Southern Switzerland Bans Niqab

[Lien]

I thought it had to do with identifying people by being able to look in their face and compare to their identification. If it's because you can hide things under the dress, then almost all clothes, jackets, robes, shirts, skirts, gloves, and more are suspect. I have a friend in the police force, and they say they can hide plenty of weapons in a pair of jeans.

So I must agree with you, being able to hide weapons under a niqab isn't a good reason at all. The only reason, I think, is being able to identify a person in the bank, store, etc. I'm sure most banks dislike masked people entering the bank. It's usually because people don't want to be on camera and intend to rob the place. But if that's not the reason, I can totally see your point.

---

Just for fun, I decided to look up the word "niqab". It means "mask" or "veil". So the "niqab" question here isn't about the dress.

If the banning niqab was not RACIST movement , they would apply a law as required to show their faces to the police if necessary or opening faces in the banks , opening faces in schools etc .

But they re directly banning it with zero tolerance .

 

[Koldo]

If the banning niqab was not RACIST movement , they would apply a law as required to show their faces to the police if necessary or opening faces in the banks , opening faces in schools etc .

But they re directly banning it with zero tolerance .

A racist movement? Against what race?

 

[Lien]

A racist movement? Against what race?

They see muslims as a race and many non-muslim is the same . As like the word Jewish . Its a race but people usually use it to define a abrahamic religion .

 

[Koldo]

They see muslims as a race and many non-muslim is the same . As like the word Jewish . Its a race but people usually use it to define a abrahamic religion .

Who sees muslims as a race? Are they correct in doing so?

'Jewish' refers to an ethno-religious group. It is a different case.

 

[Lien]

Who sees muslims as a race? Are they correct in doing so?
'Jewish' refers to an ethno-religious group. It is a different case.

Many non-muslim sees muslims as a society of dark skinned people in the middle east and asia .

The word "jewish" specifies an ethnic group , not religion . But in time it has become synonymous with Judaism .

The same situation applies to word "muslim" . Actually it specifies a religion , not an ethnic origin . But non-muslims imagine a race when you say "muslim" in Europe.


Let's get to the main topic .

 

[Flankerl]

Well Lien i have taken to heart what you wrote in our DIR and came to a conclusion.

Muslims are appareantly unwanted people in many countries. This cant be a coincidence. You should think about it.

 

[Vinayaka]

They have not banned anything that it is obligatory for a Muslim to wear.
However It would have been better to simply ban anyone covering their face in public.
There are many things that we can not do by law and they apply to everyone, such laws should not be discriminatory.

No more ski masks on the hills then.

 

[Lien]

Well Lien i have taken to heart what you wrote in our DIR and came to a conclusion.

Muslims are appareantly unwanted people in many countries. This cant be a coincidence. You should think about it.

Thanks for advice . I always think about the position of muslims in the world and I know what is our mistakes and how we could fix them . Sometimes I blame other people for our mistakes , but I'm aware of it that the biggest slice of the pie belongs to us .

Salaam ...

 

[HiddenHijabi]

There are two opinions? I thought this was supposed to be from the word of God, how can there be two conflicting opinions?

I guess perhaps this is why we shouldn't attempt to "guess" the word of a God through subjective Human interpretation.

More reason why Religion should be a private matter, behind closed doors. At least when it comes to impractical self-inflicted limitations imposed on oneself.

This is easy to answer. Islam teaches that in all elements of the faith, Allah does not place upon any one person more than they can reasonably accomplish or deal with. For this reason, Islam is not a black and white religion, as many options are given to allow a believer to choose according to what they feel is comfortable, as everyone is different and so can deal with things differently.

Plus it must be said that often there is no contradiction between two different actions where intentions are the same. For example, two women might choose differently to wear niqab or hijab, but their intention is the same, to preserve their modesty. It is all about their own personal faith and how they wish to manifest it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's the difference between telling women what they must wear and telling women what they must not wear?

It makes an interesting condumdrum. On one side, terrorism and safety seems to be the primary motivation which makes sense for obvious reasons, yet for most prolific acts of radicals, just how many woman are actually involved to warrant a ban on the manner of dress? Have male radicals masqueraded as women in the past?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think we should disallow backpacks in public places, or, at the very least, force those who carry them to (a) be licensed to do so, and (b) conspicuously display that license on the bag.

 

[HiddenHijabi]

You can guarantee that if the UK banned the niqab, I would still put mine on and go out publicly with it on.

 

[hexler]

You can guarantee that if the UK banned the niqab, I would still put mine on and go out publicly with it on.

If you are in front, I would like to see our women clothed like that:
http://www.internetstones.com/image-files/anna-of-tyrol-wife-of-matthias-holy-roman-empeor.jpg

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can guarantee that if the UK banned the niqab, I would still put mine on and go out publicly with it on.

And I would strongly and publicly defend your right to do so.

 

[illykitty]

You can guarantee that if the UK banned the niqab, I would still put mine on and go out publicly with it on.

I'm sure a lot of people, Muslim or non-Muslim would defend your right.

I don't have a problem with it as long as if asked for identity, they comply (in front of a female of course).

 

[hexler]

And I would strongly and publicly defend your right to do so.

People show through their clothes what their way of live is. I would like to remember which kind of stalking some modern thinking people in rural areas had to go through. Also in the alps you see people clothed traditionally. But they attack nobody. Nevertheless, their future is in the past. So is it with all ultra-orthodox people. Probably you do not know about this great persian Joan of Arc - called Tahirih. In 1848 she went without a veil through the streets. She was avantgarde for equal rights of women.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Probably you do not know about this great persian Joan of Arc - called Tahirih. In 1848 she went without a veil through the streets. She was avantgarde for equal rights of women.

Thank you for the reference - one which also introduced me to the Tahirih Justice Center. Though off topic, you might similarly appreciate We Believe.

 

[hexler]

I want to tell from an event wich happened 1260 years after Hijra, 1844 AD.
His Holiness, the Bab went on pilgrimage to Mecca. In this time He was Muslim.
The story begins:

On the last day of His pilgrimage to Mecca, the Báb met Mirza Muhit-i-Kirmani. He stood facing the Black Stone, when the Báb approached him and, taking his hand in His, addressed him in these words: "O Muhit! You regard yourself as one of the most outstanding figures of the shaykhi community and a distinguished exponent of its teachings. In your heart you even claim to be one of the direct successors and rightful inheritors of those twin great Lights, those Stars that have heralded the morn of Divine guidance. Behold, we are both now standing within this most sacred shrine. Within its hallowed precincts, He whose Spirit dwells in this place can cause Truth immediately to be known and distinguished from falsehood, and righteousness from error. Verily I declare, none besides Me in this day, whether in the East or in the West, can claim to be the Gate that leads men to the knowledge of God. My proof is none other than that proof whereby the truth of the Prophet Muhammad was established. Ask Me whatsoever you please; now, at this very moment, I pledge Myself to reveal such verses as can demonstrate the truth of My mission. You must choose either to submit yourself unreservedly to My Cause or to repudiate it entirely. You have no other alternative. If you choose to reject My message, I will not let go your hand until you pledge your word to declare publicly your repudiation of the Truth which I have proclaimed. Thus shall He who speaks the Truth be made known, and he that speaks falsely shall be condemned to eternal misery and shame. Then shall the way of Truth be revealed and made manifest to all men."
This you can call the end of Islam.

 

[HiddenHijabi]

I'm sure a lot of people, Muslim or non-Muslim would defend your right.

I don't have a problem with it as long as if asked for identity, they comply (in front of a female of course).

I personally wouldn't have a problem with the whole identification issue, given that during my time at university, it was necessary that those munaqabah women prove their identity during exams and during some other times too, and for this it was usually the case that these women would go into a side room with a female invigilator/staff member, remove their niqab and they would then have their identity confirmed that way with their student card. No-one took any issue with this at any time.

I sometimes wonder if this law, which purports to be a solution to national security issues, isn't truly a solution to something else. The number of women who actually wear niqab in any one Western country is likely to be a minority. In France the number of women who were found to actually wear a face veil (niqab or burqa) was less than 400, in a Islamic population of 400,000. Ditto Belgium which has roughly 200,000 Muslims and less than a few dozen niqab-wearing Muslims.

So, my train of thought is that it seems a gross over-reaction, when the niqab is such a tiny presence in any Western culture, to have this issue go up to the highest parts of government. But it cannot be a pure coincidence that within Europe, there have been major rifts in many countries regarding immigration, foreign nationals and national borders. Similarly, many countries have seen a resurgence of the far-right and right-wing ideologies, including France's Front National or the UK's EDL. With this there has been something of a rift made by many between 'native' and 'foreign' values and culture as they perceive it. Given Islam's relatively shaky and often difficult presence in Europe, particularly in the light of the 7/7 bombings, the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, 9/11 and other events, it seems that Islam has become the new target of the right-wing, or at least been re-established as the long-time enemy of 'the West' with all the old myths resurging once again.

I could have understood such a ban where ALL religious symbols came into question, but I would question the motives of any government which singles out a specific religious item, particularly one which is, in its own right, rare.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think there's a widespread tendency to scrutinize women for their clothing choices and try to enforce specific types of dress code on them in many places--be it forcing them to wear a burqa or forcing them to take it off. The coercive mentality is the same; the only difference is in the type of clothing forced on them.