Veil related posts and threads combined

  • Thread starter Thread starter S_87
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 208
  • Views Views 18K
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Are they? do you not agree that:

They're both relgious symbols, they're both misunderstood by people of diffrent faiths, they're both seen as out of the out ordinary, people who wear them are usually riducled or attacked because of them by racists. I find it abit ironic that you laugh.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

DaNgErOuS MiNdS said:
Are they? do you not agree that:

They're both relgious symbols, they're both misunderstood by people of diffrent faiths, they're both seen as out of the out ordinary, people who wear them are usually riducled or attacked because of them by racists. I find it abit ironic that you laugh.
Click to expand...

Well in my opinion head covering is essential to bith Sikhs and Muslims. But covering of the face is not. The veil (covering of face in front of all men my women) was mandatory in india long before Guru Nanak graced this world. So after he prohibited the covering of face. - It's not the same as the Hijab serves the same purpose, that the Burkhka would.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

AvarAllahNoor said:
Well in my opinion head covering is essential to bith Sikhs and Muslims. But covering of the face is not. The veil (covering of face in front of all men my women) was mandatory in india long before Guru Nanak graced this world. So after he prohibited the covering of face. - It's not the same as the Hijab serves the same purpose, that the Burkhka would.
Click to expand...

Who are you to decide what is or is not manditory? There are many scholars who believe it is and many women who believe it is. This is part of their faith and whether you, me or Jack Straw thinks otherwise makes absolutely no difference.

In Canada it is so disrespectful to wear a headress of any kind in our Legions, yet the Sikhs that came fought to be allowed to wear their turban inside our Legions, which by the way, are dedicated to Canadian War Vets. How do you think Legion members felt when the Sikhs won the right to do so and entered the Legions wearing a turban? You don't think this created animosity and caused a problem integrating into that social group?

In Canada, our Military and Police personnel have uniforms that require wearing a specific type of hat. Sikhs that came here that wanted to join these forces refused to remove their turbans even though the hat was a manditory part of the uniform. So, they fought it and won. Now, these men are paid the same amount for service, but cannot give the same service as others that serve. Why? When the wearing of Gas Masks is necessary, or protective head gear, they can't wear them so they can't participate. In the Military, they fought to be allowed to wear their ceremonial sword as part of THEIR uniform. Didn't matter it was not part of the Canadian uniform. They won. Now, these men cannot serve aboard naval ships...why? They are not able to negotiate the ladders in small quarters properly and the chances of injury are too great. So now what? They won the right to wear these things that are important to them, but cannot participate in other aspects.

The wearing of the veil has absolutely no effect whatsoever on society, does not hinder the participation or integration of women into a non muslim society, and yet you find it amusing that we would want to stand up and say Straw is wrong in his comments. Where was the humour when Sikhs came to Canada demanding the right to wear their native dress in places where it is considered disrespectful, or in positions where it hindered not only their own safety, but the safety of those around them?

Muslims are not asking any country to change their laws or safety regulations in order to wear the veil. They simply want the right to practice their religion according to their beliefs. A right that is already suppose to be in place in the UK and many other countries around the world.

By the way, I have absolutely nothing against Sikhs or their right to wear the turban and/or ceremonial sword. I just wanted to point out that your comparison of a turban and veil doesn't work.

Hana
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Hana_Aku said:
Who are you to decide what is or is not manditory? There are many scholars who believe it is and many women who believe it is. This is part of their faith and whether you, me or Jack Straw thinks otherwise makes absolutely no difference.
Click to expand...

That is my point sister. Not all muslims agree on it. So that's the flaw in the argument. You talk of the turban. I'm the one saying they are two seprate things. Turbans are not obscuring the face, this is the argument being addressed by Jack.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

So if some Sikh's say they think they shouldn't wear the turban it means all Sikhs stop wearing them???
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

AvarAllahNoor said:
That is my point sister. Not all muslims agree on it. So that's the flaw in the argument. You talk of the turban. I'm the one saying they are two seprate things. Turbans are not obscuring the face, this is the argument being addressed by Jack.
Click to expand...

No, that is the point. It doesn't matter if all Muslims agree on it, the ones that wear it believe it is part of their faith. That's all that matters.

Straw's argument was also that it didn't allow these sisters to adapt socially or interact with community, which is rubbish. The turban however, as I've explained, does create difficulties in some social arenas. The veil does not. Many Sikhs in Canada were angry that others would demand these rights because there are many of choices they could have made in order to integrate with society. So, because there is not agreement amongst Sikhs, does that mean the others should be denied their rights? The turban may obscure my vision in a movie theatre, (namely because I am vertically challenged), does that mean I am within my right to tell him to remove it or to sit in the back? Maybe I find it very distracting to talk to a man wearing a turban, especially the ones that are very tall, do I have a right to ask him to remove it so I am more comfortable and not distracted?

You're missing the point here. A sister does not need to show her face in order to speak. A man does not need to see her face in order to understand. People make huge deals via telephone, without ever seeing the face of another. Some make plans to invade an innocent country without seeing the other's face, many choose a spouse without seeing their face. Society has managed to function and communicate for many years without having to gawk at each other.

Hana
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

DaNgErOuS MiNdS said:
So if some Sikh's say they think they shouldn't wear the turban it means all Sikhs stop wearing them???
Click to expand...


lol, well you can get only one form of turban. Islamic head hear consists of four types. Hijab, Chadoor, Burkha and another i can't recall. So it's not like you've been restricted all of them just the one htat will obscure your face. We're just debating i mean no insult! :)
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Hana_Aku said:
No, that is the point. It doesn't matter if all Muslims agree on it, the ones that wear it believe it is part of their faith. That's all that matters.

Straw's argument was also that it didn't allow these sisters to adapt socially or interact with community, which is rubbish. The turban however, as I've explained, does create difficulties in some social arenas. The veil does not. Many Sikhs in Canada were angry that others would demand these rights because there are many of choices they could have made in order to integrate with society. So, because there is not agreement amongst Sikhs, does that mean the others should be denied their rights? The turban may obscure my vision in a movie theatre, (namely because I am vertically challenged), does that mean I am within my right to tell him to remove it or to sit in the back? Maybe I find it very distracting to talk to a man wearing a turban, especially the ones that are very tall, do I have a right to ask him to remove it so I am more comfortable and not distracted?

You're missing the point here. A sister does not need to show her face in order to speak. A man does not need to see her face in order to understand. People make huge deals via telephone, without ever seeing the face of another. Some make plans to invade an innocent country without seeing the other's face, many choose a spouse without seeing their face. Society has managed to function and communicate for many years without having to gawk at each other.

Hana
Click to expand...

LOL that made me laugh sister. So do you conclude that all men who may approach you, do so because they lust after you?
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

AvarAllahNoor said:
Yes this is so! But not just men carry it but women too carry it. - It's not a dagger, but a ceremonial sword!
Click to expand...

i think this is more dangerous than the veil as some people claimed is dangerous
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

AvarAllahNoor said:
LOL that made me laugh sister. So do you conclude that all men who may approach you, do so because they lust after you?
Click to expand...

gawking doesn't mean lusting. :confused: Get your mind out of the gutter. :rollseyes

It means they don't have to stare at each other to speak. Be it male/female, female/female or male/male.

Hana
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Hana_Aku said:
gawking doesn't mean lusting. :confused: Get your mind out of the gutter. :rollseyes



Hana
Click to expand...

Erm, i'm well aware what gawk means. But it's claimed this is the reason it's worn wud that be incorrect?
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

AvarAllahNoor said:
Erm, i'm well aware what gawk means. But it's claimed this is the reason it's worn wud that be incorrect?
Click to expand...

The covering is a symbol of modesty, piety an act of faith. It is also a protection for us from some men who are unable to control themselves and look at them like a piece of meat in a grocery store. (And you know as well as I do, there are plenty of men out there that do that), and treat them like an object rather than a person. For men unable to show restraint it makes them speak with respect and to judge her, not on her beauty, but on her intelligence. As Muslimahs we do not welcome the advances of men and to discourage that, we cover. We are not out to attract men and covering prevents that.

So, no, we do not think all men will lust after us if we don't cover, not at all. The most important thing is we are ordained by Allah, swt, to cover. Some believe that includes a veil, others do not, but both are covering as an act of worship. The act of covering also benefits us in other ways, (some are mentioned above).

To prove that point. Before reverting I always dressed conservatively, but that did not stop the stares, or catcalls, or advances even when clearly stated there was no interest. I have NEVER had that happen when covered. I was never disrespected but was always treated with respect when I spoke to someone or if someone had to speak to me.

Hana
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Hana_Aku said:
The covering is a symbol of modesty, piety an act of faith. It is also a protection for us from some men who are unable to control themselves and look at them like a piece of meat in a grocery store. (And you know as well as I do, there are plenty of men out there that do that), and treat them like an object rather than a person. For men unable to show restraint it makes them speak with respect and to judge her, not on her beauty, but on her intelligence. As Muslimahs we do not welcome the advances of men and to discourage that, we cover. We are not out to attract men and covering prevents that.

So, no, we do not think all men will lust after us if we don't cover, not at all. The most important thing is we are ordained by Allah, swt, to cover. Some believe that includes a veil, others do not, but both are covering as an act of worship. The act of covering also benefits us in other ways, (some are mentioned above).

To prove that point. Before reverting I always dressed conservatively, but that did not stop the stares, or catcalls, or advances even when clearly stated there was no interest. I have NEVER had that happen when covered. I was never disrespected but was always treated with respect when I spoke to someone or if someone had to speak to me.

Hana
Click to expand...

You've put your point across very well, i've nothing to add but accept it's what you desire.

Although i did think as Sikhs, Muslims too covered the head as God is all around, so it it is out of respect. Think Jews do this too.

BTW - Is head covering in a mosque essential?
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

yes it is very selfish of him to only think about how he feels.and not how other people might feel.some Muslim women believe the face veil is fard.so imagine how uncomfortable they must feel if they are asked to take it off.its just like when in France women were asked to take off the head scarfs in schools.im sure they felt really uncomfortable.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

why do only sikh men have to grow their hair and wear turbans? why only men?
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

all the stuff about ruining social relations or whatever!- that's what the veil is meant for!!! women aren't supposed to go out and get friendly with any tom dick n harry off the street! (muslim women anyways :rollseyes )
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Islamonline.com

Veil is woman’s own choice – Prescott
10/9/2006 11:30:00 AM GMT


Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said that Muslim women should be free to wear the veil, adding that the debate over the issue could increase prejudice and damage community relations, The Telegraph reported.

Prescott’s comments largely isolated House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who angered the Muslim community last week when he described the veil as a “visible statement of separation”, and said he asked women visiting his constituency office in Blackburn to take it off.

Prescott said that Straw had the right to raise the issue, stressing that it shouldn’t be a "no go area for debate".

But he expressed concern that such debate could lead to "considerable difficulties" in terms of community relations.

"I think a woman who wants to wear a veil - why shouldn't she? It is her choice. It is a cultural difference but it is her choice," he said.

Prescott also stressed that he wouldn’t follow Straw’s example and ask women visiting him to remove their veil.

"If somebody comes into my constituency, whether they are wearing a skull cap or wearing a turban or very dark glasses, I'm not going to ask them to remove it. I think you can communicate with them,” he said.

Other top UK officials agreed with Prescott, including the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities, and Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales.

Patricia Hewitt said she wouldn’t ask Muslim women to take off their veils. She admitted that she had, in the past, considered the veil as a symbol of oppression, but changed her mind after a meeting with a Muslim woman in her Leicester West constituency.

“She'd made the decision - not her parents or anybody else - that she wanted, as part of her statement of her faith, to wear the veil. I would not ask her to take that off or to change a decision that she has made as an adult woman," she told BBC1's Politics Show.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top