Now Belgium bans burqa in public places

[Smoke]

This is merely a means of you abstracting a 'branch' of Islam that you think you can then be legitimately hateful towards.

"Extremist Islam" is not a tangible entity. It's just a way of avoiding the implications of what you're spewing out here.

Islam is a diverse religion encompassing a wide range of views, and it's perfectly sensible to distinguish those views and expressions of Islam that one objects to from those one does not object to. Otherwise, if we cannot distinguish among these diverse expressions of Islam, and must meet Islam as a monolithic unity, then we have no choice but to reject and oppose it in its entirety.

 

[sandandfoam]

Nudists, however are expressing their identity through making a self-conscious life-actualizing choice not to wear clothes.

The burka is nothing by a symbol of the right-wing ideology behind radical Islamist sexism.

That just came across as an incoherent rant

 

[Abu Rashid]

Panda,

If anything saying you can't wear x is less oppressive than saying you MUST wear x.

I think most people would disagree with this (if they actually stopped to consider the ramifications of it). If a government tells me I have to wear more, then it may be a discomfort to me at times. But if they told me I can't wear more, then they'd be forcing me to expose myself, and to me that is a violation of my body and personal space. I could accept the former, but never the latter.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Smoke,

Islam is a diverse religion encompassing a wide range of views, and it's perfectly sensible to distinguish those views and expressions of Islam that one objects to from those one does not object to. Otherwise, if we cannot distinguish among these diverse expressions of Islam, and must meet Islam as a monolithic unity, then we have no choice but to reject and oppose it in its entirety.

Apart from the occasional individuals pretty much all mainstream Muslims agree that 1) Covering of hair is compulsory part of a woman's nudity that must be covered and 2) That covering the face is a commendable extension to that.

If you consider that extreme, then yes you do consider all Muslims extreme and should start facing us in our entirety instead of dancing around the issue trying to compartmentalise us.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Caladan,

equating covering the female breasts with covering the women body from head to toe with only the eyes peeking out through holes

You're really not capable are you? Nowhere did I equate anything. My point the whole time has been that nudity is subjective, and the Western concept of nudity involving the breasts is just as misogynistic compared to the PNG concept as if the Islamic concept is compared to the Western concept. Nowhere in there is there any equating.

Last time I'm going to re-iterate it, if it's still beyond comprehension to you that different societies have different concepts of what constitutes nudity and none is intrinsically more valid than the other and that none renders the other misogynistic, then I'm sorry, I'm all out of ideas as far as you are concerned.

now tell me, when did Jews bomb train stations in Europe?

Red herring, nowhere did I state they did.

Are you claiming im hating Muslims? so now discussing and debating current events which involve Muslims is an expression of hatred simply because you do not like what is being said?

No, but you are justifying blind hatred of Muslims. You are justifying the concept that if some members of a people do something wrong, then xenohpobic hatemongers who end up hating them all are completely justified, and the entire people are responsible for that blind hatred.

A very dangerous idea indeed.

Blind hatred is purely the fault of the vile person who holds such feelings, not of the targets.

In other words I have proved you have not done a decent research on my arguments and sources and are now pulling your previous arugments.

You brought an article which clearly confused Muslims with immigrants. I don't care how reputable it is, it was sloppy journalism, and you cannot excuse yourself for relying upon it, based on that reputation.

However if you think the fact I'm not even bothering to engage you on it anymore is some kind of victory, then go ahead and claim it. Hollow victories are about all you're going to get here.

the mere fact that someone claims that the Niqab or the Burqa is normative and is comparable to covering the female breasts is grotesque.

In societies where it's worn by everyone it's quite normal, just as I must accept that in societies where exposing breasts is the norm, it's quite normal, I may not agree with it, but I accept it's normal for them. You just can't seem to get over the fact that each society is different. Learn to live with it. Especially if you wanna make a home for yourself amongst Middle Easterners.

Also what do you say about the trend amongst some Orthodox women in returning to the veil? Grotesque and misogynistic is it?

And covering a woman's breasts and it gives me chills everytime.

That's purely a function of your disgust at things that are not part of your cultural norms.

Not a very enlightened response if you ask me, but one apparently tainted with blind hatreds, which would explain why you're defending the validity of such hatred in others.

BTW, its nice to see that you dropped your argument of...

Yep lap it up, 'nother hollow one.

 

[Smoke]

Smoke,

Apart from the occasional individuals pretty much all mainstream Muslims agree that 1) Covering of hair is compulsory part of a woman's nudity that must be covered and 2) That covering the face is a commendable extension to that.

If you consider that extreme, then yes you do consider all Muslims extreme and should start facing us in our entirety instead of dancing around the issue trying to compartmentalise us.

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.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Smoke,

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.

Perhaps if I said they weren't Muslims, you might have some semblance of a point there.

It's not about practice, that's the point you never got to begin with. I've known women who don't cover, who are probably what you'd consider "more extreme", than other women I've known who wear full niqab. The clothes do not make the man, or in this case the woman. They may be an indicator, but they do not decide what your beliefs are. For instance I remember a Palestinian female suicide bomber once who did not even wear hijab. Was she extreme by your criteria or not?

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

Yeh because the ruling class of a country are always a very typical example to give. Well done.

But anyone who says all Muslims believe a woman should cover her hair -- that person is an extremist.

It's just a simple fact that this is the mainstream Islamic view. Even amongst women who don't cover, you'll find most agree that Islamically they are supposed to.

Again you're falling into the trap of thinking that practice decides belief, it does not.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Abu rashid:
Apart from the occasional individuals pretty much all mainstream Muslims agree that 1) Covering of hair is compulsory part of a woman's nudity that must be covered and 2) That covering the face is a commendable extension to that.

If you consider that extreme, then yes you do consider all Muslims extreme and should start facing us in our entirety instead of dancing around the issue trying to compartmentalise us.[/quote
]It sums it up, jzkAllah khayr.

Smoke:
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.

Thats your own claim not his one. Practice does not decide beleifs, those who believe that whoever sins is out of Islam, are a deviant group we call khawarij. Thats not the view of Islam at all.

Smoke;
The Islam I was speaking of as being diverse includes a far greater variety of Muslims than the narrow and exclusionary version you espouse.[/quote
]If you lived in the middle east, you would be suprised on how wrong you are in your statement. Most of us muslims follow that path that you adore to call "Extremism" , it may have diminued in the last centuries due to colonisation, but I assure you thats it coming back again walhamdulillah. So either you accept it and try to understand it, or you can keep calling it names and live in your denial.

Smoke;
But anyone who says all Muslims believe a woman should cover her hair -- that person is an extremist.

Those who do not believe it go against Quran ,therefore they are considered deviants.
Oh and please , in order to have a fruitful conversation can you please give us a specific definition of your own for the word extremist ? thank you

 

[Smoke]

Oh and please , in order to have a fruitful conversation can you please give us a specific definition of your own for the word extremist ? thank you

In this instance, I mean fundamentalists -- religious reactionaries who imagine themselves to be defending the Faith against modernism and/or foreign influence.

In Muslim tribal societies, veiling of women may just be the way it's always been done. But in Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Jordan, Tunisia -- the more advanced Muslim countries, in other words -- as well as in Europe and the Americas, in the 60s, 70s, and into the 80s, it was quite common for Muslim women to dress in modern fashion, at least in the cities and among the educated. Islam was not seen as being at odds with the modern age. Not even veiling the hair was considered mandatory, much less such oddities as the niqab and the burqa.

The surge of fundamentalism in Islam, fueled by the money and the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, has led many Muslim women to think they must return to archaic types of dress. But since this fundamentalism is fundamentally anti-Western, this kind of dress is rightly seen by both Muslims and Westerners as a rejection of modernism and Western culture. In many cases it is worn explicitly as a statement of defiance of the West.

It's any Muslim's prerogative to be a fundamentalist. But Western non-Muslims would be naive not to see wearing the burga while walking down the streets of Brussels or Paris or Chicago as a deliberate and purposeful statement about Western culture. I don't understand how Muslims can pretend to be surprised when Westerners consider the burqa as provocative, when in many cases that's exactly how it's meant, and when the fundamentalism that makes this kind of thing an issue in the first place is deliberately and explicitly anti-Western.

If a Western, secular humanist woman moved to Saudi Arabia because her husband had business there, and if she was offended and troubled by the state of Saudi society, and decided that both to be true to herself and to express her rejection of medieval Muslim society, she would henceforth walk around Riyadh in a mini-skirt and halter top, we all know how she would be perceived. And we all know that the hostility toward her would not even be about her manner of dress as much as it would be about the insulting and provocative statement she was making about Saudi society. Why is it so surprising if the West gets its back up about the equally provocative wearing of the burqa?

Add to that the ever-present threat of Muslim terrorism as well as the cultural norm in the West that wearing a mask is not a sign of modesty, but a sign that the wearer is up to no good, and you have a situation where a woman in a burqa is presumed -- not without reason -- to be hostile to the people among whom she lives. If you want to project hostility to your neighbors, don't be surprised if they are hostile in return.

 

[Abu Rashid]

But in Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Jordan, Tunisia -- the more advanced Muslim countries, in other words -- as well as in Europe and the Americas, in the 60s, 70s, and into the 80s, it was quite common for Muslim women to dress in modern fashion, at least in the cities and among the educated.

Right and today those same countries are seeing massive rises in women, themselves returning back to covering themselves according to the Islamically prescribed level of public decency. Why? And don't give me any of this nonsense about their men forcing them, this is just tripe. In my time in the Middle East, in Egypt for instance, I only ever came across males discouraging their family members from wearing niqab.

You mentioned Suzanne Mubarek, who is completely out of step with the way most Muslims in Egypt are, or Queen Rania, who is nothing like the average Palestinian or Jordanian. If you walk down the streets of Cairo or Alexandria, you'll find very few women with their hair uncovered like the first lady, and increasingly more and more women choosing to wear niqab. Even in Tunisia and Turkey where the governments have enacted somelevel of ban, the hijab and even niqab are making huge comebacks. This is what bothers you, that no matter how much you try to restrict Muslim women from dressing modestly, they're defying it, themselves.

My guess is you don't like this, because you want people to reject religion and to become atheistic or at least militantly secular, sorry but this won't be happening to the Muslims, get over it and get on with your life, ironically this all smacks of the same kind of thing Muslim "extremists" are usually accused of, and that is trying to force their way of life onto others. Look in the mirror.

The surge of fundamentalism in Islam, fueled by the money and the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia

This is an often touted claim by those who've read a few reports by anti-Islamic Western think-tanks. The fact is that very few Muslims subscribe to the "Wahabi" doctrine of the Saudi government. And it's certainly not linked with the concept of wearing hijab or niqab, although it does sound like a convenient conclusion to draw for those who don't really know much about it.

Besides most of the oil money of the fat Saudi princes ends up in their pockets, or funding their collections of Rolls Royces, very little of it makes it to the Muslims, Wahabi or not.

is rightly seen by both Muslims and Westerners as a rejection of modernism and Western culture.

The delusion that modernity and Western culture are the same is a sad one. And probably underlies most of your misconceptions.

But Western non-Muslims would be naive not to see wearing the burga while walking down the streets of Brussels or Paris or Chicago as a deliberate and purposeful statement about Western culture.

Yeh I'm very sure that whilst standing at the wardrobe doors in the morning, they think "hmmm what shall I wear today?? How about something that'll really challenge Western culture!!"

Laughable at best.

and to express her rejection of medieval Muslim society, she would henceforth walk around Riyadh in a mini-skirt and halter top, we all know how she would be perceived.

Like a Papuan woman walking topless down the streets of most Western cities, she'd probably be arrested for indecent exposure. And?

Add to that the ever-present threat of Muslim terrorism

Yes a post like that would not be complete without the obligatory reference to the "T" word. The ever-useful mantra of any ill-equipped detractor of Islam, guaranteed to whip all the mindless masses into a frenzy of nodding and agreeance at any preposterous claim about Islam.

 

[darkendless]

Yes a post like that would not be complete without the obligatory reference to the "T" word. The ever-useful mantra of any ill-equipped detractor of Islam, guaranteed to whip all the mindless masses into a frenzy of nodding and agreeance at any preposterous claim about Islam.

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.

 

[Smoke]

Right and today those same countries are seeing massive rises in women, themselves returning back to covering themselves according to the Islamically prescribed level of public decency. Why?

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.

You mentioned Suzanne Mubarek, who is completely out of step with the way most Muslims in Egypt are, or Queen Rania, who is nothing like the average Palestinian or Jordanian. If you walk down the streets of Cairo or Alexandria, you'll find very few women with their hair uncovered like the first lady, and increasingly more and more women choosing to wear niqab. Even in Tunisia and Turkey where the governments have enacted somelevel of ban, the hijab and even niqab are making huge comebacks.

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

This is what bothers you, that no matter how much you try to restrict Muslim women from dressing modestly, they're defying it, themselves.

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

My guess is you don't like this, because you want people to reject religion and to become atheistic or at least militantly secular, sorry but this won't be happening to the Muslims, get over it and get on with your life, ironically this all smacks of the same kind of thing Muslim "extremists" are usually accused of, and that is trying to force their way of life onto others. Look in the mirror.

You guess wrong. I'm not concerned with trying to get people to abandon religion; I'm a religious person myself, and while I despise religions like yours, it's your prerogative to practice it. I don't know how long it will take for fundamentalists to come into the modern world, and I certainly don't expect to live to see that day. But yes, I do believe it's important to defend our secular society against fundamentalists both Muslim and Christian, and I make no apology for that. I think it's one of the most pressing concerns of our age, at least as important as when our ancestors drove the Turks back from the gates of Vienna.

This is an often touted claim by those who've read a few reports by anti-Islamic Western think-tanks. The fact is that very few Muslims subscribe to the "Wahabi" doctrine of the Saudi government. And it's certainly not linked with the concept of wearing hijab or niqab, although it does sound like a convenient conclusion to draw for those who don't really know much about it.

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

The delusion that modernity and Western culture are the same is a sad one. And probably underlies most of your misconceptions.

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 can say for certain that you're poor at reading my mind, though. I didn't say they were the same. Modernity is a product of Western culture, but of course the history of Western culture has been every bit as superstitious and barbaric as the history of Islamic culture. That precisely why the modern secular state, or the goal of a modern secular state, is so very important.

Yeh I'm very sure that whilst standing at the wardrobe doors in the morning, they think "hmmm what shall I wear today?? How about something that'll really challenge Western culture!!"

Laughable at best.

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

Like a Papuan woman walking topless down the streets of most Western cities, she'd probably be arrested for indecent exposure. And?

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

Yes a post like that would not be complete without the obligatory reference to the "T" word. The ever-useful mantra of any ill-equipped detractor of Islam, guaranteed to whip all the mindless masses into a frenzy of nodding and agreeance at any preposterous claim about Islam.

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.

What gross hypocrisy, to blame the people who mention the terrorism more than you blame the terrorists themselves.

Muslim terrorists wanted to get people's attention, and they got it. If you don't like the attention, talk to the terrorists.

 

[maro]

If they are wearing niqab, it's likely because they are anti-Western fundamentalists.

I guess the level of debate has gone down to complete idiocy ,abu rashid...May allah grant you patience ,brother

 

[MSizer]

Australia burka armed robbery sparks ban debate - WorldWide Religious News

 

[Panda]

Panda,

I think most people would disagree with this (if they actually stopped to consider the ramifications of it). If a government tells me I have to wear more, then it may be a discomfort to me at times. But if they told me I can't wear more, then they'd be forcing me to expose myself, and to me that is a violation of my body and personal space. I could accept the former, but never the latter.

To some people clothes are oppressive and having to wear the does violate there body and personal space.

Our rules on what we can and can not wear are completely arbitrary.

 

[Darkness]

Those who do not believe it go against Quran ,therefore they are considered deviants.
Oh and please , in order to have a fruitful conversation can you please give us a specific definition of your own for the word extremist ? thank you

It is this kind of servile thinking that causes so many problems in the world. And it is servile thinking that leads to so much violence against women worldwide. I don't give a damn if the words were written in some dusty book 1,300 years ago. Christians, for the most part, have gotten past the absurdities in the Bible, why can't you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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 guess the level of debate has gone down to complete idiocy ,abu rashid...

You and I seldom agree, maro, but ... :yes:

 

[Smoke]

You and I seldom agree, maro, but ... :yes:

Show me the urban Muslim woman who wears niqab by her own choice and is not a fundamentalist.
Show me the Muslim fundamentalist who is not anti-Western.

 

[Darkness]

Show me the urban Muslim woman who wears niqab by her own choice and is not a fundamentalist.
Show me the Muslim fundamentalist who is not anti-Western.

Let us define the term, "anti-Western" so you are not accused of semantic manipulation.

 

[Smoke]

Let us define the term, "anti-Western" so you are not accused of semantic manipulation.

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