Ohk....Reepicheep &Matt Browne its gud to hear frm u..

Well Reepicheep, u didnt undrstood whn i said abt "veil off the face" & neither u get wht Abuayisha
said abt "the rights of women". We both r on same side, whn i
say veil off the face thn i assumed tht her right of modesty will be secured & wht
Abuayisha said its ture tht she shld not veil off if, whn she feel insecure abt her modesty. Now
is it praticsng or non-praticsng side i wonder?? Dont u thnk tht Pratices are Affirmative things
with real intention to 'Perform'? Whn Does two opinions makes
persn eithr praticng one or non...? I thought it was the Act
tht displays all... nd honestly (ref. my previous posts aswel) it was MCC's act tht concerns me..

Reepicheep, wht u said abt moderate ones (as by ur
undrstndng), No u r wrong. Allow me to clear the undrstndng, a Muslim (i.e. Follower of Quran & Sunnah "in
its ful/entirety") is by default a moderate person, u don't need
to add "moderate" with a Muslim. Muslim lives a reasonble
and sensible life thy neithr exagurate ovr thngs nor thy
under-provide any thing, thy r loyal to ALLAH & His comandments are Final, the Sunnah are illustration of The
Commands & helps Muslim to adhere with the command.

Muslim doesnot add or reform Islam
bcoz he knw tht Islam is complete and eternal, anything
whch he is unable to get doesnt mean tht Islam needs correction bt it means thts his understndng
& knowledge is limited (and with the time he will fix it)... Now those who talk abt addng(or correctng) new thing to Islam, Well....i wonder wht thy r upto..Aren't thy satisfied with
the Islam as it is?

Edited by m.sumair - 17 February 2012 at 2:11pm

I don’t believe Muslim women are required to veil their face, however those Muslim females who do believe that religious modesty and their faith makes veiling necessary, I respect their right to freedom of religious expression.  Canada as a western democracy in my estimation should also respect, and protect these women’s right to religious expression.  The Communist government of China has banned fasting, wearing veils or growing beards for Muslim government employees and while clearly objectionable, we at least understand given China is a communist state.  What harm is there for Canada, holding lofty democratic values, to simply make concessions to accommodate these ladies expression of their religion? They would only need a female official to conduct swearing in oath.  Not to mention, that it is only a tiny minority of Muslim women who veil there face anyway.

Edited by abuayisha - 18 February 2012 at 7:50am

Abuayisha, face veils are not part of Canadian culture and does violate the dress code. Islamic countries also have dress codes. In addition, face veils harm human interaction and society as explained above. And in most cases women wearing face veils are forced to do this against their will, which is a human rights violation. If Muslims remain unwilling to compromise this will lead to a lot of trouble. It will make people in the West more and more angry and scared. Islam will become a religion to be feared. And I think you and I agree that this is not what we want.

Having this discussion based on a liberal blogger's rant  stirring up something which isn't going to solve anything. A piece of advice for the Muslim crowd when assisted from liberals you might end up with strange bedfellows who surly mess up your faith in the process.

Lets be real for a moment get the facts of the citizenship scenario.
Here are the wordings of the Canadian Oath!

“

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

”

IMHO a Muslim taking oath with full consciousness is in fact nullifying his own allegiance to his or her own faith i.e., Kalima.

 Isn't it comical to visualize a veiled Muslim woman doing this to the crowned head of the Anglican church with Indian Jewels or may be with a fancy hat some times.
Statistically the greatest number of immigrants are from the subcontinent that got rid of the Brits colonial rule and be free from the Anglican church's superiority.
All the self righteousness after landing on the Canadian shores by the veiled women either by choice or forced by the relatives reeks of pure and simple hypocrisy. I would say they are better off to stay on as a permanent residents
if have true understanding on what one is doing, I am saying religiously speaking. I wouldn't take this oath unless I am interested in the benefits  citizenship provided. It is living off the OPM. Does true faith allow taking the benefits that you didn't earn? People with little understanding have no choice but act like the fundamentalists being in denial.
Back to veil issue that came down as part of the following has been totally misunderstood!
33:59 (Asad) O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters, as well as all [other] believing women, that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments [when in public]: this will be more con­ducive to their being recognized [as decent women] and not annoyed. But [withal,] God is indeed much- forgiving, a dispenser of grace!

In the west it is working in reverse to their detriment cuz it puts the target on the Muslims' backs.

 This degrading constant source of heartburn is not helpful in making Muslim contributions noticeable. The Muslims need to prioritize their battles and this of course is not the one! Unless some masochistic tendencies are prevalent.
Just look at the Muslim world right now I don't need to itemize the ills!
It absolute futility to plead the secular democracy for putting on the veil that is absolutely pathetic!
They let the people immigrate to work and pay taxes and not throw a monkey wrench in the machine called the capitalist world.

First migrating to live under the Queen whose forebears fought to demolish the Muslim Khilapha and then taking the oath of allegiance to that head of the Anglican Kingdom!
Of course God indeed is much forgiving!

Edited by Sign*Reader - 21 February 2012 at 7:49pm