France's ban on burqas, niqabs takes effect

[Sethi]

Sol Invictus,

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Sethi

 

[Dagless]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sethi]

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

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

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

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

-Peace

 

[Sol Invictus]

greetings sethi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dagless]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[abdullah_001]

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[abdullah_001]

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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

 

[abdullah_001]

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

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

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

 

[Zuzubu]

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

 

[Ramadhan]

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

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

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

 

[abdullah_001]

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

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

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ansar.tajudeen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asalamualaikum bro,

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

 

[smile]

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

thank god everyday i live in Afirca

 

[Danah]

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

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

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

What kind of contradicted world we are living in?

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


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

 

[mammyluty]

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

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

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

What kind of contradicted world we are living in?

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


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

asalam alaikum sister,


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

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

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