Spotlight: Anti-Niqab Agenda

[Ahmad H]

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.

 

[Ahmad H]

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.

 

[جوري]

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!

 

[Independent]

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).

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.)

 

[greenhill]

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

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

 

[~Zaria~]

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/42...Muhammad-is-now-second-most-popular-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:

 

[Insaanah]

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.

 

[Independent]

Greetings 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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Ahmad H]

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.

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.

 

[~Zaria~]

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:

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.

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/art...drain-public-services-says-David-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.

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.

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....):

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

 

[observer]

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.

 

[~Zaria~]

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

 

[Independent]

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.

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.

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.

 

[observer]

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.

 

[جوري]

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,

 

[observer]

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.

 

[جوري]

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!

 

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

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....

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-term_effects_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)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. [SUP]5 [/SUP]But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. [SUP]6 [/SUP]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.

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.

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.

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...evel-of-civilization-says-noble-prize-winner/

Peace

 

[جوري]

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..

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

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

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/2013-14/facecoveringsprohibition.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.