
Reply

faithandpeace
11-18-2013, 09:34 AM
This is an Islamic discussion board and non-Muslims who choose to come here should expect to hear the opinions of Muslims based on an Islamic perspective and directed toward a Muslim audience. We are not here to parrot political correctness so that non-believers who aren't even the main audience of this forum can feel comfortable. I can say personally that I don't wish to offend others and I am sure most Muslims here feel the same. At the same time, as Muslims we have an obligation to tell the truth as we see it and as based on Qur'an and Sunnah. Therefore, it may be "offensive" to some if I discuss things such as alcohol consumption, adultery, homosexuality, or pork consumption in a negative light or if I use terms such as infidels, apostates, hypocrites, and heretics to describe the different sets of belief systems that do not adhere to correct Islamic theology as based on our sources. I am not saying I am the best dawah person around (I know I'm not) but if non-Muslims are going to be offended by hearing the message of Islam or if Muslim sinners (which are all of us at any given time most likely as we aren't perfect) don't want to hear what is obligatory or prohibited then perhaps the best decision is to discontinue reading or replying on this forum. We are not here to babysit people, not the members, not the moderators, not the administrators. So if hearing a condemnation of non-belief or sin offends you then that is not our fault. We are concerned about obeying the Master of all Creation, not pleasing every human, jinn, or whoever comes along just to make everyone comfortable. That is not how Islam works.

That being said, I personally love the niqab including with and without the eye-screen. I love the hijab and I love modest dress in general. From an Islamic perspective, I consider those (whether believers or non-believers) who dress with less clothes than is required in our religion to be less than fully dressed. Fully dressed at minimum for women means everything covered except hands and face and even then niqab is at minimum strongly recommended and in many cases outright required. Conservative Western dress for non-Muslims would involve long skirts that go to the ankles, tops that don't reveal form and cover the arms completely, a high neck line, and perhaps some type of a head covering but one that may leave the neck or part of the hair visible. Such dress style would be significantly more respectable than what most non-Muslim women in the West wear. It would not be at the level of Islamic standards but would be more in line with how modern "Orthodox" Jews dress or how Christians used to dress about a century ago.

Most Western women that I see in the months where the weather is decent, warm, or hot are at best "half dressed" and in many cases "mostly naked." That term may offend some but in terms of bodily surface area is correct. When a woman walks around in shorts so high above the knee and so tight that her buttocks is outlined, wears a spaghetti strapped top so tight and small that belly is showing and cleavage is showing, then you are looking at probably at least 2/3 of her body exposed. If she is hanging around pool areas or beaches and is wearing the common two-piece bikini then chances are 90-95% of her body is showing. "Half-dressed" and "semi naked" are quite accurate if not understatements. Even in office workplace environments, I see women wearing shorts to the knees, or shoulderless blouses which leave half of the legs and all of the arms and shoulders visible. It is not appropriate.

I also will add that increased temperature does not necessarily lead to the "logic" of less clothes. At the same time women walk around half-dressed or mostly naked because it is hot outside, there is an ever increasing amount of sunburns, skin diseases, and skin cancers going around. It doesn't even per se make sense according to physics. If the outside air is higher than the body temperature and you are outside standing with bare skin exposed to UV rays then the radiation has no barrier and a clear shot at directly heating up your skin making you hotter and sweatier and more prone to burns and diseases. A thick abaya on the other hand accompanied with a niqab may well block the UV rays and create a form of insulation so that the body can still sweat and cool off but without being exposed to as much of the outside air temperature and none of the UV rays. Burqas, niqabs, and hijabs are effective at blocking dust on windy days. I personally have felt cooler standing outside in the sun in an all black abaya with black hijab than I would have in a short-sleeve western blouse and shorts (of any color). In fact, I would have gotten most likely second-degree sun burns if I was outside for a long time in such attire. So people who love to say that Islamic dress is not practical are (outside of some limited safety situations) completely wrong. Clothes both insulate against cold and heat no differently than how insulation for homes work. It is also a lot more economical to throw on a niqab when going out in the hot sun that you can always wash and will last a long time rather than go through bottle after bottle of sunscreen, lotions, or makeup kits.

As Muslims we are obligated to improve our standards of dress and behavior per Islam and also encourage society in general to improve its standards. That may offend some. Well, not everyone has to agree either. We as Muslims could do more with our own communities. I would not mind seeing this aspect of sharia enforced in masjids and other Islamic environments where women are simply not allowed to attend if they are not compliant with Islamic dress codes and to remedy the situation such masjids and other environments can have a set of hijabs, abayas, etc. that can be lent out to guests to put on if they try to enter when not covered. I wouldn't even have a problem if such an environment enforced niqab and had niqabs on hand to lend out to those who didn't bring or wear one. That may offend non-Muslims and it may offend some Muslims as well. Oh well. There are also western secular business environments that do the same where if someone is not wearing a suit and tie or whatever they are not allowed in and many of these places have jackets, etc. for men who come without one.

So as Muslims we can (and should) be very tolerant and accomodating in the ways in which we implement Islamic prinicples, beliefs, and practices (such as niqab and hijab) but that does not mean we can bend or break the rules simply to make people comfortable or for convenience. I think I've said enough here. And Allah (swt) knows best.
Reply

Independent
11-18-2013, 10:19 AM
There's a lot of fuss here about the meaning of the phrase 'half dressed'. Dictionary definitions take us only so far because the meaning depends on context.

To give an example, I've seen the expression used in the context of a man wearing a formal dinner suit being called 'half dressed' simply because he lacked a proper bow tie. Yet he is covered head to toe.

Context is everything. It doesn't just literally refer to the percentage of the body that is covered. But in the great majority of cases it is used in a more or less in a critical way so Observer is correct to view it that way.

Of course, as faithandpeace is fond of pointing out, this is a Muslim forum for Muslim views. But the very reasonable call for westerners to be understanding and tolerant of Islamic forms of dress becomes very unreasonable if at the same time, the same people deride and insult westerners for their mode of dress. I can't see how this will do anything except justify prejudice against Islamic dress. Those who spend time deriding western dress undermine their own cause.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-18-2013, 05:41 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by observer
Time and time again on this thread I've said I fully support a woman's right to choose what to wear, be that "western" dress or the niqab. It's a personal choice. I only wish to see respect afforded both ways - describing someone who dresses in a western fashion as "half-dressed" is not respectful. It's not "a descriptive term" - it's judgmental, it's insulting and it's unnecessary.

Again, if a woman chooses to go out dressed in a niqab - she is dressed how she wants to be and should be afforded our respect.

Likewise, if a woman chooses to go out in a "strappy summer top" then she is DRESSED - not half dressed, not half naked, not inappropriately dressed but dressed how she chooses to be and she should be afforded our respect.

You have the right not to approve of her. But she has the right not to approve of the niqab. It's not necessary to resort to insults. Calling her half-dressed is insulting.
Your entire argument falls flat if you accept the fact that the terms: half-dressed, semi-dressed, half-naked, etc are used more often than not by NON-muslims - who are not in hijab/ purdah.
It is used in all forms of media - news articles, blogs, human rights sites and more - all by NON-muslims (referring not only to images in magazines, but also to the manner in which women are dressing on a day-to-day basis).

But when these words are uttered from the mouths of muslims, then suddenly, it has become the means of 'insulting' others.

Perhaps do a little research - google the above words (not the images ;/), and tell us how many comments that include these terms are made by muslims, and how many are made by NON-muslims and athiests, who as I mentioned, themselves are NOT in hijab.
And guess what - there has never been (to my knowledge), an out-cry about its apparently 'insulting' connotations.


I honestly think that this issue has been more than sufficiently addressed on this thread - which has become the means of doing nothing more than distracting from the actual topic being the Anti-Niqab Agenda (not the 'Anti- Half-dressed/ Half-naked Women Agenda. As soon as such a ban is proposed, then you are free to start a thread to which we all can contribute our happiness to).


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
There's a lot of fuss here about the meaning of the phrase 'half dressed'. Dictionary definitions take us only so far because the meaning depends on context.

To give an example, I've seen the expression used in the context of a man wearing a formal dinner suit being called 'half dressed' simply because he lacked a proper bow tie. Yet he is covered head to toe.

Context is everything. It doesn't just literally refer to the percentage of the body that is covered.
The context of using this phrase in this discussion is more than apparent.
We are clearly not speaking about formal dinners here.

The dictionary definition of half-dressed is: Partially covered - and this is what is being discussed.
Ps. This dictionary was not compiled by a muslim woman in niqab.


********************

Just to clarify:

As muslims, we respect everyone's diversity.

In other words, if a muslim were to walk past a woman dressed with 85% of her body uncovered by clothes (in other words, she is not fully clothed according to the Quraan, Bible and Torah), then it would be incorrect for him to harass her, call her by derogatory names, etc.
He is meant to lower his gaze, and walk on by (and perhaps he can say a small prayer for her and all other people - that Allah guides them to His true way of life, as he has been guided).
^This is called respect.

However:

As muslims, we will never accept that this is 'normal' and acceptable behavior - simply because it goes against the commands of our Creator.
By doing so, we would be essentially making something permissible, which Allah has already decreed as being haraam/ forbidden.
So, this will never be possible for us.

The world through the eyes of an atheist is one which does not consist of any defined morals or code of living.
Each atheist lives according to what he feels is correct for him/ herself.

Which means that if people want to walk around naked - there will be some who say, this is their 'right'......we should 'respect' it and hence allow it.
If people want to marry their pets (and this actually has occurred) - then again, we should 'respect' it.
If people want to have sexual relations in public (as does occur in some places) - then we should 'respect' it.
If people want to eat their dead - then, perhaps this too is their choice, and we should 'respect' it.

^ By this logic, we will live in a lewd and lawless society, where everyone can make their own rules of living, as they desire.

In every unit of society, there are 'rules' to abide by.
So, if one works at a bank - they would be expected to wear a certain type of attire, according to the rules of that bank.
If the person decides to go to work wearing a G-string, then he/ she will be told to go back home and return in a manner that is acceptable according to that place of occupation (assuming they are not fired already).
The person would not turn around and say: 'Respect me, this is my choice!' (unless he is actually trying to lose his job).

In a similar way, and on a greater scale, we have 'rules' by which we live by.
These 'rules' are our way of living as dictated by the word of Allah - the Quraan, and the practice of the final prophet, Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wasalam).

We cannot, and will not give up the 'rules' laid out by Allah, to appease the self-defined way of life of the rest of society.

Again, we will show respect (as described above) - but this does not equate to re-defining what is acceptable.

^ I hope this makes it clearer to the atheists and non-muslims on this forum, so that in future we do not need to harp upon these types of issues (that result in us going in circles, simply because our frame of reference is not understood).


Peace.
Reply

Independent
11-18-2013, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
As muslims, we respect everyone's diversity.
But plainly, you personally don't.

You have dismissed western culture as non existent:

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Im not sure if this can actually be called 'culture', or it represents a lack there-of)
And you have stated that western culture is totally without morality:

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
a lifestyle that is in regression and lacks any fiber of morality.....
Reply

faithandpeace
11-18-2013, 08:04 PM
So back to the topic of niqab...
Reply

Berries'forest
11-18-2013, 08:09 PM
I think it's ultimately a woman's choice what she decides to wear. I have to point out though, despite the fact that Niqab represents a higher level of piety and steadfastness I think we ought to be careful since we can't make out every woman wearing Niqab to be an angel. The same also applies to women who don't adhere to the same islamic dress code for women. I think it would be safer to discuss Niqab from an objective point of view rather than a collective and specific one, because although it is an individual choice that's true but then that doesn't necessarily mean that every woman on earth wearing the Niqab is wearing it out of consent.
Reply

faithandpeace
11-18-2013, 08:38 PM
I think we Muslims often overemphasize that niqab or hijab are choices so that we can appease non-Muslims and uneducated Muslims by telling them that it isn't men forcing these garments on our women. While it is true that most of us are not wearing niqab or hijab because our husbands or fathers made us to and while it is true that in a non-Islamic state a police officer is not going to write a ticket for not wearing these, that does not mean we as Muslims should consider them mere "choices." We are commanded by our Creator to wear hijab and at minimum highly encouraged to wear niqab. Once we have made the conscious decision to submit our wills to Allah (swt) and obey Him, then none of these things including niqab are to be regarded as mere "choices" like Coke or Pepsi. And Allah (swt) knows best.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-18-2013, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
But plainly, you personally don't.

You have dismissed western culture as non existent:



And you have stated that western culture is totally without morality:

If this is as apparently 'disrespectful' as one can get, then alhamdulillah (All praise is due to Allah) for allowing us to recognize the good and bad within society - and thereby, keeping us on the path ordained by Him.
Reply

جوري
11-18-2013, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
If this is as apparently 'disrespectful' as one can get
Actually he's trying to bait you & gather information and if he could in a very meek effort sow a few seeds of doubt. He's not only disrespectful ---!

:w:
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-18-2013, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
As muslims, we will never accept that this is 'normal' and acceptable behavior - simply because it goes against the commands of our Creator.
By doing so, we would be essentially making something permissible, which Allah has already decreed as being haraam/ forbidden.
So, this will never be possible for us.
You are under the belief that your God tells you how to live and you find it important to obey, so you wear your religious dress and hide yourselves from the eyes of men. I get that. I am liberal and I have that live and let live philosophy you speak of. So I have no problem with you walking around in a burqa. So long as you are not causing a big security risk, I say you should be free to wear whatever you want. But you would then be so hypocritical as to not support others having the same freedom, and wearing what they want?

Are people in the west right to be concerned about muslims moving into their communities and increasing in number? Some islamophobes I know on another site go on and on about how muslims will take away their freedoms if they ever reach a critical mass and get any semblance of power. Are they right? Should I join them in pushing muslims out?

In every unit of society, there are 'rules' to abide by.
So, if one works at a bank - they would be expected to wear a certain type of attire, according to the rules of that bank.
If the person decides to go to work wearing a G-string, then he/ she will be told to go back home and return in a manner that is acceptable according to that place of occupation (assuming they are not fired already).
The person would not turn around and say: 'Respect me, this is my choice!' (unless he is actually trying to lose his job).
Do you realize that you are making an argument here FOR bans on Islamic dress in western nations? Do you see how you are undercutting the muslimas and others here who are arguing against such bans? Islamic dress is not the norm, and bans would be 'rules' to abide by. Shouldn't these rules make sense and be fair to all?
Reply

جوري
11-18-2013, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
. But you would then be so hypocritical as to not support others having the same freedom, and wearing what they want?
in what way should we support that do you propose? go up to them and applaud them? ;D
A serious case of non-Issue here!

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Do you realize that you are making an argument here FOR bans on Islamic dress in western nations?
In fact she's making a case for it. Even in the most 'liberal' societies no one accepts nudity as a norm, there are just gradation of what that coverage entails!

best,
Reply

Karl
11-18-2013, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
All about perception indeed. When many in the west see women dressed head to toe, including masks, they think these women oppressed and radical. Their perception is probably wrong. Yours probably is as well. We should guard against such prejudice.

I would also note that there is a difference between dressing sexy and dressing minimally. A nudist woman who wears no make up and no frills, does not look nearly as sexualized as a much more dressed woman with make up and frills.
In secularist states nakedness and having sexual intercourse in public is illegal, why? Religious people have their tenets and atheists have their science but prudery and self oppression are not scientifically objective, so why do atheists have any hang ups about sex? Scientifically speaking people are just animals so why can they not be totally liberated to do anything sexual in public that their heart desires? Hypocrisy is it? Atheist moral codes are right? Muslim ones are wrong are they? And why do atheists get so hung up about females that want to cover their face?
I think the biggest problem is the lack of tolerance. People are always fighting for the right to enforce their own oppression, their bigotry their order and their moral law.
This has been going on for ages. The Prophet Jesus (PBUH) preached tolerance. But people seem to be getting more intolerant and violent. I suppose it is in their DNA. Nothing stops their rancour.

"I would also note that there is a difference between dressing sexy and dressing minimally. A nudist woman who wears no make up and no frills, does not look nearly as sexualized as a much more dressed woman with make up and frills". That is a subjective statement.
Reply

جوري
11-18-2013, 10:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Religious people have their tenets and atheists have their science
If atheists had science it would be a saving grace indeed. They're richly & militantly dogmatic and I wish they'd be able to keep with the time rather than resort to antiquated nonsense from 200 years ago. Are you trying to shelter their ego before you drop your bombs?
Reply

~Zaria~
11-18-2013, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Are people in the west right to be concerned about muslims moving into their communities and increasing in number? Some islamophobes I know on another site go on and on about how muslims will take away their freedoms if they ever reach a critical mass and get any semblance of power. Are they right? Should I join them in pushing muslims out?

Muslims are increasing in number across Europe - this is true, Alhamdulillah.
This is not only due to immigration and birth, but also due to the fact that there are more people reverting to islam than any other religion.
This in itself tells us, that more and more people are recognizing the truth, by the will of Allah, despite media propaganda.

Should it occur that Islam reaches a point of majority within a land, then im sure you will agree that the laws of the land should reflect that of the majority.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Do you realize that you are making an argument here FOR bans on Islamic dress in western nations? Do you see how you are undercutting the muslimas and others here who are arguing against such bans? Islamic dress is not the norm, and bans would be 'rules' to abide by. Shouldn't these rules make sense and be fair to all?
The example used was meant to illustrate to observer that he is agreeable to abide by the laws set out by man (eg at a place of occupation) - even though this would imply that they do not 'respect' a persons choice to dress as they desire in this context.

As muslims, we obey the laws of the land in which we reside - so long as they do not go against the commands of Allah.....in which case, the laws of Allah supersede the laws created by man.

For this reason alone, we will continue to stand strong against the attempts to ban the niqab - as this is the command of Allah upon us.


Peace
Reply

سيف الله
11-18-2013, 11:00 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
If this is as apparently 'disrespectful' as one can get, then alhamdulillah (All praise is due to Allah) for allowing us to recognize the good and bad within society - and thereby, keeping us on the path ordained by Him.
I think this whole 'respect for diversity' idea, no matter how nice it sounds is a flawed way of thinking. You can't respect whatever somebody does. Perhaps it’s better to champion the (now unfashionable) idea of toleration.

---
Reply

Karl
11-18-2013, 11:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
If atheists had science it would be a saving grace indeed. They're richly & militantly dogmatic and I wish they'd be able to keep with the time rather than resort to antiquated nonsense from 200 years ago. Are you trying to shelter their ego before you drop your bombs?
"Science" is also funded by Zionist governments (the West) to support their political agendas. Most of it is modern day false science (not from 1813) to re educate the masses to materialize the Rockefeller totalitarian New World Order.

" Are you trying to shelter their ego before you drop your bombs?" No that was not my intention. I was trying to expose the hypocrisy.
You are right they are very militantly dogmatic and highly aggressive to a fanatically psychotic level. This is because the orchestrators of the NWO has said for a long time that the only way to successfully bring about the NWO would be to preach their godless ideology and moral codes as if it were a religion unto itself.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-19-2013, 12:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
In secularist states nakedness and having sexual intercourse in public is illegal, why?
The best reason I can think of is sanitation. It isn't sanitary to be having sex in public places, or to be nude in some particular places. The other big reason, and less rational one, is tradition. There are very few places on earth where repressive religion didn't play an important historical role and carried over some taboos to the modern day.

I think the biggest problem is the lack of tolerance. People are always fighting for the right to enforce their own oppression, their bigotry their order and their moral law.
I agree. And we in the west need to guard against that, whatever the source (which can be Islam itself sometimes) as we see above. If we don't have good rational reasons to legally enforce a taboo, then we shouldn't. And "your lifestyle offend me" should not carry any weight, be it directed at muslimas in burqas or at open homosexuals or at others.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-19-2013, 12:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Should it occur that Islam reaches a point of majority within a land, then im sure you will agree that the laws of the land should reflect that of the majority.
Tyranny of the majority over minority rights is something we are explicitly supposed to guard against. It is exactly what burqa bans are in some countries with highly anti-muslim sentiments.

As muslims, we obey the laws of the land in which we reside - so long as they do not go against the commands of Allah.....in which case, the laws of Allah supersede the laws created by man.
And were you in power, would you make the same concession to non-muslims? If it were somebody's religion to do something you find unacceptable to Islam, would you allow them to break your laws because their religion demands it? The hypocrisy is thick here.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-19-2013, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
You should of done that years ago instead of spending your time here. I'm sure the Islamophobes would welcome a kindred spirit with open arms.
Ironically, I came here originally following 9/11, because I doubted them and wanted to listen to actual muslims to see what they say is untrue. For the most part, that has been my experience. But occasionally I run into evidence that supports them well.
Reply

Berries'forest
11-19-2013, 06:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
I think we Muslims often overemphasize that niqab or hijab are choices so that we can appease non-Muslims and uneducated Muslims by telling them that it isn't men forcing these garments on our women. While it is true that most of us are not wearing niqab or hijab because our husbands or fathers made us to and while it is true that in a non-Islamic state a police officer is not going to write a ticket for not wearing these, that does not mean we as Muslims should consider them mere "choices."
Well, Allah did give every human being a free will and the choice to obey or disobey Him. It is a given to human kind in order for them to willingly follow Islam and also observe sincerity. I think what someone does in secret is more important than what they do in public, and it's not very uncommon that some women who claim to be religious may do some otherwise very un-religious things when left unwatched. I think it is very important to understand that just wearing a scarf or garment is not enough. I see some sisters congratulating each other on the terms of their exterior clothing without regarding character and respectively shunning off a sister who they think is not 'good enough' in terms of religious dress code. I see this purely as self-righteousness and self-praising rather than a genuine eagerness in observing Allah swt commands. Moreover, the whole controversy on describing a woman as being half-dressed it is in fact a derogatory term, from one point because when you use this term you're implying that she is lower than you and you are better than her, so that's basically vanity and arrogance, then there's the fact that you're implying that she is a woman of questionable character because it's only semantics and saying that a woman is half-dressed is the same as saying that she is half-naked really the same difference. I can see why some people would consider this disrespectful. Unless of course you can say that with out an iota of disregard than by all means go right ahead I just find it hard to say that about someone while still claiming that I'm not judging them or belittling them, it's merely a way of description.

Rather than hating on women who don't wear what we think is the ultimate card to God's acceptance, why don't we concentrate on our own actions and deeds. Allah won't interrogate you about another woman's behavior or dress code and since this concerns Muslims who live in the west, it seems kind of double-standard that at one point you're asking for you're own rights to be validated and they certainly should be but then at the same time the same people you're asking them to accept you, you deny them and state their spiritual inferiority, well if that's the case then maybe you shouldn't really be around these people and force your self into them. ---

Lastly, though and on a serious note, there is hardly anyone here being objective, in the end Niqab or Hijab or Jihad ..etc won't save you from Hell fire if Allah wishes to sentence you there, and no you'd have to go willy nilly otherwise I'd truly question how many people here are actually being truthful with themselves and if one can object to a sentence made by Allah then they are defying Him by all means. I won't leave it hanging in the air but this is truly why most Muslims today can't stand on a firm ground they resort to defensive positions when it suits them and then use an attack strategy in an attempt to prove that they're infallible. It's really surprising how empathy can be thrown away and judgements can be so quickly issued based on personal disagreements and bias. If a prostitute can go to heaven for quenching a dog's thirst and a 'pious' worshiper can go to hell because she tortured a cat until death. I wouldn't think it wise to consider ourselves better than anyone we meet in the streets, see on television or encounter on a virtual platform.
Reply

Independent
11-19-2013, 08:05 AM
^^ Well said and bravely said in every word.
Reply

faithandpeace
11-19-2013, 03:51 PM
I don't think it is our place as Muslims to judge the totality of one's character on the basis of his or her public acts. Such judgment can only come from Allah (swt). It is our duty as Muslims, however, to determine whether something is sanctioned in Islam or not and use our sources as our guide for this determination and proper Islamic etiquette when calling someone in error back to the straight path. There are public sins and private sins. We advise about private sins through educating ourselves and others about Islam to encourage right conduct. Every Muslim sins privately or publicly at some time or another but regardless of the amount or severity of the sins, we are obligated to try to improve ourselves and encourage others to improve as well. This does not of course include publicizing our own or other people's sins that would otherwise be private. Sins done in public not only are between the one doing them and Allah (swt) but also negatively influence others who witness them by encouraging them to commit the same acts.

Just as Islamic observance includes believing in the six pillars of iman and following the five pillars, we also are to adhere to the sharia and established fiqh and implement it where possible. Therefore, pointing out that someone not in niqab, hijab, or other attire when they should be is not (or should not be) judging their character or their iman or their status with Allah (swt) but instead is a notification that they are not in compliance with the Islamic code of conduct and an encouragement to bring themselves into compliance. If this offends people I suggest checking one's understanding of Islam that this is not a "pick and choose" religion but submitting our wills to our Creator and obeying His laws. Niqab or hijab are certainly not the only things in Islam, but they do matter and cannot just be casually discarded because other aspects of the faith may seem easier to follow or more relevant at the time. And Allah (swt) knows best.
Reply

Berries'forest
11-19-2013, 03:54 PM
^ Agreed, and I'm not advocating to cherry-pick what works and doesn't work for someone's interest. I just think that there's much more to belief in Allah than controversies. Anyway, I hope no harm's done.
Reply

جوري
11-19-2013, 04:39 PM
أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَى سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَى بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ}

45:23

If you find you're receiving your high kudos from non-Muslims in a matter that has to do with an act of worship then know that you're in the wrong!
I think many of us here have admitted that we don't meet with the bare minimum of the suggested Islamic garb for this to be a matter of 'self righteousness' - It is a matter of not making life more difficult to those who have already taken a very hard path that so few tread and making the dress a matter legislated by government.
Not seeing what you're talking about especially so when you turn the table and do the exact same thing you accuse others of which is shake your finger at what you think is objective or non-objective and then pretend to speak for God especially when al'amr belma3roof and nahy 3an almonkar is an integral part of this religion. Religion is advise, it is forbidding what is bad and driving what it good and the rest is up to the individual!

best,
Reply

Muhammad
11-19-2013, 08:36 PM
We've come quite far from the original topic of this thread, which was exploring and responding to arguments made against the Niqab in light of recent debates/news. We seem to have got caught up with the issue of who is disrespecting whom. I think that the latter discussion has been more about the degradation of society in general than an attempt to deride westerners as has been suggested (and hence accusations of hypocrisy made). In any case, I don't think we are going to get much further and I think it's best we brace ourselves for an inevitable thread closure very soon.

Some comments were made about non-Muslims participating in discussions like these. Whilst I agree with some of the sentiments expressed, at the same time we need to bear some things in mind. On issues pertaining to Muslims living in the west, like the anti-niqab agenda, I think it's important that we engage with non-Muslims in various ways including forums like these, so that we can understand each other's issues and discuss how to deal with them. These are issues that have already become the subject of debate and attention in the real world, not something new introduced here. Such dialogue gives us a chance to clarify misconceptions (which for many non-Muslims is all they know from the media) and convey the truth. Whether we like it or not, we are having to step up and explain why exactly Muslim women wear the veil, because too many ill-informed people are speaking in the place of those who rightfully should. If we don't learn to express our views to others, we stand less of a chance to be understood and defend those views at the time it matters. This also means that we have to be wary of how we come across, because da'wah does involve using wisdom, patience and fair exhortation, as illustrated through the life of our beloved Prophet :saws:.

To the question about Muslims being in power, history speaks for itself regarding the way the rights of the various religious communities and denominations were upheld and protected under Muslim rule.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-20-2013, 06:10 AM
:salam:


The integral position that the niqaab holds in Islam is unanimous amongst all 4 madhabs (http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...art-islam.html). (If there is any uncertainty in this regard, please contact your local imaam/ ulema to obtain further clarity, in shaa Allah.)

It is not up to us to imply that ANY act of worship is a personal choice, and to criticize those who are calling upon others towards the goodness that Islam has enjoined:

"And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful." (Quran 3:104)



If a sister decides to wear the hijab, or niqab......or even if she does nothing more than lengthen her sleeves when she goes out (as a means of covering herself up, for the pleasure of Allah), and on the same token, if a brother decides to grow a beard, or fold his pants......or ANY form of adopting the sunnah of the prophet (sallahu alaihi wasalam) and the commands of Allah - then he/ she SHOULD be encouraged and there should be happiness all around from our brothers and sisters.

If we can not encourage others as muslims, towards what Allah and His messenger (sallalahu alaihi wasalam) has enjoined, then who will?

This has nothing to do with self-righteousness and it does not imply any type of judgement upon those who are not yet observing certain acts of worship.
(There has been no condemnation of any muslim, in this entire thread who does not observe niqaab.)

We ALL started out at some point in practice - nobody was born with a hijab/ niqab/ beard/ thawb, etc.
Our only intention should be, that we try to improve on our relationship with Allah - from whatever level we are on at this present point in time.

In the words of Mufti Menk:

There is no level that you can get to, and say that now I have arrived."

"If Allah has given you the ability to put a scarf on your head......dont ever remove it......and try to get to the next stage.
If Allah has given you the ability to wear a niqaab.....dont ever remove it......and try to get to the next stage."


^ This should be all of our personal goals.
Not that we criticize and condemn those who are striving in this regard.

(With regards to the apparently insulting nature of the terms 'half-dressed', etc - I would encourage any concerned member, to contact Mufti Menk and ask how a very respected scholar as himself, uses such descriptions in lectures, as has been posted.
If its not possible to speak about the ills that we see in society on an islamic forum or islamic talks (which are freely discussed on other forms of media by disbelievers themselves), then, subhanAllah - this is a sad state for ourselves as community).


:wa:










Reply

Pygoscelis
11-20-2013, 03:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
(With regards to the apparently insulting nature of the terms 'half-dressed', etc - I would encourage any concerned member, to contact Mufti Menk and ask how a very respected scholar as himself, uses such descriptions in lectures, as has been posted.
If its not possible to speak about the ills that we see in society on an islamic forum or islamic talks (which are freely discussed on other forms of media by disbelievers themselves), then, subhanAllah - this is a sad state for ourselves as community).
Nobody is seeking to censor what you say. They are merely pointing out the hypocrisy in your words. It is not consistent to demand tolerance while being intolerant. Your arguments condemning western dress (community norms, etc) work equally well against islamic dress, and so they undercut the fight against the ban mentioned in the OP.
Reply

جوري
11-20-2013, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Nobody is seeking to censor what you say. They are merely pointing out the hypocrisy in your words. It is not consistent to demand tolerance while being intolerant. Your arguments condemning western dress (community norms, etc) work equally well against islamic dress, and so they undercut the fight against the ban mentioned in the OP.
In what way is she a hypocrite? inconsistent or intolerant? Truly you've to elaborate on that.
firstly she's not a westerner she's from South Africa a country taken over by westerners where they are given priority and according to polls from the WHO South African native children were dying at a ratio of 5:1 blacks to whites because of negligence, apartheid and frank bigotry.
What would you like her to do exactly? go up to every scantily clad woman and applaud her?, seeking her approval or what exactly?
Truly you're an amusing bunch.
Quit the crap everyone sees through the transparency of this charade..
you know what when you break a vase saying 'I am sorry' won't put it back together. That's how empty and meaningless your rhetoric not to mention bizarre expectations which you're yet to define in face of govt. legislating what women should wear!

best,
Reply

~Zaria~
11-20-2013, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Nobody is seeking to censor what you say. They are merely pointing out the hypocrisy in your words. It is not consistent to demand tolerance while being intolerant. Your arguments condemning western dress (community norms, etc) work equally well against islamic dress, and so they undercut the fight against the ban mentioned in the OP.


Any 'arguments condemning western dress' stems not from 'intolerance' towards other people, but rather submission to the commands of Allah.

As mentioned previously: By supporting anything (not specific to clothing) that contradicts the laws of Allah, means that the person himself, is standing in defiance of Allah.

My loyalty, and that of muslims, lies with ALLAH.

What you have assessed to be 'Hypocrisy', is in fact an act of 'Sincerity' - not towards man, but towards Allah.

As mentioned previously, there is a difference between 'Respect' versus 'Support/ Acceptance'.

We 'respect' all of mankind - in the sense that despite our differences, we are kind and considerate to one another.
The reason being, is that it is not for us to judge others, as well as the fact that a persons current condition does not necessarily reflect his future condition.

But, despite this respect, we will not support or accept anything that goes against the will of Allah.

^ Which means that although we will be friendly and helpful to the person who is dressed in very little covering, or to an alcoholic, or a drug-abuser, etc......when asked about the permissibility/ our acceptance of such ways of life, the only possible answer for a sincere muslim is that which is reflected in Quraan and Sunnah.

If Allah and His prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam) have commanded women to be dressed in a certain manner (with respect to any differences of scholarly opinion) - then this can be our only answer to the above.

Our frame of reference (the Quraan and Sunnah) is fixed. It cannot be bent to appease mankind.
We are in submission to the Creator, not His creation.

Peace
Reply

observer
11-20-2013, 10:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Any 'arguments condemning western dress' stems not from 'intolerance' towards other people, but rather submission to the commands of Allah.

As mentioned previously: By supporting anything (not specific to clothing) that contradicts the laws of Allah, means that the person himself, is standing in defiance of Allah.

My loyalty, and that of muslims, lies with ALLAH.

What you have assessed to be 'Hypocrisy', is in fact an act of 'Sincerity' - not towards man, but towards Allah.

As mentioned previously, there is a difference between 'Respect' versus 'Support/ Acceptance'.

We 'respect' all of mankind - in the sense that despite our differences, we are kind and considerate to one another.
The reason being, is that it is not for us to judge others, as well as the fact that a persons current condition does not necessarily reflect his future condition.

But, despite this respect, we will not support or accept anything that goes against the will of Allah.

^ Which means that although we will be friendly and helpful to the person who is dressed in very little covering, or to an alcoholic, or a drug-abuser, etc......when asked about the permissibility/ our acceptance of such ways of life, the only possible answer for a sincere muslim is that which is reflected in Quraan and Sunnah.

If Allah and His prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam) have commanded women to be dressed in a certain manner (with respect to any differences of scholarly opinion) - then this can be our only answer to the above.

Our frame of reference (the Quraan and Sunnah) is fixed. It cannot be bent to appease mankind.
We are in submission to the Creator, not His creation.

Peace

But nobody is saying you should support anything you don't agree with. All that is being asked is that you extend the same level of respect to those who do not dress like you as you would like extended in return. Nothing more.

Noone is saying islam needs to change. Just that the respect demanded by islam should be returned by islam. That the right of the woman in the niqab not to be insulted is the same as the right of the woman in western clothing not to be insulted. Nothing more.

Of course you disagree with western dress - that's fine. Just respect their choices as you wish your choices to be respected. I don't see how that can be difficult.

You don't have to go against your religion, but you do need to accept that not everyone is of your religion and therefore is not under orders to follow its rules.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-21-2013, 03:17 AM
^ the issue of 'respectful' terminology has already been discussed at length.
Please keep on topic.

As well as refer back to what is actually being expected of muslims according to the previous posts.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-21-2013, 10:24 PM
Anybody remember this from a decade ago in Saudi Arabia? Apparently the religious police forced school children to stay in a burning building and burn to death because they were not properly "fully dressed" in religious coverings. I wonder if things have improved there since. This may be what people who are for a ban are afraid of.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nto-blaze.html
Reply

faithandpeace
11-22-2013, 12:41 AM
To my knowledge safety overrides these basic religious practices. Therefore, in the event of a fire it would not make sense for women to not evacuate because they were not veiled. It is also important to bear in mind that while the KSA may claim to be an Islamic state or that many of its laws are based on sharia, many Muslims argue that it is not a true Islamic state and that many of the KSA's rulings and practices are outside of sharia and established fiqh.

But back to the topic, niqab is wonderful and at minimum wearing it is mustahabb, but it should not override safety or saving a life. If a sister accepts the scholarly opinion that niqab is fard and for whatever reason goes without it, she can always ask Allah (swt) for forgiveness afterwards and return to wearing the niqab where required.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-24-2013, 11:10 PM
Question: Is there a rule in Islam that the niqab should be particular colours? We often see it in black. Why is that? Perhaps wearing a white or blue or other coloured one could help. A lot of cultures these muslimas are entering hold black as a colour symbolizing bad and white good (like cowboy hats, etc).
Reply

جوري
11-24-2013, 11:30 PM
you mean like this?



I'd say that's their individual choice.. or does there always have to be something condescending to say about their choice?
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-24-2013, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
you mean like this?

Yes, exactly like that. Is that held equal within Islam to the woman who wears all black?
Reply

جوري
11-24-2013, 11:39 PM
I believe I have already answered that with 'It is their individual choice'!
most New Yorkers wear black all the time, there are no laws here against colors either, just a personal preference of people!
Reply

Muhammad
11-25-2013, 04:56 PM
Greetings Pygoscelis,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Question: Is there a rule in Islam that the niqab should be particular colours? We often see it in black. Why is that? Perhaps wearing a white or blue or other coloured one could help. A lot of cultures these muslimas are entering hold black as a colour symbolizing bad and white good (like cowboy hats, etc).
The following refers to Hijab for women in general:

...Wearing black for women is not a must. They may wear other colours that are worn only by women, do not attract attention and do not provoke desire.

Many women choose to wear black, not because it is obligatory, but because it is farthest removed from being an adornment. There are reports which indicate that the women of the Sahaabah used to wear black. Abu Dawood (4101) narrated that Umm Salamah said: “When the words ‘and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)’ [al-Noor 24:31 – interpretation of the meaning] were revealed, the women of the Ansaar went out looking as if there were crows on their heads because of their garments.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

The Standing Committee (17/110) said: This is to be understood as meaning that those clothes were black in colour.

And Allaah knows best.
Full answer: http://www.islamqa.com/en/39570

There is no particular colour that is observed in the Hijab of a woman but there are many other conditions that should be fulfilled. One of those conditions is that the Hijab must not be worn as a display so that it motivates seduction.
It should cover the woman’s whole body...
http://islamweb.net/emainpage/index....twaId&Id=87398
Reply

Muhammad
11-26-2013, 03:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Anybody remember this from a decade ago in Saudi Arabia? Apparently the religious police forced school children to stay in a burning building and burn to death because they were not properly "fully dressed" in religious coverings. I wonder if things have improved there since. This may be what people who are for a ban are afraid of.
I've deleted the off-topic discussion about the veracity of the Saudi incident. Regardless of whether it is true or false, it has no bearing on this discussion. It is known that one of the aims of Islamic law is to preserve life and this takes precedence over the goal of avoiding forbidden acts. The famous example is of a person starving to death and the only food available to him is pork. In such a case, eating to stay alive takes precedence over avoiding pork. Moreover, Allaah :swt: does not impose actions which His servants are unable to do. He removes the responsibility of performing many actions simply because of the difficulty involved, as a concession and mercy to us. There are many examples of this, such as breaking one's fast or not praying while standing due to illness.

Let the rich man spend according to his means; and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given him. Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him. Allah will grant after hardship, ease. [al-Talaaq 65:7]

So keep your duty to Allah and fear Him as much as you can; listen and obey, and spend in charity; that is better for yourselves. And whosoever is saved from his own covetousness, then they are the successful ones. [al-Taghaabun 64:16]

The Prophet :saws: said, 'What I have forbidden you, stay away from. What I have ordered you [to do], do as much of it as you can. Verily, the people before you were destroyed only because of their excessive questioning and their disagreeing with their Prophets.' [Recorded by Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

As already mentioned, incidents in Saudi Arabia are not the basis of Islam, rather it is the teachings of Allaah :swt: and His Messenger Muhammad :saws:.

It seems we have exhausted this discussion so to prevent any further off-topic posting I will close the thread.
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!