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

Salaam,

In time they will be called western muslim,who do not pray,eat pork,drink alchohol,wear immodestly....all to show Islam is peace and unoppresive.

To show to the western world Islam is forward,they would be like the western world.

Such people are growing in abundace in the west,those who worship moneya nd support the western decadence and Israel.

Astarfillah.

Actually they are alreadt doing this.

I once saw this interview on a news channel about life in Saudi Arabia and they were interviewing some people. The only Arab Muslim men they managed to find were wearing ear-rings and with wierd haircuts! These guys were saying that the shariah police were a bit too strict and all that!
They got hold of these people because they had the same view on the matter. Why couldn't they just interview a real Muslim?
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

:sl:

i think straw is a class a muppet as well as zionist with a hidden agenda. i HOPE those muslims who were keen on voting him in before sees some sense!

I agree! My folks were of Nordic descent, and as a believer in Odin, I believe I should be allowed to wear a big furry hat with horns on it, even if it DOES defy public safety statutes :D

odindg3.jpg
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

if that is your belief then follow it :)

because there is nothing worse than a hypocrite :)

Let there be no compulsion in religion
To you be your beliefs and To me be mine [Al-Quran]
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

If you don't like Western "decadence" and assimilating into the society in which you live, the logical answer would be to move somewhere you feel more comfortable. Don't be a hypocrite.


Salaam,

Hmm wondering why you put decadenc in ""?

Is it becasue you cant accept the truth?

And am i from the west?
I think you should read more and digest the iformation first before writing.

I am from the east,small fine Singapore,my dear.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Assalamu Alaikum folk with an interest in the wearing of Hijab in 'the west' (where ever we are wester than any where else in that I am west of only New Zealand and a few atolls to the international date line)

behind the veil is a woman.
it may be an older woman with many children and grandchildren
it may be a middle aged woman
its may be a young woman who cares about fashion and looking good just like every other young woman

Hmmm, I don't know that "just like every other young woman" is necessarily true. In fact I believe that I think it is necessarily not true. There are young women whom prefer still today looking honest to looking good. That is a good reason also to want to be in Hijab.

What other reasons are there besides simple modesty:
To portray honesty in safety is only the most obvious;
Often the sensation of any weight upon the head (even of longer hair) can assist to accord that the attention is more focussed in the physical body;
To cover the expulsion of breath in case shaytan are nearby is another good reason;
As a reminder in bodily sensation of what reality is in Allah is always present when we wear any garment for any Religious reason;
etc etc etc

These are all reasons which accord that we can only be suspicious of those whom want for Hijab to be removed.

If you don't like Western "decadence" and assimilating into the society in which you live, the logical answer would be to move somewhere you feel more comfortable. Don't be a hypocrite.

Hello Keltoi, has it ever occurred to you that any immigrant has no real further control over where they are living than any other person? Why would any person leave a homeland if not a refugee or an exile for one reason or another. I guess the only other reason would be if the person were a criminal trying to escape retribution; but surely you are not trying to insinuate that Muslims could be living side by side with Western decadence and finding a need to become assimilated to the degree that enables a livelihood, only because of wanting to escape from owing Muslims elsewhere, so we can rule out that possiblity in this consideration. There is no reason to accord that any Muslim has any real ablity to move somewhere of a more comfortable feeling.

That we need not remove Hijab to assimilate well is a point of fact.

I am born and breed in a modern industrialised western democracy and wear Hijab. While my own family are most awful towards me in repect of, they are awful towards me in respect of most details of my life, and in fact MOST ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS are well able to accept my appearance in Hijab. I often have conversation with total strangers on public transport and when they recognise an Australian accent within the Hijab the are very often full of questions about my belief. Why? they ask, not to refute but from blatant interest. Since this is the case I am proving that wearing Hijab should never need prevent assimilation in many social contexts. Perhaps only bar the doctors clinics and offices.

Assalamu Alaimum rvq
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

if that is your belief then follow it :)

because there is nothing worse than a hypocrite :)

Let there be no compulsion in religion
To you be your beliefs and To me be mine [Al-Quran]

My point akulion is that wearing a hat with horns on it would be a breach of public safety, whether or not it was my belief or not.

Perhaps it is "my belief" that anyone who does not drink Pepsi-Cola at least once per week is an infidel and should be ethnically cleansed. Having such a belief does not give me the right to act upon it if it represents an enfringement on the rights of others in the society (which in this instance is Great Britain, but in the larger context is the global village).

The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.

Personally, I am all for everyone being able to follow their own personal path to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The debate IMO is whether or not being able to wear a veil in public constitutes an unacceptble risk to the rights of others.

From a statistical standpoint, I'm sure it does not. From a purely legal interpretation it certainly does: face coverings are not allowed in public in Britain (e.g., motor bike riders must remove full face helmets when they enter a petrol station because they have been used by robbers in the past).

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Look, Jack Straw said something. It doesn't mean women who prefer to wear the veil have to stop wearing it. This kind of agitation is exactly what fuels groups like the BNP.

NOTE: I am not implying that Mr Straw condones the BNP's practices, I am just saying Muslims simply cannot win if they get agitated over this. Just continue wearing the veil if you so choose, and ignore Government ministers' 'preferences' - it's not like their opinions are law.


Salaam,

When politician makes such remarks it will in time gain acceptannce if unchallenged.

it will just like france,muslim women now allowed to cover themselves.They are but politician who came up with million and one ideas why the veil is discriminatory.

So if we were just to remian silent everytime,a person challenges the way our religon is,then surely then our faith is dead.

We will remain silent while other abuse us and mock us,and when we react they say Islam teaches aggresivenes..

But they do not see the balme to themselves.

So you are right either be silent and take the abuse while the leaders of the coutnry make laws to limit the practise of Islam,or just be an apostate in heart and mind :ie a moderate muslim.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

The west is the ultimate hypocrites.

After allowing other cultures to emigrate, they don’t want to change there culture to accommodate the emigrates.

How rude we are. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
Salaam,

Wonder why China town is not destroyed...LOLOL
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.

Personally, I am all for everyone being able to follow their own personal path to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The debate IMO is whether or not being able to wear a veil in public constitutes an unacceptble risk to the rights of others.

From a statistical standpoint, I'm sure it does not. From a purely legal interpretation it certainly does: face coverings are not allowed in public in Britain (e.g., motor bike riders must remove full face helmets when they enter a petrol station because they have been used by robbers in the past).

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.

This stuff that Straw said sound's just like those "concerned" people who said that wearing hijab causes vitamin D deficiancy, which turned out to be false, and those people have been found out to be sick minded. Usually this is the case with politicians anyway. Their decisions are controlled by their lusts. And this method is psychologically the way of going about doing such things, slowly and in a "concerned" manner.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Let me preface this by saying I am of the school of thought that does not regard the veil as obligatory, but I fully respect people who choose to wear it.

My point akulion is that wearing a hat with horns on it would be a breach of public safety, whether or not it was my belief or not.
Though wearing a veil is not a breach of public safety, and not against the law.

Perhaps it is "my belief" that anyone who does not drink Pepsi-Cola at least once per week is an infidel and should be ethnically cleansed. Having such a belief does not give me the right to act upon it if it represents an enfringement on the rights of others in the society (which in this instance is Great Britain, but in the larger context is the global village).
Very true. However, wearing a veil does not in itself infringe the rights of others.

Personally, I am all for everyone being able to follow their own personal path to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The debate IMO is whether or not being able to wear a veil in public constitutes an unacceptble risk to the rights of others.
Which it doesn't.

From a statistical standpoint, I'm sure it does not. From a purely legal interpretation it certainly does: face coverings are not allowed in public in Britain (e.g., motor bike riders must remove full face helmets when they enter a petrol station because they have been used by robbers in the past).
Have any veiled Muslim women robbed any British banks lately?

I do think for passport photos etc, the veil needs to be lifted for obvious reasons.

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.
True. There's nothing wrong with discussion, which is why I think this Straw thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't agree with what he said. I think his view curtails personal freedoms, which a democratic state by definition must protect. I do think a debate must be initiated. Crucially though, people must behave peacefully. So no skinheads attacking veiled women and no Muslims getting rowdy.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

oooh on saturday hes going to this area in blackburn for some surgery and muslims gonna be going too...in niqabs! now that is cool :shade:
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Let me preface this by saying I am of the school of thought that does not regard the veil as obligatory, but I fully respect people who choose to wear it.
.
May be Salman Rushdie follows the same school of thoughts:) :?
I think this whole issue is due to the election, popularity, another way to gain votes.
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

May be Salman Rushdie follows the same school of thoughts:) :?
After he said that they 'suck', I don't really think he respects those who choose to wear them.

I think this whole issue is due to the election, popularity, another way to gain votes.
Well, Mr Straw's comments have certainly proven popular...
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.

the thing is you as well as mr jack straw missed the whole point of the veil

the veil women wear in the first place so that they can protect their beauty and their appearance from gawking eyes.

so its not a public safety issue at all - its their choice - and a choice for their own safety against people who like to stare ;)

and yet u grudge a personal choice and talk of "freedom of choice" - go figure
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Peace Ulysses:

So, as a Canadian living in the Atlantic, I am well aware of the importance of a scarf to protect me from the cold, sometimes worn over the face. As a Muslimah, I am well aware of the importance of a cover to protect and ensure my modesty.

The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.

Tell me how worshipping God constitutes an unequal and separate priviledge for Muslim women and becomes a safety issue? What you or anyone else perceives as "freedom" isn't necessarily another person perception. I personally find it extremely offensive to see women walking around half naked and men walking around in speedos, but no one stops them. The western idea of freedom for women is them having the "freedom" to walk around 1/2 naked if they choose to. Western women don't consider themselves oppressed because they are able to do that, but they don't realize they are putting themselves on display and are treated as objects, they are judged on their beauty, or lack of it, rather than their intelligence. As a born and bred westerner, I have never considered that freedom. I find it pathetic and disgusting some women feel they have to present themselves in that way. I find it degrading and sets women back 200 years! As a Muslimah, I am free.....Completely free to express my opinions, thoughts and ideas without worrying if I'm pretty enough, thin enough, etc., to be "accepted". If I am very pretty, I don't have to wonder if they are taking my words seriously or just listening because I'm good eye candy. I am respected for the person I am, not the object I am. We are not at all oppressed...we are free!

People like Jack Straw want to impose their idea of freedom on others and there is no basis in fact for any statements he has made.

He didn't bring this up as a means to dialogue and debate. It became a debate when he spoke without knowledge. We CHOOSE to cover! How can that be so difficult to understand? How can it be a crime to cover yet perfectly acceptable to be uncovered??

Grrrrr, so frustrating.

Hana
 
Last edited:
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

next they will tell people wearing clothes is a security risk too, with the excuse

"hey who knows what they are hidin under there "

astaghfirullah
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Peace Ulysses:

So, as a Canadian living in the Atlantic, I am well aware of the importance of a scarf to protect me from the cold, sometimes worn over the face. As a Muslimah, I am well aware of the importance of a cover to protect and ensure my modesty.

Tell me how worshipping God constitutes an unequal and separate priviledge for Muslim women and becomes a safety issue? What you or anyone else perceives as "freedom" isn't necessarily another person perception. I personally find it extremely offensive to see women walking around half naked and men walking around in speedos, but no one stops them. The western idea of freedom for women is them having the "freedom" to walk around 1/2 naked if they choose to. Western women don't consider themselves oppressed because they are able to do that, but they don't realize they are putting themselves on display and are treated as objects, they are judged on their beauty, or lack of it, rather than their intelligence. As a born and bred westerner, I have never considered that freedom. I find it pathetic and disgusting some women feel they have to present themselves in that way. I find it degrading and sets women back 200 years! As a Muslimah, I am free.....Completely free to express my opinions, thoughts and ideas without worrying if I'm pretty enough, thin enough, etc., to be "accepted". If I am very pretty, I don't have to wonder if they are taking my words seriously or just listening because I'm good eye candy. I am respected for the person I am, not the object I am. We are not at all oppressed...we are free!

People like Jack Straw want to impose their idea of freedom on others and there is no basis in fact for any statements he has made.

He didn't bring this up as a means to dialogue and debate. It became a debate when he spoke without knowledge. We CHOOSE to cover! How can that be so difficult to understand? How can it be a crime to cover yet perfectly acceptable to be uncovered??

Grrrrr, so frustrating.

Hana

Greetings Hana_Aku

Couple quick responses, sorry if I do not address all the points you raise.

First, it is not the worshipping which may (debatably) constitute an unfair special privilege. It is arbuably the wearing of a bodily ornament which COULD represent a risk to public safety. The conditionality of said risk being irrelevant to the issue. Risks which are low in probability are nonetheless used as a basis for many sovereigns to impose restrictions on the behavior of their citizens. We all have to daily engage in myriad hassles, and impositions on our freedom and liberty for the simple reason that society proscribes us to do so because not doing so would in many specific instances constitute a POTENTIAL risk to social welfare, e.g., obeying the speed limit.

Certainly you may be able to drive 180kph safely most of the time. But based on the simple probability that an accident is more likely to occur with increased vehicular speed, and that it will be more destructive, most soverieigns take it on themselves to impose on all of us by restricting us from driving in excess of certain speeds, no matter how skilled a driver you are, nor no matter how time pressured you are, nor your philosophies about auto racing.

Second, your comments about the offensiveness of the minimal level of clothing which is allowed in many social contexts in your society (Canada) and in many secular Western societies where there is a separation of Church and State are well-received. I can agree that allowing people to go naked should not be entertained, and were I a legislator I could even entertain the prospect that more clothing should be allowed in certain contexts.

But I would want to see empirical sociological proof that there was an objective level of increased societal risk or negative impact from the scanty dress, and would refuse to accept any religious decrees, or sacred texts as such proof unless they could be related to scientifically-verifiable empirical evidence about the contemporary setting. In short, if scanty dress really does erode the fabric of sustainable welfare in a society, then I can agree with you that it should be proscribed against. As a Buddhist, what Allah, Jesus, Moses, or any other deity or prophet said about these things 1400 years ago without backing up such claims with sociological facts is to me irrelevant. I do not want to live in a theocracy, and I do not want to even entertain the introduction of theocratic principles into my secular society. I appreciate the separation of Church and State, as do most citizens in the non-Islamic world.

Hmm, I thought that there was a number three to speak of at this time, but now I cannot think of it! :rollseyes
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Greetings Hana_Aku

Couple quick responses, sorry if I do not address all the points you raise.

First, it is not the worshipping which may (debatably) constitute an unfair special privilege. It is arbuably the wearing of a bodily ornament which COULD represent a risk to public safety. The conditionality of said risk being irrelevant to the issue. Risks which are low in probability are nonetheless used as a basis for many sovereigns to impose restrictions on the behavior of their citizens. We all have to daily engage in myriad hassles, and impositions on our freedom and liberty for the simple reason that society proscribes us to do so because not doing so would in many specific instances constitute a POTENTIAL risk to social welfare, e.g., obeying the speed limit.

How does a veil pose a threat or risk to public safety? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds??? :giggling: Obeying the speed limit is a law and it is a proven danger to citizens/society when not obeyed. So, because vehicles have the ability to travel at 240kmh and we KNOW that can result in the death or serious injury to many, all vehicles should be banned? I want you to list the dangers of me wearing a veil has on society. I, for one, would love to see how my choice to cover is putting the life of others at risk.

Certainly you may be able to drive 180kph safely most of the time. But based on the simple probability that an accident is more likely to occur with increased vehicular speed, and that it will be more destructive, most soverieigns take it on themselves to impose on all of us by restricting us from driving in excess of certain speeds, no matter how skilled a driver you are, nor no matter how time pressured you are, nor your philosophies about auto racing.

As I've already said, we KNOW speed kills, we KNOW excessive speeding is a danger or threat to others. This is a proven fact. You can't compare the wearing of a veil in act of worship to an automobile traveling in accessive speed. My wearing of a veil doesn't make me travel down the sidewalk doing 180kmh, endangering the lives of passersby. My veil doesn't turn into a high powered piece of steel ready to slam into unsuspecting victims causing countless injuries or to hurl itself at small shrubs, trees, lamp posts, etc., causing them to be damaged.

But I would want to see empirical sociological proof that there was an objective level of increased societal risk or negative impact from the scanty dress, and would refuse to accept any religious decrees, or sacred texts as such proof unless they could be related to scientifically-verifiable empirical evidence about the contemporary setting.

There is ample proof that women who dress prevocatively are at a greater risk of being attacked, raped, murdered, harrassed, etc., than women who dress conservatively. And, no, I am not blaming women for that, but there are consequences and risks when we opt to portray ourselves in a manner that can give the wrong message. As a woman I know very well how often some women will dress in a string bikini, or use the equivalent of a wide belt for a mini skirt and hankerchief for a shirt, all for the purpose of attracting attention from males, and then when they are treated with disrespect and scream harrassment, they want everyone to feel sympathy. Sorry I don't. They put themselves at risk by how they choose to represent themselves. Then they wonder why they often attract attention very different than what they wanted. Yes, there is a danger and a risk by not covering properly. But, this is their right, their freedom. People like Straw want to take away MY freedom and oppress me because I choose not to be disrespected and because I choose to follow what is ordained by God.

If you want to follow man-made laws and ignore the laws of God, that is entirely up to you and anyone else that wants that....just don't try to force your ideas on others that find those morals and values unacceptable. If you don't like the veil, then don't look at it, don't talk to me, walk on the other side of the street. It makes no difference to me. I don't wear the veil to please you or anyone else. I wear it to please God. If there are people having issues speaking with others that dress differently than themselves, that's their problem....get therapy and get over it, or stay home. Don't attempt to socialize. However, if you want to learn about others, learn hands on why people dress a particular way, then ask them instead of making ridiculous comments with no basis in fact. Learn to be tolerant or live in your shell of ignorance....the choice is up to the individual.


I appreciate the separation of Church and State, as do most citizens in the non-Islamic world.

Islam is not only a religion it is an entire way of life. It has provided laws for all aspects of society, including religion, politics, social issues, etc., etc., etc. Islam is an entire way of life providing guidance in ALL areas, not just worship.

No one is asking a non muslim to give up their rights so that we may have ours. No one is asking a non muslim to put their life in danger so we are able to wear a veil or practice our faith. Either educate yourself as to why it's worn and accept it or reject it or just leave the sisters alone and mind your business and spend your time being concerned about yourself instead of the fashions worn by others.

(When I say "you", I'm using it in general terms, not to you in particular, so please don't be offended.)

Peace,
Hana
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Jack Straw's first surgery today, I hope he deeply regrets his statements,
and i pray niqaabi sisters do NOT take off their veil for him.

I was listening to a Bayaan about shyness and modesty, and the Shaykh related a story...

to the nearest meaning...

A eye doctor went to a poor country to offer free treatment, A old man with his Blind wife came to him for treatment, his wife was shaking, and was very much on edge. she was in full hijab covered completely from head to toe...when the doctor approached her so he could see her eye, she started crying and shaking! the doctor thought she was shaking and crying because she was in pain, the doctor asked her husband

"whats wrong with her?"

her husband said

"she is not crying out of pain, she is crying because she has to show her face to you"

(although its permissible for a women to show her face for medical reasons)

when the doctor drew closer to her, she asked him

"are you a muslim?"

he replied "yes"

then she said

"if you are muslim, I ask you by Allah(SWT) dont uncover me unless you know for sure that Allah has made it permissble for you to do that, please make sure you uncover enough for you to carry out the operation"

she was given the operation and her eyesight was restored.

she said "If it wasnt for two things I would have endured my condition"

"one- reciting the Quran"
"two- Serving my children"
 
Re: 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

Straw addresses veil controversy in Blackburn

The leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, is meeting constituents for the first time after writing an article in the Lancashire Telegraph stating Muslim women covering their faces do not contribute to better relations in the UK.
Mr Straw sparked controversy when he asked Muslim women at his Blackburn office to consider removing their veils.
At a conference in Blackburn Town Hall today mr Straw said: "This has sparked a bigger debate than I anticipated.
"I said the same thing to the National Council of British Muslims in June, the media was there and nothing was reported then.
"It's important now that we ensure that the whole of the community in Blackburn and all the community in the UK benefit in a positive way."
Mr Straw says he does not regret making the comment and will stand by it.
Source

I wonder if anyone still thinks the media does not possibly have the capacity to blow things out of proportion.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top