first woman to be jailed for wearing banned Islamic veil

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Will she leave the room and find a secluded area out of everyone's way to pray? Will she pray silently so nobody notices? Or will she kneel down in the middle of the classroom and pray loudly, making it difficulty for other students to focus on the lesson? As I noted above, it depends very much on if she is imposing herself on others. I think she could do this with no imposition whatsoever. I have no problem with her going to pray. She'll have to face the result of her missing part of the lesson though. We're not going to start it over when she returns or give her free tutoring to catch her up. Perhaps she won't even have to worry about that though, because we'll probably have the whole class wanting some breaks. Some will go to the washroom. Some will go for a smoke or a bite to eat. She can go pray. Nobody needs to be imposed on.

No she or he would go to a different room to pray specifically the prayer room, this isn't just about a muslim it's about all individuals who have a religious belief, it's a prayer room for all faiths.
The most it'll take is around 5-10 minutes, depending on the individual. And yes, if a prayer is during a class then one go at that moment or later on if the class is really important, in that case it would perhaps be one being flexible, but honestly during my time i've never missed out on anything important. If it was really important the teacher would inform us so i'd go after i had it explained and had it noted down. That way I didn't miss anything in class nor did I miss my prayer.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

He isn't supposed to, but that doesn't mean he won't. Nor does it mean others can't dress up like Sikhs so they can carry knives where they shouldn't. And who is to say that I want to carry my hunting knife while walking down the street for anything other than self defence? We have laws against carrying weapons. I am restricted by those laws, and the Sikh should be too.

Well, he is suppose to in his belief, if the state of 'ontaria' has allowed him to do so, i'm sure they have their reasoning or explanation. But if we looked at in a general view point, let's say he lives in a town where their's a load of crime, where he feels it's a must, i'm sure he then would, and so would any other individual regardless of faith. It's you who would end up in trouble if your intention of carrying the knife was to cause trouble, you'd be accountable for it, irregardless of being a sikh or not, you'd be accountable and not the sikh faith itself, because their clear purpose is 'self defence' and not causing harm or danger to another. It can be based on the individual's intention..but if was safe where he lives i'm sure we'd all agree he wouldn't have a need to carry a dagger around. But I can suggest that other ways of 'self defence' be considered.

It's like some so called muslims who label themselves muslims but do not act upon their name, but rather the opposite and so on with few other faiths, situations etc etc. As mentioned before a wrong is a wrong regardless of faith..whether he be a muslim or non-muslim..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You are not infringing on her rights by saying she must abide by the same rules as everybody else. I'm ok with the security check idea, but maybe she should pay a fee for it? That female worker has to be there, has to take time away from whatever she was doing, and has to take the muslima to another room so the check can be done. She also likely needs a little cultural training in how to best do this. In a community with a lot of muslim women in burkas, this may make economic sense for the bank to do as a courtesy, to bring in more of these women as customers. But that won't always be the case.

You are infringing her religious rights, she has the right to dress how she wills? A fee for showing your face? How will a fee benefit the security guys when they get paid already for doing their job? or the company? What if she is normal citizen like any other and isn't a supposed 'hidden terrorist' once the full check ups are done? If that really is that case, then perhaps the muslims should ask the gov to pay them a fee, for the body scanners which show every part of you? for infringing their rights and because none of em were actually terrorists? Even though they weren't wearing a face veil, just based on the hijaab and a beard perhaps or even the word 'muslim'? lol

If it's under the veil what you want to see, then that wouldn't take a load of time, but like i said, if she's willing to cooperate, security people do also..
she wouldn't need 'cultural' training if all she needs to do is see the womens face and well the law already promotes religious rights, or I'm i missing something? And plus it's the duty of the worker to ensure the customer is well served, is it not? no matter how much time it may take. At times it can take time to deal with customers, this isn't based on only wearing the face veil..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

No need to walk on eggshells around me. Speak your mind freely, and I won't take any offence. You are not calling me racist or threatening to ban me for disagreeing with you like the other guy was

Well, i don't have the power to ban you nor am I walking on egg shells :\

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

The ski mask is just an example of a non-religious mask. You can substitute a surgical mask, a motorcycle helmet with visor, or any number of other face coverings. The point is the special pleading based on religious belief, not the statistical likelihood of somebody robbing a bank and what they were wearing. I don't think anybody has ever robbed a bank wearing a jack-o-lantern on their head, but that'd be another example (lol what an image!)

People wear different things for different reasons, whether health, religion, disability and so on. It should be a case-by-case issue, rather than a blanket rule which simply doesn't work. The Burqa is recognised as being a requirement for Muslim dress and in most cases there is no security risk. So how is this forcing an 'imposition' on anyone? Nobody is being asked to go out of their way. Other face coverings would have to be assessed for need and purpose, and they too could receive their own rule. If there was an epidemic of disease, it would be normal for people to walk in with surgical masks, as might already happen in some parts of the world.

No, but they are self imposed. People choose to be muslims. Nobody chooses to be in a wheelchair.

This is irrelevant to whether or not people should accommodate or tolerate them. In both cases there is a need albeit for different reasons.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

This is irrelevant to whether or not people should accommodate or tolerate them. In both cases there is a need albeit for different reasons.

Here we disagree. I find it not only relevant but very important why they are demanding special treatment. If it is self imposed, they should pay for it themselves if possible. Any thoughts on the new cases I noted?

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Here we disagree. I find it not only relevant but very important why they are demanding special treatment. If it is self imposed, they should pay for it themselves if possible. Any thoughts on the new cases I noted?

But what is there to pay for in this scenario? All that Muslimahs are asking is to be left alone, there is hardly much special treatment being 'demanded'.

I'll have a closer look at the scenarios tomorrow Insha'Allaah.

Greetings of peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

And I would assume also for atheists do to silent non-religious meditation in as well? I'd have no problem with that if there was enough people using it to justify the expense.

AsSalaah is at fixed times, reasons to why we pray at certain times, although there are optional prayers which could be prayed whenever, though as I mentioned if the lesson has something important one will miss out on, one should stay to have it explained and noted down and then leave. Non-religious meditation if fixed on certain times, then do so, but again it's not something your obliged to do during class time, it can be done whenever.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Exactly. And holding a particular world view doesn't make something right for person A, when it is wrong for person B.

It is wrong if it is acted upon, What if person A cooperates for the security of person B,C,D,E, etc etc? Because they realize the seriousness of circumstances..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Her right to dress how she wills ends where my rights and the rights of other people she imposes that on outweigh that right. This applies to all of the cases I have presented in one way or another. If there is a legitimate identity or security risk that we are taking because of her choice to cover her face then we have a problem.

Then i'd see sisters not attending those banks..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

If she causes the risky situation then she should pay for it. Or she could find another bank to go to that has enough demand for this service that they feel it pays to go out of their way to do it on their expense to bring her and the others in as customers.

Inshaa'Allaah there will be a bank as such near her, not now, perhaps in the near future..God willingly..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You are very polite and courteous. I don't think I'd ever have a problem with anything you may say.

I'll admit i was joking in the last line of my previous post. However, you are free to hold your views, and so am I, and everyone else. And hopefully we can respect one another regardless of disagreements..

and peace with you!..

Greetings Pygoscelis,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

If you are referring to the OP then I agree. Same goes for the gay marriage case. Only tolerance is needed and it should not be a problem for anybody. Some of the other cases above are different though and imposition is being sought.

Muslim women wearing veils cannot be grouped in the same category as gay marriages. On the surface of it, it may seem that both are not affecting anybody else and should be left alone to do as they wish. However, gay marriages do have an effect on society and connote something totally different than the veil. Dealing with the latter point first, a woman covering herself is something that is recogised with modesty and virtue, even if people today don't practice it. I am sure there are biblical references that can be used as support, most notably the image of the virgin Mary and the extant practice of nuns. And we don't have to go back very far to note that many women in the west would cover their hair before leaving the house, and would wear much looser and longer clothing than is fashionable today. In contrast, homosexuality has been regarded a criminal act by all faiths until very recently, which is why Muslim leaders are not the only ones standing against it. It clearly goes against the natural disposition upon which God created mankind. The second point is that homosexual marriages harm society as if increasing numbers of men were to do this, increasing numbers of women would not be able to marry and procreate in the natural way. The following is a good summary of the problems caused by homosexuality:

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Homosexuality - including both gays and lesbians - is seen as a perversion of the natural order which God has instituted for humanity. It is in conflict with the nature of humanity, as a creation that procreates. Hence, it is wrong from a natural perspective. Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective. Homosexuality negates the basic block of society, a family, thus it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father. Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.

On the other hand, the Burqa/veil is actually protective to society as it protects marital bonds and helps prevent family breakdown by extramarital relationships and teenage pregnancies leading to single parents and abortions etc.

I hope it is clearer why these two issues cannot be regarded as one and the same.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

That seems to me like blaming the victim. You could use the same line of thought to say that women shouldn't wear miniskirts because it may incite men to rape them, or that women shouldn't wear burkas because there are bigoted islamophobes who may attack them.

Hi,

No, I'm not blaming the victim. The point was to be realistic. It is likely for a naked person on the streets to be treated inappropriately. That is all. This is what I mean by policies to be practicable.

I would actually enjoy watching a discussion between a nudist woman and a burka clad muslim woman,

I'm sure you would.

I don't think the distinction is all that important actually. I think the principle of equality trumps it. If we make it acceptable for people to wear burkas into security sensitive areas then that also opens up a Trojan horse, in that people knowing this who do mean to do wrong and are not even muslim or perhaps not even female may exploit it and dress up like muslim women in burkas to go unseen. As for the ski mask guy, there could be reasons. He could be disfigured, it could be very cold out, etc.

I think it is important because it is about intention. Muslim women wear the Niqaab to please Allah. It is likely the person wearing the Niqaab is a Muslim women. However, it is difficult to understand why a person is wearing a ski mask. Keep in mind, I'm not saying people should not wear ski masks. In security sensitive areas, they should be removed for identification purposes. Besides, the example you presented is unrealistic. I don't know many people that wear ski masks due to being very cold.

The question then is who is paying for these checks and who is being inconvenienced by them. And you'd also have the issue of the discomfort in people being around masked people and them wondering how good the checks are and if they are actually being done, etc.

I'm sure it is not as expensive as arresting women that wear the Niqaab and putting them on trial. I dislike people bringing their dogs too close to me, but I have to deal with it.

Well sure, if people can carry guns they should be allowed to carry knives. That isn't why I fit this example in here. I put in this example because in Ontario Sikhs can carry these knives on the street and the rest of us can NOT carry around guns or knives of that size. A special exception is being made based on the Sikh having Sikh beliefs, putting the public at risk, and I oppose that.

The exception existed because it is presumed that Sikhs will not be using the Kirpan in an inappropriate manner. Again, intention needs to be considered. A Sikh views the Kirpan as a religious symbol and is unlikely to use it inappropriately. However, why would any other person carry a knife? :/ Is it for self-defence or to harm someone? Either way, it does not matter, since using a knife is fatal. Another way to resolve this is to have a licence for Sikhs to carry the Kirpan.

We need to consider why they are doing it and if there are easy alternatives to it, and what risks or imposition it puts on the rest of us. If there are freely available and equally efficient electronic devices that can accomplish the same thing, then I'd say no to the blind having dogs where the rest of us are not allowed dogs.

I still would not mind a blind person having dogs, unless if it is too close to me. There is a good reason why blind people have dogs and doubt there are electronic alternatives...

So you personally find homosexuality repugnant I gather, but would you have voted for North Carolina's recent law that officially defines marriage as only "between men and women"? That law actually says "one man and one woman" but I changed it here because I realize Islam allows for poligamy. Laws like that are explicitly aimed at denying homosexuals the same rights the rest of us have. I fully expect our grand children to look back in dismay on this and wonder how we could have thought such a way, the same way we look back on bans of inter racial marriage (or black slavery for that matter) today. I have been to a few weddings of homosexual friends of mine and I'll admit I initially found it a bit awkward seeing two men up there. But in the end the ceremony was beautiful and the love could be felt all around. A tear came to my eye when the vows had been exchanged and they kissed and led us all to start dancing.

I don't vote...no one is going to listen to me anyway. I actually find any sexual acts outside of marriage repugnant. I don't have a personal grudge against homosexuals. I know many homosexuals and I treat them like any other person.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You think you have legitimate reasons. I see those "reasons" as pure religiously motivated bigotry. We'll have to leave it at that and move on so not to derail the thread.

How rude.

You've been on this forum for 6 years and still you fail to see the beautiful-ness and modest-ness of Islaam.

Truly Allah guide whom He wills.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You think you have legitimate reasons. I see those "reasons" as pure religiously motivated bigotry. We'll have to leave it at that and move on so not to derail the thread.

It isn't purely religiously motivated because common moral values also play a role. And some of it is simple fact, such as the effect on society. If you wish to leave it at this, that's fine.

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

i started out pro burka but not really feeling it much... most of the argument in this thread has been nonsense though.

i mean i know its arabic dress and practical in arbia

but these are western muslims, give me the pinned scarfy any day.


not that im looking.


i dont even know the religious basis for full covering of the face.

The issue of Burqa and Niqab is not simply a matter of Arabic dress. With respect to the niqab, scholars agree that as a minimum it is recommended. Some go further to say it is obligatory. But to the best of my knowledge, no authority said Niqab has nothing to do with Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

The issue of Burqa and Niqab is not simply a matter of Arabic dress. With respect to the niqab, scholars agree that as a minimum it is recommended. Some go further to say it is obligatory. But to the best of my knowledge, no authority said Niqab has nothing to do with Islam.

it would seem the quran has been less descriptive than the authorities.

edit


...if you give people the rope, the least they can do is hang themselves.


be aware that the way people dress has probably differed in parts throughout the ages.


if the way you looked and dressed made you a muslim then everything would be perfect.
it does not.

people either look to the events they cause or the events they live through.
depends on who comes first in your life.

i feel bad for the women.

but i know through common sense that if i ever had to find a middle path or safe path. then i would bend.. not break

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

it would seem the quran has been less descriptive than the authorities.

The problem here is not with authorities, or scholars in Islam. It is with lay Muslims who do not understand how rulings are derived in Islam. For instance, hadeeth are also a source of Islamic law and are to be taken hand-in-hand with the Qur'an. If you don't agree with this, then we should not be discussing about Niqab but rather need to first establish the authority of the Sunnah.

be aware that the way people dress has probably differed in parts throughout the ages.

It was the practice of all Muslim women throughout the history of Islam to cover their face from non-mahram men. It is only within the last hundred years where this practice has no longer been followed as widely as it was.

if the way you looked and dressed made you a muslim then everything would be perfect.
it does not.

Of course, nobody is claiming this. But it doesn't alter the fact that we have to follow Islam in all aspects of life, whether it is how to pray, how to interact with other people and how to dress.

I did not understand the point you were making in the other parts of your post.

Wassalaamu Alaykum.