Dutch Govt ban Burqa, should we?

Hobbes

gurramok wrote:

Obviously no. 1

Why Obviously? If the woman is a devout muslim then she is unlikely to leave the house. If husband is an extremist then he is unlikely to let her leave.

Just because you implement a law doesn't mean everyone will interpret it as you intended.

If we want integration in western culture

Define integration? Being like you not like anyone else? What is that person is born in Ireland and raised in Ireland but Muslim? In that instance they are already Irish, so they are integrated.

Sunglasses only cover the eyes, a person wearing a face mask in a medical situation would have strict permission

Sunglasses help disguise what you look like. Remember the law is about not having any covering on your face, some versions of the burqa only cover a portion of the face yet would be banned but Sunglasses are ok.

If someone came up to you in a the street with a face mask on how would you know it was for medical reasons? You going to stop them and ask?

Hobbes

very good points Schuhart.

gurramok

Hobbes wrote:

Why Obviously? If the woman is a devout muslim then she is unlikely to leave the house. If husband is an extremist then he is unlikely to let her leave.

Just because you implement a law doesn't mean everyone will interpret it as you intended.

Well, the law of the land is there to be obeyed, whether by a native or a non-native if they don't like it or not.
If the husband is an extremist, he hs no place in a democratic society.

Not all muslims subscribe to wearing a burqa, some abhor it as well as anyone else, it doesn't infringe on their 'civil liberties' which means the 'discrimination against religious beliefs' part is total nonsense.

Hobbes wrote:

Define integration? Being like you not like anyone else? What is that person is born in Ireland and raised in Ireland but Muslim? In that instance they are already Irish, so they are integrated.

Integrate into our society using western values like under your nick
Irish can be christian, muslim, hindu, atheist etc...religion and its restrictions should never make someone un-Irish if they live here and are subject to our laws.

Hobbes wrote:

Sunglasses help disguise what you look like. Remember the law is about not having any covering on your face, some versions of the burqa only cover a portion of the face yet would be banned but Sunglasses are ok.

If someone came up to you in a the street with a face mask on how would you know it was for medical reasons? You going to stop them and ask?

A sunglass wearer should remove their glasses out of respect when talking to another person like the headgear argument.
For instance, american troops in iraq remove their sunglasses when talking to the muslim population out of respect as eye contact is important.
If someone came upto me wearing a mask, i woud request someone to remove the mask to conduct a proper conversation.
Obviously if it was anti-germ govt lab team, they would have strict permission abiding by the law to wear that gear and produce ID to reassure me of their actions.
On the otherhand, if it was some joe-soap on the street, yes i would be nervous and somewhat feel frightened and threatened by their masked status in which case i would feel hell alot more secure if they remove their face gear and conduct a meaningful conversation.

bonkey

aidan24326 wrote:

My whole point is why should religion be given this kind of special treatment at all?

Hold on a sec. You agree that the idea that this law being about security is baloney.

So what is this proposed law about, if not targetting a religious group for special treatment?

Why is something ok because I'm a muslim and then suddenly not ok because I'm not?

Seperate thread eneded for that. The question here is whether or not we've a law saying that its not OK for Muslims to wear what they want. Its fot exactly the appearance of the type of law I'd imagine you should object to.

If something is morally wrong it is morally wrong. End of story.

Based on who's morals? Or is there some "objective book of morals that everyone agrees to" that I haven't been told about yet?

Morals are subjective, and thus the notion that its "end of story" is a polite way of saying "as long as I agree its fine, but what you think of it is your problem and has no influence". This is where the problems all start. Its rarely just a case of "end of story".

Thats why you need balance. A bit of give and take, rather than a draconian stand for "what I believe in, and nothing else". And sometimes, that involves making allowances for things like religious convictions of others.

I don't care if the person is muslim, catholic, sikh or whatever.

Cutting off a girl's clitoris in infancy is sadistic butchery with massively sexist undertones. Dress it up in all the religious rhetoric you like and that fact doesn't change.

Way to bring up an extreme example that, I think yuou'll find, no-one here has been supporting.

Infringing on another person's freedoms is where the line is drawn.

I haven't suggested once that rights which directly infringe on someone else should be granted. I have suggested merely that we be tolerant of different cultures and accept that they be allowed their culture as long as it does not cause a problem.

I think we can both agree that allowing someone to choose to wear a burqa is not in the same ballpark as allowing someone to mutilate another human being.

I think we can also agree that allowing someone to force a burqa on someone else is somewhere in between those two extremes.

Why should calling oneself a muslim or catholic entitle you to any special dispensation from normal modes of morality, ethics etc.? Why?

Hold on...you agree the proposed law isn't about security.

What does that leave, if not that its a law specifically designed to target one aspect of one religionm but dressed up enough to try and hide that a bit.

If it is about the burqa, then why does this one religion get singled out for society to dictate what can and cannot be worn? It would seem the proposed law is exactly what you should be objecting to. Its designed to look like its not about singleing one religion out, but in effect it is. Its about telling them they have to abandon certain things because we don't like them. We're giving them "special" treatment because of their religion.

Sure many muslim women wear the burqa of their own volition in adulthood. However it is enforced on them through childhood indoctrination and brainwashing. Calling that 'the muslim way' doesn't make it right.

If they say "its my free choice", you're going to say that they're lying or deluded and force your version of freedom on them?

This version of freedom you believe in...it wouldn't be whats been indocrinated into you by your society from childhood by any chance?

Oh...hold on...if I accept your answer that you haven't been indocrinated, then you have to allow them to tell you whether or not they have been indocrinated.

But you've already made that decision for them, so you don't believe that people can necessarily identify when they've been indocrinated into smoething as opposed to when its something they genuinely believe in.

So you don't get to answer that one about yourself, without retracting the allegation that they're indocrinated in the first place.

So what makes your societal indocrination allowable as "freedom", but theirs as "incarceration", other than your perspective which is coloured by your indocrination?

What I would have more issue with is the system of childhood indoctrination in muslim culture which is particularly virulent and which leads to women thinking it's ok for them to be treated like this.

And you come from a culture where you've been taught / indocrinated into believing that its ok to ignore the significance other people's religious convictions have for them as long as its regarding a topic where you disagree with them.

Or maybe this whole "right and wrong" thing isn't as clearcut once we go away from the extreme situations, eh?

One thing I do agree with you on. Saying it's for security reasons is a load of baloney.

Then ask yourself what it is about, and why those putting the proposal forward are lying about what its about, and whether or not you should be supporting or opposing a law which is being sold under a false banner and which gives all the signals of being motivated by intolerance of aspects of a specific religion.

Surely you should be vehemently opposed to a law which singles out one religion over others...given that you believe religious convictions shouldn't get special treatment in law?

jc

HelterSkelter

aidan24326 wrote:

Cutting off a girl's clitoris in infancy is sadistic butchery with massively sexist undertones. Dress it up in all the religious rhetoric you like and that fact doesn't change.

Cutting off a girl's clitoris is totally against Islam. Please try to get your facts right.

mountainyman

HelterSkelter
Please discuss the matter honestly:

http://tinyurl.com/yks35f

Thank You
MM

aidan24326

bonkey wrote:

Then ask yourself what it is about, and why those putting the proposal forward are lying about what its about, and whether or not you should be supporting or opposing a law which is being sold under a false banner and which gives all the signals of being motivated by intolerance of aspects of a specific religion.

Surely you should be vehemently opposed to a law which singles out one religion over others...given that you believe religious convictions shouldn't get special treatment in law?

I do agree with you that the security 'issue' is probably a smokescreen to hide the fact that this is about religious intolerance. But the whole issue of religious tolerance/intolerance is no doubt worthy of another thread all to itself, so sticking with the burqa, I say leave it be. As I said in an earlier post it really isn't a big issue for Ireland anyway, our muslim community is fairly small and unless it grows considerably I don't see this becoming a big deal here tbh.

HelterSkelter

mountainyman wrote:

HelterSkelter
Please discuss the matter honestly:

http://tinyurl.com/yks35f

Thank You
MM

Do you expect me to believe a site that is run by "Evangelical Christians" (http://answering-islam.org.uk/about.html)? Show me a Muslim web site that says a female should have her clitoris cut off.

Edit: I just did a quick google and every Muslim site I looked at said it is against Islamic belief to do this.

aidan24326

HelterSkelter wrote:

Cutting off a girl's clitoris is totally against Islam. Please try to get your facts right.

I didn't link it exclusively to islam. It has been practiced among many different cultures and different religions. Although islamic leaders claim that the practice is outlawed and not part of islamic teaching, the practice continues in some parts of predominantly muslim countries, according to Amnesty International. Including Iraq,Iran,Saudi Arabia,Sudan and Egypt. It is in fact illegal now even in most African countries (regardless of religion) and carries a fairly heavy prison sentence (up to 10 years) if convicted. But in practice it is difficult to enforce this law and very few people have actually been convicted.

EDIT: I'd accept that, to the best of my knowledge, the practice has not been condoned in islamic teachings, but as with all religions, interpretations have varied alot over time.

mountainyman

HelterSkelter wrote:

Do you expect me to believe a site that is run by "Evangelical Christians" (http://answering-islam.org.uk/about.html)? Show me a Muslim web site that says a female should have her clitoris cut off.

Edit: I just did a quick google and every Muslim site I looked at said it is against Islamic belief to do this.

Your mistake HelterSkelter is to assume that Islam is monolithic.
Clearly there are those within the 'Islamic Family' who are opposed to removal of the clitoris (though perhaps not to other forms of female genital mutilation).

Al_Azhar_University wrote:

1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

I see little reason to believe a muslim website as opposed to a Christian one. Indeed given the probable audience for an English language website I would suggest that it has nothing to do with the lived reality of muslim women.

Certainly there are currents within Islam which approve of the practise. Others may disapprove, to wear a burqa is to disagree with these more moderate muslims.
To wear a burqa is to stand in solidairity with these currents and therefore to stand against the victims of this form of Islam. The victims are not found in Holland or Ireland but rather in Afghanistan and Somalia. This is why I am offended by the burqa, it is a hateful expression of contempt towards other women.


MM

HelterSkelter

mountainyman wrote:

Your mistake HelterSkelter is to assume that Islam is monolithic.
Clearly there are those within the 'Islamic Family' who are opposed to removal of the clitoris (though perhaps not to other forms of female genital mutilation).


http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

I see little reason to believe a muslim website as opposed to a Christian one.

So why are you asking me to discuss the matter honestly and then quoting a Christian website's view on the matter as if that is the truth??

mountainyman wrote:

Indeed given the probable audience for an English language website I would suggest that it has nothing to do with the lived reality of muslim women.

I don't get you, are you saying that a Muslim website in the English language is not read by Muslims? Please explain.

mountainyman wrote:

Certainly there are currents within Islam which approve of the practise. Others may disapprove, to wear a burqa is to disagree with these more moderate muslims.

To wear a burqa is to stand in solidairity with these currents and therefore to stand against the victims of this form of Islam. The victims are not found in Holland or Ireland but rather in Afghanistan and Somalia. This is why I am offended by the burqa, it is a hateful expression of contempt towards other women.
MM

So to wear a burka is to approve of female genital mutation? I never heard such crap in all my life. I think you should speak to a few women who wear the burka and ask them why they wear it. Have you ever done this?

mountainyman

Yes I have talked to many women who wear the burqa (mediated by male realtives) and they wear it to show their piety. All approved of female genital mutilation.

How many burqa wearing women have you talked to?

MM

Hobbes

mountainyman wrote:

HelterSkelter
Please discuss the matter honestly:

http://tinyurl.com/yks35f

Thank You
MM

You may as well link to StormFront, it is about as accurate.

If your going to do any research, try looking at more reputable sites. Incidently posting such links from that site on the Islam forum is an automatic ban as the information goes byeond wrong.

mountainyman

HelterSkelter wrote:

So why are you asking me to discuss the matter honestly and then quoting a Christian website's view on the matter as if that is the truth??

Because the Christian website is presenting the truth and you are not discussing the matter honestly, you say that female circumcision is 'totally against Islam' unfortunately Al Azhar University disagrees. The only conclusion is that the Muslim websites you mention are lying.
Many Muslims are embarassed because their religion is so backward, they would like it to modernise and normalise without having to give it up. Burqa wearers are not like that, they approve of female circumcision.

MM

HelterSkelter

mountainyman wrote:

Yes I have talked to many women who wear the burqa (mediated by male realtives) and they wear it to show their piety. All approved of female genital mutilation.

How many burqa wearing women have you talked to?

MM

I have talked to several in the UK and they wear it for various reasons, all their own choice. One wore it against her husbands will, he didn't like her wearing it. I didn't ask them about female genital mutilation. Do you regularly ask burka wearing women if they approve of female genital mutilation? I'm interested in who these women were and why you felt comfortable enough to ask them their view on female genital mutilation.

mountainyman

Hobbes wrote:

You may as well link to StormFront, it is about as accurate.

If your going to do any research, try looking at more reputable sites. Incidently posting such links from that site on the Islam forum is an automatic ban as the information goes byeond wrong.

That doesn't surprise me. The Islam forum is ludicrously inaccurate in its portrayal of the religion.

MM

mountainyman

HelterSkelter wrote:

I have talked to several in the UK and they wear it for various reasons, all their own choice. One wore it against her husbands will, he didn't like her wearing it. I didn't ask them about female genital mutilation. Do you regularly ask burka wearing women if they approve of female genital mutilation? I'm interested in who these women were and why you felt comfortable enough to ask them their view on female genital mutilation.

It was as part of a UN funded health project in Pakistan.
By the way that women in England choose to wear it does not mean that it is anything other than a symbol of solidairity with the most retrograde elements of the Islamic faith. It would make more sense not to ban it if wome were being forced to wear it as then the observation of prrdah would require them not to leave their houses.
MM

HelterSkelter

mountainyman wrote:

It was as part of a UN funded health project in Pakistan.
By the way that women in England choose to wear it does not mean that it is anything other than a symbol of solidairity with the most retrograde elements of the Islamic faith.
MM

Did YOU PERSONALLY speak to these women? Because that is what I asked you.

Hobbes

gurramok wrote:

Well, the law of the land is there to be obeyed, whether by a native or a non-native if they don't like it or not.
If the husband is an extremist, he hs no place in a democratic society.

Not all muslims subscribe to wearing a burqa, some abhor it as well as anyone else, it doesn't infringe on their 'civil liberties' which means the 'discrimination against religious beliefs' part is total nonsense.



Integrate into our society using western values like under your nick
Irish can be christian, muslim, hindu, atheist etc...religion and its restrictions should never make someone un-Irish if they live here and are subject to our laws.

A sunglass wearer should remove their glasses out of respect when talking to another person like the headgear argument.

Why should they? Is there a law against it?

For instance, american troops in iraq remove their sunglasses when talking to the muslim population out of respect as eye contact is important.

Actually its not that at all, establishing eye contact allows you to see that you mean business to stop situations escalating (I know this from a infomercial for the British Army some years back)

On the otherhand, if it was some joe-soap on the street, yes i would be nervous and somewhat feel frightened and threatened by their masked status in which case i would feel hell alot more secure if they remove their face gear and conduct a meaningful conversation.

It doesn't restrict conversation in anyway. Fears such as what you quoted are totally unfounded, reminds me of a similar post a few months back where someone claimed that Asians should not be allowed to carry backpacks in Ireland.

Hobbes

mountainyman wrote:

That doesn't surprise me. The Islam forum is ludicrously inaccurate in its portrayal of the religion.

MM

More like you have no clue what you are talking about. Answering-Islam is an anti-islam site, in fact they pride themselves on this.

Also just even quoting that site as some kind of reliable source speaks volumes for your level of ignorance on the subject.

[edit] Just to add to that a lot of people we got posting links to answering-islam did so by deep linking or tinyurl because if you bother to start from the top of the site it is quite clear the website has an agenda.

bonkey

mountainyman wrote:

Because the Christian website is presenting the truth

By what basis do you establish this? Because you agree with their statements? Because you dislike Islam?

Simply saying "its true" doesn't make it so.

and you are not discussing the matter honestly,

And you are?

The only conclusion is that the Muslim websites you mention are lying.

I would submuit that there are several other conclusions, and that you are therefore either not discussing the matter honestly, or you are not discussing the matter logically.

Many Muslims are embarassed because their religion is so backward, they would like it to modernise and normalise without having to give it up.

If you say so, it must be true.

Burqa wearers are not like that, they approve of female circumcision.

If you say so, it must be true.

HelterSkelter

Lads, I don't think we should take mountainyman seriously. I just found this gem from him that got him banned from After Hours...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054986346&referrerid=&highlight=

mountainyman

I am unsure of the relevance of your post.

MM

mountainyman

HelterSkelter wrote:

Did YOU PERSONALLY speak to these women? Because that is what I asked you.

I asked them questions in the presence of their husbands, they told their husbands what they thought and their husbands told me.

Also I asked some questions through an interpreter. Not everyone in the area I worked in had a solid grasp of Mujahir Urdu and almost none of the women did.

MM

mountainyman

bonkey wrote:

...re 'honest discussion'

HelterSkelter claimed that female circumcision is 'totally against Islam' this (according to Al Azhar University) is not correct. HelterSkelter must be lying or alternatively so ignorant that his or her opinion on the matter is simply irrelevant.

MM

oscarBravo

HelterSkelter, don't get personal. mountainyman, stop trolling.

aidan24326

Hobbes wrote:

More like you have no clue what you are talking about. Answering-Islam is an anti-islam site, in fact they pride themselves on this.

Also just even quoting that site as some kind of reliable source speaks volumes for your level of ignorance on the subject.

Indeed the site he quoted/linked to is most unlikely to be in any way objective about the muslim faith. Like a hardcore republican creating a site about the orange order, one can assume a very high level of bias.

However I would suggest that all religious 'information', be it on a website or anywhere else, is by it's very nature pretty well guaranteed to be biased and would be inclined to always treat it with an air of skepticism. This necessarily must also include 'genuine' or 'official' sources.

So despite mountainyman's errant reference to an anti-islamic site, he does hint at one valid point (I think). That even sites linked to as being of a more 'reputable' nature, are themselves open to many of the same criticisms as a site like answering-islam is. Any source of religious info will generally, by it's nature, be prone to self-serving bias, misinformation, misinterpretation and selective interpretation. This applies even to those websites that would be considered 'reputable'.

You need only look to some of the websites (considered 'reputable' by many muslims) that analyse the 'scientific knowledge' as revealed by the quran, to see the sort of nonsense that is prevalent across the board.

Gordon

I may have missed it but what has female circumcision got to do with banning the Burqa?

Hobbes

aidan24326 wrote:

...

While you have a good point the site he linked to is renowned for misreporting.

Yes you will find bias in everything but not being factual is different to a bias.

It is also dragging the topic of the thread way off. If MM wants to discuss the subject he should do so in a new thread.

bonkey

mountainyman wrote:

HelterSkelter claimed that female circumcision is 'totally against Islam' this (according to Al Azhar University) is not correct. HelterSkelter must be lying or alternatively so ignorant that his or her opinion on the matter is simply irrelevant.

Or...Al Azhar University is wrong*

Or...you've misinterpreted what Al Azhar University has said*

Or...Islam not being a hierarchical faith with only one interpretation, its entirely possible that differing people can believe differing things about what Islam is and is not, without any of them being incorrect.

There are other possibilities as well. You have apparently dismissed all of them.

From my understanding, only the Quran is considered infallible in terms of its contents. Any other writings are not perfect. Thus, by this standard, one can say that to a certain extent, it doesn't matter what any Sheikh of any university says, they may be incorrect unless they are firmly backed up by the Quran. In such a case, though, it is what is written in the holy book which matters most, and not the interpretation.

So why are you concentrating on the writings of one Sheikh? Why, incidentally, do you not also mention previous fatwas which said distinctly different things regarding the same subject?

Regarding your choice of sources :

I don't go to creationist or ID sites for an accurate portrayal of what science entails. I wouldn't recommend anyone else do either, unless my intention was that they be miseducated about science.

Similarly, I wouldn't trust an anti-Islamic site for an accurate portrayal of Islam. You not only have done this, but also have suggested that its somehow dishonest to not do so.

If what you are claiming is so honest and forthright, then you should have no problems locating a source to back it up which is not so disreputable.


* Given that you haen't linked to their support of your claim, I cannot rule these possibiltiies out.