Personally, I feel that a Muslim woman in France should wear a burqa in public so that the ban can be challenged in a court of law. Offhand, I would say she can build her defense on the following points:
1. There is no evidence to prove that wearing a burqa is a threat to security.
2. There is no evidence to prove that not wearing a burqa is a guarantee of not being a threat to security.
3. Banning the burqa is an infringement on personal practice of religion.
4. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa has any impact on other people's liberty to practice their own personal choice of religion.
5. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa is the result of coercion ie there is no evidence that a woman is forced against her will to wear a burqa.
I hope that there are some brothers or sisters here who can convey this idea to our Muslim brethren in France. I am sure there must be Muslims all over the world who are prepared to contribute to a war chest to take this case to court.
In the meantime, let us all beg Allah to give our Muslim brethren in France the strength to stand up for their right to practice Islam. Ameen, ameen, ameen ya Rabbil alamin alhamduliLLahi Rabbil alamin.
Personally, I feel that a Muslim woman in France should wear a burqa in public so that the ban can be challenged in a court of law. Offhand, I would say she can build her defense on the following points:
1. There is no evidence to prove that wearing a burqa is a threat to security.
2. There is no evidence to prove that not wearing a burqa is a guarantee of not being a threat to security.
3. Banning the burqa is an infringement on personal practice of religion.
4. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa has any impact on other people's liberty to practice their own personal choice of religion.
5. There is no evidence that wearing a burqa is the result of coercion ie there is no evidence that a woman is forced against her will to wear a burqa.
While I agree with your sentiment that this ban is both a restriction of personal freedom, and utterly ludicrous, I'm afraid none of that would constitute a 'defence' for an individual. In that instance the role of the Court is solely to decide if the defendent is guilty of breaking the law as it stands, not assessing whether the law itself is reasonable. Higher Courts can sometimes assess whether a law acted as legistators intended in a particular instance, and reverse decisions if they judge it did not, but here there seems little doubt as to the politicians' intentions.
I wonder how the European Court of Human Rights might respond to this...
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
The question to me is if the law violates the constitution of France. If it is in accordance with their laws, then the citizens of France need to work towards greater religious freedom.
i don't quite believe that this is an attack on the religious freedom of muslims and if i recall this correctly, the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. as far as i know, one can still wear the hijab in public (except for in schools) and this is what is crucial in islam (correct me if i'm wrong) and not the burqa. that said, not everyone will be happy with this decision (and personally i don't mind it all that much as long as they also haven't banned women from wearing the hijab) and that is to be expected. one of the most pleasing things about a truly free society is the fact that its constituents have the ability to demonstrate in order to change legislation.
format_quote Originally Posted by Danah
Is that the "freedom" and "liberty" Western countries always bragging about?
now, now, on the whole the west is pretty good with balancing the rights of individuals with the legislation they pass so it would be somewhat wrong to pretend that people are being persecuted here. the fact is, i'd much rather live in the west where i have considerably more freedoms than i'd have in most of the middle east. all this to say, if this one instance is enough to bring into question the whole foundation of the west, then conversely, the many human rights violations within the middle east should make us far more worried about these governments than whatever the state of france has passed.
i don't quite believe that this is an attack on the religious freedom of muslims and if i recall this correctly, the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. as far as i know, one can still wear the hijab in public (except for in schools) and this is what is crucial in islam (correct me if i'm wrong) and not the burqa. that said, not everyone will be happy with this decision (and personally i don't mind it all that much as long as they also haven't banned women from wearing the hijab) and that is to be expected. one of the most pleasing things about a truly free society is the fact that its constituents have the ability to demonstrate in order to change legislation.
now, now, on the whole the west is pretty good with balancing the rights of individuals with the legislation they pass so it would be somewhat wrong to pretend that people are being persecuted here. the fact is, i'd much rather live in the west where i have considerably more freedoms than i'd have in most of the middle east. all this to say, if this one instance is enough to bring into question the whole foundation of the west, then conversely, the many human rights violations within the middle east should make us far more worried about these governments than whatever the state of france has passed.
Mate, call me crazy but the way I see it, its yet another sick move in this worldwide war against Islam. I mean ok, even though I do not agree with the banning of the niqab I do get where they are coming from. They do have a point about being able to see the face etc for security reasons. I repeat I see the point but I do not agree with it. But then the question arises why ban the burka? Do the officials needs to see body figure of the woman as well for security reasons? Banning the niqab is one thing that can be argued, but banning the burka shows what this is really about.
Oh and what on earth have minarets ever done to harm Switzerland?
i don't quite believe that this is an attack on the religious freedom of muslims
Of course it is. Hijab has been banned and now the Niqaab. Muslim women cannot practice Islam properly.
and if i recall this correctly, the french have styled this more along the lines of a security
There are only 2000 women that wear the Niqaab in France. The Niqaab itself attracts more attention rather than a disguise in western countries. So please do explain how this move to ban the Niqaab will make life safer for everyone.
now, now, on the whole the west is pretty good with balancing the rights of individuals with the legislation they pass so it would be somewhat wrong to pretend that people are being persecuted here.
The sister made a valid point. How is this ban compatible with religious freedom?
No one is claiming that Muslims are being persecuted.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Q:24:31:And say thou unto the believing women that they shall lower their sights and guard their private parts and shall not disclose their adornment except that which appeareth thereof; and they shall draw their scarves over their bosoms; and shall not disclose their adornment except unto their husbands or their fathers or their husbands fathers or their sons or their husbands sons or their brothers or their brothers sons or their sisters sons or their Women or those whom their right hands own or male followers wanting in sex desire or children not acquainted with the privy parts of women; and they Shall not strike their feet so that there be known that which they hide of their adornment. And turn penitently unto Allah ye all, O ye believers, haply ye may thrive!
Q:33:59:O prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over themselves "عَلَيۡہِنَّ " (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (59)
Abu dawood:27:4092: Chapter : How much beauty can a woman display.
Narated By 'Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin : Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.
Of course it is. Hijab has been banned and now the Niqaab. Muslim women cannot practice Islam properly.
the hijab is banned in schools (along with all other religious paraphernalia), not in public nor private (though by public we mean outside the education system). for more on this, see my latter point concerning the similarities of this practise with those of middle eastern governments.
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
There are only 2000 women that wear the Niqaab in France. The Niqaab itself attracts more attention rather than a disguise in western countries. So please do explain how this move to ban the Niqaab will make life safer for everyone.
first off, here is my quote in full: the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. the matter of the number of people who actually wear the burka isn't that big of an issue for the point could quite easily be turned around to argue that if this were truly an attack on islam they would ban the hijab completely instead of going after the small number of individuals who wear the burqa (and even the smaller number of people who wear other things which restrict one from seeing the face of the other in public--such as ski masks etc.).
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
The sister made a valid point. How is this ban compatible with religious freedom?
i would think that seeing as the french have styled this as an issue of equality and security, they would see this as taking precedence over religious freedom in a not too dissimilar fashion that most muslim states would categorize proselytizing towards muslims as a security issue (i.e. sowing discord in the land) to warrant the death penalty on the accused even if banning proselytizing means that one cannot practise christianity perfectly. if the ban on the burqa is not in keeping with religious freedom (which might very well be the case) it is far more evident that the issue of religion within predominantly muslim lands is far more pressing. yet this topic doesn't quite relate to what we are in fact discussing and was only brought up to show one facet of the logic which could lead to such a decision by the french and how this self-same logic can be seen in predominantly muslim countries. whether this is good or bad is not necessarily the question and so far we are concerned only with the similarity.
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
No one is claiming that Muslims are being persecuted.
hmm, if the following does not evoke a sense of perceived persecution than we simply have different opinions on this subject:
format_quote Originally Posted by ThisOldMan
Looks like our Muslim brethren in France have already started fighting for their right to practice Islam.
format_quote Originally Posted by Salafi1407
Mate, call me crazy but the way I see it, its yet another sick move in this worldwide war against Islam.
the question then becomes, can one attack islam without attacking muslims and if you answer yes on this then i suppose that this is all well and good but i for one would think that an attack on islam would be an attack on muslim and as such given the supposed "worldwide war against islam" one can only make the assumption which i had made. if we indeed are in agreement on this assumption than my point stands (this of course depends on whether you agree with me that an 'attack' on islam is an 'attack' on muslims).
format_quote Originally Posted by Salafi1407
Oh and what on earth have minarets ever done to harm Switzerland?
greetings salafi1407, correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think i spoke concerning minarets. if however you meant to get into a discussion on the minaret thing in switzerland then i certainly can't stop you but your sentence seemed to imply that i spoke a word concerning this issue when i did not.
Last edited by Sol Invictus; 04-12-2011 at 12:13 AM.
Well of course christians do not see it as an attack on religious practices.
Christians have long ago attacked and destroyed the practices of their own prophet Jesus (as) to the point where todays christians do not practice what Jesus (pbuh) taught and practiced.
the hijab is banned in schools (along with all other religious paraphernalia), not in public nor private (though by public we mean outside the education system).
Yes, I'm aware. It means Muslim women cannot practice Islam properly in Islam. Therefore, religious freedom in France has been "attacked" or restricted. :/
i would think that seeing as the french have styled this as an issue of equality and security, they would see this as taking precedence over religious freedom in a not too dissimilar fashion that most muslim states would categorize proselytizing towards muslims as a security issue (i.e. sowing discord in the land) to warrant the death penalty on the accused. if the ban on the burqa is not in keeping with religious freedom (which might very well be the case) it is far more evident that the issue of religion within predominantly muslim lands is far more pressing. yet this topic doesn't quite relate to what we are in fact discussing and was only brought up to show one facet of the logic which could lead to such a decision by the french and how this self-same logic can be seen in predominantly muslim countries. whether this is good or bad is not necessarily the question and so far we are concerned only with the similarity.
I'm not sure what your talking about. o_o What other Muslim countries have to do with this issue?
Whatever it is your saying, it does not change the fact that some western countries do not truly believe in their own principles, such as human rights, democracy, freedom, etc.
hmm, if the following does not evoke a sense of perceived persecution than we simply have different opinions on this subject:
Guess I was wrong.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
I'm not sure what your talking about. o_o What other Muslim countries have to do with this issue?
Whatever it is your saying, it does not change the fact that some western countries do not truly believe in their own principles, such as human rights, democracy, freedom, etc.
greetings guestfellow, i brought out the issue of muslim countries to show how similar this logic really is and that the absolutely proper practise of religion does not seem to be the primary goal of the state when it sees this to be in conflict with the security of its constituents. the fact that rarely do i see muslims take issue with the ban of people of a different faith proselytizing to muslims makes me believe that muslims largely support this and as such i have drawn an appropriate comparison between the underlying logic between these. if one agrees with the logic of predominantly muslim countries then it would be inconsistent to somehow disagree with what is happening in france. because i believe that we all like to maintain some sense of consistency, i showed how the logic of the french is the same logic that most muslims accept when the matter of proselytizing in predominantly muslim lands comes up. so once more for clarity: it is not necessarily a case of what happens in 'muslim countries' (as i had said repeatedly) but rather of trying to show the logic behind the legislations in question for the fact that if you agree with one, you cannot necessarily (and broadly speaking) disagree with the other. so all that we are interested in is the matter of consistency.
if we accept the argument from consistency then we would be forced to accept your words and apply it to the islamic practise of banning the proselytizing of muslims as a travesty of human rights etc. and while i do believe this to be the case, these are your words (rather the outcome of your logic) and not mine.
one will note that naidamar's post also had to do with the matter of consistency (i.e. that it is perfectly consistent for christians not to see this as an infringement of religion given that they supposedly do not care about the pure practise of religion in the first place). so while his post makes a series of presuppositions that would need to be defended (yet this matter is for a different thread) before he could make his point, he has at the very least provided me with a good enough example to bolster my argument.
Last edited by Sol Invictus; 04-12-2011 at 12:38 AM.
the hijab is banned in schools (along with all other religious paraphernalia), not in public nor private (though by public we mean outside the education system). for more on this, see my latter point concerning the similarities of this practise with those of middle eastern governments.
first off, here is my quote in full: the french have styled this more along the lines of a security thing where the issue in question is on the matter of quality between citizens and the fact that the individual should be allowed to see the face of those people around them. the matter of the number of people who actually wear the burka isn't that big of an issue for the point could quite easily be turned around to argue that if this were truly an attack on islam they would ban the hijab completely instead of going after the small number of individuals who wear the burqa (and even the smaller number of people who wear other things which restrict one from seeing the face of the other in public--such as ski masks etc.).
Taking away human rights for security? Besides which there is no evidence that there will be increased security with the ban.
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i would think that seeing as the french have styled this as an issue of equality and security, they would see this as taking precedence over religious freedom in a not too dissimilar fashion that most muslim states would categorize proselytizing towards muslims as a security issue (i.e. sowing discord in the land) to warrant the death penalty on the accused even if banning proselytizing means that one cannot practise christianity perfectly.
How does it encourage equality and security? and why are you comparing it with Muslim states? Are you saying taking away freedom is ok because another country does it?
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
if the ban on the burqa is not in keeping with religious freedom (which might very well be the case) it is far more evident that the issue of religion within predominantly muslim lands is far more pressing. yet this topic doesn't quite relate to what we are in fact discussing and was only brought up to show one facet of the logic which could lead to such a decision by the french and how this self-same logic can be seen in predominantly muslim countries.
Again this makes no sense. We are discussing France, not other countries. You could say North Korea has awful freedoms but that doesn't change the fact that France is supposedly a free country which has now taken away some freedoms.
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
if one agrees with the logic of predominantly muslim countries then it would be inconsistent to somehow disagree with what is happening in france. because i believe that we all like to maintain some sense of consistency, i showed how the logic of the french is the same logic that most muslims accept when the matter of proselytizing in predominantly muslim lands comes up. so once more for clarity: it is not necessarily a case of what happens in 'muslim countries' (as i had said repeatedly) but rather of trying to show the logic behind the legislations in question for the fact that if you agree with one, you cannot necessarily (and broadly speaking) disagree with the other. so all that we are interested in is the matter of consistency.
Well actually, yes you can. France is part of the EU which promotes itself as a free and democratic union with religious freedom for all. Therefore we hold it to those standards. Saudi Arabia has never said it is a democratic nation with religious freedom for every faith, so we have no reason to compare it with France.
How does it encourage equality and security? and why are you comparing it with Muslim states? Are you saying taking away freedom is ok because another country does it?
greetings dagless, please do read my post again because i specifically said that this hadn't necessarily to do with the matter of what happens in predominantly muslim countries but rather to show the similarity in logic and how this matter of the french can be understood and moreover not really be complained against if one also subscribes to the argument against proselytizing of muslims. i never in fact called the matter ok. i only recall mentioning how the french argued their position and drew a similarity with what most muslims seem to accept in the first place. the force of my argument is the issue of consistency for i only highlight that the french and muslims are functioning under the same logic and as such, one can't really criticize the other when both seem to subscribe to the same beliefs.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
Again this makes no sense. We are discussing France, not other countries. You could say North Korea has awful freedoms but that doesn't change the fact that France is supposedly a free country which has now taken away some freedoms.
the matter of the muslim countries does enter the discussion given that this is a muslim board and the discussion was moved to the question of consistency and how this ban on the niqab and burqa can be understood and more importantly discussed given what most muslims seem to agree with.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
Well actually, yes you can. France is part of the EU which promotes itself as a free and democratic union with religious freedom for all. Therefore we hold it to those standards. Saudi Arabia has never said it is a democratic nation with religious freedom for every faith, so we have no reason to compare it with France.
and this perhaps is your best point but it must first be said that i did not speak of saudi arabia and more importantly, we are speaking of human rights. if you agree with the practise of not allowing non-muslims to proselytize towards muslims then one would think that you would find some means of justifying this and certainly not claim that this is a human rights violation. if i am correct on this account, then the matter of consistency would invariably be brought up to show how, given your own beliefs, you could possibly truly decry the practise of the french. this is not too dissimilar to the atheist who would claim that there is no objective right or wrong but be quick to denounce anyone who steals from him as having committed an objective wrong against his person. once again what needs to be dealt with here is the matter of consistency. i will note that you do not actually tackle this presupposition and instead evade it. in your next post, could you speak more towards my argument based on consistency. so as a recap, this is not an issue of democracy but rather one of human rights (for a democracy need not necessarily be an exponent of a particular set of human rights etc.).
Last edited by Sol Invictus; 04-12-2011 at 01:35 AM.
Reason: typos and clarity
and this perhaps is your best point but it must first be said that i did not speak of saudi arabia and more importantly, we are speaking of human rights.
Whichever country you were speaking of, the point remains the same.
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
if you believe that the practise of not allowing non-muslims to proselytize towards muslims then one would think that you would find some means of justifying this and certainly not claim that this is not a human rights violation. if i am correct on this account, then the matter of consistency would invariably be brought up to show how, given your own beliefs, you couldn't possibly truly decry the practise of the french.
You are not correct because you are not comparing things which are alike. If the French said 'we do not believe in religious freedom' then I would have no issue with the ban. The point is you cannot say one thing and do another.
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
this is not too dissimilar to the atheist who would claim that there is no objective right or wrong but be quick to denounce anyone who steals from him as having committed an objective wrong against his person. once again what needs to be dealt with here is the matter of consistency. i will note that you do not actually tackle this presupposition and instead evade it. in your next post, could you speak more towards my argument based on consistency. so as a recap, this is not an issue of democracy but rather one of human rights (for a democracy need not necessarily be an exponent of a particular set of human rights etc.).
It is an issue of saying one thing and doing another. You also cannot compare proselytizing and wearing the veil. Wearing the veil is necessary to practice the religion - it is a requirement for everyday life. Not proselytizing does not stop you practicing your religion - it is not a requirement for life. See the difference?
Whichever country you were speaking of, the point remains the same.
greetings dagless, you seem to not have read what i had written seeing as even in the very passage of mine that you cite i claimed that this discussion was inherently centered on human rights and not primarily the practices of various countries (yet given that we are speaking of human rights it is therefore impossible not to mention the concept of countries and as such your rebuttal does not work).
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
You are not correct because you are not comparing things which are alike. If the French said 'we do not believe in religious freedom' then I would have no issue with the ban. The point is you cannot say one thing and do another.
the point comes down to whether the practise of forbidding non-muslims to proselytize muslims is islamic or not. if it is then is this a violation of human rights? if yes then this leads to our discussion concerning consistency. if no, then this once more leads to our discussion concerning consistency. either way my point is made given that whichever options you choose, your presuppositions do not allow you to objectively condemn the french ruling.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
It is an issue of saying one thing and doing another. You also cannot compare proselytizing and wearing the veil. Wearing the veil is necessary to practice the religion - it is a requirement for everyday life. Not proselytizing does not stop you practicing your religion - it is not a requirement for life. See the difference?
dagless, you have to read what it is that i'm responding to. the thread is concerned with the burqa (and the niqab). my points all rested on a discussion of the burqa (and the niqab) and as i understand it, neither the burqa nor the niqab are absolutely necessary to the practise of islam and as such your point does not work. furthermore, seeing as the matter of proselytizing was spoken of in regards to christianity, i would once again have to say that you are in error for proselytizing is a requirement of christianity and to ban the christian from engaging in this is to inhibit the full practise of his religion. so no, your point does not work.
once again, could you begin to speak of the matter of consistency within your next post?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks