Debate on banning Niqaab/Burka in Britain

[Hugo]

how does the Quran extract from Isiah ''The LORD says, "The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, tripping along with mincing steps, with ornaments jingling on their ankles'' perhaps you can show us the extraction?

I said it seems to come from Isaiah and any rational person can look at the two verses and decide (as many translators have done). All you have is an unprovable supposition that it is in some ways divine so your position is one of blind faith not reason.

If one objectively reads the Qur’an, there is a mention of prayers, Jumu’ah prayers, Zakat, Hajj, Umrah, Fasting etc. but there is no clarification given as to what is really meant by them. The reason why their practical description was not given was that they were already taking place when the Qur’an was being revealed. A reference of then therefore sufficed. The Qur’an, for instance, mentions salatul Fajr and Salatul Isha in a manner as if they were two known prayers at them time when this verse was revealed.

Have we have Allah in the Qu'ran not it seems being clear because in the impenetrable far reaches of eternity, before time began God decided "I will not add that because they will be doing it already". If you accept this interpretation it seems to me you are forced to concede that the Qu'ran was written for convenience at the time.

I can understand why Muslims treat the Qu'ran as sacred but what this author is saying is that a host of other things are just as sacred and it does not matter how absurd they are to a rational mind. I refer to it again, a proof offered in the Hadith that covering is required was that women in heaven do it and it does this with what is to me a fanciful story about this women bringing light and perfume - how the person who recounted the story could know this not explained.

If one is to take every story as having the same weight of authority and what seems to be no interpretation at all or contextualisation and in this case that every thing these particular group of women did was totally sanctified and binding then there is no place here for reason only total submission. I personally find this intolerable and I take the usual Biblical position which states that to go from the written word to action without interpretation is itself heresy.

So for a Muslim there is no possible argument against the Burka and women must cover entirely even to the extent of only using one eye. No rational state would be able to see that other than as oppression based on an assertion from an authority who is totally inaccessible.

 

[Zafran]

So for a Muslim there is no possible argument against the Burka and women must cover entirely even to the extent of only using one eye. No rational state would be able to see that other than as oppression based on an assertion from an authority who is totally inaccessible.

This is intresting as it actually has something to do with the thread - if a women believes its actually compulsory on her to wear the Burkah/Niqab and as she isnt hurting anyone or restricting anyones rights why should she be restricted of not wearing the burka - any rational state would see that this women is choosing to wear the burkha and as she isnt hurting anyone by wearing it or restricting anyone elses rights she should have the right to wear it.

 

[جوري]

I said it seems to come from Isaiah and any rational person can look at the two verses and decide (as many translators have done). All you have is an unprovable supposition that it is in some ways divine so your position is one of blind faith not reason.

I asked you to prove it not merely bully people into your beliefs?
I have no blind position as to why the revelations are divine, I have in fact set the criteria based on the Quran itself and asked since you are making the claim to invalidate said points and the burden of proof does lie on your shoulders in such a case, to un-prove if you can, the textual integrity, the logical consistency, the miraculous features, the supernatural eloquence, the scientific statements ahead of its time etc. etc. and we'll be waiting.. I don't enjoy wasting my time on blind man's bluff.. simply put up or shut up as I have personally tired of your antics!

Have we have Allah in the Qu'ran not it seems being clear because in the impenetrable far reaches of eternity, before time began God decided "I will not add that because they will be doing it already". If you accept this interpretation it seems to me you are forced to concede that the Qu'ran was written for convenience at the time.

I don't understand what 'have we have Allah in the Quran' -- you want to make a statement and loan it some credence, then try to work on your thought process and syntax first before asking others to accept your faulty premises!

I can understand why Muslims treat the Qu'ran as sacred but what this author is saying is that a host of other things are just as sacred and it does not matter how absurd they are to a rational mind. I refer to it again, a proof offered in the Hadith that covering is required was that women in heaven do it and it does this with what is to me a fanciful story about this women bringing light and perfume - how the person who recounted the story could know this not explained.

There is no question of logic or science in that statement, it is a matter of faith.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]2:2 (Asad) THIS DIVINE WRIT - let there be no doubt about it is [meant to be] a guidance for all the God-conscious. [2] -
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]2:3 (Asad) Who believe in [the existence of] that which is beyond the reach of human perception, [3] and are constant in prayer, and spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance; [4] -

an article of faith requires you as certain signs are manifest unto you for proof, that you should also accept that which is beyond reach of human perception!
[/FONT]

If one is to take every story as having the same weight of authority and what seems to be no interpretation at all or contextualisation and in this case that every thing these particular group of women did was totally sanctified and binding then there is no place here for reason only total submission. I personally find this intolerable and I take the usual Biblical position which states that to go from the written word to action without interpretation is itself heresy.

We're not here to cater to what it is you find tolerable or intolerable.. I find everything about you intolerable, yet here you are day in and day out and we still accommodate you .. a woman's right to her veil is the least you can offer unless of course you'd like to join some crusade and swim in Muslim blood as your forefathers have done and continue to do?

So for a Muslim there is no possible argument against the Burka and women must cover entirely even to the extent of only using one eye. No rational state would be able to see that other than as oppression based on an assertion from an authority who is totally inaccessible.

I have no clue where you get the one eye shbeal is all about, whatever the case, you are the last person to decide what is rational, just given what it is you use to cement your arguments of completely irrelevant and unrelated drivel!

all the best[/FONT]

 

[Hugo]

This is intresting as it actually has something to do with the thread - if a women believes its actually compulsory on her to wear the Burkah/Niqab and as she isnt hurting anyone or restricting anyones rights why should she be restricted of not wearing the burka - any rational state would see that this women is choosing to wear the burkha and as she isnt hurting anyone by wearing it or restricting anyone elses rights she should have the right to wear it.

But can you not also see that others might see it as oppression because she is 'forced' into it by lets say her society based on an authority of a few stories and claims that they are sacred and to ignore them or even re-interpret them rationally is seen as sin.

 

[Hugo]

I asked you to prove it not merely bully people into your beliefs?

I cannot prove it and you cannot disprove it that is the point that is being made. I suggest one looks rationally at it and decides for oneself you cannot even consider that as an option.

I have no blind position as to why the revelations are divine, I have in fact set the criteria based on the Quran itself and asked since you are making the claim to invalidate said points and the burden of proof does lie on your shoulders in such a case, to un-prove if you can, the textual integrity, the logical consistency, the miraculous features, the supernatural eloquence, the scientific statements ahead of its time etc. etc. and we'll be waiting.. I don't enjoy wasting my time on blind man's bluff.. simply put up or shut up as I have personally tired of your antics!

Well start another thread and outline your criteria. All you do is invent criteria that support your case and ignore all others and of course I can create another set of criteria that will show the Qu'ran to be nothing more than a copy of other work. For example, I could suggest a criteria that says "If God provided the Qu'ran it must only contain material that is not found elsewhere". Now you in all likelihood will not accept this but then why should I accept yours?

I have no clue where you get the one eye shbeal is all about, whatever the case, you are the last person to decide what is rational, just given what it is you use to cement your arguments of completely irrelevant and unrelated drive

l!
All this shows is that you have not bothered to read the post that contains about 20 hadith on the issue so you are not fit to join the debate.

 

[Zafran]

But can you not also see that others might see it as oppression because she is 'forced' into it by lets say her society based on an authority of a few stories and claims that they are sacred and to ignore them or even re-interpret them rationally is seen as sin.

How can anyone see it as oppression if the women chooses to wear it you just have to ask her? if someone is actuially forcing a women to wear it then its oppression. Just relying on "what ifs" is a waste of time.

 

[جوري]

I cannot prove it.

I know.. but certainly if you keep whining about it, then you should do something about it?

Well start another thread and outline your criteria. All you do is invent criteria that support your case and ignore all others and of course I can create another set of criteria that will show the Qu'ran to be nothing more than a copy of other work. For example, I could suggest a criteria that says "If God provided the Qu'ran it must only contain material that is not found elsewhere". Now you in all likelihood will not accept this but then why should I accept yours?

I haven't 'invented criteria' in order for you to set out on the painstaking task of proving or disproving anything, you'll have to adhere to a set of principles drawn from the condition itself as a baseline!

l!
All this shows is that you have not bothered to read the post that contains about 20 hadith on the issue so you are not fit to join the debate.

As stated, you are the last person to decide what is rational and what isn't when you keep cementing your arguments with unrelated drivel!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I wonder if one might consider this issue based on something from Thomas Paine who was looking for a way to define liberty and he suggested a principle:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even​

This seem valid to me as it is double ended in that you as an individual may do as you please as long as others are not harmed but at the same time others cannot compel you do do something against your will and national laws would be framed in this way. So someone who wants to wear the burka in a free society can do so as long as no one else is harmed and at the same time there should be no penalty from any society or part of a society if one chooses not to do this.

So in this thread we have seen very often that freedom is advocated as a reason to allow this practice but I wonder how many will stand up and reject equally fervently the coercion described below where freedom have been violated - not many I suspect who can look both ways which itself is a principles of freedom.

A female teacher has been prevented from teaching at a Muslim university in Eastern India by students demanding the she wear a burka. Aliah university in Calcutta is the first Muslim university in West Bengal state and has no formal dress code, but its student union has demanded that female teachers cover themselves with a Muslim veil in class. Sirin Middya told Indian Express that she had refused to comply and had been prevented from teaching for three months. Telegraph 30 July 2010 page 18​

 

[أحمد]

We aren't asking for a ban on the burka - we are DEMANDING a ban on ALL face coverings in public regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or the material from which the face covering is made.

I'm tired of being reasonable & tolerant. It's someone else's turn for a change.
- kate, fairwater, cardiff, 18/7/2010 10:20

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134298920-debate-banning-niqaab-burka-britain.html#post1349551

For those who demand ban on burqa or niqab (as quoted texts in previous posts); would they demand a ban on sunglasses in public?

Why sunglasses? British law suggests sunglasses cover the eyes and obscure identity; if burqa or niqab makes such a big identity crisis; so do sunglasses.

There are many excuses from people who want a ban; the most popular one is "Islam oppresses women". They fail to realise that "oppresses" isn't a synonym of "respects". Modesty isn't nor ever was oppression; it is and always was a great symbol of respect.

"Ban schools! Education is oppression", now doesn't that sound childish? It is!

:wa:

 

[Zafran]

Salaam

The main problem is that the same people who want "freedom" are the same people who want to ban the burkha. Its ok for them to wear what ever they want but its not ok for someone else to have that choice as well.

peace

 

[Hugo]

For those who demand ban on burqa or niqab (as quoted texts in previous posts); would they demand a ban on sunglasses in public? Why sunglasses? British law suggests sunglasses cover the eyes and obscure identity; if burqa or niqab makes such a big identity crisis; so do sunglasses. There are many excuses from people who want a ban; the most popular one is "Islam oppresses women". They fail to realise that "oppresses" isn't a synonym of "respects". Modesty isn't nor ever was oppression; it is and always was a great symbol of respect.
"Ban schools! Education is oppression", now doesn't that sound childish? It is!

I take it you are for no ban at all on anything?

 

[Hugo]

The main problem is that the same people who want "freedom" are the same people who want to ban the burkha. Its ok for them to wear what ever they want but its not ok for someone else to have that choice as well.

Yes one sees you point so you would I take it condemn wholeheartedly those Muslim students at Aliah university in Calcutta who are trying to force women teachers to wear the burka - well done! (see post 88)

 

[أحمد]

I take it you are for no ban at all on anything?

I'm for don't ban freedom.

Yes one sees you point so you would I take it condemn wholeheartedly those Muslim students at Aliah university in Calcutta who are trying to force women teachers to wear the burka - well done! (see post 88)

Forcing anyone to do anything is wrong; whether its to remove burqa, or to wear it.

:wa:

 

[Zafran]

Yes one sees you point so you would I take it condemn wholeheartedly those Muslim students at Aliah university in Calcutta who are trying to force women teachers to wear the burka - well done! (see post 88)

where did I say that and what does some random university in india have to do with the UK and the burkha? Thats like bringing up france.

 

[Hugo]

I'm for don't ban freedom. Forcing anyone to do anything is wrong; whether its to remove burqa, or to wear it.

I think I am with you but how far will you go on this, do you have any limits? What I mean is for example, that in Muslim majority country I for example would not have the freedom to be critical of Islam or it practices such as the wearing of a burka

 

[Hugo]

where did I say that and what does some random university in india have to do with the UK and the burkha? Thats like bringing up france.

Well go and look at post 88 - I am asking you are you only demanding freedom to wear the burka but not freedom to ignore it, would you go to that University and stand up for the rights of that teachers who refuses to wear it? This is not some 'random' thing I am asking you how consistent is your outlook on freedom on dress?

 

[Zafran]

I think I am with you but how far will you go on this, do you have any limits? What I mean is for example, that in Muslim majority country I for example would not have the freedom to be critical of Islam or it practices such as the wearing of a burka

This is once again off topic - but as your wrong - I'll give you an example of Turkey. But you shouldnt also forget about denying the holocaust is some european country would also be a crime.

but lets get back to the thread of banning the burkha in Britian although I think we all agree as long its not a threat it shouldnt be banned in the UK.

 

[Zafran]

Well go and look at post 88 - I am asking you are you only demanding freedom to wear the burka but not freedom to ignore it, would you go to that University and stand up for the rights of that teachers who refuses to wear it? This is not some 'random' thing I am asking you how consistent is your outlook on freedom on dress?

Ofcourse its random - its like asking if i would go to austria and stand up for someone who would deny the holocaust? who cares I'm not indian and I'm not austrian. Another thing you have got wrong here is that "I'm demanding the right to wear the burkha" which if you actaully read my posts you would see is false and I havent said anything like that. You should actually read my posts rather then making random things up.

 

[tw009]

This was posted in the Toronto Sun...

Top 10 reasons not to ban the burka: Janes

1. It's against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I can hear people choking on their cereal right now and shouting vehemence with words like "Trudeau," "multiculturalism," "Canadian values" etc. Be that as it may, we "have" a charter and it "is" against it.

2. a) I don't believe that the prime motivator for this ban is women's rights, as some have said. Based on the comments I've read here and in many other sites it comes from a strong anti-Muslim sentiment. I think that if white Canadian women were wearing burkas we wouldn't even be having this debate. And although I'm no fan of the "slippery slope" argument, if we demonstrate that we can ban the burka then every other piece of clothing that smacks of Islam or Islamic culture is up for grabs.

b) A ban would drive both those forced to wear the burka and those who choose to (and they do exist) underground, making them even more invisible than they are now. It would also motivate some women who wouldn't normally wear a burka to wear one in protest. Where would the women's rights issue be then?

3. It is one more government intrusion into private lives and private decisions.

4. It would give a legal standing to "burka bashing" or for people to accost burka-wearing women in parks and malls and try to rip their burkas off. Do we really think anti-Muslim idiots are going to wait around for a cop if they think they have a legal right to confront burka-wearers.

5. It makes religious persecution legal.

6. It's completely unenforceable and would never survive a court challenge.

7. I don't care what Britain and France do, it would make us look like xenophobic idiots.

8. Don't even mention the driving a car thing. We've all seen so many makeup-appliers, sandwich-eaters, map-readers, texters, CD-player-fiddlers-wth, etc., not to mention the countless other just plain bad drivers, to make this a non-issue. The roads aren't exactly teeming with burka-wearing drivers.

9. It actually goes "against" Canada's traditional vales of openness, tolerance, equality, compassion, etc.

10. Women can go topless in Ontario and we want to ban a piece of cloth? Get real.

Having said all that, we should make it mandatory to remove the burka for purposes of identification. If I tell the driver's licence inspectors or the police that I refuse to wear the glasses or contacts that my licence says I must then I will lose my licence, so I have no problem with denying a licence to a woman who refuses to remove her burka for a photo. Same deal for a passport or any government document that requires photo ID. Ditto court proceedings or any institutional situation that requires a proper ID.

Otherwise, leave it alone.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/30/14880341.html

 

[titus]

Well go and look at post 88 - I am asking you are you only demanding freedom to wear the burka but not freedom to ignore it, would you go to that University and stand up for the rights of that teachers who refuses to wear it? This is not some 'random' thing I am asking you how consistent is your outlook on freedom on dress?

You are comparing apples to oranges. One is a single institution, the other is the government passing a law.

If the students in a Muslim university want to advocate what they consider to be Muslim attire then I have no problem with that. I look at that the same way I look at someone not allowing anyone to wear a hijab in their own house, or even requiring one in their own house. I think everyone should have that right.

Now if the government were to pass a law saying that people can't wear hijabs in their own houses, or requiring hijabs then I would find that objectionable (to put it mildly).