Remember the minarets?

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

So now your argument is that no new legislation should be initiated on anything because there is evidence that current legislation is being ignored or not enforced?

That's your words, not mine.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

It also tells you not to be drunk in public. It also tells barmen not to serve drunk people. Those laws are broken everyday.

I'm failing to connect the logic here to anything.

RandomName2

bonkey wrote: »

Some time ago, we had a good ol' ding-dong of a thread, discussing how the Swiss were or weren't completely out of line to ban minarets.

There were, at that point, two minarets in the country.

In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha.

There are, apparently, less then 100 people estimated to wear this in Switzerland.

The finest democracy on earth rolls on...

The use of uniforms by distinct sections of the public is to be discouraged. Particularly when the uniform in question has religious significance. Even more so when the uniform conceals identity.

Is the Klu Klux Klan veil illegal in America? If not, it should be (if the US public vote on it - woo democracy!)

Hello Mr. Balaclava man. Nice of you to engage with Irish nationalist culture!

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

I'm failing to connect the logic here to anything.

Lack of enforceability seems to be the only logical conclusion drawn from that argument. Not that it is true, cuz being naked, blind drunk or wearing a burqa in public are all pretty easy to spot.

bonkey

Laminations wrote: »

Now obviously it has to be explored as to why different cultures focus on different parts of the face but in the West we use the whole face to garner information, so restricting this information in public (I still say) is a bad idea for social development.
We'll have to agree to disagree

No...we can agree that its a bad idea. We just disagree that its a bad idea that needs to be or should be dealt with using legislation.

You say with the numbers involved it is not a problem - so at what numbers does it become a problem for you?? I'm guessing you have no number.

I thought it would have been clear...my apologies. I find the likely negative impacts of such an act to society to far outweigh the positive impacts. While its by no means a slippery slope situation, I do feel that taking such steps only heighten already existent tensions, and serve to broaden the divides which hinder integration.

I don't know where you stand in your perception of the likely negative impacts, despite having asked, so I'm not going to try and guess.

For me, when a convincing argument could be made that the positive impacts would be greater, I'd listen to the argument and am open to be persuaded. I would also consider whether or not there were other options (compromises, or entirely different paths) which offered a preferable "least worst option".

Yes maybe its a proactive restriction to prevent some slippery slope type argument (I'm generally against slippery slope arguments, but then again I'm not calling for a ban) but I'm respecting the right of a country to decide what is acceptable in public and if a ban was to be introduced here (and again I'm not calling for it), I'd be against it....I'd be for a restriction so believers could still have many places to practice their belief that covering their faces makes god love them more.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile support for a restriction over a ban with an insistence that the covering of the face is detrimental to society and that this is to be avoided. Are you of the opinion that some detriment to society in this regard is acceptable...or is the type of restriction you see effectively "anywhere public"?

The Corinthian

irishconvert wrote: »

I still don't believe it. What part of London. I live in London and have never come accross anything like this. If it did happen the Daily Express & Mail would be all over it.

Would they? I think you overestimate the omnipresent nature of the red-tops.

Ok, so any of us can come in here and use made up personal accounts to back up our point.

Are you still accusing me of lying?

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you still accusing me of lying?

Answering that question would result in me banning him.

Please...drop it, or take it to PM.

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

For me, when a convincing argument could be made that the positive impacts would be greater, I'd listen to the argument and am open to be persuaded. I would also consider whether or not there were other options (compromises, or entirely different paths) which offered a preferable "least worst option".

I'd also like to see a better option, perhaps education in schools over the folly of covering ones face and the importance of the face for understanding and trust amongst people, and also the ability to make ones own mind up about issues rather than deferring responsibility to God.

As an aside, trying to get a feel for how minorities (muslims in particular) feel about integration I came across the following. Irishconvert (in particular), any chance you could give me your opinion on this piece and the subsequent comments.

wes

Laminations wrote: »

As an aside, trying to get a feel for how minorities (muslims in particular) feel about integration I came across the following. Irishconvert (in particular), any chance you could give me your opinion on this piece and the subsequent comments.

MPAC, is one guy and a small group of family and friends. They are about as representive of the Muslim community, as the KKK are of Christians. This "new group" they speak of are suspicously similar to MPAC as well btw.....

What was also interesting is that if you read the article, they have major issues, with the more main stream groups preaching intergration and what not.

Laminations

wes wrote: »

MPAC, is one guy and a small group of family and friends. They are about as representive of the Muslim community, as the KKK are of Christians. This "new group" they speak of are suspicously similar to MPAC as well btw.....

What was also interesting is that if you read the article, they have major issues, with the more main stream groups preaching intergration and what not.

Yep I dont for one second think that MPAC are representative of the muslim community in Ireland. I also do not think burqa wearers are representative (Bonkey says its a very small figure) and that the more 'mainstream' muslim groups (as you put it) would respect restrictions on facial covering - like the Imam in Italy

'Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said: 'We are for the freedom of women and against veils of any kind and Italian laws must be respected.
'We as an organisation have always said that we are against face veils or coverings in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed.'

wes

Laminations wrote: »

Yep I dont for one second think that MPAC are representative of the muslim community in Ireland. I also do not think burqa wearers are representative (Bonkey says its a very small figure) and that the more 'mainstream' muslim groups (as you put it) would respect restrictions on facial covering - like the Imam in Italy

'Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said: 'We are for the freedom of women and against veils of any kind and Italian laws must be respected.
'We as an organisation have always said that we are against face veils or coverings in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed.'

I am not fan of the veil myself, but if some people want to wear them, then that is there business imho.

irishconvert

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would they? I think you overestimate the omnipresent nature of the red-tops.

Are you still accusing me of lying?

Just tell me in what part of London this happened to your sister.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Where have I 'effectively claimed' any such thing? What anyone interprets anything to mean is of no consequence when it comes to the law.

...but you've claimed to interpret the islamic religon in order to back your case for the law. You claim that the Burqa is not part of the islamic faith. You're therefore claiming to be able to tell which is the correct version or reading of Islam.

prinz wrote: »

And who decides these caveats? The voters perhaps?

Principles of law, I would have thought.

prinz wrote: »

And neo-nazis should be free to peddle their nonsense in public?

Is this bait and switch time?

prinz wrote: »

Should people be allowed carry knives, guns etc? If I feel like carrying a gun because I feel like it, and have no intention to use it, is that ok?

In a large number of jurisdictions, yes.

prinz wrote: »

So is a KKK hood. So is a swastika armband.

Again, another emotive and ridiculous comparison.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Irishconvert please provide one example of where I said a ban should apply to Muslims only and noone else. I have repeatedly and expressly stated the exact opposite.

You stated the same argument against minarets - 'it doesn't just affect muslims'. It was laughable then, it's laughable now.

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

Some people may like or dislike a punks attire. This issue is not as simple as likeability of clothing preference, if you think it is then you misunderstand the importance a human face has for 'face-to-face' interaction.....the clue is in the name

why not ban talking on the phone then

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

why not ban talking on the phone then

Talking on the phone, similar to conversing/debating online is not an example of face-to-face communication. I think anyone should be allowed were a burqa when talking on the phone. In fact I'm wearing one now but it doesn't matter as this 'converstation' is not face-to-face.

Its also perfectly fine for you or anyone to pull your plum while posting here, it would not be acceptable in a face-to-face encounter, unless of course we'd agreed to some form of sex game.

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

Talking on the phone, similar to conversing/debating online is not an example of face-to-face communication. I think anyone should be allowed were a burqa when talking on the phone. In fact I'm wearing one now but it doesn't matter as this 'converstation' is not face-to-face.

Its also perfectly fine for you or anyone to pull your plum while posting here, it would not be acceptable in a face-to-face encounter, unless of course we'd agreed to some form of sex game.

so let me see if i understand you

you define a face to face as when two or more people are present and conversing whether or not one persons face is visible or not. is this correct?

a non face to face is when neithers face is visible, this is acceptable but not as preferable as the above. correct

if one persons face is not visible this is so reprehensible as it constitutes a crime?

forgive me if i am miss interpreting

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

so let me see if i understand you

you define a face to face as when two or more people are present and conversing whether or not one persons face is visible or not. is this correct?

a non face to face is when neithers face is visible, this is acceptable but not as preferable as the above. correct

if one persons face is not visible this is so reprehensible as it constitutes a crime?

forgive me if i am miss interpreting

You lost me.
I define face-to-face interaction as two or more people interacting with faces/expressions visible (in person/physically present beside one another).

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

You lost me.
I define face-to-face interaction as two or more people interacting with faces/expressions visible (in person/physically present beside one another).

ok. is the rest correct?

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

ok. is the rest correct?

it doesn't matter re numbers of faces covered, it matters re context (place/time). If there was a nuclear winter and the air became toxic, we'd all have to cover our faces, there are situational reasons to cover ones face (some legitimate - motorbike helmet on bike, ski mask on the slopes, others not - motorbike helmet in post office, balaclave in Pennys). As for whether its a crime, it should be treated as an offence in the same way walking into Pennys with your penis exposed would be.

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

it doesn't matter re numbers of faces covered, it matters re context (place/time). If there was a nuclear winter and the air became toxic, we'd all have to cover our faces, there are situational reasons to cover ones face (some legitimate - motorbike helmet on bike, ski mask on the slopes, others not - motorbike helmet in post office, balaclave in Pennys). As for whether its a crime, it should be treated as an offence in the same way walking into Pennys with your penis exposed would be.

im not saying the numbers are relevant.

and how is having your penis exposed the same as covering your face when it comes to face to face conversations or walking in pennys

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

im not saying the numbers are relevant.

and how is having your penis exposed the same as covering your face when it comes to face to face conversations or walking in pennys

I'd see them both covered under decency legislation. If people voted to allow habitual face covering (or indeed, penis waving) then thats fine, its a democracy and I'd accept that that is something I'd encounter when I'm out. I'm just saying if there was a vote (and I'm in no way calling for a vote, its a very trivial thing for me), I'd vote against allowing habitual face covering in certain places.

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

I'd see them both covered under decency legislation. If people voted to allow habitual face covering (or indeed, penis waving) then thats fine, its a democracy and I'd accept that that is something I'd encounter when I'm out. I'm just saying if there was a vote (and I'm in no way calling for a vote, its a very trivial thing for me), I'd vote against allowing habitual face covering in certain places.

ok now i see what your arguing

in certain places i can see an arguement for when it becomes a problem such as in banks or on passports, driving licences etc.

it is a blanket ban in public places i have a problem with

Nodin

sensibleken wrote: »

why not ban talking on the phone then

That doesn't nessecarily involve a minority community deemed to be 'dangerous' by certain elements.

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

ok now i see what your arguing

in certain places i can see an arguement for when it becomes a problem such as in banks or on passports, driving licences etc.

it is a blanket ban in public places i have a problem with

I would also not be in favour of a blanket ban. Whether its a blanket or a burqa or a motorbike helmet over your face, it certain places this would be restricted

I'd define those places as the same places you cant smoke in public.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

That doesn't nessecarily involve a minority community deemed to be 'dangerous' by certain elements.

Yes because I'd suggest banning muslims talking on the phone if I could, I'm such an evil xenophobe :rolleyes:

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

I would also not be in favour of a blanket ban. Whether its a blanket or a burqa or a motorbike helmet over your face, it certain places this would be restricted

I'd define those places as the same places you cant smoke in public.

sound. thankfully i wouldnt expect to see many in burqas in pubs on a saturday night, and smoking poses a whole other dificulty:)

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Yes because I'd suggest banning muslims talking on the phone if I could, I'm such an evil xenophobe :rolleyes:

I wasn't referring to you, nor was that comment made with you in mind. Rather unforunately the Swiss have a well documented xenophobic attitude that extends back over a hundred years. Whilst they are far more liberal these days (as their recent action over the attainment of citizenship shows), they still have a long way to go.

Nodin

sensibleken wrote: »

sound. thankfully i wouldnt expect to see many in burqas in pubs on a saturday night, and smoking poses a whole other dificulty:)

Just looking out the window....I can imagine theres a market for the waterproof headcovering/Niquab/Burqa as well as the fireproof one..

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Just looking out the window....I can imagine theres a market for the waterproof headcovering/Niquab/Burqa as well as the fireproof one..

What about the market for the sloganised 't-shirt hell-esque' burqa/niqab??

It would definitely make face covering more fun. I can think of many hilarious slogans, none of which I will post

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

What about the market for the sloganised 't-shirt hell-esque' burqa/niqab??

It would definitely make face covering more fun. I can think of many hilarious slogans, none of which I will post

Indeedy.

bonkey

Laminations wrote: »

I'd see them both covered under decency legislation. If people voted to allow habitual face covering (or indeed, penis waving) then thats fine,

Just being picky here....habitual face covering is legal. Why should people vote to allow something that's already legal?

Perhaps what you meant to say is that if people voted to disallow habitual face covering, and that vote failed to carry, then thats fine.

If people don't vote and it remains legal...I assume that's fine too?

anymore

On the Ban the Burqua thread, I enquired several times about the origin of the Burqua but none was forthcoming.
Tom Holland's book 'Millenium' gives the answer on page 235. . .Abu ‘Ali Mansur Tāriqu l-Ḥākim ( 996 - 1021_ Caliph of Egypt ordered women everywhere to be veiled when out in public; according to Mr Holland's book, the Caliph introduced this measure in order to curb female promiscuity !
Page 235 Millennium.
" First he order women every where to be veiled when out in public; then he banned them from leaving their homes; finally he forbade them even so much as to peer out of their windows or doors. Cobblers were instructed from making them shoes. Those whose voices disturbed the Caliph as he walked through the streets might expect to be walled up and left to starve. "

Some of his other ecentricities, according to the book, include ordering all dogs in Cairo be put to the sword and dumped in dessert, banning the sale of watercress and banning the playing of chess.
So it would seem from this that veiling of female faces was more designed to protect men from women rather than protecting the modesty of women !
Further info on the caliph :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah
.

prinz

anymore wrote: »

On the Ban the Burqua thread, I enquired several times about the origin of the Burqua but none was forthcoming.
Tom Holland's book 'Millenium' gives the answer on page 235. . .Abu ‘Ali Mansur Tāriqu l-Ḥākim ( 996 - 1021_ Caliph of Egypt ordered women everywhere to be veiled when out in public; according to Mr Holland's book, the Caliph introduced this measure in order to curb female promiscuity!
.

Mr Holland should do better research. Burka style clothing outdates the above by centuries.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

Mr Holland should do better research. Burka style clothing outdates the above by centuries.

perhaps yuou could assist him by giving quotes or references ?
The following comes from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah
Religious Minorities and the Law of Differentiation
Al-Hakim disliked the influence of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. He ordered random arrests, executions, and the destruction of churches as early as 1001. His attitude towards Christians grew hostile by 1003 when he ordered a recently built church destroyed and replaced by a mosque and went on to turn two other churches into mosques. In 1004 he decreed that the Christians could no longer celebrate Epiphany or Easter.[8] He also outlawed the use of wine (nabidh) and even other intoxicating drinks not made from grapes (fuqa) to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.[7] This produced a hardship for both Christians (who used wine in their religious rites) and Jews (who used it in their religious festivals).
In 1005, al-Ḥākim ordered that Jews and Christians follow ghiyār "the law of differentiation" – in this case, the mintaq or zunnar "belt" (Greek ζοναριον) and ‘imāmah "turban", both in black. In addition, Jews must wear a wooden calf necklace and Christians an iron cross. In the public baths, Jews must replace the calf with a bell. In addition, women of the Ahl al-Kitab had to wear two different coloured shoes, one red and one black. These remained in place until 1014.[9]
Al-Ḥākim engaged in other erratic behaviour in 1005: he ordered the killing of all the dogs in Egypt and had them discarded in the desert. He also forced the inhabitants of Cairo to work at night and go to bed in the mornings and severely punished anyone caught violating his orders.
Following contemporary Shiite thinking, during this period al-Ḥākim also issued many other rigid restrictive ordinances (sijillat). These sijill included outlawing entrance to a public bath with uncovered loins, forbidding women from appearing in public with their faces uncovered, and closing many clubs and places of entertainment.[7]
The refernce in wiki for above is :
a b c d e f g h Nissim Dana (2003). The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status. Sussex Academic Press.

prinz

anymore wrote: »

perhaps yuou could assist him by giving quotes or references ?

Sure..

There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

anymore

prinz wrote: »

Sure..



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face

I presume you noted the word ' prostituting' which seems to reflect hte caliph's rather low opinion of women, dont you agree ?

I am not sure how the wearing of ' burqua' type face cloths by " pagan women " is connected with the wearing of a burqua by devout Islmaic women ?

prinz

anymore wrote: »

I presume you noted the word ' prostituting' which seems to reflect hte caliph's rather low opinion of women, dont you agree ?

The word prostituting above is from the quote by Tertullian, not the Caliph. It also does not reflect on the woman herself, in this context it is interchangeable with showing/exposing/etc.

anymore wrote: »

I am not sure how the wearing of ' burqua' type face cloths by " pagan women " is connected with the wearing of a burqua by devout Islmaic women ?

People were wearing them long before this Caliph and his collection of motley laws came along. The wearing of burkas has no bearing whatsoever on the level of devotion either.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

The word prostituting above is from the quote by Tertullian, not the Caliph. It also does not reflect on the woman herself, in this context it is interchangeable with showing/exposing/etc.



People were wearing them long before this Caliph and his collection of motley laws came along. The wearing of burkas has no bearing whatsoever on the level of devotion either.

Come now ! This caliph is an extremely important Islamic figure, so the reference to his 'motley laws' does not reflect his significance to the religion.

prinz

anymore wrote: »

Come now ! This caliph is an extremely important Islamic figure, so the reference to his 'motley laws' does not reflect his significance to the religion.

His importance or lack of is irrelevant. Burkas were already being worn in the Arabian peninsula long before he came around.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

His importance or lack of is irrelevant. Burkas were already being worn in the Arabian peninsula long before he came around.

I am afraid you are missing the point; it is being claimed that banning burquas is being anti islamic, so we must look to the Islamic origins of the garment.

prinz

anymore wrote: »

I am afraid you are missing the point; it is being claimed that banning burquas is being anti islamic, so we must look to the Islamic origins of the garment.

No I'm not. It's irrelevant because Muslims were wearing burka style clothing long before ths Caliph came along. This chap and his laws is not the Islamic origin of wearing burkas.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

No I'm not. It's irrelevant because Muslims were wearing burka style clothing long before ths Caliph came along. This chap and his laws is not the Islamic origin of wearing burkas.

Tehn you might explain the Islamic origins so ?

prinz

anymore wrote: »

Tehn you might explain the Islamic origins so ?

Islam started in Arabia. The first converts were the same pagans mentioned by Tertullian. I think it's safe to say they continued to wear burka type clothing for practical reasons living in the desert.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

Islam started in Arabia. The first converts were the same pagans mentioned by Tertullian. I think it's safe to say they continued to wear burka type clothing for practical reasons living in the desert.

As you obivously dont have any references or sources or explanations of the Islamic origins of the burqua, why are you criticising those who do ?

prinz

anymore wrote: »

As you obivously dont have any references or sources or explanations of the Islamic origins of the burqua, why are you criticising those who do ?

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282:

Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba:
'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

of the Bukhari Hadith collection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari

Sahih Al-Bukhari who lived before your Caliph, recording a saying by Aisha, that's this Aisha..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

There are plenty of references of Muslim being completely covered in burka like wear long before the 10th century. The only thing that Caliph did was enact a law enforcing an already common practice.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

of the Bukhari Hadith collection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari

Sahih Al-Bukhari who lived before your Caliph, recording a saying by Aisha, that's this Aisha..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

There are plenty of references of Muslim being completely covered in burka like wear long before the 10th century. The only thing that Caliph did was enact a law enforcing an already common practice.

So is this lady also a Prophet ?
Also is there any reference in the Koran to the need to wear veils or a burqua ?

prinz

anymore wrote: »

So is this lady also a Prophet?

No.

anymore wrote: »

Also is there any reference in the Koran to the need to wear veils or a burqua ?

Yes there are references to women being veiled in public in the Koran. There is no requirement for the face to be covered it was open to interpretation to what extent modest dress must be taken. For some it was a heascarf, others covered their whole as per the post above.

anymore

prinz wrote: »

No.



Yes there are references to women being veiled in public in the Koran. There is no requirement for the face to be covered it was open to interpretation to what extent modest dress must be taken. For some it was a heascarf, others covered their whole as per the post above.

Plase give the precise references from the Koran, particularily the ones regarding the burqua and the possibilty of taking your interpretation. After all a veil is usually intended to cover up the hair, is it not ? Covering up the face is an entirely different matter and must surely require a specific mandate.

prinz

anymore wrote: »

Plase give the precise references from the Koran, particularily the ones regarding the burqua and the possibilty of taking your interpretation. After all a veil is usually intended to cover up the hair, is it not ? Covering up the face is an entirely different matter and must surely require a specific mandate.

There is no precise reference to the burka is the Koran. There is no specific instruction to cover your face in the Koran.

This piece gives some of the references..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b