Print Page | Close Window

France: Muslim too submissive for citizenship

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: General Discussion
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12788
Printed Date: 19 April 2014 at 3:55pm


Topic: France: Muslim too submissive for citizenship
Posted By: abuayisha
Subject: France: Muslim too submissive for citizenship
Date Posted: 12 July 2008 at 5:33pm
France: Muslim too submissive for citizenship
 
Top court denies rights to burqa-wearing Morroccan woman
Reuters
updated 6:08 a.m. PT, Fri., July. 11, 2008

PARIS - France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes.

The case will reignite debate about how to reconcile freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the French constitution, and other fundamental rights, which many in France feel are being challenged by the way of life of some Muslims.

Le Monde newspaper said it was the first time a Muslim applicant had been rejected for reasons to do with personal religious practice.

"She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," said a ruling by the Council of State handed down last month and sent to Reuters on Friday to confirm a report in Le Monde.

The Council of State is a judicial body which has final say on disputes between individuals and the public administration.

She speaks good French
Married to a French national, the woman arrived in France in 2000, speaks good French and has three children born in France.

She wears a black burqa that covers all her body except her eyes, which are visible through a narrow slit, and lives in "total submission" to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services. Le Monde said the woman is 32.

The woman's application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on grounds of "insufficient assimilation". She appealed to the Council of State, which last month approved the rejection.

In the past, nationality was denied to Muslims who were known to have links with extremist circles or who had publicly advocated radicalism, which is not the case here.

The ruling comes weeks after a heated debate over whether traditional Muslim views were creeping into French law, prompted by a court annulment of the marriage of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not a virgin as she had claimed to be.

Going to an extreme?
In the case of the Moroccan woman, Le Monde suggested the Council of State had gone to the opposite extreme by rejecting the woman's beliefs and way of life rather than accommodating them.

"Is a burqa incompatible with French nationality?" the newspaper asked.

The legal expert who provided a formal report on the case to the Council of State wrote that the woman's interviews with social services revealed that "she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society," Le Monde reported.

"She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind," Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave wrote.

Le Monde quoted Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, as saying it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship.

"If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French," Lochak said.

Copyright 2008 Reuters. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25637418/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25637418/

http://mobile.msn.com/device/en-us/privacy.aspx - MSN Privacy . http://mobile.msn.com/device/en-us/terms.aspx - Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com



Replies:
Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 12 July 2008 at 11:46pm
That is totally ridiculous.  The french never cease to amaze me.  This poor woman is doing what she believes is best.  She is trying to just be a good religious woman and the French government punish her for it.  Should they take away the citizenship of nuns too since they are too conservative and reclusive?


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 5:55am
Let's flip the coin- If a woman that believes heart and soul in the woman's liberation movement would she be allowed to wear modest clothing and no scarf in Afgahnistan, Saudi Arabia, any Muslim country.
 
I have issue my self with anything that covers the face-lol!! except of course when weather demands a scarf.
 
Our faces are our identity, how we recognize each other, even infants recognize faces.  People that cover their faces have something to hide, bank robbers, etc.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 6:16am
HOW MUCH? TOO MUCH ! 
 
 That was bad of the french government. They have a bad way of life. Now they have acted against freedom of religion. Just because a woman is following her beliefs, it has become some crime? But it is their country.
 
 It is not necessary to hide the face. That Burqa is not any Islamic dress. And wearing it as described with only eyes visible through a slit is nothing Islamic. It was not a good way of dressing up in public.
 
 But while it was not a good way of dressing in public, I would say that it was the best way to do it in France where the people need to learn some lessons about decency. The other extreme can be seen in some streets of Paris where the ladies are standing naked waiting for their customers. Is there no law for them?
 
 There has been extremism on both sides. So let them do it to each other. The morrocon lady wants to teach the French people a lesson about her good religion. The French people want to teach her and punish her.
 
 It is necessary for all Muslim ladies to be modest when they go to live in western countries. There is no need to cover the face. They should not keep their faces covered when in public. It is necessary for recognition. If they dress the way that Moroccon has done, they create probelms for the law enforcing agencies too. Moreover, they shoud abide by the laws of the land where they live and should not un-necessarily try to oppose the government.
 
 If that Morocon woman feels that she should follow the Shariah law then she should go to live in Afghanistan or saudi Arabia where she may find some kind of Sharia. It is also proved by the Quran and Hadith that face may not be covered. It is not necessary to cover the face all the time. That is not a part of Shariah at all. So the woman is wrong. She may have become famous due to her act. But she brought a bad name to her religion. While getting publicity, she brought bad publicity to Islam.
 
 That muslim lady has created a problem for all muslim ladies in those western countires. It was alright what she tried. But if it was not allowed by the government, then it was not necessary to carry it too far to a limit. It was not her religious duty at all to do that. Such persons create problems for Islam. So even if she was doing something good, it has turned out to be very bad.
 
 That is why they say " Too much of everything is bad".


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 6:31am
Actually Beleiver you, or a woman could. Women can chose not to, with maybe the exception of Saudi Arabia.

Though I wonder if they termed it her "submission" is to husband etc. Did they ak her. Cause it could very well be her submission to Allah. Wonder how accurate that is myself.

Womn I know who wear the faace veil, believe they should.. Though I do agree if wear the head covering only is fard then probably she should have done it for the interview or whatever..she woud not be breaking an Islamic injunction by doing so. Both are accepted.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 9:06am
Okay, well, do we know if this woman did cooperate when it was necessary for her to remove her veil for identification purposes?  That would be my only concern.
 
Going back to the example of the nuns or even monks for that matter.  I am sure abstaining is not something french.  I believe God meant for us to procreate and have children so it is unnatural if you go against that.  Definitely not the french way of life. 
 
The point of this is none of these things are actually harming anyone else.  They are just a person's perspective on religion.  Whether we agree it is right or wrong.  She is not harming anyone by staying secluded in her home and wearing the veil when she comes out.  Nuns and monks aren't hurting anyone either other than possibly the future generations they could have produced.
 
I personally have no liking for the veil covering the face, but I don't feel a woman should be forced to take it off except when it is really necessary like for identification (drivers license picture, passport picture, etc).


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 7:58pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 But while it was not a good way of dressing in public, I would say that it was the best way to do it in France where the people need to learn some lessons about decency. The other extreme can be seen in some streets of Paris where the ladies are standing naked waiting for their customers. Is there no law for them?
I hope you are exaggerating.  I'm sure there is a law in France against being naked in public.
 
There is no law against skimpy, sexually enticing clothing. however.  Nor is there a law (as far as I know) against wearing a burqa.  Both extremes are legal, though neither may be socially acceptable in many circumstances.
 
The difference is that this woman wears only a burqa, whereas the women you are referring to, who often wear next to nothing, would probably have the good sense to show up for an immigration hearing dressed modestly and appropriately to the culture of the country they want to enter.  In short, they are able to conform to the norms of French society, even if they sometimes choose not to.
 
My question is: why would this woman want to live in France?  Why move to a country whose values are so different and so incompatible with her own?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 8:01pm
Good question, but then again, she may be there because that is where her relatives including her husband chose to be.  Obviously she would want to stay with them and they may already have citizenship there.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 14 July 2008 at 3:16am
Originally posted by believer

Let's flip the coin- If a woman that believes heart and soul in the woman's liberation movement would she be allowed to wear modest clothing and no scarf in Afgahnistan, Saudi Arabia, any Muslim country.
 
I have issue my self with anything that covers the face-lol!! except of course when weather demands a scarf.
 
Our faces are our identity, how we recognize each other, even infants recognize faces.  People that cover their faces have something to hide, bank robbers, etc.
 
Apart from the silly statement that faces are an identity thus always need to be visible etc etc etc , what the French govt is doing is the oppositte extreme of what the Saudi govt does (Like Ron correctly mentioned). Both are following extremes and infringing rights.
 
As long as the dress-code fulfills average standards of modesty, no country has a right to enforce a certain dress-code on its citizens, especially those of the another faith. Infact, in MOST
muslim countries you will not see this 'enforcement' and both muslims and nonmuslims have the right to dress as they wish, keeping within a set standard.
 
Though I am a strong proponent of the Hijab, and deeply respect sisters that observe the Niqaab, and Burqa - I do not think that 'forcing' ppl by law is a way to deal with Hijab, and that is a concious, religous/pious/spiritual/lifestyle choice. Something which can be taked about in detail later. And we also do not see any such acts done during Prophet Muhammad's time, or the Khalifas.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 14 July 2008 at 3:33am
Originally posted by believer

Let's flip the coin- If a woman that believes heart and soul in the woman's liberation movement would she be allowed to wear modest clothing and no scarf in Afgahnistan, Saudi Arabia, any Muslim country.
 


valid point. i do believe she wouldnt be allowed

when any unlikable thing falls on ones own feat they'll make all the
noises but when they do the same to other they'll act as if they had no clue about it

This problem exists with people of all the religions but ofcourse no religion teaches us all that specially islam
thats forsure.

but one question i'll like to ask u is that it was the west that
raised the slogan freedom of speech, expression,... that everyone has the
right to express the way they feel.

so i would ask where did that freedom
go now. that lady has the right to wear whatever she desires, whatever she feels comfortable in, surely she isnt hurting anyone. its her freedom that west has been talking about. isnt it it sir?

if a woman can walk naked in france without any problem/restrictions then covering everything cant be that bad, infact even a bit bad


Posted By: aka2x2
Date Posted: 14 July 2008 at 10:02am

“My question is: why would this woman want to live in France?  Why move to a country whose values are so different and so incompatible with her own?”

 

She wants to live in France because her husband is French and her children were born there.

 

Admittedly wearing a burqa is not the “norm” in France, but that does not mean she has a different value system. She may still value freedom of religion and freedom of expression, not to mention electricity, clean food and water, a functional government, etc.



-------------

Respectfully
aka2x2


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 July 2008 at 8:13pm
If she shares the same values as her husband, then the question becomes why would her husband want to live in France?  Or if she doesn't share his values, then why does she want to live with him?  Either way, I think he/they belong in Morocco, or wherever burqas are the norm.
 
Call it cultural differences, value systems, or whatever you like -- the fact is that this woman will not be accepted by the French people.  She will feel isolated, trapped in her home, she will have few friends if any.  She will be stared at wherever she goes (if she ever goes anywhere), and people will view her with suspicion and distrust.  Maybe that is unfair, but that is the way things will be.
 
Apparently her husband doesn't care about any of that, but that doesn't make it right.  I'm not sure she should be denied entry, but I certainly understand the reasons behind the decision.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 15 July 2008 at 6:26am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

If she shares the same values as her husband, then the question becomes why would her husband want to live in France?  Or if she doesn't share his values, then why does she want to live with him?  Either way, I think he/they belong in Morocco, or wherever burqas are the norm.
 
 
So you are saying that only people who have the same value-system/beliefs should be living in the same geographical area???
 
Only a person who has the same values as the French would want to live in France?
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 15 July 2008 at 2:32pm
And also define values.. we are a rainbow of colors so to speak in most of these countries.. how does anyone define "French?"
 
Would seem most important is to respect the rule of law in a land.. say speeding for instance.. but define a culture.. I think of French and I think of break and cheese.. lol


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 July 2008 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

So you are saying that only people who have the same value-system/beliefs should be living in the same geographical area???
It depends what you mean by "should", but for her sake I would say yes.  I have no doubt she would be happier among people who are more likely to accept her.
 
I am less sure that the government should deny her citizenship solely on that basis, but let's remember that she is not a citizen yet, and they have no obligation to her.  They do have certain obligations to her French husband, which is what makes me doubtful whether they ought to block her entry; but it's still up to her and her husband to show why she should be admitted, not the other way around.
 
Originally posted by Hayfa

And also define values.. we are a rainbow of colors so to speak in most of these countries.. how does anyone define "French?"
 
Would seem most important is to respect the rule of law in a land.. say speeding for instance.. but define a culture.. I think of French and I think of break and cheese.. lol
 
Among the core political values of any democracy are equality (including gender equality) and the right to vote, both of which she apparently rejects.  Culturally, when I think of French women I think of romance, physical beauty and strong sexuality.  Just watch a few French films and you'll see what I mean.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 1:26am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

It depends what you mean by "should", but for her sake I would say yes.  I have no doubt she would be happier among people who are more likely to accept her.
 
For 'her sake' ? How do you know how 'happy' or 'unhappy' she will be living in France? The mere fact that she is willing to go-thru the initial rejection shows that apparently she does believe she will happy there. she would apparently be happier living with her family in France . . . who knows what are thier reasons? I'm guessing her husband has to be there because of his job, and she wishes to be with him along with her kids. Apparently it doesnt matter to her at all whether or not ppl accept her. And living amongst ppl of the same culture does not automatically mean she will be accepted. . . ! Loads of ppl face rejections by thier own society for being different in one way or another.
 
  
 
 
 
Among the core political values of any democracy are equality (including gender equality) and the right to vote, both of which she apparently rejects. 
 
That is not at all a valid reason for rejecting anyone a citizenship! Lots of French already living in France probably share the same views. If it were another person without a Niqaab, but same values/opinions, he/she would not have faced the same probs.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 3:14am
Culturally, when I think of French women I think of romance, physical beauty and strong sexuality.
 
Interesting.. that woman may be exactly that under her clothes!


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 4:38pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

For 'her sake' ? How do you know how 'happy' or 'unhappy' she will be living in France?

Well, only because I have lived on this planet and among her species for quite a few years now.  We're all expressing our opinions, including you and including the officials who rejected her application.  About the only  person whose opinion is not being heard is the woman herself, since she is obviously doing and saying what she is  told by her male relatives.  I wonder if even her choice of husband was her own.

That is not at all a valid reason for rejecting anyone a citizenship! Lots of French already living in France  probably share the same views.

Not a valid reason?  Then what would be a valid reason?  Most citizenship tests include questions about the form of  government and electoral system.  I doubt that "lots" of people in France share her views.  Undoubtedly a few do,  but let me remind you that the rules for becoming a citizen are much more stringent than the rules for remaining one.


Originally posted by Hayfa

Interesting.. that woman may be exactly that under her clothes!

Maybe, but that's not how others will see her.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 5:25pm

I wonder if the French had the same sensibilities when they colonized Morocco and lived there? Do you think they thought that they were too French to be living among the Moroccans?  I wonder if the French women were forced to wear jalabiahs or gonduras to fit in. 

I guess we could ask that about almost any group that has immigrated or settled in another country.  I don't think the Europeans who settled in North America tried very hard to "fit" in with the indigenous population. Too bad there weren't any immigration tests or dress codes back then. Things would certainly be different now.

Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair.

BTW: nudity is everywhere in France. Billboards, beaches, television. Once again I see the irony, breats are fine, burqas not so much...
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by believer

Let's flip the coin- If a woman that believes heart and soul in the woman's liberation movement would she be allowed to wear modest clothing and no scarf in Afgahnistan, Saudi Arabia, any Muslim country.
 
I have issue my self with anything that covers the face-lol!! except of course when weather demands a scarf.
 
Our faces are our identity, how we recognize each other, even infants recognize faces.  People that cover their faces have something to hide, bank robbers, etc.
 
With so many people having plastic surgery, dyeing their hair and wearing colored contacts our faces are no longer truly our identities.
 
I believe heart and soul in women's liberation, what has that to do with wearing hijab? My ability to perform, think, and be treated equally has nothing to do with covering my hair. If I choose to wear hijab that is my decision to make and no person or government should try to tell me I cannot do so. How would forced removal of hijab be liberating to any woman who chooses to wear it? Besides, if a country believes in equality for women and women's rights, doesn't that extend to all women? Shouldn't every woman living there have the RIGHT to choose what and how she believes?
 
Why do you always say Muslim countries? There are no Muslim countries, there are just countries where there are Muslim majority. And yes, except for Saudi Arabia, women without hair covering can be seen in any Muslim majority country. The government does not force women to wear hijab and in some cases such as Turkey, they try to force women not to.
 
I have an American Muslim friend who just returned from teaching in Egypt. She applied for a job teaching in Morocco but she was told she would only be hired if she removed her hijab.
 
So your vision of women being forced to cover by crazed extremist governments is incorrect, however, if you would like to put forth the notion that crazed extremist governments are trying to force women to uncover I would agree....


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: imp87
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

If she shares the same values as her husband, then the question becomes why would her husband want to live in France?  Or if she doesn't share his values, then why does she want to live with him?  Either way, I think he/they belong in Morocco, or wherever burqas are the norm.

 

Im not no fan of Moroccans, but had France not abused so many of its colonies in Africa and forced people to migrate to France for a “better” life and job, then maybe we could have considered your point valid.

 

Do not think everyone loves where they live because it lay in Europe, most have to, given the right chance and promise of a lifestyle they would run out of France.

 

Such statements always come from people with the colonizer heritage.

 

The French did not say “we belong in France” when they killed a million Algerians.



-------------
We are as pieces of chess engaged in victory and defeat, our victory and defeat is from thee.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 5:58pm

Top Editorial:

13.7.08

France Rejects Muslim Woman

http://bp0.blogger.com/_iR2pCswKlVQ/SHioUj3M0VI/AAAAAAAAChA/vpuQJbovtCA/s1600-h/burqa.jpg"> Freedom of religion, a http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html - constitutional right in France, is not a right extended to Muslim women who wear a burqa. Yesterday France rejected a Muslim women's bid to become a citizen because she wears a burqa.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/207644.html - French authorities claim that the burqa is incompatible with the notion of Frenchness and contradicts the national value that seeks equality of the sexes.

Faiza M (32), as she is known publicly, was born in Morocco until she married a French national and moved to France in 2000. She has three children who were all born in France.

Faiza M. speaks French but because she told authorities that she lives in "total submission" to her husband it was deemed that this demonstrated "insufficient assimilation" into French life.

Faiza M. appealed the ruling saying that she lived in harmony with French values but the Council of State upheld the ruling.

The Council of State heard legal evidence that decribed Faiza M's life as under the control of her husband and other male relatives.

The thinking in this ruling strongly suggests that France has just ruled that patriarchy and French citizenship is incompatible.

Should we now expect that Christian or Jewish women, for example, who are married to domineering French men are barred from citizenship, naturalized, or other?

And what will the test be to determine insufficient integration?

This case illustrates rising intolerance toward Muslims in France and elsewhere in Europe (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4304838.ece - proposed minaret ban in Switzerland).

It is also hardly ironic that the government seeks to punish a Muslim woman for not being French enough to live with her French husband and children.

France is a decidedly patriachal society that can hardly claim that women enjoy equal status with men as a general rule. Faiza M. was rejected because she is a Muslim woman who wears a burqa in a nation who mostly want Muslims to leave.

This case is about being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. And this virulent bigotry is being carried out on the body of a Muslim woman.

So much for freedom, freedom of religion, fraternity, justice, and equality under the law.

http://ridwanlaher.blogspot.com/ - Ridwan Laher


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 7:04pm
Two classic examples of the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque - tu quoque   fallacy:
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair.

Originally posted by imp87

The French did not say "we belong in France" when they killed a million Algerians.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb


Originally posted by Hayfa

Interesting.. that woman may be exactly that under her clothes!

Maybe, but that's not how others will see her.

 
If I remember correctly, I think you believe in not caring how other's percieve us, and sticking to 'who you really are' rather than conforming to other ppl's standards of what is 'cool' 'acceptable' or in this case what 'french' is.  


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Two classic examples of the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque - tu quoque   fallacy:
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair.

Originally posted by imp87

The French did not say "we belong in France" when they killed a million Algerians.
 
I have personally never been guilty of rejecting anyone from obtaining citizenship, not have I ever occupied a foreign country or taken part in the mass slaughter of citizens of a foreign country. 
 
Let me state it another way: apparently the French believe that Muslims in Muslim countries are fine under a brutal military occupation and can even be cohabitants of said occupied country, but the Muslim citizens of such countries are not fine as cohabitants in the French homeland. 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 5:39pm

LOL!!  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=29 - -  said - Apart from the silly statement that faces are an identity  Talk about silly -  NOW that is a silly statement!!

Having lived in a country filled with freedoms it is my gut reaction to think that a women covered in a black sheet on a bright sunny day is not freeAt least let it be a white sheet!!!
 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 5:56pm
"At least let it be a white sheet!!!"
 
 
KKK anyone? 
 
 
"Having lived in a country filled with freedoms it is my gut reaction to think that a women covered in a black sheet on a bright sunny day is not free."
 
No, but anorexic half naked fake tanned bleached blondes are? 
 
I suppose it is freedom to be so concerned with how people perceive you that you will undergo plastic surgery, change your eye color, starve or throw up after eating, expose most of your body for attention and risk skin cancer. 
 
Here is a reality check on the freedom women enjoy in this country:
 
"Yearly, there are approximately 560,000 teenage girls in the USA who gets pregnant.

Of these, 95% are unintended leading to 1/3 ending in abortions and 1/3 in spontaneous miscarriage. The rest will continue the pregnancy term and keep the baby. More than half of these teens are younger than age 17 during their first pregnancy. Less than 25 percent of births to teens occur within wedlock." (Pregnancy Concerns Info)

U.S. women represent 51% of the population, but comprise less than:

  • 1.2% of Fortune 500 CEOs. Source: Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers ( http://www.catalystwomen.org/ - www.catalystwomen.org )
  • 2.7% of the highest paid officers at Fortune 500 companies. Source: Catalyst
  • 15% of the members of Congress. Source: Women's Research and Education Institute ( http://www.wrei.org/pubs/WC_108.pdf - http://www.wrei.org/pubs/WC_108.pdf )

In 2003, the median income of full-time, year round U.S. workers was $41,520 for men and $31,663 for women. Source: U.S. Census Bureau - Income in the United States: 2003 ( http://www.census.gov/ - www.census.gov )

Of the 15 million people age 15 or older who were full-time workers in 2001, 4.4% of women as compared with 2.8% of men reported earnings less than $10,000. At the opposite end of the economic spectrum, only 5.5% of women as compared with 15.8% of men reported earnings of $75,000 or more. Source: U.S. Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ - www.census.gov )

Every nine seconds a woman is beaten in the United States. Source: American Institute on Domestic Violence 2001 ( http://www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm - www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm )

Women ages 20-34 endure the highest rates of domestic violence. Source: American Institute on Domestic Violence 2001 ( http://www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm - www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm )

On average, more than three women a day are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States. Source: Family Violence Prevention Fund ( http://endabuse.org/resources/facts - http://endabuse.org/resources/facts )

One out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. Source: Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network ( http://www.rainn.org/ - www.rainn.org )

Only about one in five domestic violence victims with physical injuries seek professional medical treatment. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs )

In the 39% of attacks reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison. Source: Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network ( http://www.rainn.org/ - www.rainn.org )

10 million women are single mothers. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2003 ( http://www.census.gov/ - www.census.gov ) Release/www/2001/cb01-113.html)

Among women 50 to 65 years old, 14% do not have any type of health insurance. Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research ( http://www.iwpr.org/ - www.iwpr.org )

Older women are more likely to face poverty than older men. Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research ( http://www.iwpr.org/ - www.iwpr.org ) (Womens' Rights Facts)



-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 7:01pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

If I remember correctly, I think you believe in not caring how other's percieve us, and sticking to 'who you really are' rather than conforming to other ppl's standards of what is 'cool' 'acceptable' or in this case what 'french' is.

At present, "who she really is" is Moroccan; and yes, perhaps she would be better off sticking with that.  However, if she wants to be accepted as French, she will have to make some changes.

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Let me state it another way: apparently the French believe that Muslims in Muslim countries are fine under a brutal military occupation and can even be cohabitants of said occupied country, but the Muslim citizens of such countries are not fine as cohabitants in the French homeland.

What makes tu quoque a fallacy is that the premise (that the French thought it was okay to enter Morocco) is logically irrelevant to the conclusion (that we should think it is okay for the Moroccan woman to enter France).  At best, you could only show that the French are hypocrites, but not that the woman has any right to enter France.  At worst, if the analogy is valid then you have just proven that the Moroccan woman has no more business entering France than the French had in entering Morocco.

Add to that the fact that most of the French people who invaded Morocco are now long dead, and the premise becomes doubly irrelevant.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 18 July 2008 at 11:30am
The French didn't "enter" Morocco, they invaded Morocco. This woman is clearly not invading, she is seeking permission from the French government to allow her to live with her French husband and three French children. 
 
I did no more than point out the irony, "Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair." I see no fallacy in the ironic hypocrisy of the situation.
 
Morocco did not gain independence from France until 1956, and the French have still have influence, so it is quite possible that someone in the French government denying this woman's citizenship was indeed in occupation of Morocco.
 
Perhaps to you the situation is irrelevant. To the woman, her children, and husband I am sure it is quite relevant. I would even venture to say that to all of the Moroccans who were under French occupancy it is relevant.
How easy it is for those of us who have never suffered under a brutal military occupancy to dismiss the rights and grievances of those who have.
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 July 2008 at 7:51pm

Democracy and a Piece of Clothing

The http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2008/07/cultural_assimilation_for_citi/ - Current Discussion: France has rejected a citizenship application from a burqa-wearing Moroccan woman on the grounds that she has "insufficiently assimilated" to French culture. Should cultural assimilation be a requirement for citizenship?

If France denied a Muslim immigrant from Morocco the French citizenship because she wears the burqa, then we are confronted with an outrage. France’s Conseil d’Etat, the highest Administrative Court to uphold the decision of the city government of Paris this week, would have violated the very Western values it intends to protect. But is that really what we're dealing with here? Not so fast – it's more complicated than that.

The modern Western nation-state is a community of political values. Citizenship is not based on cultural values, not on blood and not on ethnicity. Freedom and democracy and constitutionalism are at the core of this community. German philosopher Dolf Sternberger has coined the term “constitutional patriotism” for a citizen’s necessary identification with the basic political principles and procedures of the democratic state. According to Sternberger this identification does not necessarily have to be “affectionate.” It is part of the freedom of every citizen to abstain from exercising his or her political rights. Citizenship may be created by birth as well as free will. This type of republicanism includes the right to emigrate as well as to immigrate. The state may reject an immigrant’s petition to become a citizen if and when an applicant rejects the basic constitutional principles. Usually there are few cultural conditions to become a citizen, the proficiency in the local language being one of them.

Faiza M., the 32-year-old applicant who entered France eight years ago, has shown that she understands important democratic principles. She wants to become a citizen, which seems to indicate that she wishes to exercise her free will as a free citizen. She goes to court when the City of Paris rejects her. She takes the case to the highest court when the lower courts rule against her. She clearly knows how to exercise her political rights. She speaks excellent French. She is married to a French citizen. She has three French-born children, citizens all. Isn’t she destined to become a French citizen?

To base the rejection of citizenship on a piece of clothing is a doubtful proposition. To wear a cross, a kippa, a headscarf or even a burqa is the right of every citizen in a democratic society. It may be a political or a cultural or a religious symbol, and it may mean different things to different people. Given this kaleidoscope of possible meanings it is a stretch to assume that a religious accessory points to nothing else but an anti-democratic mindset. Faiza M. is certainly within her rights to contend that her clothing is part of her religious freedom. We may think that a burqa is a woman’s jail and a sign of her subjugation. But that is not the question before the court in cases of controversial immigrant petitions.

The French court has now ruled that the burqa signals a “lack of assimilation”. According to the judges, Faiza M. “exercises a version of religiosity” that is “incompatible” with French society and “especially the principle of the equality of sexes”. Let’s be honest: If gender equality was a criterion of civic inclusion, we might want to expatriate whole segments of the society of Bavaria or Utah or Normandie. As the French daily newspaper Liberation put it: “Why not denaturalize all French women who are being abused by their husbands?”

So, bottom line: an outrage?

Not quite so fast. As we learn more about Faiza M., the case becomes more complicated. Facts have a potential to confuse, especially those who yearn for clarity and moral righteousness.

Faiza M. was asked to present her immigrant petition to the administration of the city of Paris. The officials asked her to show her face so they could identify her. She told them that her religion did not allow her to do this. The officials offered to have a female officer check her passport and face and that all men would have to leave the room. Faiza M. declined again. The officials might have settled on fingerprints as a means of identification, but it is obvious that a state will need to identify a new citizen. How to issue a passport without a photograph of a face? Faiza M. declared that she was not interested in her political rights and that she would not want to vote. Clearly, it is the right of a citizen not to vote. But her reasoning raised eyebrows. She told the officials that only men should have the right to vote. The court, in the end, was not sure whether it was her own free will to sue the government – or her husband’s. On all occasions Faiza M. showed up with her husband. She declared that she had not been wearing the burqa in Morocco, but has been doing so at the suggestion of her French husband. She said she did not know what the words “laicism” and “democracy” meant. Faiza M. stated that she is a disciple of salafism, a Muslim version of religious originalism. French scholar Olivier Roy describes it as “neo-fundamentalism” consisting of two distinct schools: conservatism and jihadism. It may have been unclear to the court which school Faiza M. believed in.

While a piece of clothing is not sufficient evidence to base the rejection of an immigrant petition upon, it may well be part of the evidence. In Faiza M.’s case it merely compounds the evidence gathered by the questioning. While Faiza M. may accept some principles of the democratic state, she clearly rejects others. Unfortunately, the reasoning of the court (to the degree it has been reported) stresses the importance of the burqa as a visible sign of her lack of assimilation without focusing on the questioning. In fact, it is not troubling what is on her head, but inside of it. Had she worn a bikini (or nothing at all) the court would have been within its rights to reject her petition. It is not of importance – or at least not of primary importance – what she wears, but what she says.

The case highlights a dilemma all Western countries face when dealing with immigration. They would like to base decisions of naturalization on the political and constitutional concept of citizenship, but need some additional “cultural indicators” to find out.

This is a slippery slope. A strange alliance of traditionalists and secularists would like to expand the number of “cultural indicators”. In fact, some would even sign up for a cultural definition of assimilation. They would like an immigrant to subscribe to the host society’s “way of life” – which maybe anything from capitalist consumerism to feminism to Bratwurst and Sauerkraut. Bavarian officials, for example, have stated time and again that citizenship includes a set of local customs, values and mores that they expect the immigrant to adopt in order for him or her to become a valued citizen. The French court opinion will be a treasure trove for such culturalists. While the court may have had reason to reject Faiza M.’s citizenship petition, it has – maybe unwillingly - set a dangerous precedent. Some of the public reaction to the ruling is a case in point. Fadela Amara, an undersecretary in Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, called the court decision “excellent and legal”. She said it is “based on the values of our republic” and it will “strengthen the rights of women”. For Amara, a Muslim herself and descendent of Algerian Berber immigrants, a burqa is “a straitjacket for females” and a sign of a “totalitarian political project”. Amara argues that a burqa, a veil and a headscarf are pretty much the same thing. But are they really? And in all instances?

The case of Faiza M. will undoubtedly become a tool. Instead of focusing on the case of this individual and her convictions, the opinion will be remembered because of the symbolism of the burqa. Feminists will use the burqa case to make citizenship law an instrument of women’s liberation. Traditionalists will point to the case to declare cultural assimilation a precondition of citizenship. Faiza M., meanwhile, will remain the only non-national in her family. Ironically, the verdict will supply Faiza M.’s husband with another instrument of power. If she ever wanted to divorce him, she might have nowhere to go but to Morocco.

Please e-mail mailto:postglobal@washingtonpost.com?subject=Email%20List - PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.

mailto:postglobal@washingtonpost.com?subject=Email%20for%20Thomas%20Kleine-Brockhoff%20at%20PostGlobal - Email the Author | http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/thomas_kleinebrockhoff/2008/07/democracy_and_a_piece_of_cloth.html;&title=Democracy%20and%20a%20Piece%20of%20Clothing%20-%20Thomas%20Kleine-Brockhoff%20at%20PostGlobal; - Del.icio.us | http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/thomas_kleinebrockhoff/2008/07/democracy_and_a_piece_of_cloth.html&title=Democracy%20and%20a%20Piece%20of%20Clothing - Digg | Posted by Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff on July 18, 2008 11:55 AM



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 July 2008 at 8:46pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

The French didn't "enter" Morocco, they invaded Morocco. This woman is clearly not invading, she is seeking permission from the French government to allow her to live with her French husband and three French children. 
Exactly.  So there's no basis for comparison at all, eh?  Sorry I brought it up. Tongue


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 18 July 2008 at 9:15pm
One thing I don't understand is why she would not let a female officer view her face if no males were present.  That seems to be going too far and I could see where they would be upset about that.  Surely she understands that they must be able to verify her identity.  I think that is within reason.  What will she do if she goes on Hajj to Mecca and has to remove it?  There are certain times that I think it is necessary.  Is there any belief that a woman must cover her face even in front of other women in Islam?
 
Anyway, that part wasn't where the court ruled against her on documents, but it does make me wonder.


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 18 July 2008 at 11:20pm

As'Salamu Alaikum .

There are many aspects to be considered from the article shared.

Firstly, if she had been under pressure from her husband or other male relatives to wear burqah, she would have easily agreed to take her face-lift off.

Secondly, if she wore it, by her own will to obey the command of Allah swt, as a true muslimah, she would take her face-lift  off before a female-officer. So do i doubt this article as an handi work of media.

"Faiza M. speaks French but because she told authorities that she lives in "total submission" to her husband it was deemed that this demonstrated "insufficient assimilation" into French life."

If this was what she told the authorities, then she's wrong. Her "total submission", shud have been for Allah swt, not for her husband.

Its clear as the author says,

" Faiza M. was rejected because she is a Muslim woman who wears a burqa in a nation who mostly want Muslims to leave."

This case is about being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. And this virulent bigotry is being carried out on the body of a Muslim woman.

So much for freedom, freedom of religion, fraternity, justice, and equality under the law.



-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 10:10am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

The French didn't "enter" Morocco, they invaded Morocco. This woman is clearly not invading, she is seeking permission from the French government to allow her to live with her French husband and three French children. 
Exactly.  So there's no basis for comparison at all, eh?  Sorry I brought it up. Tongue
 
You're not sorry at all you agent provacateur.... Too bad, I was going to work in that extra 3.8 years somehow....LOL


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 11:30am
Okay, I'm not sure who's kidding who at this point.  Shasta'sAunt, you are aware that YOU were the one who made the spurious comparison with the invasion of Morocco, right? Confused

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 6:08pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Okay, I'm not sure who's kidding who at this point.  Shasta'sAunt, you are aware that YOU were the one who made the spurious comparison with the invasion of Morocco, right? Confused
 
This is my original post to which you responded. I'm not sure of which spurious comparison you speak. I did wonder at the sensibilities of the French and mentioned the irony of the situation... 
 
However, for the sake of a nonbiased comparison, perhaps she should invade France and occupy the country in a brutal fashion that forces the native inhabitants to adopt her language, culture, and government. Then we would have an equal basis in which to compare the situations.
 
"I wonder if the French had the same sensibilities when they colonized Morocco and lived there? Do you think they thought that they were too French to be living among the Moroccans?  I wonder if the French women were forced to wear jalabiahs or gonduras to fit in. 
 
I guess we could ask that about almost any group that has immigrated or settled in another country.  I don't think the Europeans who settled in North America tried very hard to "fit" in with the indigenous population. Too bad there weren't any immigration tests or dress codes back then. Things would certainly be different now.

Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair."



-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair.
Is that a valid comparison or not?  If it is, then how can you be against the first but in favour of the second?  If it is not a valid comparison (which it obviously isn't), then why bring it up at all, unless simply to discredit the French for an unrelated event a hundred years ago?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 8:58pm

Maybe any the Germans in WWII should have made the French assimilate to them.  That would have been interesting and a good comparison.



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 20 July 2008 at 1:51pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Ironic isn't it that the French ran roughshod over the Moroccans and took over their country without any remorse, yet now a Moroccan can't live in France. You would think it would only be fair.
Is that a valid comparison or not?  If it is, then how can you be against the first but in favour of the second?  If it is not a valid comparison (which it obviously isn't), then why bring it up at all, unless simply to discredit the French for an unrelated event a hundred years ago?
 
I was pointing out the irony, an outcome of events contrary to what might be expected, of the situation. 
 
The French were still in Morocco 50 years ago, but does irony have a time limit?
 
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 5:19am
Originally posted by believer

LOL!!  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=29 - -  said - Apart from the silly statement that faces are an identity  Talk about silly -  NOW that is a silly statement!!

Can you honestly suggest that faces equate one's identity today? Our face does not represent our identity. . . Our identity is a combination of various aspects.
Even if you want to talk about the legal aspect of identity. It is easy to dupe a person regarding one's identity if we focus on faces. Which is why there are thumbprints, iris-scans, etc etc. What with plastic surgeries etc (like S.A) mentioned, one cannot identify another based on faces. Even something as minor as a haircut or a SHAVE can alter the facial identity. But then again, I am not all surprised you said that. . . the mere fact that u oppose any coverings of any sort, shows that you probably like to judge and identify people as soon as you look at them, by thier faces. . and physical features. . .even before you get to know them or speak to them.
 
 
Having lived in a country filled with freedoms it is my gut reaction to think that a women covered in a black sheet on a bright sunny day is not freeAt least let it be a white sheet!!! 
 
 
Smile a woman/man who ventures out on a bright sunny day, all covered up - is the oppositte of 'silly'. He/she is smart. Versus a woman who ventures out on a bright sunny day, clad in a bikini . . . or even it be HALF SLEEVES. She is exposing herself to harmful elements.
 
And again, I guess we differ on what 'free' means too, right? To me, a woman, who has the guts/freedom to NOT CARE what ppl like you think of her BODY bieng COVERED. . . are the ones who are free. They are not bound or pressurized by any social notions of what is 'in' or what-the-other-thinks-of me-based-on-my-appearance. Versus, a woman, who is sooo bound by her image-based-perceptions, she feels the need to expose herself to harmful rays, and get sun-burnt, get tan-lines rather than wear full-sleeves, cover herself up. And when it is cold, she still prefers to wear skirts and etc, despite the cold, because layers of clothing make her look unattractive. . . one needs to only walk down the streets of London to ascertain that fact. Look at a couple, and the guy will be wrapped up in sacrves and an anorak, while the girl whose body language tells she is cold, and has her arms wrapped around herself, will be wearing skirts/no sleeves, no sweater. . . . . . . .  .
 
The only aspect I find myself agreeing to is the color black, perhaps white would be cooler. . . but let me remind you that the reason many burqa-clad women choose black is bcz of personal prefernces and the practicality of the black-dress, easy to keep clean, stains off, etc. Even non-muslim women are partial to black. . . Ever seen the Afghani women? They wear blue burqas. . .
 
Besides, why do u have a problem with the BLACK burqa? Your nuns/priests also have a tendency to choose black. . . especially the ortho nuns. . . .thier dress is very similar to what many muslim women wear today. The only difference is that these everyday muslim women believe that one does not have to be 'married to God' to consider thier bodies special, and not a public-spectacle. . . but than an average muslim woman is equally special and worthy.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 5:37am

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't black reserved for when you are mourning the loss of a loved one?  Doesn't it kind of take away from the meaning of black if you wear it all the time.  I've just been wondering this and hoping someone can enlighten me.

My husband told me I should only wear black for three days after a death, so that confused me when I saw how many women wear black all the time.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 6:15am
Originally posted by Salams_wife

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't black reserved for when you are mourning the loss of a loved one?  Doesn't it kind of take away from the meaning of black if you wear it all the time.  I've just been wondering this and hoping someone can enlighten me.

My husband told me I should only wear black for three days after a death, so that confused me when I saw how many women wear black all the time.
 
Nothing to do with Islam Sis. . .
 
There is no color-coding of events in Islam. Which is why you see muslim women wearing black etc and all other colors all the time. Muslims also do not consider any particular colors special or "islamic" . . .  and I am speaking strictly from an Islamic point of view.
 
What you have heard (from ur husband etc) has a lot to do with Culture and personal opinions. I have heard the same opinion from various muslims AND non-muslims. . . that black is a color of mourning. But its not. . . many ppl have the misconception that is should not be worn in daily life and should be reserved for sombre occasions. Hence there is no such thing in Islam that one has to 'wear black for 3 days after loss of loved one'. . . 
 
I personally try to do the oppositte of what tradition/taboo/culture states, so ppl dont interpret my actions as those commanded by Islam. . . Hence if I am going to a funeral, I will make a point of not wearing black - YET I will also dress-down for the occasion and not wear anything that suggests that I don't care for the individual. . .
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 26 July 2008 at 8:08am

Naima Bouteldja, Press TV, Paris: Video

mms://217.218.67.244/presstv/20080725/OUTPUT_02-40-00-SNG-NAIMA-PARIS.wmv


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 26 July 2008 at 10:05am
LOL!!  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=29 - Chrysalis I guess you have never heard of sun umbrellas!!
 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 26 July 2008 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by believer

LOL!!  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=29 - Chrysalis I guess you have never heard of sun umbrellas!!
 
 
 
I have never seen a half dressed teen girl swishing down the street with a sun umbrella.  I did see an elderly man once, but he was wearing trouser and a button down shirt...


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 27 July 2008 at 12:06pm
 
 The french are strange people. They are targetting the muslims as being submissive. I am non political but I do remember that when Hitler advanced into France, the French people requested him not to bombard the city of Paris. But to take over the city peacefully. Perhaps that was a sign of some bravery on the part of the French people.
 
 They were sensible enough to make the right decision. When they had shortage of man power during the war, the French elders ordered the ladies to bring forth a child from any source, any source. That was another wise timely decision. They keep on making such decisions.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: imp87
Date Posted: 28 July 2008 at 7:49am
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 The french are strange people. They are targetting the muslims as being submissive. I am non political but I do remember that when Hitler advanced into France, the French people requested him not to bombard the city of Paris. But to take over the city peacefully. Perhaps that was a sign of some bravery on the part of the French people.
 
 They were sensible enough to make the right decision. When they had shortage of man power during the war, the French elders ordered the ladies to bring forth a child from any source, any source. That was another wise timely decision. They keep on making such decisions.
 

lol no wonder their women are going off with foreign guys, the “immigrants” lol.

And did they really do that :D that is just poor.

Oh once I read somewhere, something like, if you see soldiers with their hands up surrendering, it is the French army lol.

Anyway, off topic but I guess we can lighten things up a bit.

---

Check this site LOL

http://www.frenchmercenaries.com/history.html - http://www.frenchmercenaries.com/history.html

---

Oh and this is hilarious

---

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/french.html - http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/french.html

French Army tanks have five gears: four in reverse, and one forwards - in case the enemy attacks from the rear.

Why did the French plant trees on both sides of the boulevards in Paris? SO the Germans could march in the shade!!

How many French does it take to defend Paris?
Nobody knows, its never been attempted.

For Sale: one French rifle, never fired, dropped once.

---

LOL



-------------
We are as pieces of chess engaged in victory and defeat, our victory and defeat is from thee.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 29 July 2008 at 10:44am
Originally posted by believer

LOL!!  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=29 - Chrysalis I guess you have never heard of sun umbrellas!!
 
 
 
Whats the point of going out and buying a 'sun umbrella' when I can keep my clothes on . . . and a sun umbrella gives u 'shade' . . . but does not protect u from UV rays. . . its easier to keep ones clothes on, rather than have an extra accessory to carry.
 
besides, muslim women already have the equivalent of ur sun umbies, there have had umbrella-shaped burqas for centuries. Smile
 
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."



Print Page | Close Window