your view on muslim's veil/hijab

Funny you're the one talking about derailing when you are the one who isn't reading. I'm not wrong... And Masa's not wrong. He just said he didn't mean it the way it was worded. You want to stop being rude? Enough already.
 
Zyndara said:
Then it was poor word choice. And then yes, I agree with you, a woman is obviously safer who is decently clothed. The question is though about full covering. They are two pretty far extremes. I think having every inch of skin covered is excessive. But I do agree with the point made about the difference in cultures. What is a little bit of skin here is probably scandalous in other countries around the world. Again I think it comes down to these women. If they choose it, so be it. I don't think there should be a law governing that choice either way.

*Regarding your last post, I was typing this while you were typing that. :)
Click to expand...

Like I said, personally I dislike Bur'Qa. The Koran itself does not say a person have to wear one. It's people who made the rules, and those who want to adhere to those rules are free to choose, however, there shouldn't be a law requiring what a person to wear and not to wear and I agree with you on that too. What happened in UK was, the teacher got sacked for wearing a Bur'Qa. It's just as equal as saying, you got sacked from work because you wore a skirt no?
 
Zyndara said:
Funny you're the one talking about derailing when you are the one who isn't reading. I'm not wrong... Masa's not wrong. It's called an opinion. Enough already.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an opinion, it was a misinterpretation, but w/e.

And what do derailing have to do with not reading?:nono: and I never said neither of you were wrong. I'm agreeing with Masa.

Either way, a government banning a religion is wrong. Banning part of a religion is wrong, too.
 
masamura said:
Like I said, personally I dislike Bur'Qa. The Koran itself does not say a person have to wear one. It's people who made the rules, and those who want to adhere to those rules are free to choose, however, there shouldn't be a law requiring what a person to wear and not to wear and I agree with you on that too. What happened in UK was, the teacher got sacked for wearing a Bur'Qa. It's just as equal as saying, you got sacked from work because you wore a skirt no?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is definitely messed up. I mean, if the wearing of a burqa didn't interfere with the requirements of the job, then that's just wrong. If the students couldn't hear the teacher or something of that nature, you'd think some kind of accomodation could be made or something. I'll be very interested to read some more into the legislation they are trying to pass.
 
Thank you Masa, that was exactly the information I was looking for. I do agree that the veil creates a literal barrier. And I could understand the frustration of a child who maybe doesn't understand what the burqa means or why it is important to this teacher. It makes me kind of sad because it seems like an opportunity to teach a lesson in cultural/ethnic diversity is being lost here. It says in the article that none of the students had ever complained, but it also said the following though:

"Kirklees Council earlier said that Ms Azmi had been asked to take off her veil in class because children had difficulty understanding her in English lessons.

When she refused to remove the veil, she was suspended pending an employment tribunal."

So it makes me kind of wonder if the fuss is being made by the students or the teachers. If the burqa is hindering the children's ability to learn, then I can see why she would be asked to remove it or face dismissal, as she wouldn't be doing her job properly. But if the students aren't the ones making the complaints and it's some kind of weird political crusade, then that's kind of screwed up. I think this politician is really kind of flying off the handle, to be honest.
 
i personally don't like the veil thingy

but i heard somewhere women should be judged on their personality rather then looks so thats a reason why they wear it.
 
Not sure if its been mentioned yet but there are certain restrictions for men just not as noticeable

Ie no gold or silk only women can wear gold

Those who wear it in this life shall not wear it in the afterlife

Also these views really come from people on the outside looking in...

Banning something part of our religion? I know its not an attack on Islam by banning the hijab but mind your own damn busisness...if its discrimination then the action should be taken on the hater not the flock. As Uzor said well taking away signs of something doesnt get rid of the person who represents what the signs mean

Have our sisters(muslim women) complained of it over the decades?

This above is my initial thought and reaction will read the rest later and post more
 
Last edited:
Khidir said:
Not sure if its been mentioned yet but there are certain restrictions for men just not as noticeable

Ie no gold or silk only women can wear gold

Those who wear it in this life shall not wear it in the afterlife

Also these views really come from people on the outside looking in...

Have our sisters(muslim women) complained of it over the decades?

This above is my initial thought and reaction will read the rest later and post more
Click to expand...

Actually.. yes. They complain about wearing it. It's just that most of the time, it either goes into a deaf ear or most of the time Muslim women will get this in response:

"It's a must to wear! You DO NOT argue with the rules."

Also most of the time, it's also because of peer pressure so that's why they wear it. Over here, Muslim girls who fail to wear hijab is usually mocked and ridiculed by their own gender...

As for restriction on men, please go to: http://www.noorhidayatnoordin.com/2006/08/16/the-real-islam/
 
Uzor said:
Problem with this is that following religious rules isn't against the country's rules, as pretty much every country have a rule that allows free religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
France ban all religious beliefs in schools,
if you do not like the rules of england get back to your own frekin country
 
delsus said:
France ban all religious beliefs in schools,
if you do not like the rules of england <b>get back to your own frekin</b> country
Click to expand...

And BAM! The one thing that I've been waiting to hear.. that dreaded word. And you call yourself people of freedom? HAHA. Someone educate this person about freedom please...
 
It's kind of hard to describe wearing that getup as the woman's choice when they really don't have much of a choice if they want to get along in the hardcore Muslim areas. It's necessary and ingrained behavior.

I believe in reasonable accomodations for religious faith, but there comes a point where accomodation ends and assimilation begins its work. There are plenty of Christian observances that have been watered down or discarded altogether, and I really don't have a problem with Straw asking women at constituent meetings to remove the veil so he can talk to them face-to-face.
 
Last edited:
masamura said:
And BAM! The one thing that I've been waiting to hear.. that dreaded word. And you call yourself people of freedom? HAHA. Someone educate this person about freedom please...
Click to expand...

Freedom is a tricky thing. Freedom to do anything you want at any time is called anarchy. Obviously not what we're looking for, since that tends to lead to a rather significant increase in people dying.

So the first thing you have to accept in society are limits on your freedoms. Don't murder, don't steal, don't drive on red, don't spit on the sidewalk.

Now, you can say that you should have the freedom to wear whatever you want due to some specific reason, in this case religion. But I can just as easily say that I should have the freedom to not have to look at your freaky clothing. In public, I can always look away. In certain other settings though, I must direct my attention to you. So, whose freedoms do we impinge upon in that circumstance?

And of course there are other factors to consider as well. If your religious freedoms entail such things as, say, the subjugation of women, or the refusal of modern medicine... we run into a bit of a dilemma. People raised within that system of beliefs may accept it as normal, and may believe that they are making a conscious choice to act in that fashion, but realistically, they've been conditioned to accept it as normal/correct. They lack the objective viewpoint necessary to make an informed decision, or their viewpoint is so skewed as to be inherently self-destructive. In those instances, it could be argued that it is the role of society to step in and rectify the situation. Here in the USA for example, every now and then we get some backwoods religious fanatics refusing medical treatment for their children, and it becomes necessary for the courts to step in and take action to save the child's life, and most people accept that as the correct course of action.

The question therefor becomes the point at which society must intervene in order to preserve the freedoms of people who may not even realize or accept that their freedoms have been taken from them, and what form that intervention should take.
 
Hi all :)

How about the most logical reason for banning an article of clothing?

Not for its religious signifigance, not for its potential offense to others, but for the simple fact that it is so concealing? Let's face it, any article of clothing so concealing as to make the wearer's sex nearly indeterminate would make it pretty easy to commit crimes and walk away unidentifiable. Isn't this the true reason behind the British law?

Here in the States we have this quaint little holiday called Halloween. For those unfamiliar, it's a day where young and old alike dress up as monsters, movie characters, etc. However, you can go ahead and expect ahead of time to have to remove whatever you might be wearing that conceals your face before entering a place of business. Not a matter of offense; simply a matter of safety.

After all, if Muslim women are allowed to wear hijab as a part of their religion, and it were to actually become protected as freedom of religion/expression, how long do you think it'll be before some crackpot says it's his God-given, divinely revealed right to walk around with a bandana concealing his face 24/7?

[Ninja] edit: I had to look back for clarification's sake. I used hijab where I actually intended Bur'Qa.
 
Last edited:
Reauland said:
Hi all :)

How about the most logical reason for banning an article of clothing?

Not for its religious signifigance, not for its potential offense to others, but for the simple fact that it is so concealing? Let's face it, any article of clothing so concealing as to make the wearer's sex nearly indeterminate would make it pretty easy to commit crimes and walk away unidentifiable. Isn't this the true reason behind the British law?

Here in the States we have this quaint little holiday called Halloween. For those unfamiliar, it's a day where young and old alike dress up as monsters, movie characters, etc. However, you can go ahead and expect ahead of time to have to remove whatever you might be wearing that conceals your face before entering a place of business. Not a matter of offense; simply a matter of safety.

After all, if Muslim women are allowed to wear hijab as a part of their religion, and it were to actually become protected as freedom of religion/expression, how long do you think it'll be before some crackpot says it's his God-given, divinely revealed right to walk around with a bandana concealing his face 24/7?
Click to expand...

Potential for abuse doesn't warrant banning something like that. It is a right for me to walk around wearing a bandana concealing my face in any public setting, and I should be able to do so without being stopped by anyone.
 
Daveman said:
Potential for abuse doesn't warrant banning something like that. It is a right for me to walk around wearing a bandana concealing my face in any public setting, and I should be able to do so without being stopped by anyone.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. You can walk around with a mask all you like. A police officer can also stop you and request that you take it off, and arrest you if you don't. Why? Probable cause. If you're hiding your face, you probably have something to hide. Likewise if you walk into a store with your face covered, it's my right to refuse to serve you and request that you leave immediately. And call the cops to arrest you if you refuse to do so.

The tricky point in the US would be refusing service to someone wearing a burqua (sp). It does, after all, carry a religious association, and as such would be something that a lot of law enforcement officers would be reluctant to get involved in. Though frankly the thought of kicking out someone wearing that mobile tent gives me immense satisfaction because of the potential furor.
 
Last edited:
Raesvelg said:
Yes and no. You can walk around with a mask all you like. A police officer can also stop you and request that you take it off, and arrest you if you don't. Why? Probable cause. If you're hiding your face, you probably have something to hide. Likewise if you walk into a store with your face covered, it's my right to refuse to serve you and request that you leave immediately. And call the cops to arrest you if you refuse to do so.
Click to expand...

A police officer should not be able to force me to take it off, as it is a right for me to able to wear that whenever I want in a public area. As a store owner, you can deny me entrance or kick me out, or request I take it off. However just walking down the street wearing said mask should be ok.
 
Daveman said:
A police officer should not be able to force me to take it off, as it is a right for me to able to wear that whenever I want in a public area. As a store owner, you can deny me entrance or kick me out, or request I take it off. However just walking down the street wearing said mask should be ok.
Click to expand...

Again, no. Much like if you were walking down the street reeking of marijuana, a police officer could stop and search you. Probable cause covers an enormous range of potential circumstances, for good reason. It's your right to wear it, but that right doesn't allow you to impede an officer of the law in the execution of his duty.

Technically I can walk down the street wearing a rifle strapped to my back. If you do so outside of very specific circumstances/areas, expect to get questioned by the police and possibly detained for one of a variey of potential reasons.
 
Country > An individual's Religion/Race/Creed


Some people need to understand this, and stop acting like it all revolves around them.
 
Raesvelg said:
Again, no. Much like if you were walking down the street reeking of marijuana, a police officer could stop and search you. Probable cause covers an enormous range of potential circumstances, for good reason. It's your right to wear it, but that right doesn't allow you to impede an officer of the law in the execution of his duty.

Technically I can walk down the street wearing a rifle strapped to my back. If you do so outside of very specific circumstances/areas, expect to get questioned by the police and possibly detained for one of a variey of potential reasons.
Click to expand...
I understand what reality is, I'm only saying how it should be like. I think freedom is a very important thing, including freedoms for things I don't agree with. As long as my right doesn't violate someone else's nothing should stop me from doing anything I want to do. A police officer should not be able to force me to take it off. I should be able to tell him "I like how it looks" and walk away if he asks. Weather or not that is what would happen in a real situation is a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top