A glance at Saudi government-approved fatwas

[Bismillah]

Or the banning of Burqas and possible banning of the Hijab or banks that do not use interest. Muslim freedom faces many restrictions as well as implicit restrictions such as wearing Islamic affiliated clothing when applying for a job.

 

[darkendless]

Or the banning of Burqas and possible banning of the Hijab or banks that do not use interest. Muslim freedom faces many restrictions as well as implicit restrictions such as wearing Islamic affiliated clothing when applying for a job.

Whats wrong with security interests?

 

[Bismillah]

Whats wrong with security interests?

When it violates personal freedoms in public then there is something inherently wrong with it. Then again European leaders have shown to be hypocritical when it comes to personal freedoms.

 

[darkendless]

When it violates personal freedoms in public then there is something inherently wrong with it. Then again European leaders have shown to be hypocritical when it comes to personal freedoms.

Thats rediculous. Don't people have the personal freedom to wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank then also?

Its not about attacking anyone, its about being able to see a persons face for security reasons. How is that an attack on freedom?

Do you think Sikhs should be allowed to break road rules because they wear a head dress? Isn't making them take it off and wear a helmet for safety reasons a breach of freedom as well?

 

[Bismillah]

One, I am talking about wearing a burqa on public property such as a park. Two, it would be easy enough to require a quick face recognition in those areas where security is a concern such as an airport. But really, a generalize ban really does betray their interests.

I suppose you will also be claiming that minarets are housing ICBMs and the Adhan is a call for violence?

 

[darkendless]

One, I am talking about wearing a burqa on public property such as a park. Two, it would be easy enough to require a quick face recognition in those areas where security is a concern such as an airport. But really, a generalize bank really does betray their interests.

I suppose you will also be claiming that minarets are housing ICBMs and the Adhan is a call for violence?

You used a bank as an example and then changed to public, i did not notice. In public people should (within reason) be able to wear what they want. Burqas aren't the worst thing i've seen worn these days I see a lot of them at uni and people here are offended by them.

Facial recognition in banks is easy enough but impractical. Why would banks do facial recognition because some people choose to cover their face? I'm not saying its right, i'm saying it costs money which as a business decision is unnecessary.

I think in the interests of security and safety such as the examples of riding a motorbike and wearing a helmet, and uncovering your face in a bank are not unreasonable. If people think they are, perhaps use another mode of transport or use phone banking?

 

[Bismillah]

I didn't edit my posts, but I did state that banks in the U.S charge interest, perhaps you were mixed up between the two. I know why people are offended by the burqa and almost always it's not the burqa that offends them.

How is facial recognition impractical? A bank identifies people by security footage, requiring a person to remove their burqa when they are making their transaction wouldn't change anything. This would also suffice in an airport as well. But these are not the subject of what I am talking about. What I am talking about is that a women who wants to take her children to the park can't wear what she wants when she goes there.

I've never heard of anyone attempting to wear a burqa while riding a motorcycle, no one I know is that stupid. I'm sure it would tangle into something essential and wouldn't result in anything pleasant. But all these things are general anomalies or outliers that don't apply to the majority of people affected by sweeping bans that ultimately target the freedoms of Muslims residing in Europe.

 

[darkendless]

I didn't edit my posts, but I did state that banks in the U.S charge interest, perhaps you were mixed up between the two. I know why people are offended by the burqa and almost always it's not the burqa that offends them.

It was a misunderstanding by me.

People here from my experience don't understand why they wear it when others only wear a hijab.

How is facial recognition impractical? A bank identifies people by security footage, requiring a person to remove their burqa when they are making their transaction wouldn't change anything. This would also suffice in an airport as well. But these are not the subject of what I am talking about. What I am talking about is that a women who wants to take her children to the park can't wear what she wants when she goes there.

I would have thought asking a woman to remove her burqa for facial recognition to make a transaction would be offensive?

As far as i know women can in the west. The Burqa takes some getting used to i admit, but why can't women wear one to the park. A comparison is its like wearing a very sun-smart hat? Is it illegal somewhere or are they harrassed?

I've never heard of anyone attempting to wear a burqa while riding a motorcycle, no one I know is that stupid. I'm sure it would tangle into something essential and wouldn't result in anything pleasant. But all these things are general anomalies or outliers that don't apply to the majority of people affected by sweeping bans that ultimately target the freedoms of Muslims residing in Europe.

I remember seeing an article from England where sikhs were allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet because of their head dress. In the interests of safety i would have thought they'd be asked to remove it to ride the bike. No emergency attendant would want to clean their brains off the pavement because they chose for religious reasons not to wear a helmet. Thats just selfish and stupid.

 

[Badran]

Consider the lamp beside your bed. You turn it on by a switch. If you do NOT turn on the switch the lamp cannot light up. Turning on the switch is a necessary condition for the lamp to work.
But it is NOT sufficient. If the bulb is burned out the lamp won’t light. If there is no current in your house or the fuse controlling that circuit is open or if there is another brake in wire turning on the switch will not light the lamp.
Simply turning on the switch is a NECESSARY but not sufficient condition for the lamp to light.
Believe in a god(s) is NECESSARY before one is willing to kill in its name. But it is not SUFFICIENT. Ones needs other things to be present, zeal, lack of morals, belief in a vast reward, hate, ignorance, or any combination of the above are also necessary.
Belief is NECESSARY but not sufficient.

We could end every act of religious violence for ALL time by one simple act. Stop believing these fairy tales about a supernatural being(s) who rewards and/or punishes individual acts or persons.

Thanks for the explanation.

First, you're assuming that the person who kills for religious reasons, wouldn't kill if he weren't religious. I'm not saying he necessarily will, but we don't know.

Second, if we look at this as misusage of religion by some (as most religious people don't do this), that means that following your logic the solution to anything being misused by some while being well used by others should be to get rid of it. In that case almost everything should be gotten rid of, as anything can be misused.

 

[Badran]

So, when a secular state allows a muslim to perform Azaan in their country, we'll see if your rights can be protected too in a religious state.

Just because some secular countries are doing something wrong, we should do it too? I mean are you saying that they are both right, or both wrong?

If both right, then at least you should have no objection on these restrictions some secular countries puts on muslims, naturally.

If both wrong, why should we wait for them to do the right thing in order for us to do it?

 

[Bismillah]

It was a misunderstanding by me.

People here from my experience don't understand why they wear it when others only wear a hijab.

No problem, internet forums are disorganized and hectic. Actually I put " a generalized bank" I meant ban, so that probably led us down this road, sorry about that.

I would have thought asking a woman to remove her burqa for facial recognition to make a transaction would be offensive?

Well if she is willing to go out in public then she should show her face when it is necessary. It won't do any good if men don a burqa and rob a bank. Like you said she should either do her transactions from home or if she is so insistent that society should accommodate her then maybe she should be a bit more accommodating and let the husband take care of the banking business.

Well I don't fully understand why anyone would choose to wear a burqa I won't criticize it. There was a post by fullyvieledmuslimah who converted to Islam in America and chose to wear a burqa. Her reasoning and love for God is quite endearing. So while I won't wear it myself (although being a man all this is conjecture and moot), I won't prohibit another from doing.

As far as i know women can in the west. The Burqa takes some getting used to i admit, but why can't women wear one to the park. A comparison is its like wearing a very sun-smart hat? Is it illegal somewhere or are they harrassed?

It is now illegal to wear in France. There was a politician who also tried this in Australia but the move didn't pass. I think that as time will pass other countries will also adopt this ban including Denmark and Switzerland. I understand that the burqa is intimidating, it still makes me uncomfortable, but I won't restrict the freedoms of others.

I remember seeing an article from England where sikhs were allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet because of their head dress. In the interests of safety i would have thought they'd be asked to remove it to ride the bike. No emergency attendant would want to clean their brains off the pavement because they chose for religious reasons not to wear a helmet. Thats just selfish and stupid

Well in Arizona helmets aren't required, a byproduct of the intense heat I believe that can cause people to hallucinate, but I'm not a big fan of the state telling me what to do either.

 

[Bismillah]

If both wrong, why should we wait for them to do the right thing in order for us to do it?

Badran: But it's much more practical to implement changes in a first world country that touts individual values and progressive liberalism than many of the Muslim countries of the world. It comes down to how I expect America to treat Americans and how I expect Saudi Arabia to treat Saudis.

 

[Badran]

Badran: But it's much more practical to implement changes in a first world country that touts individual values and progressive liberalism than many of the Muslim countries of the world. It comes down to how I expect America to treat American and how I expect Saudi Arabia to treat Saudis.

Of course, and thats the way it is. I just don't agree that its a justification for Muslim countries to restrict the rights of non-muslims (I know you're not saying that). Also, note that some of the things mentioned here are also restrictions on muslims themselves. There must a line drawn where the government should interfere and where it shouldn't.

In other words, if we were discussing the conditions of Saudi Arabia for example, some of the restrictions there are completely understandable considering that secular liberal countries still put restrictions on people. However, since we were talking about the way it is supposed to be, why still say that we will restrict people? Because secular countries do? That doesn't make any sense, unless you view both as right, and in that case that person shouldn't complain about these restrictions in secular countries otherwise they are contradicting themselves.

 

[Sahar]

Abibi; can you add the name of the poster to the quotes?
Because I see your replies and I get curious about whom you were replying to.

 

[Bismillah]

Badran: I am interested in on your views of Sharia ruled state. If it were to impose a statewide ban on pork or alcohol for example would that be against Islamic practice in your view? Would it be acceptable if only non-Muslims were to partake in these activities? Sources would be excellent

not4me: It's all a reply to darkendless I believe. I'm not sure how to format quotes to include names

 

[Sahar]

not4me: It's all a reply to darkendless I believe. I'm not sure how to format quotes to include names

No problem.
I hope these threads will help you:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/100086-how-use-quote-feature.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-discussion/84312-quote-feature.html#post1646937

 

[Bismillah]

Ahah I will read these when I finish studying my Arabic, hopefully I will cure my ignorance

 

[Badran]

Badran: I am interested in on your views of Sharia ruled state. If it were to impose a statewide ban on pork or alcohol for example would that be against Islamic practice in your view? Would it be acceptable if only non-Muslims were to partake in these activities? Sources would be excellent

I'll use just pork as an example, because alcohol's case is much more complicated. Both Muslims, and non-muslims should be able to produce or eat pork if they want to. Why? Because where were we told to stop people from doing those things?

We are ordered not to eat pork, and thats what we should do. But, non-muslims, and muslims who won't or don't want to abide by that (for all sorts of different reasons, as you know not abiding doesn't necessarily mean refusing the rule), should naturally be able to do that. This is something personal in their lives and they are completely free to eat it or not.

 

[Bismillah]

Badran: You are talking about personal beliefs though, those that we hold true and abide by. But Sharia, by definition, is applying Islamic law as the constitution of a country. It is a fact that pork is banned in Islam. Then a country abiding by Sharia would similarly make the law of Islam the law of the land no? A sharia country is, under any reasoanble case that I can imagine, mainly populated by Muslims. I think it is more productive for a country that has such a strong Muslim population to focus on more Islamic approved cattle such as cows or lambs. A non-Muslim or a poor Muslim, defined as one without faith, does not have his or her rights stripped away. This is really just a cultural prevalence that doesn't matter in the scheme of things. For example, there is a French dish that is made by cooking of a force fed Goose. This practice is banned in multiple countries, is this a violation of freedom? Or before the State of Utah gained statehood, the U.S required that polygamy, something practiced among some of its Mormons, to be banned. Again, is this a restriction on their freedom? It is simply a law of the land.

 

[Badran]

Badran: You are talking about personal beliefs though, those that we hold true and abide by. But Sharia, by definition, is applying Islamic law as the constitution of a country. It is a fact that pork is banned in Islam. Then a country abiding by Sharia would similarly make the law of Islam the law of the land no?

Yes, but what is Islamic law? Is it any order in the Quran and sunnah? You have to realize that to leave it open, means that the rules Taliban enforce is actually okay. For example, i read that they enforced a rule that if a shopkeeper is found in his shop in the time of prayer (not praying), he will be punished somehow. If you disagree with that because you consider it a personal thing, then how about countries that enforce prison time for a muslim person found eating in the time of fasting? God did order us to fast, but he didn't say to make each other fast and punish those who don't.

Islamic teachings are not laws, some of them are in order for a muslim community to use, and they are clarified, but the rest aren't laws. The rest are teachings that each of us has complete freedom to follow or not. Otherwise, what will we be judged on? Just our beliefs which the country doesn't enforce on us, but the rest will not because the government makes sure that we follow. In other, shorter words, non of Islamic teachings are laws except if they are clarified to be as such, or if it can be argued that such act hurts others or infringes their rights and so on.

A sharia country is, under any reasoanble case that I can imagine, mainly populated by Muslims. I think it is more productive for a country that has such a strong Muslim population to focus on more Islamic approved cattle such as cows or lambs.

And that indeed will be the case, because most if not all muslims don't eat or produce pork out of their personal choice. So cows and lambs will be the main thing.

A non-Muslim or a poor Muslim, defined as one without faith, does not have his or her rights stripped away. This is really just a cultural prevalence that doesn't matter in the scheme of things. For example, there is a French dish that is made by cooking of a force fed Goose. This practice is banned in multiple countering, is this a violation of freedom? Or before the State of Utah gained statehood, the U.S required that polygamy, something practiced among some of its Mormons, to be banned. Again, is this a restriction on their freedom? It is simply a law of the land that ultimately holds on perosnal bearing on a person.

The goose thing, i understand that the goose where forced to be fed? May be thats why it is banned, because its cruelty to animals, not because someone's religious beliefs or even opinion says that this meal shouldn't be eaten. If however it was banned for other reasons, please tell me about them.

As for polygamy, it also depends on the arguments on which they based their banning.