report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Political Chat
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 08-22-2010, 08:19 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Ban The Burka?

Is Sharia Law really compatible with Western civilazation? Is it really blindly racist to opose it?

Please read this article before responding.


Claire Berlinski



August 2, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Ban the BurqaFrom the August 16 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.







Istanbul — I moved here five years ago. In the beginning, I was sympathetic to the argument that Turkey’s ban on headscarves in universities and public institutions was grossly discriminatory. I spoke to many women who described veiling themselves as an uncoerced act of faith. One businesswoman in her mid-30s told me that she began veiling in high school, defying her secular family. Her schoolteacher gasped when she saw her: “If Atatürk could see you now, he would weep!” Her pain at the memory of the opprobrium she had suffered was clearly real.
Why had she decided to cover herself? I asked. As a teenager, she told me, she had experienced a religious revelation. She described this in terms anyone familiar with William James would recognize. She began veiling to affirm her connection with the Ineffable. “Every time I look in the mirror,” she said, “I see a religious woman looking back. It reminds me that I’ve chosen to have a particular kind of relationship with God.”
Seen thus, the covering of the head is no more radical than many other religious rituals that demand symbolic acts of renunciation or daily inconvenience. I have heard J E Ws describe the spiritual rewards of following the laws of kashrut in much the same way. It is inconvenient, they say, and seemingly arbitrary; it demands daily sacrifice. But a J E W who keeps kosher cannot eat a meal without being reminded that he is a J E W, and thus the simple act of eating is elevated to a religious rite.



The argument that the garment is not a religious obligation under Islam is well-founded but irrelevant; millions of Muslims the world around believe that it is, and the state is not qualified to be in the business of Koranic exegesis. The choice to cover one’s face is for many women a genuine expression of the most private kind of religious sentiment. To prevent them from doing so is discriminatory, persecutory, and incompatible with the Enlightenment traditions of the West. It is, moreover, cruel to demand of a woman that she reveal parts of her body that her sense of modesty compels her to cover; to such a woman, the demand is as tyrannical, humiliating, and arbitrary as the passage of a law dictating that women bare their breasts.
All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.
Recently, on a New York Times blog, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum not only argued against the ban, but proposed that those who wear the burqa be protected from “subtle forms of discrimination.” It was a perfect example of a philosopher at the peak of her *****s operating in a cultural and historical vacuum. “My judgment about Turkey in the past,” Nussbaum writes, was
that the ban on veiling was justified, in those days, by a compelling state interest — derived from the belief that women were at risk of physical violence if they went unveiled, unless the government intervened to make the veil illegal for all. Today in Europe the situation is utterly different, and no physical violence will greet the woman who wears even scanty clothing.
Nussbaum is absolutely wrong. There are already many neighborhoods in Europe where scantily dressed women are not safe. In the benighted Islamic suburbs of Paris, as Samira Bellil writes in her autobiography Dans l’enfer des tournantes (“In Gang-Rape Hell”),
there are only two kinds of girls. Good girls stay home, clean the house, take care of their brothers and sisters, and only go out to go to school. . . . Those who . . . dare to wear make-up, to go out, to smoke, quickly earn the reputation as “easy” or as “little whores.”
Parents in these neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.
The association of Islam and crime against women is seen throughout Europe: “The police in the Norwegian capital Oslo revealed that 2009 set yet another record: compared to 2008, there were twice as many cases of assault rapes,” the conservative Brussels Journal noted earlier this year. “In each and every case, not only in 2008 and 2009 but also in 2007, the offender was a non-Western immigrant.” These statistics are rarely discussed; they are too evocative of ancient racist tropes for anyone’s comfort. But they are facts.
The debate in Europe now concerns primarily the burqa, not less restrictive forms of veiling, such as the headscarf. The sheer outrageousness of the burqa makes it an easy target, as does the political viability of justifying such a ban on security grounds, particularly in the era of suicide bombings, even if such a justification does not entirely stand up to scrutiny. But the burqa is simply the extreme point on the continuum of veiling, and all forced veiling is not only an abomination, but contagious: Unless it is stopped, the natural tendency of this practice is to spread, for veiling is a political symbol as well as a religious one, and that symbol is of a dynamic, totalitarian ideology that has set its sights on Europe and will not be content until every woman on the planet is humbled, submissive, silent, and enslaved.
The cancerous spread of veiling has been seen throughout the Islamic world since the Iranian Revolution. I have watched it in Turkey. Through migration and demographic shift, neighborhoods that once were mixed have become predominantly veiled. The government has sought to lift prohibitions on the wearing of headscarves, legitimizing and emboldening advocates of the practice. Five years ago, the historically J E Wish and Greek neighborhood of Balat, on the Golden Horn, was one in which many unveiled women could be seen. It is not anymore. Recently I visited a friend there who reluctantly suggested that I dress more modestly — while in his apartment. His windows faced the street. He was concerned that his neighbors would call the police and report a prostitute in their midst.
Veiling cannot be disambiguated from the problem of Islam’s conception of women, and this conception is directly tied to gender apartheid and the subjugation and abuse of women throughout the Islamic world, the greatest human-rights problem on the planet, bar none. Nor can the practice of veiling be divorced from the concept of namus — an ethical category that is often translated as “honor,” and if your first association with this word is “honor killing,” it is for a reason: That is the correct association. The path from veiling to the practice of killing unveiled women is not nearly so meandering as you might think.
At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. In 2006, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, delivered a sermon referring to a recent rape victim thus:
If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.
His remarks caused a firestorm of denunciation and the usual insistence that this sentiment did not represent the true nature of Islam. But the only unusual thing about his comments was that they were made in public. If you believe these views are atypical of the Muslim community, spend five minutes in an Islamic chat room on the Internet. No need to cherry-pick; just Google “hijab” and look at the first results that come up. A typical entry:
What kind of dignity a non-believer has by the way; they conduct their life and expose themselves. They have removed the shield of protection, that modesty of Hijab and left themselves unprotected and that is the cause for the assault, which takes place once every ten seconds in rape and murder around the world. But those true Muslims who observe proper Hijab are protected from such assaults and not one [case of] this type is ever heard of.
A faraway, fire-eyed Saudi cleric? No. This site is hosted in Norway. The site’s moderator is one Espen Egil Hansen, and the managing director is someone by the name of Jo Christian Oterhals.
Some other comments:
Any woman who perfumes herself and passes by some people that they smell her scent, then she is a Zaniyah [adulteress]. . . . Examining the various conditions about the hijab one can clearly recognise that many of the young Muslim women are not fulfilling these conditions. Many just take “half-way” measures, which not only mocks the community in which she lives, but also mocks the commands of Allah. . . . The hijab fits the natural feeling of Gheerah, which is intrinsic in the straight man who does not like people to look at his wife or daughters. Gheerah is a driving emotion that drives the straight man to safeguard women who are related to him from strangers. The straight MUSLIM man has Gheerah for ALL MUSLIM women. In response to lust and desire, men look (with desire) at other women while they do not mind that other men do the same to their wives or daughters. The mixing of sexes and absence of hijab destroys the Gheera in men.
These insights were posted on the official website of the Islamic Society of the University of Essex. As they suggest, the veil is a legitimization of murderous jealousy. It sanctions the impulse of primitive men to possess the very sight of their women entirely to themselves. There is no nation on the planet where the veil is the cultural norm and where women enjoy equal rights. Not one. Nor is there such a thing as a neighborhood where the veil is the cultural norm and yet no judgment is passed upon women who do not wear it.
Like all freedoms, religious freedom is not absolute. It is said in the United States that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and this principle is applicable to any open society. It is one thing to say I should be perfectly free to worship Baal, another to say I must be free to sacrifice children to him. Donning a burqa is not an outrage on the order of killing a child, but it is surely an outrage on just that order to permit a culture that views women as slaves to displace one that does not. We are all by now familiar with the demographic predictions: Europe’s Muslim population is growing; many cities will soon have Muslim majorities. If the conception of Islam that the veil represents is allowed to prevail in Europe, these cities will no longer be free.
It is difficult to form a position on this issue that reconciles all of the West’s legal precedents and moral intuitions. It is probably best that the burqa be banned immediately on “security” grounds, even if we all know deep down that the case is spurious; for such a ban to make perfect sense, it would have to extend to all loose clothing, suitcases, capacious handbags, beer bellies, and shoes. Yet in some cases, hypocrisy is the least awful of options; bans thus justified may be the best way of expressing a society’s entirely legitimate revulsion without setting a dangerous precedent of legislating against a targeted religious group.
Headscarves cannot at this point be banned. It is politically impossible, and it is also too late: The practice is too widespread. But the decision to wear them should be viewed much as the decision to wear Klan robes or Nazi regalia would be in the United States. Yes, you are free to do so, but no, you cannot wear that and expect to be hired by the government to teach schoolchildren, and no, we are not going to pretend collectively that this choice is devoid of a deeply sinister political and cultural meaning. Such a stance would serve the cause of liberty more than it would harm it: While it is true that some women adopt the veil voluntarily, it is also true that most veiling is forced. It is nearly impossible for the state to ascertain who is veiled by choice and who has been coerced. A woman who has been forced to veil is hardly likely to volunteer this information to authorities. Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape. Our culture’s position on these questions is morally superior. We have every right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that our more enlightened conception of women and their proper role in society prevails in any cultural conflict, particularly one on Western soil.
When government ministers such as the British environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, legitimize the veil by babbling about the freedom and em*****ment the garment affords, they reveal a colossally dangerous collapse in Europe’s cultural confidence. Instead, campaigns designed to discourage veiling should be launched. If the state is entitled to warn, say, of the unhealthful effects of cigarette smoking, it is surely also entitled to make the case against the conception of women that veiling represents.
Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible assault on the ideal of religious liberty. It is the sign of a desperate society. No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary.
But they have, and it is.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rlinski?page=4


Last edited by cirussell : 08-22-2010 at 07:55 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 08-22-2010, 09:10 AM
Yeah Well Fine Then's Avatar
Yeah Well Fine Then Yeah Well Fine Then is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,597
Re: Ban The Burka?

LOL, fella, how good to you think my eyesight is!!!

__________________
Every Saint has a past, every sinner has a future..



Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 08-22-2010, 09:18 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
Is Sharia Law really compatible with Western civilazation? Is it really blindly racist to opose it?

Please read this article before responding.


Claire Berlinski


August 2, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Ban the BurqaFrom the August 16 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.



Istanbul — I moved here five years ago. In the beginning, I was sympathetic to the argument that Turkey’s ban on headscarves in universities and public institutions was grossly discriminatory. I spoke to many women who described veiling themselves as an uncoerced act of faith. One businesswoman in her mid-30s told me that she began veiling in high school, defying her secular family. Her schoolteacher gasped when she saw her: “If Atatürk could see you now, he would weep!” Her pain at the memory of the opprobrium she had suffered was clearly real.
Why had she decided to cover herself? I asked. As a teenager, she told me, she had experienced a religious revelation. She described this in terms anyone familiar with William James would recognize. She began veiling to affirm her connection with the Ineffable. “Every time I look in the mirror,” she said, “I see a religious woman looking back. It reminds me that I’ve chosen to have a particular kind of relationship with God.”
Seen thus, the covering of the head is no more radical than many other religious rituals that demand symbolic acts of renunciation or daily inconvenience. I have heard J E Ws describe the spiritual rewards of following the laws of kashrut in much the same way. It is inconvenient, they say, and seemingly arbitrary; it demands daily sacrifice. But a J E W who keeps kosher cannot eat a meal without being reminded that he is a J E W, and thus the simple act of eating is elevated to a religious rite.


The argument that the garment is not a religious obligation under Islam is well-founded but irrelevant; millions of Muslims the world around believe that it is, and the state is not qualified to be in the business of Koranic exegesis. The choice to cover one’s face is for many women a genuine expression of the most private kind of religious sentiment. To prevent them from doing so is discriminatory, persecutory, and incompatible with the Enlightenment traditions of the West. It is, moreover, cruel to demand of a woman that she reveal parts of her body that her sense of modesty compels her to cover; to such a woman, the demand is as tyrannical, humiliating, and arbitrary as the passage of a law dictating that women bare their breasts.
All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.
Recently, on a New York Times blog, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum not only argued against the ban, but proposed that those who wear the burqa be protected from “subtle forms of discrimination.” It was a perfect example of a philosopher at the peak of her *****s operating in a cultural and historical vacuum. “My judgment about Turkey in the past,” Nussbaum writes, was
that the ban on veiling was justified, in those days, by a compelling state interest — derived from the belief that women were at risk of physical violence if they went unveiled, unless the government intervened to make the veil illegal for all. Today in Europe the situation is utterly different, and no physical violence will greet the woman who wears even scanty clothing.
Nussbaum is absolutely wrong. There are already many neighborhoods in Europe where scantily dressed women are not safe. In the benighted Islamic suburbs of Paris, as Samira Bellil writes in her autobiography Dans l’enfer des tournantes (“In Gang-Rape Hell”),
there are only two kinds of girls. Good girls stay home, clean the house, take care of their brothers and sisters, and only go out to go to school. . . . Those who . . . dare to wear make-up, to go out, to smoke, quickly earn the reputation as “easy” or as “little whores.”
Parents in these neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.
The association of Islam and crime against women is seen throughout Europe: “The police in the Norwegian capital Oslo revealed that 2009 set yet another record: compared to 2008, there were twice as many cases of assault rapes,” the conservative Brussels Journal noted earlier this year. “In each and every case, not only in 2008 and 2009 but also in 2007, the offender was a non-Western immigrant.” These statistics are rarely discussed; they are too evocative of ancient racist tropes for anyone’s comfort. But they are facts.
The debate in Europe now concerns primarily the burqa, not less restrictive forms of veiling, such as the headscarf. The sheer outrageousness of the burqa makes it an easy target, as does the political viability of justifying such a ban on security grounds, particularly in the era of suicide bombings, even if such a justification does not entirely stand up to scrutiny. But the burqa is simply the extreme point on the continuum of veiling, and all forced veiling is not only an abomination, but contagious: Unless it is stopped, the natural tendency of this practice is to spread, for veiling is a political symbol as well as a religious one, and that symbol is of a dynamic, totalitarian ideology that has set its sights on Europe and will not be content until every woman on the planet is humbled, submissive, silent, and enslaved.
The cancerous spread of veiling has been seen throughout the Islamic world since the Iranian Revolution. I have watched it in Turkey. Through migration and demographic shift, neighborhoods that once were mixed have become predominantly veiled. The government has sought to lift prohibitions on the wearing of headscarves, legitimizing and emboldening advocates of the practice. Five years ago, the historically J E Wish and Greek neighborhood of Balat, on the Golden Horn, was one in which many unveiled women could be seen. It is not anymore. Recently I visited a friend there who reluctantly suggested that I dress more modestly — while in his apartment. His windows faced the street. He was concerned that his neighbors would call the police and report a prostitute in their midst.
Veiling cannot be disambiguated from the problem of Islam’s conception of women, and this conception is directly tied to gender apartheid and the subjugation and abuse of women throughout the Islamic world, the greatest human-rights problem on the planet, bar none. Nor can the practice of veiling be divorced from the concept of namus — an ethical category that is often translated as “honor,” and if your first association with this word is “honor killing,” it is for a reason: That is the correct association. The path from veiling to the practice of killing unveiled women is not nearly so meandering as you might think.
At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. In 2006, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, delivered a sermon referring to a recent rape victim thus:
If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.
His remarks caused a firestorm of denunciation and the usual insistence that this sentiment did not represent the true nature of Islam. But the only unusual thing about his comments was that they were made in public. If you believe these views are atypical of the Muslim community, spend five minutes in an Islamic chat room on the Internet. No need to cherry-pick; just Google “hijab” and look at the first results that come up. A typical entry:
What kind of dignity a non-believer has by the way; they conduct their life and expose themselves. They have removed the shield of protection, that modesty of Hijab and left themselves unprotected and that is the cause for the assault, which takes place once every ten seconds in rape and murder around the world. But those true Muslims who observe proper Hijab are protected from such assaults and not one [case of] this type is ever heard of.
A faraway, fire-eyed Saudi cleric? No. This site is hosted in Norway. The site’s moderator is one Espen Egil Hansen, and the managing director is someone by the name of Jo Christian Oterhals.
Some other comments:
Any woman who perfumes herself and passes by some people that they smell her scent, then she is a Zaniyah [adulteress]. . . . Examining the various conditions about the hijab one can clearly recognise that many of the young Muslim women are not fulfilling these conditions. Many just take “half-way” measures, which not only mocks the community in which she lives, but also mocks the commands of Allah. . . . The hijab fits the natural feeling of Gheerah, which is intrinsic in the straight man who does not like people to look at his wife or daughters. Gheerah is a driving emotion that drives the straight man to safeguard women who are related to him from strangers. The straight MUSLIM man has Gheerah for ALL MUSLIM women. In response to lust and desire, men look (with desire) at other women while they do not mind that other men do the same to their wives or daughters. The mixing of sexes and absence of hijab destroys the Gheera in men.
These insights were posted on the official website of the Islamic Society of the University of Essex. As they suggest, the veil is a legitimization of murderous jealousy. It sanctions the impulse of primitive men to possess the very sight of their women entirely to themselves. There is no nation on the planet where the veil is the cultural norm and where women enjoy equal rights. Not one. Nor is there such a thing as a neighborhood where the veil is the cultural norm and yet no judgment is passed upon women who do not wear it.
Like all freedoms, religious freedom is not absolute. It is said in the United States that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and this principle is applicable to any open society. It is one thing to say I should be perfectly free to worship Baal, another to say I must be free to sacrifice children to him. Donning a burqa is not an outrage on the order of killing a child, but it is surely an outrage on just that order to permit a culture that views women as slaves to displace one that does not. We are all by now familiar with the demographic predictions: Europe’s Muslim population is growing; many cities will soon have Muslim majorities. If the conception of Islam that the veil represents is allowed to prevail in Europe, these cities will no longer be free.
It is difficult to form a position on this issue that reconciles all of the West’s legal precedents and moral intuitions. It is probably best that the burqa be banned immediately on “security” grounds, even if we all know deep down that the case is spurious; for such a ban to make perfect sense, it would have to extend to all loose clothing, suitcases, capacious handbags, beer bellies, and shoes. Yet in some cases, hypocrisy is the least awful of options; bans thus justified may be the best way of expressing a society’s entirely legitimate revulsion without setting a dangerous precedent of legislating against a targeted religious group.
Headscarves cannot at this point be banned. It is politically impossible, and it is also too late: The practice is too widespread. But the decision to wear them should be viewed much as the decision to wear Klan robes or Nazi regalia would be in the United States. Yes, you are free to do so, but no, you cannot wear that and expect to be hired by the government to teach schoolchildren, and no, we are not going to pretend collectively that this choice is devoid of a deeply sinister political and cultural meaning. Such a stance would serve the cause of liberty more than it would harm it: While it is true that some women adopt the veil voluntarily, it is also true that most veiling is forced. It is nearly impossible for the state to ascertain who is veiled by choice and who has been coerced. A woman who has been forced to veil is hardly likely to volunteer this information to authorities. Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape. Our culture’s position on these questions is morally superior. We have every right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that our more enlightened conception of women and their proper role in society prevails in any cultural conflict, particularly one on Western soil.
When government ministers such as the British environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, legitimize the veil by babbling about the freedom and em*****ment the garment affords, they reveal a colossally dangerous collapse in Europe’s cultural confidence. Instead, campaigns designed to discourage veiling should be launched. If the state is entitled to warn, say, of the unhealthful effects of cigarette smoking, it is surely also entitled to make the case against the conception of women that veiling represents.
Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible assault on the ideal of religious liberty. It is the sign of a desperate society. No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary.
But they have, and it is.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rlinski?page=4
The author of that article is not arguing against sharia - but veiling. Sharia does not mean wearing a veil, it is one interpretation, like some interpretations of Islam are restrictive and oppresive.

This article isnt pro or anti sharia.

Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 08-22-2010, 09:53 AM
Tulip Tulip is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,723
Re: Ban The Burka?

The article is telling us that Muslim women are being mistreated in todays world. She is saying by banning the burqa also veiling, would be a start to liberating the Muslim woman from oppression.

When I read this article I thought of how women here in America were treated many years ago. Women covered their knees, did not drink alone in bars, if a young teenage girl would wear a loose top other adults were sure to think she was pregnant, belittle her and if a woman was raped it was always asked how was she dressed and did she cause the rape to happen by her dress or actions. Women were to stay home, take care of the home and raise the children.

Some of the same thinking toward Muslim women as we had right here in America years ago toward American women.

Banning the burqa may be a start for change for the Muslim woman but it sounds to me veiling and the burqa are only symptoms of the vast problem of the oppression of Muslim women.

Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:08 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
The author of that article is not arguing against sharia - but veiling. Sharia does not mean wearing a veil, it is one interpretation, like some interpretations of Islam are restrictive and oppresive.

This article isnt pro or anti sharia.
Sharia is Islamic law. In every case Sharia dictates how women must dress. Yes some only require a scarf others a Burka, but whatever the interpretation it is the law that women must dress a certain way. It's Sharia that defines that. That is just fact.

It is inconsistent with the laws of the US or UK to require that women dress a certain way. Sharia in every case does just that. Having Sharia courts in our society with the implied authority to impose the requirements of Sharia is inconsitent with our laws and culture. In our culture it simply is not acceptable to do that.

Civil rights. Where are the true liberals to defend these people?

Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:09 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah Well Fine Then View Post
LOL, fella, how good to you think my eyesight is!!!

I have no idea but judging by your response not too good.

Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:13 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
Sharia is Islamic law. In every case Sharia dictates how women must dress. Yes some only require a scarf others a Burka, but whatever the interpretation it is the law that women must dress a certain way. It's Sharia that defines that. That is just fact.

It is inconsistent with the laws of the US or UK to require that women dress a certain way. Sharia in every case does just that. Having Sharia courts in our society with the implied authority to impose the requirements of Sharia is inconsitent with our laws and culture. In our culture it simply is not acceptable to do that.

Civil rights. Where are the true liberals to defend these people?
But again, civil sharia (and J E Wish) courts are subject to the law of the land. Same as arbitration. Its the same thing, and voluntary. I think liberals defend peoples rights to enter into whatever legal civil contracts they wish.

Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:20 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
But again, civil sharia (and J E Wish) courts are subject to the law of the land. Same as arbitration. Its the same thing, and voluntary. I think liberals defend peoples rights to enter into whatever legal civil contracts they wish.
And exactly who or how will anyone insure that a women is not discriminated against in a Sharia court. Given Sharia's postion on women how could their rights not be violated? How could a woman subjected to the requrements of Sharia from birth even know how to object to the discrimination? They couldn't.

Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:21 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
Sharia is Islamic law. In every case Sharia dictates how women must dress. Yes some only require a scarf others a Burka, but whatever the interpretation it is the law that women must dress a certain way. It's Sharia that defines that. That is just fact.
Sharia law is what is written in the Quran and nowhere in the Quran is it stated that a woman must wear a veil, burkha or any other particular item of clothing.
What is stated in the Quran is that women (and men, actually) should dress in a modest way.
That can be interpreted in various ways, but it's a cultural interpretation, it's not Sharia.
That's just a fact...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
It is inconsistent with the laws of the US or UK to require that women dress a certain way.
I suppose it's also inconsistent with the laws of US or UK to prohibit a woman to dress in a certain way. That's why I'm divided on this issue. I strongly believe in personal freedom, if someone willingly decides to dress in a certain way, it's their choice. If there is a cultural pressure to wear a certain kind of clothing, like a veil, then it's of course wrong. But do we solve that with laws that imposes bans? I don't like laws that imposes bans.

Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:28 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
Sharia law is what is written in the Quran and nowhere in the Quran is it stated that a woman must wear a veil, burkha or any other particular item of clothing.
What is stated in the Quran is that women (and men, actually) should dress in a modest way.
That can be interpreted in various ways, but it's a cultural interpretation, it's not Sharia.
That's just a fact....
I don't think Sharia law is limited to what is written in the Quran.

Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur'an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or "jurisprudence," interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur'an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with 'aql, or "reason". Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
I suppose it's also inconsistent with the laws of US or UK to prohibit a woman to dress in a certain way. That's why I'm divided on this issue. I strongly believe in personal freedom, if someone willingly decides to dress in a certain way, it's their choice. If there is a cultural pressure to wear a certain kind of clothing, like a veil, then it's of course wrong. But do we solve that with laws that imposes bans? I don't like laws that imposes bans.
Well that's exactly the subject of the article and the struggle that the author has with the subject. I think the woman who wrote the article is imminently more qualified to make that judgement than myself.

Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:30 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
And exactly who or how will anyone insure that a women is not discriminated against in a Sharia court. Given Sharia's postion on women how could their rights not be violated? How could a woman subjected to the requrements of Sharia from birth even know how to object to the discrimination? They couldn't.
Its the same argument as women wearing a burka. I cant say - not being a muslim woman - that I dont want to wear one.

Similarly I cant say women dont want to be subject to sharia civil arbitration etc. How can I?

All we can do, in a free society, is enforce the law. These agreements are legal, surely. So ... what can we do to help with situations where women are badly treated or discriminated against? Surely the answer is more to do with the modernisation of the Muslim religion, not with getting upset about equal rights to use arbitration courts of choice.

Its not a simple black and white situation as you seem to think. What are you suggesting? To ban all civil voluntary arbitration "courts"? Ok. That seems reasonable, applied equally. Not sure if everyone wants to abandon arbitration, but feel free to lobby for that change.

But you cant be saying only the Muslim civil "courts" should be banned, and the other forms including J E Wish ones be allowed. Surely?

Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:42 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Its the same argument as women wearing a burka. I cant say - not being a muslim woman - that I dont want to wear one.

Similarly I cant say women dont want to be subject to sharia civil arbitration etc. How can I?

All we can do, in a free society, is enforce the law. These agreements are legal, surely. So ... what can we do to help with situations where women are badly treated or discriminated against? Surely the answer is more to do with the modernisation of the Muslim religion, not with getting upset about equal rights to use arbitration courts of choice.

Its not a simple black and white situation as you seem to think. What are you suggesting? To ban all civil voluntary arbitration "courts"? Ok. That seems reasonable, applied equally. Not sure if everyone wants to abandon arbitration, but feel free to lobby for that change.

But you cant be saying only the Muslim civil "courts" should be banned, and the other forms including J E Wish ones be allowed. Surely?
That is exactly the point of the article. On the one hand I absolutely support Muslims or anyone else's right to practice there religion freely. I think almost everyone does. On the other hand when a religion is totalitarianistic in nature what the hell do you do? Sit by in the land of the free and watch these women's rights be abused? And are there rights actually even being abused? I'm sure of this, Sharia is inconsistent with our values as it pertains to women, gays and many other groups. We can not allow our society to d *****e to the level of Sharia law. We must find a way to have Islam in our country see the wisdom of respecting the rights of women and other, not the other way around.

Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:42 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
I don't think Sharia law is limited to what is written in the Quran.
Depends on who you ask, but that's not the point.

As I said, Sharia law does not dictates any particular item of clothing to wear. However, the interpretation of Sharia law in a certain culture might dictate just that. Which was the point I was trying to make. That interpretation is cultural.

There are many muslim women not wearing a veil, burkha or hijab. I don't think they consider that a breach of Sharia, as long as their clothing is modest in the context of the culture they are living in. Similarly, in a place where a veil is culturally mandated, they don't consider that a breach of Sharia because another islamic culture mandates a burkha.

That being said, I don't think Sharia belongs in our Western culture, therefore I don't like people to allow any interpretation of Sharia to dictate what women should wear here. The tricky question is if our own laws should? Wouldn't that kind of throw the accusation of "oppressive laws" back at ourselves? I don't know...

Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 08-22-2010, 11:49 AM
Tulip Tulip is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,723
Re: Ban The Burka?

I don't think I understand the question of the OP.

If the burka is being banned because of security reasons then that seems to me to be a non discrimination issue. If the burka is being banned because people feel the Muslim woman is being oppressed and they want to help with making changes that does seem like discrimination.

I would want to see the Muslim themselves want change and make changes without being forced to change.

Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 08-22-2010, 12:33 PM
Tulip Tulip is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,723
Re: Ban The Burka?

I am wondering if in London the burka is banned can a Muslim woman go to a religious court and fight this law and win and be-able to wear the burka?

Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 08-22-2010, 12:45 PM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulip View Post
I am wondering if in London the burka is banned can a Muslim woman go to a religious court and fight this law and win and be-able to wear the burka?
Lol.

First, the burka isnt banned in England, and wont be.

Second, even if it were, it would be full face covering that would be banned. And even if THAT were done, that would be English Law. The Religious "courts", both Muslim and J E Wish are simply civil arbitration systems, and operate within English law, like any civil arbitration.

So no, these civil courts cannot overturn the law of the land at all.

Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 08-22-2010, 01:12 PM
Tulip Tulip is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,723
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Lol.

First, the burka isnt banned in England, and wont be.

Second, even if it were, it would be full face covering that would be banned. And even if THAT were done, that would be English Law. The Religious "courts", both Muslim and J E Wish are simply civil arbitration systems, and operate within English law, like any civil arbitration.

So no, these civil courts cannot overturn the law of the land at all.
I'm not understanding why my post brought a laugh.

France is considering banning the burka.

We discussed it on a thread just recently.

I asked the question about religious courts overturning the burka ban. I read some on these courts and when reading the OP I just do not understand what we are debating.

Now that may be something to laugh at me about.

I read another thread and understand better now the question in the op.

I think Muslims in America or any other non Muslim country should go by that countries laws, not special laws to accommodate their Islamic religious beliefs. No this would not be racist. They commit murder, rape and many atrocities against women and others following their Islamic laws.


Last edited by Tulip : 08-22-2010 at 01:45 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 08-22-2010, 02:05 PM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: Ban The Burka?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulip View Post
I'm not understanding why my post brought a laugh.
Sorry, wasn't meant as an insult Tulip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulip View Post
France is considering banning the burka.

We discussed it on a thread just recently.

I asked the question about religious courts overturning the burka ban. I read some on these courts and when reading the OP I just do not understand what we are debating.

Now that may be something to laugh at me about.

I read another thread and understand better now the question in the op.

I think Muslims in America or any other non Muslim country should go by that countries laws, not special laws to accommodate their Islamic religious beliefs. No this would not be racist. They commit murder, rape and many atrocities against women and others following their Islamic laws.
Look at the Muslim civil courts as arbitration, same as the J E Wish ones. Everyone keeps ignoring them, and theyve been running in UK for years.

All of the different forms of civil arbitration are at the civil level - they are all within the law. They cannot do something other than that. So they cant overturn a law, such as any ban on the burka.

I was just making the point at the beginning that the Burka isnt banned in England and wont be. There isnt a proposal to do so, from any of the political parties.

I wasnt laughing at you, just amused. I'm easily amused.


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
France has first 'burka rage' incident pwrone Political Chat 3 05-19-2010 12:40 PM
Five European states back burka ban SnappyDan Political Chat 6 03-02-2010 12:07 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.