Debate on banning Niqaab/Burka in Britain

[Hugo]

when someone tells you that you all we have for dinner are pigs roasted in urine... or you have the choice to go hungry, who is forcing them to go hungry in this picture? try to think about it for a while, I know it can be daunting but eventually you'll get there!

If this analogy works then it works both ways. Suppose a Muslim woman in a Muslim state refuses to wear the Burka, then she is FORCED to stay at home or be pillories or worse in public.

 

[جوري]

If this analogy works then it works both ways. Suppose a Muslim woman in a Muslim state refuses to wear the Burka, then she is FORCED to stay at home or be pillories or worse in public.

We are not debating about a Muslim woman in a 'Muslim state' and the fact of the matter is no muslim woman in a Muslim state is ever forced to wear a Burka (is besides the point) we are debating if Burka is banned in a colonial settler country like England. Again, if you don't understand the topic or the subject matter then don't partake in the topic.

 

[Woodrow]

I see from this you are in favour of the burka and I guess you would support women them in that but are you open handed here, will you equally support those who see it as a useless symbol or even as a symbol of oppression? Is it reasonable that God, the God who created the timeless vastness of eternity, the laws of physics, the beauty of the earth would want women to walk around in a kind of tent? I just cannot see God thinking this way?

What is you view of women who don't wear the burka?

I support a woman's right to wear the Burkha. I believe it should be a woman's own choice to wear it and not because she is forced to by any man. I believe a woman should only wear it because she herself wants to please Allaah(swt) and not because any man has told her to wear it. I also believe no man has the right to forbid her from wearing it if she chooses to wear it.

The Burkha is not unique to Islam, all of the Abrahamic faiths saw it as being a condition of proper worship. Although some of the newer Christian denominations have strayed far from it.

A lovely pearl is indeed an object of beauty enjoyable to look upon, yet Allaah(swt) has chosen it to be hidden in the sea and covered by a thick shell. Is not a woman much more valuable than a pearl?

I double dare you to try to remove the Burkha from my youngest daughter. She did not start wearing it until she was over 30 years old and even her husband has requested her not to wear it in public. But, I assure you if any body ever attempts to remove it from her, they will not have much of an arm left after she gets done with them.

My wife also wears the Burkha in public although when we are out on the prairie alone riding horses she dosen't nor does she in our home. I have no say over her wearing it or not wearing it. Like my daughter, I would not be brave enough to tell her not to wear it. I am pleased to see she wears it, but I have never told her to wear it. She began wearing it at the age of 61, before we met.

 

[Hugo]

We are not debating about a Muslim woman in a 'Muslim state' and the fact of the matter is no muslim woman in a Muslim state is ever forced to wear a Burka (is besides the point) we are debating if Burka is banned in a colonial settler country like England. Again, if you don't understand the topic or the subject matter then don't partake in the topic.

You do not seem to understand the notion of a principle. To see what I mean perhaps you remember the case in Mecca in 2002 when Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress and many of them died because the guards would not open the gates. So its not besides the point because we can see how destructive it can become and one presumes you see it as a religious duty not just in the West but everywhere.

 

[جوري]

You do not seem to understand the notion of a principle. To see what I mean perhaps you remember the case in Mecca in 2002 when Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress and many of them died because the guards would not open the gates. So its not besides the point because we can see how destructive it can become and one presumes you see it as a religious duty not just in the West but everywhere.

You don't seem to understand the notion of keeping with the topic, further don't seem to understand how Islam works all together or what a 'Muslim state' is or constitutes-- To prove you the despicable hypocrite that you since I have lived in Saudi Arabia, I know that Burqa wasn't imposed on anyone, and if such an incident indeed occurred then it was in Isolation or should I also take it by principal that all western men bed their daughters and father their own grandchildren as we have seen quite the wave of that?

here are pictured of Saudi women without their Burka parading in day light without being persecuted by the religious police ..

and

as they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and you live or have lived in the UAE to mooch off Muslim money, did they force you or anyone to wear anything in there?

get off the western rumor mill, or at least if you are going to peddle in bull do it on a fundie form where they praise the lawd while downing some pork rinds and thumping their hands over people they know absolutely nothing of!

 

[marwen]

You do not seem to understand the notion of a principle. To see what I mean perhaps you remember the case in Mecca in 2002 when Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress and many of them died because the guards would not open the gates. So its not besides the point because we can see how destructive it can become and one presumes you see it as a religious duty not just in the West but everywhere.

You're talking about a totally different thing. There is a difference between doing something with good will / freely, and between forcing some one to do the same thing. In this thread we're talking about the first form, so your example is kind of irrelevant here.
For example if you give charity/sadaqa to some one : It's charity. But when someone forced you to give money : that's robbery. You cannot ban charity because robbery exists.

 

[Hugo]

I support a woman's right to wear the Burkha. I believe it should be a woman's own choice to wear it and not because she is forced to by any man. I believe a woman should only wear it because she herself wants to please Allaah(swt) and not because any man has told her to wear it. I also believe no man has the right to forbid her from wearing it if she chooses to wear it.

I find this post very interesting and what you and your family decide is entirely your business as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. What though is moot here is your line "..she herself wants to please Allaah.." and that sounds like a bit of pressure is being applied that becomes irresistible, unanswerable so not to wear a burka by implication will not please Allah - though I don't know if you meant it that way?

I suppose what I am saying is that I cannot see why it might please Allah for women to totally cover up in public, cannot see how any merit attaches to it? Without wanting to be provocative, there are said to be 100,000 prostitutes in Tehran and also large numbers in Saudi Arabia - well they don't go out in public dressed in mini skirts and hots pants do they, they dress exactly as is usual for Muslim women.

 

[S_87]

the law is banning something, if a woman has a right taken away-and just so you know- covering is a RIGHT and a FREEDOM and it does no one harm and is no one elses business then yeh you are isolating the women who cover by demanding they are stripped or their right to dress covered up.

 

[Woodrow]

I suppose what I am saying is that I cannot see why it might please Allah for women to totally cover up in public, cannot see how any merit attaches to it? Without wanting to be provocative, there are said to be 100,000 prostitutes in Tehran and also large numbers in Saudi Arabia - well they don't go out in public dressed in mini skirts and hots pants do they, they dress exactly as is usual for Muslim women.[/COLOR]

Now if that is true. Does that not sort of go against your belief that Muslim women are brainwashed into wearing the Burkha? Seems that prostitution is a bit more going against Allaah(swt) than refusal to wear the Burkha.

 

[marwen]

I cannot see why it might please Allah for women to totally cover up in public, cannot see how any merit attaches to it?

If Woodrow don't mind me replying to this :
Well you cannot see why it might please Allah, but muslims do, will you ban them doing something just because you don't believe in what they believe?

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

Salam

Come on Hugo

Comparing genital mutilation to item of clothing that cover one’s face is far fetch!

And don’t you think we would be hypocrites to criticise the Saudi Arabia when they can just turn and say “well you lot also limit women’s choice to wear Burkha and Nigab”. And considering only small number of women wears it in the UK like less than 1%, banning it is no use. I hear arguments made by some British people favouring the banning that Burkha and Nigab limits integration but yet these people seem to forget small number of women that do wear Burkha hardly have impact on their Muslim community let alone other communities.

Basically the Burkha issue is non issue. We honestly have bigger fish to fry.

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

And there is little difference between an oppressive individual (or an oppressive society) that forces a woman to wear something against her will, and an oppressive individual (or an oppressive society) that denies a woman the right to wear something that she has chosen to.

 

[Hugo]

the law is banning something, if a woman has a right taken away-and just so you know- covering is a RIGHT and a FREEDOM and it does no one harm and is no one elses business then yeh you are isolating the women who cover by demanding they are stripped or their right to dress covered up.

I might go along with you if you will stand up in public and feel equally strongly that a woman may therefore dress as she pleases, wear a mini skirt and so on?

 

[جوري]

I might go along with you if you will stand up in public and feel equally strongly that a woman may therefore dress as she pleases, wear a mini skirt and so on?

will this reverse the ban decision against the Burka or just appease your own perversions ?

 

[Hugo]

And there is little difference between an oppressive individual (or an oppressive society) that forces a woman to wear something against her will, and an oppressive individual (or an oppressive society) that denies a woman the right to wear something that she has chosen to.

This I can agree with and I take it here you are not just talking about the West? In fact your post reminded me about Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer, who fought as hard as anyone to bring Khomeini to power and the day after he arrived in Tehran she went joyfully to her office looking forward to a brighter world only for the first words she heard was a man demanding to know why her head was not covered. She now lives in exile in London, a nobel peace prize winner. She chose not to wear a head covering, how do you feel about that?

 

[Hugo]

Well you cannot see why it might please Allah, but muslims do, will you ban them doing something just because you don't believe in what they believe?

Fine then explain it to us, show us were in the Qu'ran or anywhere it says this is a worthy thing to do?

 

[جوري]

Fine then explain it to us, show us were in the Qu'ran or anywhere it says this is a worthy thing to do?

and the point of that being, if you don't believe in the Quran all together? I am amused of your obsession with women's dress, are you that desperate to see people disrobe? You sound really perverted!

all the best

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

This I can agree with and I take it here you are not just talking about the West? In fact your post reminded me about Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer, who fought as hard as anyone to bring Khomeini to power and the day after he arrived in Tehran she went joyfully to her office looking forward to a brighter world only for the first words she heard was a man demanding to know why her head was not covered. She now lives in exile in London, a noble peace prize winner. She chose not to wear a head covering, how do you feel about that?

What do you want me to feel?

I have plenty of non Muslim female relatives that don’t cover their head and I don’t have any ill feelings towards them. So why on earth would I have any ill feelings toward a fellow Muslim who chooses not to cover her head?

End of the day it is between her and Allah (swt) and I still consider her as my sister.


Lol @ her being in exile. I wonder why dozen of Muslim women who don’t wear head covering in London are not exiled by still live with their families and part of the community huh?

Noble peace prize is never really given to a Muslim that emphasises how positive her or his life is and how positive the Muslim communities are. The again I can’t take “noble peace prize” serious anyways considering they gave an award to Obama (who did really do anything at the time).

 

[Hugo]

Now if that is true. Does that not sort of go against your belief that Muslim women are brainwashed into wearing the Burkha? Seems that prostitution is a bit more going against Allaah(swt) than refusal to wear the Burkha.

No that is not the point I was making, the point is that it is largely irrelevant what a person wears as to piety. Perhaps you will see it better if I recount a Biblical story found in Luke 18:10-15 (KJV)

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

So Piety is shown by an attitude of heart and mind and a realization we are at best poor deluded sinners and when we have that we are driven to acts of sacrificial service out of thankfulness that is why Jesus when asked what is the greatest commandment said to love the Lord they God with all your heart and what is perhaps pertinent here is that we should love our neighbour as ourselves. To a Christian or Jew the very idea that an act earns merit with God is not part of our way of dealing with God. If we do anything it is only for him and by his empowerment.

 

[جوري]

No that is not the point I was making, the point is that it is largely irrelevant what a person wears as to piety. Perhaps you will see it better if I recount a Biblical story found in Luke 18:10-15 (KJV)

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

So Piety is shown by an attitude of heart and mind and a realization we are at best poor deluded sinners and when we have that we are driven to acts of sacrificial service out of thankfulness that is why Jesus when asked what is the greatest commandment said to love the Lord they God with all your heart and what is perhaps pertinent here is that we should love our neighbour as ourselves. To a Christian or Jew the very idea that an act earns merit with God is not part of our way of dealing with God. If we do anything it is only for him and by his empowerment.

I don't really think Jews share your point of views.. in fact your interior and exterior should match.. a christian (which you are a good Representative of are ugly and sinful on the inside out)

have a look at some Jews:




.

[Does the Torah command Jewish women to cover their heads and how does it mandate they do so?]

The Torah states that, like in Islam,when the people came to pray to the Lord they covered their shoulders and head. This is the opinion of most rabbis. Where does it say that it should not be done any longer?

‘‘Make for yourselves tassels [g'dilim] on the four corners of the cloak [k'sut] that covers you'' (Deuteronomy 22:11 MBV). The command noted from Deuteronomy 22:11, is that it is to be a k'sut, or covering, and it is emphasized twice to be a ‘‘cloak [k'sut] that covers [k'sut] you.''

The practice of hair covering amongst Jewish women has its source in the Mishnah. M. Ketubot 7:6 lists going out with unbound hair as one of the ways in which a woman forfeits her divorce settlement. The Talmud (B. Ketubot 72a-b) understood the source of this custom to be even more ancient. In the Bible (Numbers 5:18), a woman suspected of infidelity has her hair exposed as part of her punishment. This biblical passage seems to imply that as a matter of course a Jewish woman kept her hair covered.

The gemara in Ketubot 72a presents two categories of women who can be divorced without receiving the sum of money stipulated in their ketuba (marriage contract). In other words, these are cases where the women are deemed to have violated the terms under which they were married, and thus the contract is considered to be broken. The two categories are referred to as "Dat Moshe" and "Dat Yehudit." The former category includes cases when the woman causes her husband to violate Torah law (the religion of Moshe), while the second category seems to be more focused on issues of personal modesty. The latter category is called "Dat Yehudit" since it includes things that are not explicitly prohibited by the Torah, yet have been accepted by the women of Israel as a binding custom. The first item listed among those things considered to be "Dat Yehudit" is when a woman goes out with her hair uncovered. However, as the gemara notes, this is not simply a law that was accepted over time by Jewish women. Rather, we know from the case of the sotah (a woman suspected by her husband of committing adultery) that Jewish women have to cover their hair, since part of the process of humiliating the sotah in attempts to make her confess her sin is that the kohein uncovers her hair. Obviously, if this was considered to be a potentially effective means of shaming her into confession, it must be that it was the norm for her hair to be covered (see also Bamidbar Rabba 9:16)!

While there is a Halachic disagreement amongst Jewish scholars regarding the law that married women should cover their hair even inside their houses, all seem to agree that it is preferable and highly praiseworthy for a woman to cover her hair even in the privacy of her own home. There is no such thing for Muslim women. The Qu'ran makes clear our hijabs are worn in front of non-maharam men, and for salat. So we have no such confusion.

In the Talmud there is a famous story about a certain woman by the name of Kimchit who was careful that “the walls of her house should not see the hairs of her head.” She was rewarded with seven sons who served as High Priests. We see from this story that a woman’s covering her hair in private is highly praiseworthy. But is it a Torah mandate? Or is it simply a chumrah, a stringency? Must a woman cover her hair at home? King David says, “kol kevudah bat melech p'nimah.” Which Hebrew for "All the glory of the King’s daughter is internal."

One of the expressions of this inner glory is that, in Judaism in general, married women must cover their hair. But is there a halachic difference between going out in public and being at home? In the privacy of their own homes, seemingly, they should be able to “let their hair down.” Muslim women CAN if they are not around non-maharam men. By covering her hair (even with a wig, which may be mistaken for real hair---Muslim women are forbidden to wear wigs maybe because it is an imitation of this Jewish custom) a woman in Judaism is expressing her exclusive devotion, love for, and unique connection to her husband.

In order to fully answer this question, it is important to address two issues at play here: a) why does a Jewish woman need to cover her hair at all? b) Does the Torah expect (and allow) Jewish women to act differently in the privacy of their own homes than when they are outside in public?

Once a woman is married, she enters into a completely unique relationship with her husband. This transformation is alluded to by the Hebrew name for the wedding ceremony, “Kiddushin,” which means sanctification or holiness.

Through this act, the bride and groom are totally and utterly dedicated to each other in a holy coupling. This dedication manifests itself in both an internal and an external form, in many ways, and for both partners.

One of these ways is by a woman covering her hair, which is viewed by Judaism as a sensual and private part of a married woman’s appearance. By covering her hair (even with a wig, which may be mistaken for real hair) a woman is expressing her exclusive devotion, love for, and unique connection to her husband.

Even if others do not realize that she is covering her hair, she has the constant awareness and consciousness that she is one half of a unique and profound relationship, sanctified by God Himself.

Yet, the Torah, as usual, is not content to let the practioner of Judaism just “act natural.” Rather, it exhorts them to keep to high standards, and to maintain a high level of moral and ethical conduct, even when no other human beings are around. Even when a Jewish woman is getting dressed in a dark room, she are enjoined to do so in a modest manner. Similarily the Prophet Mohammed salla Allahu alaihi wa-sallam suggested we cover our naked bodies with sheets even while we enjoyed the company of our husbands in the marriage bed, so that Jinn could not watch.

Why is this belief prevalent in Judaism? Because of the concept that God is omnipresent; and human beings are always under His scrutiny. (And in case a person does not have the constant awareness of God’s presence, the Jewish Shulchan Aruch prescribes meditation, in order to arouse feelings of love and awe)

However, the hair of a married woman does not have the same status as other private parts of the body that are usually covered in Judaism. As explained earlier, hair covering is primarily a symbol of marriage, a demonstration of her devotion to her spouse.

So, all that said: May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah, Jewish law, addresses public, semipublic, and private settings:

Now, normally, the laws of modesty are not loosened in the privacy of home. The Code of Jewish Law, acknowledging human nature, states that it is natural for people to act differently when they are in the privacy of their own home then when they are around a group of people.

Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show.

Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair.

Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times “the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory....”

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that “[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required.” Sources for these conclusions in Yuma 47a, Psalms 45:14, Beginning of Orach Chaim. With regards to other issues – such as the prohibition of a husband seeing private parts of his wife’s body when she is niddah – there is disagreement between halachic authorities as to the “status” of a married woman’s hair. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (highly respected modern-day Israeli halachic authority) says that a married woman’s hair is in the same category as other private parts of the body, while Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (author of the Igrot Moshe Responsa) writes that hair is not in the same category as other parts of the body that are normally covered. Sources: Halichos Bas Yisrael, by Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Fuchs. Targum Press, 1987. Beautiful Within, Modesty In Conduct and Dress As Taught By The Lubavitcher Rebbe. Sichos in English, 1995.

The Jews themselves are often guilty of making a law (such as a woman's hair having to be covered even in the privacy of her home or wearings wigs to do so) Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times “the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory....” which did not originate with Allah subhabhu wa ta'ala, which is, to make something haraam that is halal. The Qu'ran, and even the Torah has remnants, have warnings for this.

Isaiah 30:1 says, "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of My spirit, that they may add sin to sin."

In conclusion, from studies of Jewish historical costume and the Torah, and the opinions of Jewish scholars, a woman's hair must be covered and she must wear modest clothing that covers all of her skin. Nothing in Judaism specified that clothing could not be very decorated, or that the hair HAD to be covered in a certain manner, or that the clothing had to be loose and not see-through, or that an overgarment had to be worn, or that complete veiling (facial) was forbidden. Facial veiling was not a commandment in the Torah, nor was jilbab, nor was covering the neck and the breasts. That is why Jewish women are permitted to wear knee length skirts with tights and this counts as clothing that covers. Facial veiling was neither mustahaab, haraam, or fard for Jewish women but it was a cultural practice that was a symbol of wealth and social status, and the opinion of Jewish scholars is that it is halaal for Jewish women, but not part of their religion.

________________________

didn't I request that an ignoramus such as yourself shouldn't speak on behalf of others?
further the Jews don't recognize you at all, to them you are paganists the same way you are paganists to Muslims..
now go and be all decadent and sinful because god ate your sins when he died!

all the best