Debate on banning Niqaab/Burka in Britain

[Hugo]

The people that want to ban the burkha in the UK - you do know there reasons - its not rocket science.

It seems to be you mode of working to offer nothing. Tell us what you think the reason is?

 

[espada]

Freedom ... what an overused, played out concept.

Is the following an example of freedom for young women:

Many teens attempt to improve their appearance (and acceptance) by using make-up and wearing the “right” clothes. A small number of teens seek change through cosmetic surgery. According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, more than 36,800 cosmetic surgery procedures were performed on Americans 18 and under last year.

During the teen years, peer acceptance is a very important goal. Teens that look a little different, or are perceived as “ugly” may be picked on or socially isolated. The desire for attractiveness isn’t just a teen trait. Society as a whole tends to value good looks. Sam Rizk, M.D., F.A.C.S., Facial Plastic Surgeon in New York City, says attractive people tend to do better in school and get better jobs than equally skilled people who are less attractive.

SOURCE

Seems to be that society's bogus expectations has imprisoned these young ladies into devaluing themselves to the point that they will get cut up, or be injected with toxins.

Is this really what freedom is meant to be?

Muslim women are choosing to free themselves from this subtle (but overtly pervasive) form of societal ... slavery(? - for lack of a better term) in the name of Allah.

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

I cannot quite see what you mean, the prize should go to someone who uphold Sharia in every respect as they offer a pure Islam? I assume you are speaking of Rana Hosseini and I cannot understand who you are speaking of as "she made the stuff up" - is this Hosseini or the person in chapter 10? You may be right about what these authors say but are they telling the truth or not is moot; are they inventing it? There may be other books that say how wonderful it is to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran but I don't know any - perhaps you can suggest a few titles? Another reason is that Sherin Ebardi's book would NEVER be printed and circulated freely in Iran would it - because one cannot criticize the regime, is that a good or bad thing?

Among Muslims, the name that I know best is Abdus-Salam. He was a Pakistani muslim, who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1979. However, how sad that internal squabbles within Islam (he was not the right kind of Muslim) in Pakistan prevented him from ever really getting the recognition he deserved in the Muslim world. Then there is Ahmed Zewail, a Nobel laureate in chemistry (1997), Naguib Mahfouz, a Nobel laureate in literature from Egypt (1988), Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist who has often been criticized in his home country for highlighting the genocide of the Armenians in the 1st world war period (under the Ottoman empire), Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights activist, won the Nobel Peace prize in 2003, the first Muslim woman to win, Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh and his Grameen Bank (a brilliant idea). Then then there are Muslims waiting in line like Abdus Sattar Edhi, the Mother Teresa of Pakistan.

I cannot see that any of these were unworthy can you? Who would you suggest?[/COLOR]

No not Rana Hussieni, the person in chapter 10 (who made up her whole life).

I didnt say there were "Unworthy", did I?

I clearly said there are no Muslims that talks about “positive” aspect of Muslim world. If Muslims do win noble peace and do happen to talk about Muslim world, it heavily emphasises the obvious negative aspect (Iran and Saudi Arabia). And those that do not emphasise the negative aspect happen to talk about entirely different subject.
I want to hear a Muslim winning a noble peace that heavily emphasises positive element...

The real question is:
Whether you think there is any positive element in Muslim world today or is it that the negative element far outweighs the positive huh?

 

[Zafran]

It seems to be you mode of working to offer nothing. Tell us what you think the reason is?

Hugo read the frist post on this thread an you'll see what I am basing my points on -

For many this is also an issue of protecting women's rights; the burqa they argue, is a symbol of male oppression and as one French law maker is reported to have said, women who wear them must be liberated, even against their will.

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

Thanks for the warm endorsement but please show me where I have jumped to conclusions and there is nowhere you can find where I have avoided addressing what is asked.

No problem. Read through the comparative section "What makes something good?". An example of you jumping to conclusion can be seen here on this topic, where you suggested that I felt those who stood up to minorities were shameful.

 

[marwen]

I don't think this talk will take us anywhere. The conclusion I can see is that the ban of niqab is not justifiable and is against personal/religious freedom : what's bothering them when someone wants to cover his face.
If someone has a different opinion, with reasonable arguments, or has something beneficial to say, then let him put it. Otherwise let's ask mods/admins to close this thread.

 

[Muslimeen]

One reason why women should wear the Niqaab.

View attachment 4127

 

[Hugo]

The real question is: Whether you think there is any positive element in Muslim world today or is it that the negative element far outweighs the positive huh?

This is a question worthy of debate but before I say anything, are you of the opinion that everything in the Muslim world is positive?
I will begin by saying that I have spent a lot of my working life with Muslim students from right across the world and in all that time I have only found one who was inhospitable and almost every day Muslim friends from across the world call into see me or contact me in many other ways. So when I visit them (usually accompanied by my wife) they are unstinting in their efforts to ensure we are looked after and honoured as well as appreciated for our faith.

So there are innumerable positive elements in the Muslim world and that is undoubted in my experience. But like everywhere, there are negative elements and just as everyday you can read about some nasty person in London you can read about similar or worse incidents in Lahore. For example, you may have read about two brothers; Rashid Emmanuel and Sajid Emmanuel who were killed at 2pm on 19 July as police were transporting them to jail on a charge of blasphemy which the police said was untrue and they were to be released.

I suppose what I am saying is that hatred and the violence that often goes with it must be absolutely deplored and fought against wherever it occurs if for nothing else than in the name of humanity. One does not have to be religious in any way to know oppression in any form is unacceptable and more so when someone claims they are doing it in God's name. This is not new of course and right through history those who are believers in any faith have been oppressed and then sadly when they themselves gain the ascendency go on to oppress others.

To sum up, we are creatures of faith and reason and we only interfere with faith when it is proportional to how it affects the liberty of others. Rights are a good thing and in England there began a rational articulation in the 17th century in a new way that did not rely on authority from an unseen God. The question was how can people with strongly conflicting religious beliefs live peaceably together - so people stopped saying religious believe is supremely important therefore everyone should have MY faith. Instead they said that everyone should have the right to the faith that they in conscience believe - do you agree with that idea and see how it might impact the banning question?

 

[Hugo]

No problem. Read through the comparative section "What makes something good?". An example of you jumping to conclusion can be seen here on this topic, where you suggested that I felt those who stood up to minorities were shameful.

Sorry to be troublesome but can you say exactly which post number you are speaking about as this sound a very odd think to say?

 

[Zafran]

Its best that we all stiick to the topic of burkha and niqab in the UK rather then going off in random tangents and asking and answering random questions which have little to do with this thread.

 

[Hugo]

I don't think this talk will take us anywhere. The conclusion I can see is that the ban of niqab is not justifiable and is against personal/religious freedom : what's bothering them when someone wants to cover his face. If someone has a different opinion, with reasonable arguments, or has something beneficial to say, then let him put it. Otherwise let's ask mods/admins to close this thread.

One has to accept that sometimes discussions just end with no positive result and that as Socrates pointed out 3,000 years ago, has the effect of showing that some perceived opinion was untenable and the truth difficult to ascertain. One might note it has taken centuries to persuade even the most enlightened peoples that the liberty to publish one's opinions and discuss them is a good and not a bad thing. The trouble in a way with debate is that it can cast doubt on established beliefs and institutions and for some this may seem evil because it is disagreeable and the person who questions an accepted principle or dogma is seen as a pestilential, impious person who challenges the wrath of some supernatural power.

This perhaps is why this question we have to grapple with, is authority, in this case a claimed God one or our rational powers. In the first case we have not means of verification and in the second case we are only justified if the facts are capable of demonstration or verification. So reason cannot recognize arbitrary prohibitions or barriers without being untrue to itself and cannot surrender those rights - this we usually call rationalism. Any number of propositions can be invented which cannot be disproved and its is open to anyone who posses faith to believe them but no one can maintain they deserve credence so long as their falsehood is not demonstrated.

Now looking through this thread the argument is that the burka should be worn as a sign of piety and submission and indeed if one interprets the Qu'ranic verses presented here that was a command by God made in eternity. But of course this is not a rational argument because it is incapable of falsification. Some have argued there is no principle involved and this is only about the burka but to say that is to ignore that the substance of the argument is that it a religious practice and a duty commanded by God. In that sense from an argument point of view it is no different that a Shia saying that self-mutilation is a religious duty or any other religious practice which relies on you appealing to an unseen deity. No rational government anywhere would accept this general argument because to do so implies they accept an unseen, unknown and unverifiable God's authority.

The only viable argument is one related to freedom on conscience not religious freedom as such. Once there one can consider the practice just as you would look at any practice from football to gardening and ask is it harmful, is it likely to cause offence, is it oppressive and so on and based on that come to a conclusion. If anyone does this for the burka question the range of opinion might be from it being a harmless piece of silly nonsense to a beautiful expression of devotion to being utterly oppressive to women.

 

[Zafran]

the bottom line is that a country that believes in freedom of expression and at the same time wants to ban the burkha - creates many problems - Even the people that call the burkha oppressive - have to realy ask the question will banning the burkha stop the oppression to women? Just banning the cloth wont solve any problems. Taking away rights from people wont help either the banner of "freedom of expression" that the UK likes to chuck around.

 

[S_87]

i dont say a thing to those women, in the UK if they wanna wear it thats non of my business. am i calling for that to be stopped?
ask an average english non muslim person how comfortable THEY would feel if they were waiting to pick up their kids in school and another parent or even teacher was dressed in a mini skirt thats like a headband and a boob tube. its their freedom right?
i honestly dont CARE what other people around me are wearing so why do so many people care what im wearing?

you cant compare what countries like saudi do to uk rules

 

[Hugo]

the bottom line is that a country that believes in freedom of expression and at the same time wants to ban the burkha - creates many problems - Even the people that call the burkha oppressive - have to realy ask the question will banning the burkha stop the oppression to women? Just banning the cloth wont solve any problems. Taking away rights from people wont help either the banner of "freedom of expression" that the UK likes to chuck around.

I cannot quite make out what you are saying here. Are you arguing that Muslim Woman are oppressed and banning the Burka will not change that? Of course we are free to express who we are in the UK but freedom is not the same as licence is it so one would not allow everything. The question is perhaps how far can any one go in curtailing the rights of others and there is NOTHING wrong with debating that whether its about Burka or Bikinis.

 

[جوري]

the bottom line is that a country that believes in freedom of expression and at the same time wants to ban the burkha - creates many problems - Even the people that call the burkha oppressive - have to realy ask the question will banning the burkha stop the oppression to women? Just banning the cloth wont solve any problems. Taking away rights from people wont help either the banner of "freedom of expression" that the UK likes to chuck around.

I cannot quite make out what you are saying here. Are you arguing that Muslim Woman are oppressed and banning the Burka will not change that? Of course we are free to express who we are in the UK but freedom is not the same as licence is it so one would not allow everything. The question is perhaps how far can any one go in curtailing the rights of others and there is NOTHING wrong with debating that whether its about Burka or Bikinis.

How did you draw such a conclusion from his post-- I notice you have difficulty with what most members here write, you can never 'quite make out what they are saying' - Do you think if you keep having this problem with multiple members that there might be something wrong with the way you process information? Perhaps you can define for us what 'freedom' entails per UK understanding and what it excludes.. the rest of us have simply concluded that if you have a right to take off your clothes you by the same token have the right to put them on unquestioned!
it isn't a topic for law makers who know absolutely nothing of Islam or Muslims save by way of orientalism to ponder what is oppressive .. you can't ponder the lives of others with a linear mindset as it often leads to the wrong conclusions!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Surah Al-Ahzaab, Verse #59 ‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks ("Jalabib") veils all over their bodies (screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way Tafseer Al-Qurtabi) that is most convenient that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful."

Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31
‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)

Thank you for this but both verses contain interpolations and I think we need to see what the Qu'ran alone says. Q33:59 says nothing about the eyes for example and it sounds almost like a parody to talk about covering up and using just one eye. The verse is oddly placed between admonitions about being led astray and so to me seems out of any context. For Q24:30-32 again we have nothing about covering the eye but simply to avoid temptation though this time set within a suitable context. The part about stamping the feet seems to be extracted from Isaiah 3:16 and 18 although I would say that is a figurative not literal.

Looking at the Hadith one wonders how far one is to take them as guides and how much as interpretations. For example, I doubt anyone would 'cut waist sheets ...'. Else where it seems about covering everything though other time it just seems to imply just the face. There are also some odd lines such as the one that say "Only with a complete covering ... can a women NOT be recognised" well of course that must be true but this feels uncomfortable with what the Qu'ran implies where it suggest that dressing appropriately allows you to recognise them as pious if nothing else though how that can in general be true I cannot say. One wonders what to make of a Woman in paradise looking down and their veils being better than the whole world though how any one could know this I have no idea. I note also we have that prayers are not accepted unless a veil is worn but can anyone say where the Qu'ran might support that?

Well, the Qu'ran seem clear that dressing modestly is enjoined but it also does seem to me that the hadith takes a much harder line almost in my view to the point of absurdity. So my question is can this be re-interpreted or not and can a hadith be regarded as overriding the Qu'ran.

 

[جوري]

Thank you for this but both verses contain interpolations and I think we need to see what the Qu'ran alone says. Q33:59 says nothing about the eyes for example and it sounds almost like a parody to talk about covering up and using just one eye. The verse is oddly placed between admonitions about being led astray and so to me seems out of any context. For Q24:30-32 again we have nothing about covering the eye but simply to avoid temptation though this time set within a suitable context. The part about stamping the feet seems to be extracted from Isaiah 3:16 and 18 although I would say that is a figurative not literal.

What is this about 'covering one eye'? why is this injected here? further 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?
How the verses are placed are a divine wisdom, you have difficulty understanding basic statement by lay folks, so understandably you'd have a very difficult time understanding divine verse.. you are in fact very well suited for the bible, simple things for simpletons!

Looking at the Hadith one wonders how far one is to take them as guides and how much as interpretations. For example, I doubt anyone would 'cut waist sheets ...' and cover everything though else where it seem to imply just the face. There are also some odd lines such as the one that say "Only with a complete covering ... can a women NOT be recognised" well of course that must be true but this feels uncomfortable with what the Qu'ran implies where it suggest that dressing appropriately allows you to recognise them as pious if nothing else though how that can in general be true I cannot say. One wonders what to make of Woman in paradise looking down and their veils being better than the whole world though how any one could know this I have no idea. I note also we have that prayers are not accepted unless a veil is worn but can anyone say where the Qu'ran might support that?

Dr. Zaheer sums it best:

The Qur’an clearly alludes to this fact and ii) The fact that the entire Muslim ummah unanimously follows a set of religious practices which are not clearly mentioned in the Qur’an can only be explained by thefact that the prophet, alaihissalam, himself gave such practices to the entire ummah. Hadith literature was compiled, by and large, in the third century hijrah. Of course, these practices predate the compilation of hadith literature.

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.

We, therefore, cannot properly understand the Qur’an without acknowledging the sunnah, which is different from hadith. The verses that require Muslims to follow the book of Allah therefore include the need to follow the sunnah as well.

Well, the Qu'ran seem clear that dressing modestly is enjoined but it also does seem to me that the hadith takes a much harder line almost in my view to the point of absurdity. So my question is can this be re-interpreted or not and can a hadith be regarded as overriding the Qu'ran.

See above response -- of course you consider things absurd.. what creed do you follow? you worship a man who died and then come and speak to us of absurdity?

 

[Hugo]

it isn't a topic for law makers who know absolutely nothing of Islam or Muslims save by way of orientalism to ponder what is oppressive .. you can't ponder the lives of others with a linear mindset as it often leads to the wrong conclusions!

It may be true that what you believe is not a topic for law makers and that will apply to any religion. However, its practise may rightly be considered by anyone since its effects might be of public concern. It cannot have escaped even you that there are some who will gladly kill others and claim they are doing it for God, Muslims from the Sudan consider Genital mutilation a God given injunction, Hindu's regard cows as sacred and so on. Islam is just a beliefs system and rests entirely on the rationally precarious foundations common to all faiths who speak of an unseen God whose authority cannot be questions.

In terms of freedom the problem you have and indeed many who are uncritical believers is that any novel opinion is felt to be dangerous as well as annoying, and any one who asks an inconvenient question about the why and wherefore of accepted principles is labelled pestilential, a liar and a hater of what is good. This is not new and we can find examples from everywhere and every religion where one is persecuted and even killed because they will not accept a particular dogma because its 'priests' are alarmed and enraged when their power to interpret the supposed divine is menaced.

It is simple really and freedom is in a sense built on it and it is that we are justified only under one condition - the facts which we can safely accept must be capable of demonstration or verification. So I can verify that Calcutta exists but no one can verify as one Hadith quoted in this thread says "that the women of paradise cover their faces and fill the whole earth with light and perfume". Now of course you can believe that and I would in general only feel concern if you try to cast me as a heretic or worse because I don't. This is the rational light that we must see the burka question.

 

[جوري]

It may be true that what you believe is not a topic for law makers and that will apply to any religion. However, its practise may rightly be considered by anyone since its effects might be of public concern. It cannot have escaped even you that there are some who will gladly kill others and claim they are doing it for God, Muslims from the Sudan consider Genital mutilation a God given injunction, Hindu's regard cows as sacred and so on. Islam is just a beliefs system and rests entirely on the rationally precarious foundations common to all faiths who speak of an unseen God whose authority cannot be questions.

I have no idea what this drivel means or how it relates to the topic? Genital mutilation goes back to tsarist Russia in fact I have posted a scientific article from uptodate on the matter here, either way I don't see how it relates to the topic?.. freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. There is nothing precarious about Islamic practices, I think you confuse your dark ages of Christianity to be interchangeable with other ideologies or religions which is clearly not the case since history paints a different picture than that which your understanding affords you!

In terms of freedom the problem you have and indeed many who are uncritical believers is that any novel opinion is felt to be dangerous as well as annoying, and any one who asks an inconvenient question about the why and wherefore of accepted principles is labelled pestilential, a liar and a hater of what is good. This is not new and we can find examples from everywhere and every religion where one is persecuted and even killed because they will not accept a particular dogma because its 'priests' are alarmed and enraged when their power to interpret the supposed divine is menaced.

The problem isn't whether an explanation is offered you, and if has its foundation in sound principles.. the problem is your desire to render your own interpretation which can only be made akin to a quack offering his unsound and un-researched opinion on institutional research and when patience and details are explained in full still reverts to his own beliefs and tantrums as if this mindset is the not only the most knowledgeable but should be made acceptable to the whole..Delusions and personal persuasions have no room in Islamic practices, again, I understand these to be acceptable in Christianity but none of your practices nor your book is ordained by God, so you can't impose what is appropriate for you to other complete and sound systems!

It is simple really and freedom is in a sense built on it and it is that we are justified only under one condition - the facts which we can safely accept must be capable of demonstration or verification. So I can verify that Calcutta exists but no one can verify as one Hadith quoted in this thread says "that the women of paradise cover their faces and fill the whole earth with light and perfume". Now of course you can believe that and I would in general only feel concern if you try to cast me as a heretic or worse because I don't. This is the rational light that we must see the burka question.

The end result of where a Muslim woman ends up for covering or not covering isn't the issue, at least it isn't the issue that is subject to your whimsy. What is however is the principle.. the same principle of freedom that enables strip bars and lap dances of the naked and diseased to spread around their STDs and moral debauchery under the guise of freedom, should like wise render the same freedom to those standing on the chaste end of the spectrum!

by the way we are still waiting for you to show us how Islam has extracted from Isiah..

all the best

 

[Zafran]

I cannot quite make out what you are saying here. Are you arguing that Muslim Woman are oppressed and banning the Burka will not change that? Of course we are free to express who we are in the UK but freedom is not the same as licence is it so one would not allow everything. The question is perhaps how far can any one go in curtailing the rights of others and there is NOTHING wrong with debating that whether its about Burka or Bikinis.

what I said was very clear - tell me specifically what you didnt understand from my post? Quote it.

the bottom line is that a country that believes in freedom of expression and at the same time wants to ban the burkha - creates many problems - Even the people that call the burkha oppressive - have to realy ask the question will banning the burkha stop the oppression to women? Just banning the cloth wont solve any problems. Taking away rights from people wont help either the banner of "freedom of expression" that the UK likes to chuck around.

I'll also like to remind you that this thread is about the burkha and as one of the posters said before if anyone has a sound argumnet against it then lets hear it. So far there is none.