Now Belgium bans burqa in public places

[Darkness]

I'm referring to people who think Islam needs to be defended against Christian and/or secular influence. I don't mean terrorists exclusively.

Bosnia and Herzgovina is the perfect example of a Muslim nation that has embraced a form of liberal Islam. The Bosnian constitution protects religious freedom. About 10 percent of the population is non-religious and only a small minority are fundamentalists, wearing head scarves and the ilk.

 

[Smoke]

Bosnia and Herzgovina is the perfect example of a Muslim nation that has embraced a form of liberal Islam. The Bosnian constitution protects religious freedom. About 10 percent of the population is non-religious and only a small minority are fundamentalists, wearing head scarves and the ilk.

Exactly. But some people here would have you believe that the Bosniak women who don't wear hijab "really" believe just what the "real" Muslims believe, and know that they're doing wrong. We're expected to believe that fundamentalist Islam is the "real" Islam, and all other expressions of Islam, whether modernist or traditionalist, are inauthentic. Of course that kind of exclusion is typical of fundamentalists of any religion, but there's no reason why rational people should accept it as true or meaningful.

 

[Abu Rashid]

darkendless,
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/darkendless-15445.html

How many times a week do we, no matter which channel we watch, see reports of bombings and the mass death of innocent peopleas a result of people who call themselves muslims? Just a question.

Yeh, because that's what our media wants us to hear. They don't show as much of the West killing Muslims, because it wouldn't help the war effort too much. The simple fact is that over the past few decades the West have killed probably tens of thousands of times more Muslims than Muslims have killed Westerners. Please keep it in perspective, Muslims have been *extremely* restrained in their responses to Western hostilities. It's amazing how much they have controlled themselves up till this point.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Smoke,

If they are wearing niqab, it's likely because they are anti-Western fundamentalists, and so it shouldn't be surprising that they are so perceived in the West.

I thought it was because their husban/father/brother was forcing them to? Make up your mind.

How about, it's because they decided that it brings them closer to God? Ohhh no, couldn't be, there must be something sinister behind it, that you can use in your anti-Islamic rhetoric. Right?

You are choosing their intentions to suit your arguments, and that is a very weak position to argue from.

And the fact that they are "making huge comebacks" necessarily means just what I said, that those styles of dress were less common before.

That's right, in the early 20th. century, Islamic society broke down and people fell away from Islam en masse. That doesn't do much for your argument though. It's just an historical fact, and one which is being sharply reversed, much to your dismay.

Of course it bothers me. Do you imagine that I find fundamentalism more attractive in women than in men?

I don't see why it's any of your business quite frankly. Just like it doesn't effect me in the slightest if a nun wants to wear hijab.

You have convinced yourself that niqab is a sign someone is going to be a suicide bomber or something, and so you've worked yourself into a blind hateful frenzy about how dangerous it is. I truly pity you.

I don't know how long it will take for fundamentalists to come into the modern world

Again the same misconception that imitating the Western style is equivalent to being in the "modern world". Just because Christian societies flourished when they abandoned half their religion, doesn't mean all societies will. This just says more about the relationship of Christianity to modernity than it does about the relationship between being religion in general and modernity.

When the Islamic world was the most practicing, they were the most advanced. When they fell away from practicing Islam is when they began to decline. The exact opposite of Christianity.

You cannot transpose your own religion's experience onto everyone else and think it's one size fits all.

The fact is that the House of Saud has been actively propagating fundamentalist Islam throughout the world, and while almost none of those fundamentalists would call themselves Wahhabis, it's still true that they are fundamentalists.

All I see the House of Saud doing is propagating Western hegemony throughout the world. The House of Saud are long time lapdogs of the West, and have been serving them faithfully for centuries now, ever since they rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate at their behest 200 or so years ago. The House of Saud have hosted American soldiers in the Muslim world to slaughter the Muslims and to further the interests of Western imperialism in the Muslim world, that's hardly propagating Islam, fundamentalist or not.

And also you've continually failed to define exactly what you are referring to when you say "Fundamentalist Islam". From what I can gather, you seem to think it means anoyne who actually practices Islam, rather than just abandoning it for a godless secular lifestyle like you seem to adhere to.

And except for tribal people and rural people, it is among fundamentalists that the niqab and the burqa are becoming popular.

Convenient little groupings, it's simply not the case though.

In an earlier post you presumed to read the minds of Muslim women who don't wear hijab, claiming that they know they're wrong, and I didn't contradict you because unlike you I don't claim to read minds.

I'm basing it on experience, pretty much every Muslim girl I've spoken to about hijab who doesn't wear hijab has pointed out that "I know I should". No mind reading involved.

I have read statements by Muslims saying exactly what I claimed. Are you more ignorant of your religion than I am, or merely disingenuous?

Do share.

Yes, both women will be arrested, though the Papuan woman in the West is not likely to subjected to the kind of savagery the Western woman in Saudi Arabia is likely to be subjected to. Both women will be arrested for violating the cultural norm in a manner that is perceived to be offensive, shocking, and even indecent.

Right, that says more about the brutality of the puppet states in the Muslim world than it does about Islam. No matter what you did wrong, nakedness or otherwise, you'd probably be treated with brutality. This is because they are oppressive regimes, nothing to do with Islam. In fact most are oppressive in order to try and stamp out Islam.

And that is exactly how many Westerners perceive a woman in a burqa.

Wearing more clothing cannot be indecent exposure. That's just ludicrous.

Well, you know, if it weren't for the fact that so many of your co-religionists are terrorists, and the fact that your co-religionists committed the worst terrorist attacks in history, the worst in the United States, the worst in Britain, the worst in Spain, the worst in India and Lebanon and Israel and even in Saudi Arabia -- if the entire world were not infected with the violence and terrorism of your religion, maybe people wouldn't talk about it so much.

But America bombing and starving to death millions of kids in Iraq is not terrorism right?

The West have much more Muslim blood on their hands than the other way round. All this whining about "terrorism" is just pathetic. The West have been doing far worse to Muslims for decades, and are now merely reaping what they've sown.

What goes around, comes around.

 

[Smoke]

The simple fact is that over the past few decades the West have killed probably tens of thousands of times more Muslims than Muslims have killed Westerners. Please keep it in perspective, Muslims have been *extremely* restrained in their responses to Western hostilities. It's amazing how much they have controlled themselves up till this point.

Beheading journalists ... murdering schoolchildren in cold blood ... it's interesting what passes for extreme restraint among "real" Muslims.

And that's the difference between you and the liberal secularists you so despise. In the West, we're the ones speaking out against the crimes of our leaders. But you make excuses for the crimes of your terrorists, no matter how horrific their crimes are. It's the House of Islam and the House of War for you, and you have forgotten your humanity.

 

[Smoke]

Smoke,



I thought it was because their husban/father/brother was forcing them to? Make up your mind.

How about, it's because they decided that it brings them closer to God? Ohhh no, couldn't be, there must be something sinister behind it, that you can use in your anti-Islamic rhetoric. Right?

You are choosing their intentions to suit your arguments, and that is a very weak position to argue from.



That's right, in the early 20th. century, Islamic society broke down and people fell away from Islam en masse. That doesn't do much for your argument though. It's just an historical fact, and one which is being sharply reversed, much to your dismay.



I don't see why it's any of your business quite frankly. Just like it doesn't effect me in the slightest if a nun wants to wear hijab.

You have convinced yourself that niqab is a sign someone is going to be a suicide bomber or something, and so you've worked yourself into a blind hateful frenzy about how dangerous it is. I truly pity you.



Again the same misconception that imitating the Western style is equivalent to being in the "modern world". Just because Christian societies flourished when they abandoned half their religion, doesn't mean all societies will. This just says more about the relationship of Christianity to modernity than it does about the relationship between being religion in general and modernity.

When the Islamic world was the most practicing, they were the most advanced. When they fell away from practicing Islam is when they began to decline. The exact opposite of Christianity.

You cannot transpose your own religion's experience onto everyone else and think it's one size fits all.



All I see the House of Saud doing is propagating Western hegemony throughout the world. The House of Saud are long time lapdogs of the West, and have been serving them faithfully for centuries now, ever since they rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate at their behest 200 or so years ago. The House of Saud have hosted American soldiers in the Muslim world to slaughter the Muslims and to further the interests of Western imperialism in the Muslim world, that's hardly propagating Islam, fundamentalist or not.

And also you've continually failed to define exactly what you are referring to when you say "Fundamentalist Islam". From what I can gather, you seem to think it means anoyne who actually practices Islam, rather than just abandoning it for a godless secular lifestyle like you seem to adhere to.



Convenient little groupings, it's simply not the case though.



I'm basing it on experience, pretty much every Muslim girl I've spoken to about hijab who doesn't wear hijab has pointed out that "I know I should". No mind reading involved.



Do share.



Right, that says more about the brutality of the puppet states in the Muslim world than it does about Islam. No matter what you did wrong, nakedness or otherwise, you'd probably be treated with brutality. This is because they are oppressive regimes, nothing to do with Islam. In fact most are oppressive in order to try and stamp out Islam.



Wearing more clothing cannot be indecent exposure. That's just ludicrous.



But America bombing and starving to death millions of kids in Iraq is not terrorism right?

The West have much more Muslim blood on their hands than the other way round. All this whining about "terrorism" is just pathetic. The West have been doing far worse to Muslims for decades, and are now merely reaping what they've sown.

What goes around, comes around.

You're not even responding to what I say. You're responding to what you imagine I think, and your imagination is poor. Typical, irrational fundamentalist behavior. Go back and read what I actually said, and if you care to respond to that, I might respond in turn.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Time and again; have been repeating that the thread is not about debating the recent legislation on the grounds what *burqa* is all about.
It is about personal opinion about what the likely objection of the approximately 26K population who could be affected in the whole of Beligium and besides many of whom have well adjusted to this rule in the districts it was already in force.
Religion is a private matter and private matters are to be adjusted with public matter.
Laws are public matters which every citizen has to abide by.
If our friend Abu Rashid has any statistics to show that those who are affected has any problem, please highlight it so that we can understand where the conflict between public and private matter occurs.
Love & rgds

 

[Abu Rashid]

Smoke,

Beheading journalists ... murdering schoolchildren in cold blood ... it's interesting what passes for extreme restraint among "real" Muslims.

Thousands of Palestinian schoolkids have been shot by Israeli snipers, who are armed by the U.S. Over a million Iraqi kids were starved to death and many more died from complications due to depleted Uranium and the like, and all the West could say was "We think it's worth it" (Albright). And then you come and harp on about a handful of individual cases involving no more than a coupla hundred or so people??? Don't get me wrong, in my estimation ALL loss of innocent life in conflicts is reprehensible, but the West have been the biggest perpetrators of it and Muslims have been the biggest victims of it. But because they give apologies and feign regret, it's well and good. Think again!!

Beheading journalists is obviously a reference to Daniel Pearle? Why is it you know all about his situation, yet I very much doubt you know the situation of Abeer al-Janabi? The 14 yo. Iraqi girl, who was gang-raped by several U.S soldiers, and then she and her entire family (including her little sister) were murdered and set alight in their family home in order to cover the crime, and "Sunni insurgents" were blamed for it. It's a pretty empty speech you're giving when you fail to realise the kinds of things that Muslims are retaliating against. It doesn't mean they deserve to die for other peoples actions, but you need to keep it in context. You need to look in the mirror before you begin pointing the finger at Muslims, because you're a very black pot that shouldn't be pointing the finger at this kettle.

 

[Sahar]

I think it would be more reasonable to consider you an extremist than to accept your proposition that millions of Muslim women who don't cover their hair or think it laudable to cover their faces are not Muslims.

If you posit an Islam in which Jehan Sadat, Suzanne Mubarek, Queen Zein of Jordan, Queen Noor of Jordan, Queen Rania of Jordan, Princess Fawzia of Egypt (later Queen of Iran), Queen Soraya of Iran, Empress Farah of Iran, Siti Hartina, Mahnaz Afkhami, Shirin Ebadi, and Tansu Çiller are not Muslims, in which the millions of Muslim women around the world who do not cover their hair are not Muslims, then you're an extremist.

The Islam I was speaking of as being diverse includes a far greater variety of Muslims than the narrow and exclusionary version you espouse.

I would not say that any woman who covers her hair is an extremist. But anyone who says all Muslims believe a woman should cover her hair -- that person is an extremist.

Wow, this is ridiculous. Who said that Muslim women who don't cover their hair are not Muslims? And why is it so hard to believe that majority of Muslims consider covering the hair a part of hijab including women who don't cover their hair?

There are many women who don't wear head scarves or follow the hijab criteria that are agreed upon by the scholars of Islam and known by the majority of Muslims, do acknowledge that it's a command from their God and from time to time they think to follow this command, still they didn't have the chance.
Throwing words like "extremist" here and there became boring and very silly.

 

[love]

Attractively
LOL
Personally, I am not in favor of niqab at all but at the same time I believe the Muslim woman should be absolutely free to cover her face or not, this right should not be taken from her. I actually don't disagree that Muslims in many cases enjoy much more freedom there than their original countries and I believe many have high expectation of the Western freedom. I sometimes ask myself why a Muslim woman with niqab would want to live in a Western country but it seems the answer is that they have more freedom than many other Islamic countries. Of course, banning the niqab and hijab in some places is disappointing and this leads to question the Western claims of freedom.
And btw, I expect any society to impose some restrictions in accordance to their views and values. But the real objection is the Western claims about freedoms and liberties (of course in addition to the injustice that Muslim women face, I don't want to see the Muslim woman there have such difficulties or to see her right to dress in the way she wants and think that it brings her closer to her God being taken from her).

Not For Me, I read many of your post and I truly believe that you seek your creator with all your heart. I don't know why they have banned the burqa, but I don't believe it is to discriminate against any religion. We live in a very violent world today and please don't think I am talking only about Muslims.
In recent years I have seen bullet proof glass go up in banks between the customers and tellers. There are signs on the door that say please remove helmets, sunglasses, and other face coverings.
There was a case in Florida not too long ago where a Muslim woman sued the state because she had to expose her face to the camera for her driver's license. She lost.
It is not unknown for wanted or violent men to dress in the full covering of women even though it is not required by law.
Unfortunantly, we all give up a certain amount of freedom in these violent times for our own protection.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Love, your points are valid, but I really don't think that's the case in Belgium. The security aspect has been tacked onto the argument later on to try to give it some much needed validity. As is obvious from the views expressed so far in this thread, the reason for it is purely and simply because it is perceived as a fundamentalist/misogynistic practice by those who oppose Islam. The security issues are obviously secondary.

 

[zenzero]

Friend love,

You show true love of mankind.
Frubals.
However when love becomes coloured with reasons personal and individual's react through such personal prisms to understand what religion is a personal and individual's own choice of merging with the *whole* and society is made of the same humans a race he too belongs besides the source of all even the animals killed to eat are from the same source.
Love & rgds

 

[Smoke]

Beheading journalists is obviously a reference to Daniel Pearle? Why is it you know all about his situation, yet I very much doubt you know the situation of Abeer al-Janabi?

I guess the reason for that is that you don't know **** about me. I've written about that very case, but you don't know that. You don't know me; you don't know what I think or what I know, and you don't bother to respond to what I say. You're just lashing out at whatever picture of me you've made up in your own head. You haven't bothered to engage me at all. All you've done is roll out your standard, pat rants about Western non-Muslims. That's why you very much doubt that I know about Abeer. You behave like the very epitome of the angry, ignorant fundamentalist.

 

[Smoke]

Wow, this is ridiculous. Who said that Muslim women who don't cover their hair are not Muslims? And why is it so hard to believe that majority of Muslims consider covering the hair a part of hijab including women who don't cover their hair?

He didn't say the majority. He said that all Muslims except for a few odd cases believe that women should cover their hair, and that all Muslims similarly believe that it's praiseworthy to cover the face.

 

[darkendless]

darkendless,

Yeh, because that's what our media wants us to hear. They don't show as much of the West killing Muslims, because it wouldn't help the war effort too much. The simple fact is that over the past few decades the West have killed probably tens of thousands of times more Muslims than Muslims have killed Westerners. Please keep it in perspective, Muslims have been *extremely* restrained in their responses to Western hostilities. It's amazing how much they have controlled themselves up till this point.

Whats amazing is how people continue to defend obvious terrorism attacks as justified because the west kills muslims.

A lot of the time (obviously not all the time, i'm not stupid) attacks fail and people get caught in the cross-fire, but the attacks i speak of are terorists targeting civilians. Its sick. I recognise the mass death westerners have inflicted everywhere they go.

Solution: end the war problem solved our troops stop getting shot at muslims stop dying.

The more concerning thing for me is the mindset of muslims who live in western countries who call us all sorts of names. Freedom of speech aside some of the things i've seen thrown around on this forum are frightening.

I do not understand how we are hated so much (this part i do understand) yet muslims continue to immigrate here. We are told how bad we are and yet people live and work here who hate our guts. Perhaps you could shed light upon how this works?

 

[Abu Rashid]

I guess the reason for that is that you...

No, the reason for that is that you try to peddle this nonsense about Muslims being violent maniacs, when it would be abundantly clear to any discerning individual that had full knowledge of the facts and statistics of the conflicts between the West and Muslims that it's the complete opposite.

You haven't bothered to engage me at all

I have addressed your points quite thoroughly I thought.

You behave like the very epitome of the angry, ignorant fundamentalist.

I am a Muslim who tries to adhere to the fundamental tenets of the religion, and to any secondary aspects that I am capable of. If this makes me a "fundamentalist" in your opinion, so be it I'm proud of that, and I'm not particularly phased by your little label-applying attempt.

He didn't say the majority.

The overwhelming majority. To the point that the minority are pretty negligable. They just happen to be saying what you want to hear, so you pay them more attention, and reckon them to be more in number than they are.

 

[Smoke]

I have addressed your points quite thoroughly I thought.

You thought wrong, to the extent you thought at all. You addressed the points you wanted to address, without the slightest interest in whether those were actually my points or not.

 

[Abu Rashid]

darkendless,

Whats amazing is how people continue to defend obvious terrorism attacks as justified because the west kills muslims.

I don't think anyone defends them. Merely pointing out that it's largely retaliatory, not just mindless random violence as we're led to believe by the unscrupulous leaders who've dragged us into this.

As a Muslim I fully reject attacks against any civilian, since Muhammad (pbuh) specifically forbade it several times in his advice to the Muslims. But when the West is slaughtering Muslim civilians left, right and centre, could anyone honestly expect them to respond in any other manner than in kind? Come on, be realistic.

A lot of the time (obviously not all the time, i'm not stupid) attacks fail and people get caught in the cross-fire, but the attacks i speak of are terorists targeting civilians.

This is nothing but pure denial. The idea that the West only "accidentally" kills civilians, whilst Muslims do it intentionally is just completely unfactual. The West know full well what they do and have openly admitted they think it's "Worth it". Not to mention the completely indiscriminate bombing of civilians from above. The only difference between a suicide bomber packed with explosives and a pilot dropping a bomb from the sky is that the suicide bomber has the guts to be part of what he's doing, whilst the pilot is nothing but a coward reigning down terror from the sky, and remaining completely safe from it himself.

Solution: end the war

Wars. There's not just one. The West are attacking Muslims from so many angles and locations. They seem addicted to waging war on Muslims.

The more concerning thing for me is the mindset of muslims who live in western countries who call us all sorts of names. Freedom of speech aside some of the things i've seen thrown around on this forum are frightening.

Is this addressed to me? I don't remember calling you names.

I do not understand how we are hated so much (this part i do understand) yet muslims continue to immigrate here.

Probably because they hate the Western-puppet dictatorships the West has setup in their countries more than they do the West itself.

Besides, not being an immigrant myself, I can't really give you a personal opinion there. The fact you think "Muslims = immigrants" says a lot about your misconceptions of the issues involved.

 

[darkendless]

darkendless

I don't think anyone defends them. Merely pointing out that it's largely retaliatory, not just mindless random violence as we're led to believe by the unscrupulous leaders who've dragged us into this.

But why target innocent people, thats my issue. The military attack X place so some idiot goes and takes out 130 civilians. What a hero Because our civilians getting killed by some looney wouldn't reinforce the false reason we're even in the east.

As a Muslim I fully reject attacks against any civilian, since Muhammad (pbuh) specifically forbade it several times in his advice to the Muslims. But when the West is slaughtering Muslim civilians left, right and centre, could anyone honestly expect them to respond in any other manner than in kind? Come on, be realistic.

So you can justify violence? Nice. Diplomacy goes a lot way.

This is nothing but pure denial. The idea that the West only "accidentally" kills civilians, whilst Muslims do it intentionally is just completely unfactual. The West know full well what they do and have openly admitted they think it's "Worth it". Not to mention the completely indiscriminate bombing of civilians from above. The only difference between a suicide bomber packed with explosives and a pilot dropping a bomb from the sky is that the suicide bomber has the guts to be part of what he's doing, whilst the pilot is nothing but a coward reigning down terror from the sky, and remaining completely safe from it himself.

I find it amusing how you removed the last sentence of this paragraph where i recognised the death we cause everytwhere we go.

Be careful how you speak of a suicide bomber. Its almost as if you're glorifying his actions.

Wars. There's not just one. The West are attacking Muslims from so many angles and locations. They seem addicted to waging war on Muslims.

Yeh and for what? We're achieving nothing. These wars are beyond my understanding as well. If we're asking to get attacked we're going about it the right way.

Is this addressed to me? I don't remember calling you names.

No its not, sorry if you thought it was. If you check out a few of the threads during the times of the last Israeli offensive in Palestine, or during the Cronulla riots here, the true colours are lets just say, interesting.

Probably because they hate the Western-puppet dictatorships the West has setup in their countries than they do the West itself.

Its all well and good to immigrate, but to immigrate and then whinge, whine, complain about a country with better oppurtunities is a pretty poor excuse.

Besides, not being an immigrant myself, I can't really give you a personal opinion there. The fact you think "Muslims = immigrants" says a lot about your misconceptions of the issues involved.

I thought being a muslim, and given a lot of muslims are in fact immigrants your exposure to them would exceed my own, thus you would have more than a handful of experiences to draw from. You've said before you're not an immigrant, i do remember.

 

[Darkness]

Beheading journalists is obviously a reference to Daniel Pearle? Why is it you know all about his situation, yet I very much doubt you know the situation of Abeer al-Janabi? The 14 yo. Iraqi girl, who was gang-raped by several U.S soldiers, and then she and her entire family (including her little sister) were murdered and set alight in their family home in order to cover the crime, and "Sunni insurgents" were blamed for it. It's a pretty empty speech you're giving when you fail to realise the kinds of things that Muslims are retaliating against. It doesn't mean they deserve to die for other peoples actions, but you need to keep it in context. You need to look in the mirror before you begin pointing the finger at Muslims, because you're a very black pot that shouldn't be pointing the finger at this kettle.

I would have had each of the five soldiers lined up and shot execution style. It sickens me that some of them are free, after what they have done.