The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

Democracy said the people didn't want it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm ('Million' march against Iraq war)

But the "democratic" leaders didn't listen

Well as much as I am and was against the Iraq war, marching in the street isn't democracy. Furthermore, only Britain and the US actually went to war, and the US population was for it (although they, and the entire world, had been lied to by Bush). I'm not sure what the UK figures were. So in nations where the majority of people were against the war, the nation didn't go to war.

ChocolateSauce

wes wrote: »

Who speaks for democracy then? If not democratically elected leaders, who are promoting it then who?

That's kinda the point I was trying to make- people speak for democracy, rightly or wrongly, but Islam literally speaks for itself, just pick up the book and you'll find it telling people how to live.

you saying this never happened then:

English Civil War

Point taken, but all the big advances in British democracy took place well after that war, the exception being the foundation of parliament, which predated it.

**EDIT**
Rightly or wrongly the name of democracy has been blackened by the Iraq invasion, and I don't see it be rehabilitated anytime soon imho.

Really? I'd say that America and Britain have been blackened by it, along with western exceptionalism. Democracy remains a shining beacon of civilisation IMO.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well as much as I am and was against the Iraq war, marching in the street isn't democracy. Furthermore, only Britain and the US actually went to war, and the US population was for it (although they, and the entire world, had been lied to by Bush). I'm not sure what the UK figures were. So in nations where the majority of people were against the war, the nation didn't go to war.

Would you say the majority of Irish people were against it? I think so. Yet the Irish Government participated by allowing US Military jets to land in Shannon on their way to Iraq and also allowed rendition flights to land there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That's kinda the point I was trying to make- people speak for democracy, rightly or wrongly, but Islam literally speaks for itself, just pick up the book and you'll find it telling people how to live.

How can Islam speak for itself and democracy can't? Both are ideologies, and there both have texts that outline the ideologies. There are plenty of versions of democracy, just like there are many versions of Islam.

Plenty of people can read a text on democracy and try and achieve it peacefully and some will start blowing **** up.

Same with Islam, someone can read the Koran or Hadith, and decide to be peaceful or start to blow **** up.

With both democracy and Islam, we have example of people killing for there ideology and and people who don't.

The way I look at it, is that people seem to be more than willing to kill each regardless of there ideology. Feck, people will kill people over a sports team sometimes.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Point taken, but all the big advances in British democracy took place well after that war, the exception being the foundation of parliament, which predated it.

Fair enough.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Really? I'd say that America and Britain have been blackened by it, along with western exceptionalism. Democracy remains a shining beacon of civilisation IMO.

Not in the Middle East is isn't. More people would rather stability and security after seeing what democracy has resulted in Iraq. I reckon the cause for democrats in the Middle East had a major set back after the Iraq war.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is a major flaw in your logic however as the people the politicians in both the House of Representatives and House of Parliment represent people who where not affected by the war.

The real people who where affected where the Iraqi people who where killed in the dozens during the invasion. I don't remember their vote before the war.

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

Would you say the majority of Irish people were against it? I think so. Yet the Irish Government participated by allowing US Military jets to land in Shannon on their way to Iraq and also allowed rendition flights to land there.

Well they shouldn't have done that. The vast majority of the Irish were against the war, and were also against the government allowing those flights. Sadly democracy isn't perfect.

wes wrote:

How can Islam speak for itself and democracy can't? Both are ideologies, and there both have texts that outline the ideologies. There are plenty of versions of democracy, just like there are many versions of Islam.

Any text on democracy is written by man, and would be about the application of democracy or its theory (unlike Islam, democracy as a concept doesn't argue that it should be spread, its supporters do). If the Quran is to be believed, it is the literal word of god and is infallible. There is a fundamental difference between carrying out the mandate of heaven and promoting your own political views, even if the methods are the same.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course it is. When you tried to justify war by saying the Americans and British had agreed to it by their part you where talking rubbish.

War is always wrong and never justified, what right do the Americans and British have to move into another soverign country and kill the local populace ? Do they not get a say in this ?

Sand

Of course it is. When you tried to justify war by saying the Americans and British had agreed to it by their part you where talking rubbish.

He wasnt saying that - he responded to a question by Irishconvert regarding democratic support in Ireland for the Iraq war by pointing out that as Ireland didnt go to war, our opinion was fairly irrelevant - and that the countries that did go to war did so in line with the procedures and requirements of represtentitive democracy.

That you query why werent the Iraqis given a vote is foolishness for the reasons pointed out by DF.

War is always wrong and never justified

Yeah, right. 10,000 years of human history (and counting) disagrees.

, what right do the Americans and British have to move into another soverign country and kill the local populace ?

So long as they remain within the Geneva Conventions, their rights protected under realpolitick I guess.

Do they not get a say in this ?

Who, the people being invaded? If it gets to war, usually one side or both dont really care what the other side thinks.

EDIT - I havent been reading this thread for a long time...how the hell did it get to justification of the Iraq War? Is there some new law of Internet discussion being demonstrated here? Over a long enough time span, any thread will devolve into an argument over support for the Iraq War?

Iwasfrozen

Sand wrote: »

That you query why werent the Iraqis given a vote is foolishness for the reasons pointed out by DF.

Have you never heard of rhetorical questions ?

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, right. 10,000 years of human history (and counting) disagrees.

The existence of war does not mean it is justified.

Sand wrote: »

So long as they remain within the Geneva Conventions, their rights protected under realpolitick I guess.

The point is they shouldn't have been invaded. How would you feel if Britain invaded Ireland and bombed Dublin from the sky. Would this be alright because the British Parlimen voted for it and they kept within the Geneva convention ?

anymore

A current case involving the wife of a terrorist is relevant to the discussion :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8522474.stm
" Jurors were told her husband punished her for failing to wear a veil, giving her a "love bite" on her face so she would not forget.
The defendant said she found the transition from her family to her husband's "extremely, extremely difficult".
"I felt like my whole identity was being erased," Mrs Ali told the court.
The court was told she became scared of her husband, especially after he hit her during an argument. "

" Mrs Ali told the court her husband had very different views on Islam and she was made to feel she was not a good Muslim "

I suppose your view of this case may depend on what side of this debate your are on, never the less, it is a factual ongoing case as opposed to a theoritical discussion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Have you never heard of rhetorical questions ?

Yes, they serve to support an argument, by framing a question in such a fashion that only an answer that agrees with the argument seems reasonable. Your rhetorical questions are terrible, because the its quite reasonable to offer an answer that disagrees with your argument.

The existence of war does not mean it is justified.

Are you serious? Philosophers have offered definitions and idealogy of the just war for their societies throughout all time. History has taught us again and again that if a people figures war is their only option to get what they want, then they will create a justification to do so, now or later.

The point is they shouldn't have been invaded. How would you feel if Britain invaded Ireland and bombed Dublin from the sky. Would this be alright because the British Parlimen voted for it and they kept within the Geneva convention ?

Id have waved the convention at them that pointed out it was actually illegal for them to have invaded under Irish law because we hadnt voted our support for it. I am sure they would have accepted my well thought out arguments, wed all have a cup of tea and joke about the big misunderstanding and theyd withdraw. Id then be crowned Savior of Ireland.

@DF

I have no doubt that some Muslim husbands/fathers/brothers violently coerce their wives/daughters/sisters into wearing the veil. I'm certainly not in favour of that, of course—but such cases would seem to fall into the category of domestic abuse rather than religious freedom.

The problem here is, if a woman has been walled off from society through wearing the Burka, how is society going to detect a problem? The burka will ensure that any bruises are hidden too.

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what category does the State mandated imposition of stoning to death of women for breaking religious rules fall into ?
I am sure from the point of view of these people that they are under an obligation to make sure these women behave as good and pious women.
Likewise I am sure those good Christians who burned christian women to death, having first horribly tortured them, were not acting out of malice towards women but were fulfilling their religious duties.

anymore

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what burqa wearing supporters think of one the more benign manifestations of burqa wearing cultures, i.e the requirement that the wom.an walks several paces behind her husband in public. Is this a practice you would like to see in ireland ?

old_aussie

anymore wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what burqa wearing supporters think of one the more benign manifestations of burqa wearing cultures, i.e the requirement that the wom.an walks several paces behind her husband in public. Is this a practice you would like to see in ireland ?

It's a great practice, the man steps on landmine, car-boom, woman still alive , man gone lol

irishconvert

Just out of curiosity, of all the people here saying Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa/niqab, they are opressed, etc, have any of you ever actually spoke to a woman wearing one? Did you ask her why she wears it? Why bother with the endless speculation when you can just ask one of these women why she wears it?

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, of all the people here saying Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa/niqab, they are opressed, etc, have any of you ever actually spoke to a woman wearing one? Did you ask her why she wears it? Why bother with the endless speculation when you can just ask one of these women why she wears it?

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Chatting-Islam-strangers-noble.htm

Question
Asslam-o-alaikum
i m a muslim, Alhamdulilah..i m 17 years old..i used to go to this pakistani forums online...from there i made many friends...i used to chat with some of them on everyday basis...the people i chatted with them are very nice..i think of them as my brother and sister and they thought of me in same way..we never talked about anything wrong...yesterday, in my mind came some thing..and i thought that its wrong to chat with them..and i am committing a sin..is it true that its wrong to chat with them?it is becoming really difficult for me to not to talk to them since i talked with them everyday...please guide me and refer to Quran and Hadiths
Answer

Asalamu aleykum

Most scholars agree that it is haram to talk informally online with the opposite sex, because, first of all, Islam prohibits friendship between men and women who are not mahrems, and, secondly, because of the great harm that may result from it.

When in doubt, a Muslim must be extremely careful to avoid the haram. Allah knows what is good for us and what is harmful to us, better than we can possibly know ourselves.

Please read the fatawa below for more information. It's a lot to read, but really worth it!

May Allah bless, forgive, and guide us all.


I know this question relates to online conversations, but I am assuming that it covers caual conversations.
The thread is about burqas !

irishconvert

anymore wrote: »

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Chatting-Islam-strangers-noble.htm

Question
Asslam-o-alaikum
i m a muslim, Alhamdulilah..i m 17 years old..i used to go to this pakistani forums online...from there i made many friends...i used to chat with some of them on everyday basis...the people i chatted with them are very nice..i think of them as my brother and sister and they thought of me in same way..we never talked about anything wrong...yesterday, in my mind came some thing..and i thought that its wrong to chat with them..and i am committing a sin..is it true that its wrong to chat with them?it is becoming really difficult for me to not to talk to them since i talked with them everyday...please guide me and refer to Quran and Hadiths
Answer

Asalamu aleykum

Most scholars agree that it is haram to talk informally online with the opposite sex, because, first of all, Islam prohibits friendship between men and women who are not mahrems, and, secondly, because of the great harm that may result from it.

When in doubt, a Muslim must be extremely careful to avoid the haram. Allah knows what is good for us and what is harmful to us, better than we can possibly know ourselves.

Please read the fatawa below for more information. It's a lot to read, but really worth it!

May Allah bless, forgive, and guide us all.


I know this question relates to online conversations, but I am assuming that it covers caual conversations.
The thread is about burqas !

Erm, what has this got to do with my question?

dvpower

irishconvert wrote: »

Erm, what has this got to do with my question?

I think he's suggesting that Muslim women are not allowed to talk to non Muslims (y'know, pick an extreme interpretation of an aspect of a religion and then assume that all adherents are extremists).

Mind you, I did hear an interview on Newstalk the other weekend where a Scottish Muslim when asked if she had casual conversations with people on the street, said she didn't and wondered why anyone would want to have a conversation with anyone outside of their family. Weird.

ChocolateSauce

anymore wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what burqa wearing supporters think of one the more benign manifestations of burqa wearing cultures, i.e the requirement that the wom.an walks several paces behind her husband in public. Is this a practice you would like to see in ireland ?

I don't think anyone, including Muslims like Irishconvert, has said they supported the Burka. We're not Burka supporters, we're freedom of expression supporters. Respecting something and respecting something's right to exist are different things entirely.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't think anyone, including Muslims like Irishconvert, has said they supported the Burka. We're not Burka supporters, we're freedom of expression supporters. Respecting something and respecting something's right to exist are different things entirely.

Agreed. From my understanding I don't believe a Burqa/Niqab are necessary. But if some women believe this is the case and they want to wear it then let them be. They are not harming anyone.

Laminations

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't think anyone, including Muslims like Irishconvert, has said they supported the Burka. We're not Burka supporters, we're freedom of expression supporters. Respecting something and respecting something's right to exist are different things entirely.

So you respect somethings right to be practiced even though you think its completely wrong?
If its just that you dont like it (similar to people wearing pjs to the shops) then fine, you have no right to curtail the practice based on your preference...but if you have legitimate reasons for opposing the attire, then turning a blind eye based on some weird illusion of tolerance is tantamont to moral/ethical/societal negligence.

Laminations

I think this argument has parallels with the legalisation of drugs argument - its their bodies they can do what they want, they are not harming anyone. However I dont want a society thats streets are full of walking dead heroin addicts in the same way I dont want one where people cover their faces. If you dont condone drug use you should legislate against it, if you dont condone face covering you should legislate against it.

There is also a parallel in the idea of volitional behaviour for niqab wearers and drug addicts - the former has the agency/locus of control in their religion and the latter in their addivtion

ChocolateSauce

Laminations wrote: »

So you respect somethings right to be practiced even though you think its completely wrong?

Yes, and that is literally what it means to support free society. The only exception is if it is causing demonstrable harm to society, and cries of "Cultural purity" and "Fabric of society" don't amount to demonstrable harm. Offence doesn't count as demonstrable harm.

If its just that you dont like it (similar to people wearing pjs to the shops) then fine, you have no right to curtail the practice based on your preference..

That's right.

.but if you have legitimate reasons for opposing the attire, then turning a blind eye based on some weird illusion of tolerance is tantamont to moral/ethical/societal negligence.

If you want to know my opinion on tolerance and Islam, go to here.

Probably best not to quote things from one forum in another btw.

RosslareChap

irishconvert wrote: »

Agreed. From my understanding I don't believe a Burqa/Niqab are necessary. But if some women believe this is the case and they want to wear it then let them be. They are not harming anyone.

Maybe care to explain why ALL women ( of all religions and no religion ) are forced to wear a hijab in Iran?, and in many Muslim countries. Is having a womens hair showing really harming anyone?. Likewise a bit of lower legs showing from a normal knee length skirt?. Maybe when Muslim countries start respecting the rights of non-Muslim women to wear non-Muslim dress, maybe then we can respect the rights of Muslim women to wear what they want, which we have been doing for a long time, with still no change in Muslim countries.

comeraghs

I think the Burqa should be allowed on one condition, If the wife is wearing it ...the husband should too!

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

Agreed. From my understanding I don't believe a Burqa/Niqab are necessary. But if some women believe this is the case and they want to wear it then let them be. They are not harming anyone.

Ok this thread is about burqas.

If your arguements on the subject are so threadbare that you feel the need to expand it to include niqab, thats ok, it doesnt detract from the arguements about the burqa - on the contrary it reinforces the reason for seeking to ban it.
For myself, I believe there is very little element of free will involved in making this chioce. We have seen even in the UK the ghastly consequences of young Muslim girls trying to assert their rights to exercise free will. In some cases young UK born girls have been taken out of the country and foricbly married off in countries like the UK. Others have had to seek shelter in refuges in the UK.
So before you declare yourselves to be supporters of freedom of expression, pause and think of those whose unfortunate experince has beem to flee in fear of their lives. The burqa is just a symbol of a state that for many is little better than a form of serfdom.
Like i said I'm happy to give up some of my freedoms as regards security etc, but I am damned if I am going be a happy clapply liberal whilst knowing the awful price that must be paid by those who dont have the freedom you are talking about.
I will quote, rather perversely given that she is a christian fundamentalist herself. Sarah Palin:

How's that HOPEY- CHANGEY STUFF workin out for ya ?"

wes

Laminations wrote: »

I think this argument has parallels with the legalisation of drugs argument - its their bodies they can do what they want, they are not harming anyone. However I dont want a society thats streets are full of walking dead heroin addicts in the same way I dont want one where people cover their faces. If you dont condone drug use you should legislate against it, if you dont condone face covering you should legislate against it.

There is also a parallel in the idea of volitional behaviour for niqab wearers and drug addicts - the former has the agency/locus of control in their religion and the latter in their addivtion

We do condone drug use. Its called Alchohol, and contributes to a great deal of violence and road deaths. So using your logic we should then ban. I don't think you would get very far .