Print Page | Close Window

'Niqab Rage'

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: General Discussion
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17593
Printed Date: 21 November 2014 at 7:27pm


Topic: 'Niqab Rage'
Posted By: abuayisha
Subject: 'Niqab Rage'
Date Posted: 16 October 2010 at 10:24am

Jeanne Ruby, a retired 63-year-old English teacher told police that she "snapped" when she spied the woman from the United Arab Emirates, whose whole face was covered, in a home furnishings shop in Paris' chic 15th arrondissement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8064607/Retired-French-schoolteacher-in-niqab-rage-case.html - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8064607/Retired-French-schoolteacher-in-niqab-rage-case.html



Replies:
Posted By: Shaik Speare
Date Posted: 16 October 2010 at 12:23pm
The crazy doth protest too much, methinks.


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 16 October 2010 at 12:42pm
This is funny. To actually attack someone because of an article of clothing. Unfortunately hooliganism is still apparent.


Posted By: NuraB
Date Posted: 17 October 2010 at 4:29pm
Wow.

According to the article the attacker taught in Morocco and Saudi Arabia and hated how women walk three paces behind their husbands.

Yet, when she finds someone in niqab without a mahram (in the article it says the munaqibi was with a friend and two small children) she assaults her.  If the munaqibi was with a male that attacker would not have had the courage to do anything.

This is precisely the reason why we need our men walking ahead of us-to fend off the lunatics.

Seriously. I don't see how walking behind someone can be construed as subservience. The President of the U.S. or any other dignitary has bodyguards and other agents traveling ahead to clear the path and assure safety. 

Thanks abuayisha for sharing this interesting article.


Posted By: Kindly
Date Posted: 17 October 2010 at 5:25pm
Assalamu aleykum.

Sister NuraB. Such a great post @1.29. Respect!


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 17 October 2010 at 5:33pm
Would having a male there truly prevent attacks? I mean what if it was a group of people?


Posted By: Kindly
Date Posted: 17 October 2010 at 5:40pm
In this situation: yes.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 1:26pm
I agree it won't prevent all attacks.. but its coomn sense... we tel women in self-defense, and most women know walk with a friend or a buddy.. common sense.

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


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 06 November 2010 at 7:35am
What this teacher did is totally unacceptable. But modern Muslims capable of critical thinking need to understand the worries in Europe. Islamism (political Islam) poses a real threat to modern European societies. We need 21st century thinking to deal with 21st century challenges. We don't want people who seem stuck in 7th century thinking have any political power in Europe. Sharia law has no place in Europe. We want to preserve our democratic values and the Age of Enlightenment. And we hope that more moderate Muslim speak up and help us keep both militant and non-militant Islamists in check. Many see veils and headscarves as a political symbol of rising Islamism.




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 2:03am
Of course walking behind someone is not subservience.  Subservience is being required to walk behind someone by law.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 3:36am
Originally posted by Matt Browne

What this teacher did is totally unacceptable. But modern Muslims


That "but" says it all... 

We need 21st century thinking to deal with 21st century challenges. We don't want people who seem stuck in 7th century thinking have any political power in Europe.


What exactly is 21st century thinking? Thinking is a relative term. And what is 7th century thinking?

What this lady did by attacking a woman wearing a niqab (that to her represented 'islamism' whatever that is) ; will that be considered 21st century thinking or 7th century thinking ?

Sharia law has no place in Europe.


Says you. Shariah law has a place anywhere in the world as long as there are muslims in that community who want to practice it. It should not be a concern for Non-Muslims since it does not infringe on their rights or interests in anyway. And that applies to any sort of religious law. Whether it be Christian or Judaic law. If a community wants to practice a certain code that does not infringe the rights of others... they have a right to, and should.



-------------
"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: Kindly
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 1:34pm
@ Crysalis

I so agree.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 8:36pm
Chrysalis, you have written, "If a community wants to practice a certain code that does not infringe the rights of others... they have a right to, and should."  It sounds to me as though you think Islamic Law should supercede a nations laws.  Is this correct??  For example, do you feel that the followers of Islam in the United States should be able to take more than one wife???  After all, they are only affecting other members of Islam.  Or, as another example, do you feel that apostates should be dealt with according to Islamic Law???  


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 10:22pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

What this teacher did is totally unacceptable. But modern Muslims capable of critical thinking need to understand the worries in Europe. Islamism (political Islam) poses a real threat to modern European societies.
My understanding was that you are an Americano living in Europe, How a Minority can effect the change in a democracy?
 We need 21st century thinking to deal with 21st century challenges.
What are 21st century challenges living lavishly on borrowed money, what else? May be you Islam can teach 21st century thinkers something that will save their hide in the long run...If not Ho Jintao will sure teach something for sure... LOL
 We don't want people who seem stuck in 7th century thinking have any political power in Europe.
Oh really, You  can't be serious in saying this that folks packed in projects will achieve a political power in Europe!
 Sharia law has no place in Europe.
How two set of laws can be enforced together is beyond me, unless they get to become the ruling parties!
 We want to preserve our democratic values and the Age of Enlightenment.
Haven't heard otherwise. Stealing money through banking is also part of the Age of Enlightenment & democratic values...LOL
And we hope that more moderate Muslim speak up and help us keep both militant and non-militant Islamists in check.
Just don't throw this red herring in...You have lot bigger problem than Islamists...It your own money system that will get you sooner than later!
Read the following!

http://www.counterpunch.com/rosen10292010.html - Your using of "Islamism" is derogatory...There is no ism after Islam mind you...If you have problem with that you need to go n get educated first!
I think this is utter nonsensical paranoia! There would always be a spectrum of practice in every religion e.g.' look at the Judaism  from orthodox to conservative to reformed and they don't look alike outwardly!

What is wrong with some Muslim being an orthodox in looks?

Would you dare to tell that to an orthodox Jew that he doesn't look the way the rest of the crowd looks?




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 11:44pm
Here is a very interesting article on the similar stuff..Do read to the end the bigotry and hypocrisy that has infected the so called enlightened minds does become manifested..LOL

A Tide of Turbans

Obama in India

On November 6, before the election dust settles in the United States, President Obama will arrive in Mumbai, India. He will go to the Taj Mahal Hotel, the site of the November 2008 terrorist attack. The Obama team will commandeer the hotel. Bill Clinton’s favorite restaurant in India is the Bukhara, in Delhi’s Maurya Hotel, where there is an overstuffed platter that retails in his name (over $100). The Taj has a restaurant more to Obama’s taste, the Masala Kraft, Indian food cooked in a minimalist way, with low oil. No flamboyant tastes. It is his style.

On the day of his arrival, Obama will go to Mani Bhavan, where Gandhi would stay when in Mumbai. In 1959, Martin Luther King, Jr., came to this “Gandhi Museum.” He was moved by the space where Gandhi sat, now cordoned off from the public. King wanted to go and sit in the room, among Gandhi’s remaining objects. The Museum’s curator was hesitant, but could not refuse a State guest. King meditated on the floor, where Gandhi once did. Hours went by. The curator asked King’s companions when they planned to leave, since he had to close the Bhavan. King asked if he could stay the night, by himself, and sleep where Gandhi had slept. The curator, once more, had to allow his guest this privilege. King did so, to the discomfort of his friends.

The next morning, King wrote in the guest book, “To have the opportunity of sleeping in the house where Gandhiji slept is an experience that I will never forget.” A few days later, on All India Radio, King hoped that “India may have to take the lead and call for universal disarmament.” No such statement is on offer from the U. S. President. The balance of forces in the U. S. is too ugly today for any repeat of this, or even of Obama’s September 2009 call at the United Nations for nuclear non-proliferation. This Nobel Peace Prize winner, unlike King (who also won the prize, in 1964), has seldom good news for the world.

Obama and his team come to India with a different agenda. On the political front, movement seems unlikely. The Indian government’s opening gambit is to seek U. S. support for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. But even if this comes through there is no guarantee that India will offer any concessions to U. S. war aims in Afghanistan and Pakistan; India has its own interests in the region, driven by the view that its must seek primacy over developments in its immediate neighborhood. In Afghanistan, India’s interests are legion, and not always in line with those of Pakistan – herein lies the rub, as the United States must walk a fine line between the antagonisms that bedevils its two allies, not to point to the lack of its own strategy for a war that is now almost out of control.

Bob Woodward (in Obama’s Wars) portrays a torn president, eager to secure Afghanistan so that the “cancer doesn’t spread” to Pakistan. The thinking about the region, as shown in Woodward’s book, is pedestrian. It does not consider the many overlapping considerations, from Iran, from China, from India, from Pakistan, from Russia, from the Central Asian states, and of course, from the Afghan people themselves. Slogans of terrorism and failed states are not up to the task. Doubtful that Obama’s team and that of the Indian government will find a common language.

The buffet table set for the corporations will find hearty eaters from both the Washington and New Delhi teams. Last week, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Mike Froman told the press, that Obama’s main theme is going to be that “India is a tremendous market, potential market for U. S. exports and a source of investment back to the U. S.” Obama will want the Indian government to open the door to more agricultural exports from the United States to India.

Behind all this, full steam ahead, is the agenda of Monsanto, the giant agro-business firm. When Bush came to India in 2006, Monsanto’s agricultural policy masqueraded as his own, and much the same is on offer from Obama. The push is to bypass public domain science for the secret and profitable world of private capital dominated intellectual property – the Umbrella Science Agreement (2005) sets the terms. Perhaps Obama should smuggle onto his plane some farmers from Iowa who have lost their land to the financial crisis, and go with them to visit the families in Vidharba who have lost their loved ones to the epidemic of farmers’ suicides. They might find that the distance between Saikheda village and Rockwell City, Iowa is not so far after all.

In a twist, it is no longer the United States that asks India to dismantle its barriers to trade. Now, Washington begs for investment and the opportunity to enter the Indian market; Indian industry demands that Washington end its protectionism. The Confederation of Indian Industry released a report a few days ago, pointing to a slew of U. S. laws that restrict imports (such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a boondoggle for U. S. iron and steel through the “Buy America” provisions). The CII need not worry. Occasional bouts of protectionist rhetoric come from both U. S. parties, and a few weak laws here and there hit one or more sectors of the Indian economy. But there is no stomach in the U. S. for a return to the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs; the only sector that continues to slide under the radar of the WTO is U. S. agriculture, fully subsidized on behalf of agro-industry against the interests of farmers and consumers everywhere.

In India, both the Right and the Left are unhappy with the current state of U. S.-India relations. Commentators of the Right bristle that the U. S. has paid more attention to China than India (Hillary Clinton went to Beijing before she descended on the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai; in 2009, Obama and Hu Jintao signed a comprehensive statement to strengthen their relations). The Indian Right is obsessed with China, and any sign, however weak, that anyone is cozy with China, sets them off.

The Left will organize mass demonstrations during Obama’s visit, but they won’t have the same energy as the enormous protest that engulfed Bush’s trip in 2006. Bush and his agenda were so much easier to despise; he was a cartoon image of U. S. imperialism. Obama’s approach is similar, but his style is sophisticated, and it disempowers his critics. The Left’s list of complaints includes the failure to extradite Warren Anderson (who headed Union Carbide in 1984, and should bear some responsibility for the Bhopal Gas accident), the U. S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U. S. move to bring India into its military orbit.

The latter point is central. It will happen on the margins of Obama’s visit. The Generals will meet, and the arms dealers will shake hands. Already India and the U. S. have a very intimate military and arms sales relationship. It is expected that the arms deals will total between $5-$12 billion. The U. S. wants to use sale of military technology as a quid-pro-quo for India’s signing the Logistics Support Agreement, allowing U. S. military forces to use India for refueling and transit. In 2003, the Indian Parliament refused to allow Indian troops to enter the Iraq war besides the U. S. and U. K. That strand of independence remains, and the Congress-led government might not be able to get a full embrace with the Pentagon.

One newsflash has yet to send the requisite tremor through the Indian establishment: the United Kingdom, for the first time since the Spanish Armada ran aground in the English Channel, has decided to cut its military force, and so, its projection of imperial power. The removal of the colonies by the 1960s did not dampen Britain’s imperial ambitions (as in the Falklands, and, in a secondary role, in Afghanistan and Iraq). This is the death knell, as historian Eric Hobsbawm pointed out at Cambridge last week. India might want to sneak into the absent British role.

During Obama’s passage to India, he has declined to visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar. This is a pity. I was there this summer, at 4am, to experience the full glory of the palki, when the Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, comes from the Akal Takth to the Harimandir. Even a hardened atheist like myself is moved by the beauty of the moment. This might have been the decompression that Obama needs. But it will not be so. India’s two prominent cheerleaders for the United States must be grievously insulted by this decision. Both the Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) and the Montek Singh Ahluwalia (Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission) are Sikhs. A few of my friends believed that the visit to the Golden Temple was cancelled on the advice of members of Obama’s circle who have close ties to the Hindutva Right. More likely is the toxic political noise on Sikhs that has inflicted U. S. political discourse since 9/11.

After 9/11, one of the first casualties of the backlash was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gas station owner in Mesa, Arizona. He was mistaken for a terrorist because of his beard and turban. The turban has always provoked anxiety; the Sikhs who came to California in the 19th century were greeted with hostility. But the Sikhs didn’t take it lightly: “I used to go to Maryville every Saturday,” one man recounted in the 1920s, “One day a drunk ghora [white man] came out of a bar and motioned to me saying, ‘Come here, slave!’ I said I was no slave man. He told me that his race ruled India and America, too. All we were slaves. He came close to me and I hit him and got away fast.” George W. Bush spoke out against the post-9/11 backlash. His was the typical case of fire starter in one hand, fire extinguisher in another.

The violence against Sikhs was not only the work of the hoi polli; this is Congressman John Cooksey (Republican-Louisiana), “If I see someone [who] comes in that’s got a diaper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around the diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over.” The gap between Sikhs and Muslims was irrelevant. Senator Conrad Burns (Republican-Montana) fulminated against the “faceless enemy” who “drive taxicabs in the daytime and kill at night” (August 2006).

Since the Park 51 (mosque in lower Manhattan) episode, political discourse sounds like a Lydia Lunch song. Here is Congresswoman Sue Myrick (Republican-North Carolina), “The Quran makes worthless toilet paper. I like desecrating their holy stuff.” If it were not offensive, it would be plainly silly, the worst juvenile flatulence. The seriousness of it forced South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) to produce a report in October 2010 entitled From Macacas to Turban Toppers: The Rise in Xenophobic and Racist Rhetoric in American Political Discourse. My examples are from here.

Obama’s team has been skittish about allowing their candidate to be associated with the tide of turbans, the display of dupattas. In June 2008, his campaign staff asked two Muslim women in Detroit to move from the section behind Obama. The staffer told Hebba Aref, “because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama.” Shimaa Abdelfadeel was told, “We’re not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseball [caps] or scarves sit behind the stage. It has nothing to do with your religion.” This is Sarkozy’s assault on the head-scarf by stealth. No wonder the Golden Temple was off the agenda.

Ties between India and the United States should properly be seen as ties between the Chambers of Commerce of the two countries. The authentic people-to-people linkages have withered. After 9/11, anthropologist Jessica Falcone shows (in an essay in the new issue of Diaspora) the Sikh community in the Washington, DC area, bent over backwards to prove their patriotism. A Washington Post journalist came to visit a Sikh community leader, who told her, “we condemn harassment, we condemn terrorism. We are American, and we fully support the Bush administration.” One of his nephews had just been shot at because of his turban. “We are united as Sikhs,” he told the reporter, “and as Americans.” Patriotism is not, in this instance, the refuge of scoundrels. It is an act of desperation.

Anthropologist Rita Verma’s young Sikhs in an American town told her many, many stories of their own fears. Harminder talked of being chased from school everyday, and Parminder said, “Some of the girls grabbed my hair and pulled some strands out. They thought I was a Muslim girl and they thought I was evil. They kept shouting you are evil, you are evil. I just started to cry and felt like I had nowhere to go.” Obama’s entourage has Generals and CEOs. It will not build the real bridges that allow children like Parminder to live with dignity.

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT His most recent book, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565847857/counterpunchmaga - The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, won the Muzaffar Ahmad Book Prize for 2009. The Swedish and French editions are just out. He can be reached at: mailto:vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu - vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 6:10am
Originally posted by schmikbob

Chrysalis, you have written, "If a community wants to practice a certain code that does not infringe the rights of others... they have a right to, and should."  It sounds to me as though you think Islamic Law should supercede a nations laws. Is this correct??


Is there something wrong with the statement I made? Is this not in line with Western ideals itself?

As for your question, to which nation are you referring to? A Muslim nation or a non-muslim one?

For example, do you feel that the followers of Islam in the United States should be able to take more than one wife???  After all, they are only affecting other members of Islam.


Do I feel that it is USA's duty to make such a law, or should Muslims expect them to - no.
If Muslims are a minority in a community ruled by non-Muslims, they should abide by their laws, norms and respect them. If the laws/norms are a direct threat to them being able to practice their religion - they should immigrate.

However do I feel that it would be nice if US govt allows Muslims to do so - yes ofcourse.. why not. Again, this is because US ideals itself dictate that citizens should be allowed to live whatever way they want.  After all, if you cannot legally prevent adultery or mistresses in USA, why should you single out people who marry more than one?

If the govt wants to closely monitor the process and have their checks & balances - sure go ahead, that would be even better.

Or, as another example, do you feel that apostates should be dealt with according to Islamic Law???  


In the USA? no. Because we cannot expect a non-muslim government to practically carry out Islamic responsibilities. I am for the US government allowing Muslims to live the way they want as long as it doesnt effect others . However I am not suggesting that USA has to apply each and every aspect of Islamic law. It is just not possible when you are a non-muslim state. Nor can we expect the USA to take up the responsibilities of an Islamic Government.



-------------
"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: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 6:15am
I also think that championing for polygyny is at the moment a very secondary issue and waaaay down the priority list. Muslims should start with more practica/pertinentl issues first - such as Halal labels, Mosques, Hijab etc. 

-------------
"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: NuraB
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 10:57am
schmikbob

It is possible to observe Islamic law while respecting national law. For example Shari'a requires the deceased to be wrapped in burial cloth. State/municipal law requires the deceased to be buried in a coffin. The deceased can be wrapped in the cloth while buried in the coffin.

Chrysalis brought up a valid point:

Do you see the irony that here in the U.S. plural marriage is illegal, yet adultery is "okay" since there is no legal repercussion.?

Where I live in order for an Imam to officiate a marriage in the masjid (mosque) the couple first needs to obtain a State marriage license. To issue a marriage license California requires each person be singe. Therefore the local mosque won't legitimize a plural marriage.

I'm sure this is not an isolated incident. I'd imagine most mosques/Islamic centers have a similar policy regarding marriage as I'm sure most states have similar requirements as well.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 5:36pm
Chrysalis and NuraB, if you think there are no repercussions, legal or otherwise, to adultery or maintaining a mistress then you have not lived in the United States.  Also, Chrysalis, you have made some very revealing statements.  For example, in response to my question about the treatments of apostates, you said "we cannot expect a non-muslim government to practically carry out Islamic responsibilities".  I would like to know what then are Islamic responsibilities with regard to apostates???  Please don't couch your answer with any niceties.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 8:16pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

  Also, Chrysalis, you have made some very revealing statements.  For example, in response to my question about the treatments of apostates, you said "we cannot expect a non-muslim government to practically carry out Islamic responsibilities".  I would like to know what then are Islamic responsibilities with regard to apostates???  Please don't couch your answer with any niceties.
 
Well, let's talk "niceties" shall we; what about enhanced coercive interrogation, stress positions, special renditions, precision bombing, collateral damage, smart bombs, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 9:09pm
abuayisha, I must be imagining things.  I thought my question was for Chrysalis and involved apostates.  Apparently I was wrong and it was a question for you and involved all the ills of the US involvement in Iraq.  Way to avoid the question and completely change the subject.  Maybe we can address all your concerns in the proper thread though.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 11:38pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Chrysalis and NuraB, if you think there are no repercussions, legal or otherwise, to adultery or maintaining a mistress then you have not lived in the United States. 


Then please share with us the legal repercussions of having a mistress or indulging in adultery. How does the government respond to such a scenario?


Also, Chrysalis, you have made some very revealing statements.  For example, in response to my question about the treatments of apostates, you said "we cannot expect a non-muslim government to practically carry out Islamic responsibilities".  I would like to know what then are Islamic responsibilities with regard to apostates???  Please don't couch your answer with any niceties.


I don't like your tone Bob. What do you mean by "don't couch your answer with any niceties"? If you don't trust our responses, then why engage in discussions with us? Sorry if our answers don't suit your expectations, but thats how it 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: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 11:48pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

abuayisha, I must be imagining things.  I thought my question was for Chrysalis and involved apostates.  Apparently I was wrong and it was a question for you


I don't know why some people get so sensitive when other members participate in a public thread. This is a public thread/forum. Anyone can quote/comment whatever they wish. I for one appreciate other members chipping in.

Also is the purpose of your post to get an answer from Chrysalis - or simply get an answer to your question? If it is the latter, then it should not matter who responds.




-------------
"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: 09 November 2010 at 7:11am
Well bob since you're trolling for "gotcha moments" I figured why not address more important euphemisms/niceties.


Posted By: Kindly
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 8:40am
I am amazed by how non-Muslims sign up to this forum, with seemingly one purpose, which is polluting the atmosphere.
It seems that many of the non-Muslims feel ill at ease when we Muslims are being civil and are able to have productive and peaceful conversation.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 8:54am
Chrysalis, If you have ever sat through or read through transcripts of divorce proceedings as a result of infidelity you would absolutely know that the party that committed adultery will lose and suffer financially and with regards to visitation rights with children.  I would say that those are both definitive legal repercussions.  Also, in the US military, adultery is a court martial offense.
 
Next, I could care less if you don't like my "tone".  "don't couch your answer with any niceties" means don't suger coat your answer so as not to offend my sensibilities.  You are choosing to be offended by something that doesn't exist.
 
Lastly, Chrysalis, you have written "I don't know why some people get so sensitive when other members participate in a public thread. This is a public thread/forum. Anyone can quote/comment whatever they wish. I for one appreciate other members chipping in. Also is the purpose of your post to get an answer from Chrysalis - or simply get an answer to your question? If it is the latter, then it should not matter who responds"  I also have no problem when other people comment.  However when people like abuayisha and Sign Reader comment (as in this case) they have a tendency to get completely off topic and post non-relavent anti everyone screeds.  


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 11:59am
Chrysalis, If you have ever sat through or read through transcripts of divorce proceedings as a result of infidelity you would absolutely know that the party that committed adultery will lose and suffer financially and with regards to visitation rights with children.  I would say that those are both definitive legal repercussions.

Yes buy how many people are throw in jail??? Come on now... its not like, even in some states if its illegal anyone is arrested. What you cite has nothing to do with the fact that the government chooses to say that only husband -wife is legal, though this is changing with gay marriage and I suspect plural marriages will come about if people choose to engage. But where it is against the  law to commit adultery it s not enforced.

Apostasy: do you even know the conditions in an Islamic state- Islamic state it would be to punish anyone for this offense? Its basically you have to leave Islam and act upon the state.. its called acting in a treasonous manner. We have treason laws. Every STATE does.

Bob: there is different laws for Muslim living in a non-Muslim lands. There are books of Fiqh written on this issue.

If you wish to listen to lectures on it you could try this:
http://www.sandalaproductions.com/Products/127-sacred-law-in-secular-lands-volume-1.aspx

So apostasy is a non-issue as we, who live in a nonMuslim land, are not living in a Islamic state.


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


Posted By: Kindly
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 12:17pm
@Hayfa


Great post!


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 3:11pm
Who says adultery is or should be the business of the government?  As long as divorce law discourages adultery monetarily and with regards to custody of children that's good enough for the majority of people.  Do you feel that it is appropriate for someone to be tossed in jail for adultery?
 
Are you are saying that in Iran or Saudi Arabia, for example, it would be fine for someone to be a practicing member of Islam, then decide it was a bunch of hogwash,and decide to practice Hinduism or Christianity instead and the state would have no position on this. 


Posted By: NuraB
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 5:59pm
schmikbob

"Do you feel that it is appropriate for someone to be tossed in jail for adultery?"

Well that statement is the whole root of the argument adultery vs plural marriage, you won't get thrown in jail for adultery yet, practicing plural marriage(a potential antidote to adultery) you will get thrown in jail

 "Are you are saying that in Iran or Saudi Arabia, for example, it would be fine for someone to be a practicing member of Islam, then decide it was a bunch of hogwash,and decide to practice Hinduism or Christianity instead and the state would have no position on this. "

In her response Hayfa was addressing your original statement.

You had originally said "it sounds to me as though you think Islamic Law should supersede a nations laws"

..."do you feel that apostates should be dealt with according to Islamic Law?

Hayfa's response was based on the assumption you were still speaking about dealing with apostates in a non-Islamic country.


N.B.





Posted By: Kindly
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 6:30pm
Polygamy is not intended as a common practice and in the vast majority of cases there is no necessity for that step, therefore I do not mind it being forbidden in national law. Self governance has not been successful in this matter. Men often practice polygamy for selfish reasons. When/if the need for polygamy arises, this circumstances will be reminiscent of a state of emergency, in which case, for us Muslims Islamic practice will super-cede national law.

Let it be clear. Islamic rules will always be of higher priority than any legislation of man. However we do have an obligation to follow the laws of the country we reside, as long as they do not dictate unislamic practice. Therefore we try to, first and foremost, find a compromise, before we consider breaking the laws of our hosting nation.
Before jumping to conclusions about our loyalty, consider how many unlawful acts Muslims commit in their daily activities. Prayer, fasting, charity, interest free banking activity, consuming halal food, wearing Islamic garments. None of these are illegal acts.
Btw. Judaism allows polygamy as well ("If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights" Exodus 21:10")

Lastly, I do feel that it would be advantageous if national laws regulated adultery as well as polygamy. Adultery does not benefit any one in society, on the contrary, it does harm on spouses and children, and arguably on the adulterers themselves.
The vows one takes when getting married in a Christian church or before a civil entity (I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad) are quite reminiscent of those takes before getting on the stand in court (swear to tell the truth, the whole trust...), which are a felony to break. Only natural that the pledge before the state and/or God, should be paralleled with those before the court and/or God.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Who says adultery is or should be the business of the government? 
 
Who says spanking should be the business of government?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=197364 - Mother cleared of child-spanking charge (OneNewsNow.com)
 
Seems to me most people haven't a problem with moral laws such as murder and theft (thou shall not...), but when it comes to sexuality it shouldn't be government business.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 9:17pm
 
schmikbob: I also have no problem when other people comment.  However when people like abuayisha and Sign Reader comment (as in this case) they have a tendency to get completely off topic and post non-relavent anti everyone screeds.

 
I see. And didn't you yourself derail the topic from Niqab to Apostasy & Polygyny? Nobody called you out for that...

Originally posted by schmikbob

Chrysalis, you have written, "If a community wants to practice a certain code that does not infringe the rights of others... they have a right to, and should."  It sounds to me as though you think Islamic Law should supercede a nations laws.  Is this correct??  For example, do you feel that the followers of Islam in the United States should be able to take more than one wife???  After all, they are only affecting other members of Islam.  Or, as another example, do you feel that apostates should be dealt with according to Islamic Law???  



-------------
"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: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 9:26pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Who says adultery is or should be the business of the government?  As long as divorce law discourages adultery monetarily and with regards to custody of children that's good enough for the majority of people.  Do you feel that it is appropriate for someone to be tossed in jail for adultery?


But didn't you just give me an e.g. of how adultery can become the business of the government?

Chrysalis, If you have ever sat through or read through transcripts of divorce proceedings as a result of infidelity you would absolutely know that the party that committed adultery will lose and suffer financially and with regards to visitation rights with children.  I would say that those are both definitive legal repercussions.  Also, in the US military, adultery is a court martial offense.


Adultery became a matter of public/political concern in the Bill Clinton trial, or that John Edwards guy. Why the hypocrisy? Why is adultery an offence in some cases and not in others? Unlike western governments, Islam has a consistent & blanket policy on adultery. Thats better than having a confused, hypocritical attitude towards it.
 
Are you are saying that in Iran or Saudi Arabia, for example, it would be fine for someone to be a practicing member of Islam, then decide it was a bunch of hogwash,and decide to practice Hinduism or Christianity instead and the state would have no position on this. 


Iran/Saudia is not equal to Islam.



-------------
"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: joeraman
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 9:49pm
give the detailed information on that topic.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 10 November 2010 at 5:49pm
Chrysalis, in refering to adultery you say "Islam has a consistent & blanket policy on adultery. Thats better than having a confused, hypocritical attitude towards it."  I disagree.  It depends on whether the punishment fits the crime or if adultery should even be a crime. 
 


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 10 November 2010 at 6:05pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Chrysalis, in refering to adultery you say "Islam has a consistent & blanket policy on adultery. Thats better than having a confused, hypocritical attitude towards it."  I disagree.  It depends on whether the punishment fits the crime or if adultery should even be a crime. 
 


You are entitled to disagree of course, that is your opinin as Schmikbob.

However all major world religions, as well as a majority of people see adultery as an abhor-able social evil, which should be discouraged and deterred by law. Islamic Laws work on a holistic level. While the laws in place are severe, they also highlight the immense burden of proof required to prosecute an alleged adulterer. At the end of the day, it is not easy to prosecute someone for adultery.




-------------
"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: schmikbob
Date Posted: 10 November 2010 at 7:13pm

Agreed, with one exception.  I think Christianity abhors adultery but there has never been a push to make it illegal with a potential prison sentence for it, at least in the US.  I think Christians see it more as an issue between people and their God rather than people and their government.  I think Islam generally doesn't make that distinction.



Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 10 November 2010 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Agreed, with one exception.  I think Christianity abhors adultery but there has never been a push to make it illegal with a potential prison sentence for it, at least in the US.  I think Christians see it more as an issue between people and their God rather than people and their government.  I think Islam generally doesn't make that distinction.



With all due respect to Christians, they don't really practice/apply their religious laws that much. Especially when compared to Jews & Muslims. So it is more so a matter of dilution of religion.

However such laws do exist, such as

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."




-------------
"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: 10 November 2010 at 8:42pm
...and thy neighbor's wife becomes the "gateway" to thy neighbor's daughter and ultimately thy neighbor's son as well.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 10 November 2010 at 9:52pm
Oh come on, Leviticus, really??  You're going to go back to the Old Testament.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 10 November 2010 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Oh come on, Leviticus, really??  You're going to go back to the Old Testament.


Ofcourse many modern day Christians don't really obey/practice the old testament anymore. I was reading an article on adultery in Christianity and the author made a telling statement:

"The different Christian views are whether you are a legalist like the Pharisees and look to the letter of the law, or do you look to the example of Christ of love over legalism."

implying - such laws are a part of Christianity, except that they are not followed anymore.


-------------
"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: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 7:37am
We need 21st century thinking to deal with 21st century challenges. We don't want people who seem stuck in 7th century thinking have any political power in Europe.

What exactly is 21st century thinking? Thinking is a relative term. And what is 7th century thinking?


I'll give you an example. Dogs are unclean animals. This is 7th century thinking. Dogs are clean animals. They can help rescue Earthquake survivors. They can help blind people live a better life. This is 21st century thinking.

What this lady did by attacking a woman wearing a niqab (that to her represented 'islamism' whatever that is) ; will that be considered 21st century thinking or 7th century thinking ?


What this lady attacking a woman did was 7th century thinking. Or 11th century thinking. We have to ask the question, What could be the root cause of such unacceptable behavior? This explains my 'but'.

Sharia law has no place in Europe.

Says you. Shariah law has a place anywhere in the world as long as there are muslims in that community who want to practice it. It should not be a concern for Non-Muslims since it does not infringe on their rights or interests in anyway. And that applies to any sort of religious law. Whether it be Christian or Judaic law. If a community wants to practice a certain code that does not infringe the rights of others... they have a right to, and should.


Says the majority of people electing their lawmakers. No Muslim community anywhere has a right to practice laws that are in violation of laws mandated by lawmakers. Your outrageous claim based on Islamist ideology (political Islam) is one of the reason why many Europeans are worried. These claims are a gross violation of our values that we hold dear. We won't give up these values.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 7:48am
Originally posted by abuayisha


 
Well, let's talk "niceties" shall we; what about enhanced coercive interrogation, stress positions, special renditions, precision bombing, collateral damage, smart bombs, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Crimes committed by Western governments cannot be used as an excuse for crimes committed by Islamist governments. Applying the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Christianity is a crime. We should condemn all crimes.
The Iraq war was illegal and not mandated by the UN. Many European countries opposed it.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 7:54am
Originally posted by Kindly

I am amazed by how non-Muslims sign up to this forum, with seemingly one purpose, which is polluting the atmosphere.
It seems that many of the non-Muslims feel ill at ease when we Muslims are being civil and are able to have productive and peaceful conversation.


Don't confuse criticism with attacks. And trying to divide the world into Muslims and "Non-Muslims" is one of the reasons we got so many problems. Try to recognize the people who are contributing.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 8:15am

Well done Matt Browne.  I totally agree.  Have you read Bernard Shaw's "The Crisis of Islam"? 



Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 12:45pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

We need 21st century thinking to deal with 21st century challenges. We don't want people who seem stuck in 7th century thinking have any political power in Europe.

What exactly is 21st century thinking? Thinking is a relative term. And what is 7th century thinking?


I'll give you an example. Dogs are unclean animals. This is 7th century thinking. Dogs are clean animals. They can help rescue Earthquake survivors. They can help blind people live a better life. This is 21st century thinking.


Ever think that maybe your understanding/knowledge of Islam and Muslims is the same as the awareness non-muslims had in the 7th Century?

Dogs in Islam is just another issue that many Non-Muslim don't know the details about. As for physical cleanliness, (and I am an animal lover myself, gotten into numerous discussions with my parents over pets) but animals are not 'clean'. Anybody who thinks that Humans and Animals are on the same hygienic level is exaggerating a tad bit.

There is no restriction in Islam to keeping working dogs, to help in earthquakes, guide blind people etc. Hadith actually says its okay to keep dogs that help humans. I posted a UK fatwa some time ago that said it was okay for a blind boy to bring his guide dog to the mosque.

Your thinking however IS 7th Century thinking. You think that your likes/dislikes/culture is superior to that of another community.


What this lady attacking a woman did was 7th century thinking. Or 11th century thinking. We have to ask the question, What could be the root cause of such unacceptable behavior? This explains my 'but'.


Have you asked similar questions on behalf of Muslims? or those you term terrorists? Your 'but' seems like you're trying to justify her action.


Says the majority of people electing their lawmakers.


If the majority rules against Shariah, why are you so concerned? Then that is a non-issue. However if there are Muslims living in a sizeable number in any part of the world, including Europe - and they want to pursue laws that allow for their beliefs. Why not? They can pursue thatthrough legal means.

 
Your outrageous claim based on Islamist ideology (political Islam) is one of the reason why many Europeans are worried.


These claims are based on individual freedom and rights. Recently the US Army recruited a Sikh soldier, and let him keep a beard - which they don't allow usually. Muslims expect similar attitudes that's all. You and people like you have have blown things out of proportion. "Political Islam" !!!

These claims are a gross violation of our values that we hold dear. We won't give up these values. 


Again - an example of 7th Century thinking. My culture/values are better and more important than yours. Who is asking you to give up your values? If a woman wants to wear a veil - how does that effect YOUR values? Shouldn't she have a right to practice her values as well? No matter where she goes? People who don't like the way others dress/live can solve that by minding their own biz.




-------------
"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: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 10:18pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Well done Matt Browne.  I totally agree.  Have you read Bernard Shaw's "The Crisis of Islam"? 

Well done what? You know very well you do what the woman did in US and you have a law suit over your head! Matt has lost his marbles by living in  Germany ( Brown shirt effectWink)
Shaw in this discussion...Here is his the height of his cynicism!
"Americans adore me and will go on adoring me until I say something nice about them."
His talking about Crises of Islam is as illogical as it gets! If the Muzlim people becoming fat, dumb and happy, it would Muzlims fault not the Islam's...
If you default by not following the building code and then get injured when it collapses during a quack...Is it your fault or the code's fault?

See the logic?

The Muzlims are in crises for defaulting on their Islam and got run over by the western imperialism and I guess deservedly so ...It is an on going phenomena try what you may the western imperial power is dying and it is its last throws...Look at Cameron or Obama's last visit to China and take lessons...nothing last for ever! Obama was on the Asian tour to sell American commercial and military stuff at any terms and Hu Jintao was in Paris to spread around his largess at his terms! It would be totally st.upid for the west going broke beating the dead people! May be that is what is in the cards! oh well keep it up no one listens to the people in debt!

And then saw guess who was talking about that lost soul Mr. GB!

October 6, 2010 - 16:04 ET


GLENN: Here is George Bernard Shaw, probably the most famous Fabian socialist, what we would call a progressive here in America.

SHAW: You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.
He was one the very sick intellectuals that west is littered with I am sorry I can name a dozen if you like...

I don't think he was just antIslam; he was just anti religion all around didn't matter true or otherwise...You know what, in old times Islam was mostly among the non Caucasians so imperialist found it lot convenient to kick the brown fellas around when they were  down! I think the game is changing!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 10:23pm
member_profile.asp?PF=63018&FID=29 - Matt Browne
Either conveniently avoided to respond or you agree on the points! Which is it?

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Kindly
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 2:12am
Hahaha, Sign*Reader you are so entertaining :)

Did your parents use the Muzlim man to scare you off being a bad boy, when you were a kid? " The Muzlim man is coming to get ya " Hahaha


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 2:16am
Kindly: Muzlim is a tongue in cheek, if you know what I mean?
Read my posts and then comment!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 2:18am
What different does it make Muzlim Muslims Moslem Muzloom Muslmaan?
The way they have been fried in Iraq, Afpak, Palestine or Kashmir?


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 7:23am
By the way, Sign Reader.  Sorry I had you make you go off on one of your rants.  Bernard Lewis wrote "The Crisis of Islam" and not Bernard Shaw. 


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 9:08am
Lost my marbles? I don't engage in discussions in online forums that involve these kind of personal attacks while the moderators remain silent.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Lost my marbles? I don't engage in discussions in online forums that involve these kind of personal attacks while the moderators remain silent.

You also need to know staying within legal and decency limits of what you can advocate and what you can't!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 November 2010 at 7:27am
Sign Reader, I think your last comment outlines the problem. I'm not advocating anything here. I'm stating my opinion. I'm exercising my right to free thought. People have the right to agree or disagree with me. I don't resort to attacking individual users of this forum. I'm looking for ways how Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists and so forth can live together in peace. I tolerate all tolerant religions and tolerant world views. I don't tolerate intolerance, but I'm always eager to look for the root causes that might have led people to show intolerant behavior.

Although I'm a Christian, I'm very critical about some forms of Christianity. I'm also very critical about what some Christians have done or said over the past 2000 years. I can be critical about Christianity and no Christian will threaten to kill me. Some might disagree and argue, but that's it. Self criticism has allowed Christianity to evolve. Today, almost all of the most successful countries on our planet do have a Christian majority. Almost all of the most important discoveries and inventions over the past 300 years were made by Christians, Jews or Atheists. That's a fact and the question is why this is so.

I think it has to do with the Age of Enlightenment and the notion of evolving religions. And the idea that freedom of religion promotes freedom of thought, creativity and innovation. A Christian can become a Muslim or an Agnostic or an Atheist. Priests might not like it, but there are no death threats because of this. It's a matter of individual choice. And because of this spirit, people invent cars and space shuttles and the world wide web or discover quantum mechanics. This spirit will allows us to deal with the problems of the 21st century which includes the climate crisis, energy and resource crisis. How can the Earth accommodate 9 billion people in 2050? How can we achieve fairness?

I have great respect for Muslims. I appreciate all tolerant forms of Islam. This is why I joined this forum. Mutual understanding is key. I want to learn. Discussions are the fuel of progress. But this can involve criticism. I'm eager to hear criticism because it gives me the chance to challenge my assumptions. You can criticize me. What I don't accept are personal attacks and words like 'you punk' or 'losing your marbles'.

This thread is about the 'niqab rage'. Why was this French woman so angry? To me telling her that her behavior is unacceptable is not good enough. What are the circumstances that lead to such situations. I've been thinking about this a lot. I have found some answers, but I don't know whether they are the right answers. Think of them as hypotheses. Be critical.

So what's going on in America and Europe? I think it has to do how people perceive Islam and Muslim communities. Of course there are a lot of differences, but for the sake of this argument allow me to define three groups called one, two and three (knowing well that this isn't completely accurate).

Origin of the Quran

1) Muslims who know for a fact that every sentence in the Quran is the word of God (relayed to the Prophet by an angel) and who think that all other religions are wrong. The world consists of Muslims and infidels.

2) Muslims who believe that God is the ultimate origin of the Quran, but who also know there's no way to verify this by some method available to humans. These Muslims distinguish between facts and beliefs. They know that other religions are in a similar situation.

3) Muslims who know that the Quran was written by humans based on what the Prophet had said over a course of 22 years. These Muslims believe that the Prophet was inspired by God, but they also think that there are different ways to find God and be a good human. There are multiple spiritual truths and therefore different religions can coexist peacefully.

Religious life

1) Muslims who think that every Muslim must follow all rules of Islam. Peer pressure is justified when some Muslims only obey some rules. Women have to obey the men in charge of them.

2) Muslims who think that every Muslim should follow all rules of Islam, but peer pressure is not justified.

3) Muslims who respect the individual decision of every Muslim how to live his life. Dogmas can change over time.

State and religion

1) Religious laws rank over secular laws.

2) It depends whether secular laws rank over religious laws.

3) Secular laws rank over religious laws.


So back to the question of what's going on in America and Europe? I believe most Americans and Europeans think that the vast majority of Muslims including the ones who chose to live in America or Europe belong to group number one (as outlined above). A minority might belong to group number two and only a tiny minority belongs to number three.

And because this seems to be the case, many Christians, Agnostics and Atheists are afraid or resentful. Islam means submission and they are afraid that Muslims will gradually increase the pressure, because infidels have to submit to Islam or risk getting killed. There are many verses in the Quran involving this explicit command made by Allah.

So people here are scared.

Especially the woman who have fought so hard for equal rights. We fear that we might lose all the freedom we enjoy and which allows us to be creative and innovative individuals. We fear that the progress that has been made over the past hundreds of year will slowly erode and we are all headed back toward the 7th century. We also fear that the minority of Muslims belonging to groups number two and three will lose their fight against group number one. Because of all the threats ade by people from group number one. Freedom of expression can be dangerous.

So is there hope? I think there is. Some Muslims are extremely brave, especially women. I think it will depend on Muslim women whether we'll see progress or stagnation. A good example is a Saudi woman named Hissa Hilal. She is very brave. I think she's a hero, capable of inspiring more young Muslims who wish to live in a modern world instead of a dark ages world full of restrictions and fear. In case you haven't heard the story, here's an article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/hissa-hilal-saudi-woman-b_n_508778.html - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/hissa-hilal-saudi-woman-b_n_508778.html

Hissa Hilal, only her eyes visible through her black veil, delivered a blistering poem against Muslim preachers "who sit in the position of power" but are "frightening" people with their fatwas, or religious edicts, and "preying like a wolf" on those seeking peace. Her poem got loud cheers from the audience and won her a place in the competition's finals, to be aired on Wednesday. It also brought her death threats, posted on several Islamic militant Web sites.

"My poetry has always been provocative," she told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's a way to express myself and give voice to Arab women, silenced by those who have hijacked our culture and our religion."

Her poem was seen as a response to Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a prominent cleric in Saudi Arabia who recently issued a fatwa saying those who call for the mingling of men and women should be considered infidels, punishable by death. But more broadly, it was seen as addressing any of many hard-line clerics in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region who hold a wide influence through television programs, university positions or Web sites.

Hilal's 15-verse poem was in a form known as Nabati, native to nomadic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. She criticized extremism that she told AP is "creeping into our society" through fatwas.

"I have seen evil in the eyes of fatwas, at a time when the permitted is being twisted into the forbidden," she said in the poem. She called such edicts "a monster that emerged from its hiding place" whenever "the veil is lifted from the face of truth."

She described hard-line clerics as "vicious in voice, barbaric, angry and blind, wearing death as a robe cinched with a belt," in an apparent reference to suicide bombers' explosives belts.

The three judges gave her the highest marks for her performance, praising her for addressing a controversial topic. That, plus voting from the 2,000 people in the audience and text messages from viewers, put her through to the final round.

"Hissa Hilal is a courageous poet," said al-Amimi. "She expressed her opinion against the kind of fatwas that affect people's lives and raised an alarm against these ad hoc fatwas coming from certain scholars who are inciting extremism."




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 16 November 2010 at 8:14am
Matt, excellent post.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 November 2010 at 10:25am
Originally posted by schmikbob

Matt, excellent post.


Thanks! I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I was also really shocked about the 'polluting the atmosphere' comment. I was under the impression that Christians and Agnostics and Atheists are also welcome in this forum. Yet no Muslim seems to object. The moderators don't get involved when people are called punks. I tried the 'report' function, but nothing happened. Have you tried other forums? I really want to get involved to help shape a better future. If we just stick to Europe or America only forums and vice versa nothing gets accomplished. We need this dialog. And we need to listen to criticism and have the right to be critical as well. This isn't pollution.




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 16 November 2010 at 1:56pm
Matt, don't worry about the personal attacks.  That just Sign Reader.  He's a very angry individual.  Everything he writes is anti US, anti establishment, anti everyone.  No solutions, only criticism. 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 16 November 2010 at 3:11pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Matt, don't worry about the personal attacks.  That just Sign Reader.  He's a very angry individual.  Everything he writes is anti US, anti establishment, anti everyone.  No solutions, only criticism. 

You want to be his sidekick, so be it!
I think you are getting personal and that is a no no, without any evidence!
I am warning you! You been here for such a short time and making assumption about the old timers already; speaks volumes about your inarticulateness! I would consider your opinin when you have proven yourself to know me. Lots of your ilk have come and gone!
So you are a spokesman of the establishment and everyone.LOL
Sure I am wing nuts watcher and whoever falls in that category is a fair game for yours truly...you are sounding every day more like them!.

Today is Eid and not the day to rip apart Matt's screed which is too long for no rhyme or reason but his are all groundless assumptions, just remember that!
IMO agnostics are hypocrites they want" head I win tail you lose" but life  doesn't work that way!
 And mark my words the imperial equation doesn't work anymore!

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 November 2010 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Originally posted by schmikbob

Matt, excellent post.


Thanks! I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I was also really shocked about the 'polluting the atmosphere' comment. I was under the impression that Christians and Agnostics and Atheists are also welcome in this forum. Yet no Muslim seems to object.


Yes there can be certain aggressive posters here, you are relatively new so you may not know that there have been confrontations in the past. When certain nonmuslim posters have been bullied, numerous Muslims have spoken in their defense. The Gibbs debacle for one...

  I really want to get involved to help shape a better future.

Then you may need to focus more on 'constructive' dialogue if your purpose is actually to build a better future. You could focus on positive ties & common grounds...


We need this dialog. And we need to listen to criticism and have the right to be critical as well. This isn't pollution.


There are times when your posts are perfectly amiable for dialogue - such as this one, but you have made a lot of very negative comments as well. We don't expect you to agree with everything Islam stands for, and we have NO problem if you want to discuss things you have issues with...  but there is a way to state your disagreement/opinion. It is one thing to say you would never agree with certain Islamic principles and quite another to say that Islam/Muslims have "7th Century thinking that has no place in modern society" (paraphrasing). That would border on polluting the atmosphere. I doubt statements like that create an environment where constructive dialogue can take place... for our better future.




-------------
"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: 17 November 2010 at 1:11pm

Originally posted by Matt Browne

Self criticism has allowed Christianity to evolve. Today, almost all of the most successful countries on our planet do have a Christian majority. Almost all of the most important discoveries and inventions over the past 300 years were made by Christians, Jews or Atheists. That's a fact and the question is why this is so.

I think it has to do with the Age of Enlightenment and the notion of evolving religions.

 

Matt I would argue that Islamic Spain opened the way for evolving religions, and that unfortunately most "successful" countries on our planet have achieved this by means of (force) gunpowder, machine guns, cruise missiles, air power....IED.

 

Originally posted by Matt Browne


This thread is about the 'niqab rage'. Why was this French woman so angry? To me telling her that her behavior is unacceptable is not good enough. What are the circumstances that lead to such situations. I've been thinking about this a lot.

 

Yes and Muslims have been thinking a lot about their circumstances as well, however we are told to condemn our anger and rage unequivocally; to the wind with circumstances which lead to violent situations.  Tens of thousands Iraqi Muslims have lost their lives for no good reason.  How much thought and reflection is this given to this by successful countries?

 

Originally posted by Matt Browne


3) Muslims who know that the Quran was written by humans based on what the Prophet had said over a course of 22 years. These Muslims believe that the Prophet was inspired by God, but they also think that there are different ways to find God and be a good human. There are multiple spiritual truths and therefore different religions can coexist peacefully.

 

Anyone who perceives Islam in this matter is incorrect and likely mistaking Islam with Christianity.  With respect to peaceful coexistence, this I am afraid depends upon those who hold power more than common folk like you and I.  Let me state clearly that I have animosity only for oppressors.

 

Originally posted by Matt Browne


Religious life

1) Muslims who think that every Muslim must follow all rules of Islam. Peer pressure is justified when some Muslims only obey some rules. Women have to obey the men in charge of them.

2) Muslims who think that every Muslim should follow all rules of Islam, but peer pressure is not justified.

3) Muslims who respect the individual decision of every Muslim how to live his life. Dogmas can change over time.

State and religion

1) Religious laws rank over secular laws.

2) It depends whether secular laws rank over religious laws.

3) Secular laws rank over religious laws.

I think adherents of any faith desire that not only their co-religionist follow scripture but everyone else as well, however Muslim know both practically, and from the Quran this will not happen.  Most orthodox religious followers have struggled with those of their own faith who innovate and seek to change the very core beliefs and practice of religion.  Muslims seek to advise fellow Muslims to follow religious injunctions.   Those matters of faith which the Creator of the Heaven and Earth has ordered, Muslims do not view them as "dogma" that change over time.  In other words,  Muslims are commanded to fast in the month of Ramadan, which the timing changes based upon the lunar calendar, therefore it is not allowed to set the start of fasting for January 1st every year with the notion of not yielding to religious dogma. 

Secular laws are often a result of religious law and those which are not do not necessarily contradict religious law.

 

Originally posted by Matt Browne

Sign So people here are scared.

 

People are scared, arrogant, ethnocentric and ignorant.  Is there hope?  Yes, I too belief there is hope, because there was once a time in America that Catholics were feared, seen as a radical religious group owing loyalty to a foreign power.  What a shame this young woman with niqab who had a right to worship as she pleased was attacked.  Surely good people must be openly and unapologetically against what happen to her, as well as intolerance based upon fear, hate, and ignorance. 

 



Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 8:48am
Thanks, Chrysalis for your thoughtful and well-written response. Yes, we need a constructive dialogue to build a better future. But this doesn't work when Muslims communities reject to apply self criticism and restrict their posts to being the victim, like in case of this niqab rage. I disagree with this French attacker and said so repeatedly. Do you disagree with the Saudi clergymen? I'm surprised that you haven't written anything about Hissa Hilal. Is it too dangerous to say anything to support her?
 
What Hissa Hilal said about the situation in her country reminds us of the 7th century. To me it's a fact that a significant number of today's Muslims really want to copy the life 1400 years ago as described in the Quran and how the Prophet lived his life. This is what scares us. If we just focus on positive ties and common grounds, we won't solve the problems that exist. To most people in the West it's not okay to oppress women and tell them their testimony is only worth half. And it's also not okay to wear niqabs and burqas in our countries (even when women want to do this voluntarily and aren't forced to do it).

We think that a face veil is not required to prevent women from being looked at as a sex object as many would argue, because this is the problem of foolish, ignorant men, and they should not be the reason for women to turn into faceless ghosts whenever they are in public (sorry, but to Western eyes it really looks this way). If anyone has to change it's the men, not the women. When I look at women I see human beings, not sex objects. Good parenting is required to raise boys so that they become mature men. When I look at a beautiful women I see beauty. When women look at attractive men, they see beauty too. No big deal in the 21st century.

Dehumanizing people by taking their faces away is very wrong. Facial expressions are a form of nonverbal communication. They are a primary means of conveying social information among humans. There are seven universally recognized emotions shown through facial expressions: fear, anger, surprise, contempt, disgust, happiness, and sadness. Regardless of culture, these expressions are the same.

Face perception is the process by which the brain and mind understand and interpret the human face. Mirror neurons help humans understand goals and intentions of other humans and many researchers argue that the mirror neuron system is involved in empathy. The human face's proportions and expressions are important to identify origin, emotional tendencies, health qualities, and some social information. From birth, faces are important in the individual's social interaction. Face perceptions are very complex as the face expressions involve vast involvement of areas in the brain. Sometimes damaged parts of the brain can cause specific impairments in understanding faces or prosopagnosia (Source: Wikipedia).

So there is a serious problem with face veils and moderate Muslim women should come up with creative strategies to make this unfortunate tradition disappear. Face-hiding garments are wrong except when walking to the south pole or riding a motorcycle at high speeds.

Women should participate in public life, show their faces and have a significant influence in society. Showing their faces in private is not enough. Faces is what makes us human. As social creatures we rely on face perception as described above. Therefore taking faces away is a way of dehumanizing people. To many of us a burqa symbolizes a mobile prison. Not even the eyes are visible through the bars of the women's tiny prison windows.

In Western countries we got dress codes too. In a city it's not appropriate to run around naked and it's also not appropriate to run around fully cloaked. This has little to do with religion. It's a matter of culture and dress code. When Western women travel to Iran or Yemen, for example as journalists, they respect the local dress code which means wearing a headscarf. This is okay. We should respect that. But we also want some respect when it comes to our culture and our dress codes in Western countries.

Do you think there's common ground here? Respecting each other's cultures wherever we travel or choose to live?



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 9:37am
I appreciate your taking the time to become engaged in this discussion. I think that's wonderful.

Yes, Abuayisha, Islamic Spain opened the way for evolving religions. And science. Therefore so many people are puzzled why progress slowed down and at some point even came to a halt in many Muslim societies. Islam in the Golden Age was more advanced and tolerant compared to Afghanistan in 2001 for example, when the Buddhas of Bamiyan statues were blown up.

Putting the blame on the expansion of the British and French empires alone doesn't make sense. Besides, the conquerors had multiple origins. The Ottoman empire conquered many countries and ruled for several hundred years, their empire stretching from Budapest to Bagdad to Cairo and Algiers.

As I said before, Western people feel comfortable with self criticism and do apply it frequently. The opposition to the Iraq war in the West was and is enormous. And we got plenty of other problems, like people taking drugs or dropping out of school. Our societies are not perfect. But we try to make them better and we try to think hard about what can be done to deal with the great many problems.

There are in fact Muslims who think that the Quran was written by humans based on what the Prophet had said over a course of 22 years. Those Muslims also believe in God. Well, you're saying they are incorrect. How do you know? Is there a method available to humans to verify whether a holy text is the word of God or not? Of course this applies to the Bible as well.

We rely on beliefs. And therefore we can also respect each other beliefs. We don't have to say one is right and the other is wrong, or vice versa. If a conservative Christian believer claims there is only one true religion I do object. I tell him that I disagree.

If Muslims want to fast in the month of Ramadan and this doesn't lead to conflicts with their professional obligations, I think it's a wonderful thing to do. If some Muslims don't want to do it, this is their right and their individual decisions should be respected. He or she might be not the perfect Muslim in other people's eyes, but personal freedom should be respected. But often this isn't the case. In which countries of the world do Muslims enjoy freedom of religion?




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 9:55am
I have to say Islamic law isn't compatible with national law-or having a religious law within a society that abides by secular law. For instance, most religious community leaders, especially Jewish and Muslim are dictated by men and if a woman "shames herself" by commiting adultery how do we know that the sexual biases of the men can give the woman a just trial?
 
Hence is why I favor the freedom to commit adultery instead of being punished for it. Adultery is a moral choice and a test of loyalty. I know I came in late but I just wanted to say that I disagree with the statement that Islamic law can be enacted within a secular society. Another example is Native Americans.
 
They have an exclusive society outside the United States culture and although they can act independent outside some U.S. laws they aren't totally immune to every U.S. law. Like a tribal Chief cannot execute his own form of tribal justice upon someone within his community for whatever reason. They still have to call the proper authorities.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 9:55am
Why obsess about, and fear face veiling when it is really a tiny minority of Muslim women.  What about the health, emotional, social..., for those priests and nuns who live celibate?  Are we to rant about dehumanization of a nuns life and extrapolate this to cast a shadow of fear and concern that all Christians are seeking a antiquated biblical lifestyle?  Are you 'Henny-penny; 'the sky is going to fall' when seeing how some orthodox Jew dress?  Fear not.  Muslims are by no means homogeneous.  We are as diverse as the rest of humanity. 


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 9:58am
Matt,
 
You brought up some good points.
 
My best guess as to why there isn't enough self-criticism in Muslim community maybe because the thought of self-criticism in the world's most "true faith" may reflect some fallibility in Islamic theology-sort of a trickle effect....Just my opinion


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 10:15am
I'm curious, how are you to gauge self-criticism inside a Muslim community in order to know there isn't enough? 


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

I'm curious, how are you to gauge self-criticism inside a Muslim community in order to know there isn't enough? 
 
As I mentioned before Muslims are losing the media war. Remember this technological age most people get their information from either television or the internet. Everytime I turn my computer on, I'm more likely to see pictures of a suicide bomber blowing him or herself up yelling "Allahu Akbar" than a group of Muslims protesting the actions of Iran upon Muslim women. We can blame media bias but again, when referring to self-criticism it may happen in the muslim community but to those exposed to media everyday such as us the people doing the web surfing, it remains non-existent.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 1:26pm
Well Gibbs I am sure there is raging debate going on inside academia, religion, medicine, business, environment, etc., etc., however all is foundational, ie., how much on knows and cares about a given subject.  If I simply depend on PETA headlines to form an opinion regarding self-criticism and debate inside zoology, one would be woefully misinformed.  One the other hand, if I were a student of zoology or had good foundational information on its subject matter, when turning on my computer I'd likely know where look for pertinent insight.  The religion of Islam certainly goes beyond yelling of "Allahu Akbar" for those who know and care to know.


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 4:06pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

Well Gibbs I am sure there is raging debate going on inside academia, religion, medicine, business, environment, etc., etc., however all is foundational, ie., how much on knows and cares about a given subject.  If I simply depend on PETA headlines to form an opinion regarding self-criticism and debate inside zoology, one would be woefully misinformed.  One the other hand, if I were a student of zoology or had good foundational information on its subject matter, when turning on my computer I'd likely know where look for pertinent insight.  The religion of Islam certainly goes beyond yelling of "Allahu Akbar" for those who know and care to know.
 
That is a good analysis but that is exactly the problem, there is no analysis or reflection and discernment. The natural instinct of most is to believe what they see.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

But this doesn't work when Muslims communities reject to apply self criticism and restrict their posts to being the victim, like in case of this niqab rage.


The word is "self-criticism" Matt. Not, "I'll be the one to tell you whats wrong with your community-criticism".

And like Abuayisha pointed out - how do you know to what extent there is criticism in the Muslim world? Since many automatically think of Saudi Arabia or Iran when Islam is talked about - naturally they assume that is the case. Islam is one of the few religions which has no clergy. Unlike Judaism & Christianity where the common educated man cannot question or engage in religion, and where religious matters are the domain of the clergy or rabbis. It has one of the most open religious policy formulation process.

Even on the blogosphere... muslims are involved in extensive critical analysis. We have TV shows like "The View" where all we discuss are religious laws and their applications/implementations. Since Muslim media is restricted to muslim majority countries and does not have a wide audience in the USA, people think it doesn't exist. Then there is the language barrier.... unlike Mainstream American media which has universal reach based on its content & language.

2 days ago I saw a you-tube video of a Scholar in Pakistan discussing terror tactics, suicide bombings & Jihad. While the answer was pretty much common sense, he explained it so nicely. I wish non-Muslims could see it too. Unfortunately there is that language barrier. However I am thinking of subtitling it... We need a subtitled Muslim channel on you-tube in response to that "Memri Tv" urgh. I'm working on it. Hopefully inshAllah that shall reflect how much critical analysis and WIDE range of though exists in the Muslim world.

I disagree with this French attacker and said so repeatedly. Do you disagree with the Saudi clergymen? I'm surprised that you haven't written anything about Hissa Hilal. Is it too dangerous to say anything to support her?


Even in the adulteress thread I questioned why the man wasn't mentioned in the news, and whether he was punished or not. Sure we don't make threads that say " I DETEST SO & SO" etc, but how do you know we DON'T talk about it or discuss it? Whether it is the subject on the dinner table or not? How do you know that TV channels in Pakistan or Lebanon are not extensively critical of such acts? Perhaps not Hissa Hilal but Mukhtaran Mai... names change. I am not aware of Hissa Hilal sorry, and if you mentioned her before I may not have come across the story.


What Hissa Hilal said about the situation in her country reminds us of the 7th century. To me it's a fact that a significant number of today's Muslims really want to copy the life 1400 years ago as described in the Quran and how the Prophet lived his life. This is what scares us.

Trust me, if men actually behaved the  way the Prophet did, we wouldn't have these problems. The problems occur when twisted minds try to come up with their own versions. 90% of the cases that we hear of are not even Islam, but some twisted cultural offshoot. But since the people involved are muslim - it automatically gets labeled as representative of Islam. Prophet Muhammad said, "The best amongst you is the one who is best to his wife". If a significant number of Muslims actually copied that, Muslim women would be the happiest women on earth. The problem is that Muslims "wanting" to implement something does not mean they actually did. There is a huge gap b/w the Muslim's current desire to practice Islam and actually doing it.

If we just focus on positive ties and common grounds, we won't solve the problems that exist. To most people in the West it's not okay to oppress women and tell them their testimony is only worth half.

To most Muslims it is not okay to oppress women either. And again, a woman's testimony is not "half". In Islam testimony is a serious matter that takes into consideration NUMEROUS aspects.  Unlike other societies "just anybody" cannot be a witness. Islamic Law takes into account the character, background, gender of a witness as well. There are occasions when a Muslim Woman's testimony would be superior to a man's and vice versa. This would require a detailed thread on its own.


And it's also not okay to wear niqabs and burqas in our countries (even when women want to do this voluntarily and aren't forced to do it).


Again, lets focus on positive grounds shall we? For me as a Muslim woman, I find it extremely oppressive & submissive when a non-muslim woman has to forego her family name and take the name of her husband after marriage. Or that her parents have to pay for her wedding. I find it offensive that many nonmuslim women have to dress a certain way, and "put themselves out" just to get a marriage partner or boyfriend. Just random examples there.

But I don't let my view of nonmuslim women get clouded because of that. And I don't go about criticizing them or their actions for the heck of it. If that is the norm of the society, fine. When I say we should focus on the positive, I don't just SAY it, I practice it to the best of my ability. I could choose to discuss the things about nonmuslims/westerners I don't like, or I could choose to discuss the positive aspects e.g. they are independent, ambitious etc. (so r muslim women).


We think that a face veil is not required to prevent women from being looked at as a sex object as many would argue, because this is the problem of foolish, ignorant men, and they should not be the reason for women to turn into faceless ghosts whenever they are in public (sorry, but to Western eyes it really looks this way).


You repeated the very same arguments you used in a separate thread, that I have already responded to. Regarding face signals/identity etc. No point in being repetitive.

So there is a serious problem with face veils and moderate Muslim women should come up with creative strategies to make this unfortunate tradition disappear.

With all due respect, you need to re-evaluate the priority and seriousness you are giving non-issues. Probably 2% of the Entire Muslim population even uses veil. We don't want to force our sisters to give up something they are comfortable with or they want to practice. We also don't force our sisters to wear the niqab. Or the hijab. 

Women should participate in public life, show their faces and have a significant influence in society.

Rest assured they do.

To many of us a burqa symbolizes a mobile prison.

So you should not wear the burqa then.


Do you think there's common ground here? Respecting each other's cultures wherever we travel or choose to live?


Yes I think there is common ground here.



-------------
"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: russell33
Date Posted: 19 November 2010 at 3:30pm
Attacking anyone because of their raiments is insane - we must all progress...


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 November 2010 at 8:28pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

If anyone has to change it's the men, not the women. When I look at women I see human beings, not sex objects. Good parenting is required to raise boys so that they become mature men.


Try reconciling the following story with your thesis in real practice! It is nice thought but animal world doesn't work that way!

http://www.alternet.org/rights/148839/when_youre_forced_to_cheer_for_the_man_who_raped_you/?page=entire - When You're Forced to Cheer for the Man Who Raped You

If in a culture rape and rape victims are viewed in such a horrifying way then really who really cares about  adultery that has become almost a norm!

It's tough to get a handle on how many of us are having affairs, given the inherent secrecy.
  • 70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.
  • 22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past.
  •  50 percent of Americans say President Clinton's adultery makes his moral standard "about the same as the average married man", according to a Time-CNN http://www.infidelityassistance.com/infidelity_statistics.php - poll.
  • -61 percent of Americans thought adultery should not be a crime in the United states; 35 percent thought it should; 4 percent had no opinion.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/148839/when_youre_forced_to_cheer_for_the_man_who_raped_you/?page=entire - And I like this part

  • 90 percent of Americans believe adultery is morally wrong.
  • So what do they sound like? Go figure I won't say it!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 November 2010 at 8:57pm
http://More%20Snippets - More Snippets
  • -2 out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about co-workers.
  • -86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.
  • -75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with.
  • The fact is that human beings are NOT monogamous by nature. That means they cheat and lie, anyone remember seeing Clinton's trial?
If you believe in "Honesty is the best policy"  then Islamic rule on relationship is the Lamped way! Otherwise the numbers don't lie...Go take your number and stumble in darkness!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: dubois09
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 6:15am
The prosecution called for a two-month suspended sentence against Mrs Ruby for "aggravated voluntary assault" and a 750-euro (£660) fine. The plaintiff's lawyers demanded a total of 15,000 euros (£13,200) in damages. The trial continues.

France's law banning the burka and other face-covering garments comes into force early next year. It will mean anyone, including Muslim tourists, can now be fined for wearing the garment or ordered to follow a citizenship course.

We should ban thos naked women walking around too, for SURE.




Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 6:44am
Originally posted by Gibbs

 
Hence is why I favor the freedom to commit adultery instead of being punished for it. Adultery is a moral choice and a test of loyalty.
 


I agree with you, Gibbs. And freedom doesn't mean we have to make use of all the rights we have. I've been married for over 20 years and I'm faithful. It's a moral choice and I made this moral choice to be faithful. But I don't want to force anyone to think like I do.

I also believe in free speech. Again, having this right doesn't mean people have to exercise it. It was morally wrong to create the Danish cartoons. I disagree with them, because above all I'm against hurting people's feelings. We should listen to our hearts. I also disagree with threatening the creators of the cartoons. This is morally wrong too.
 



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 7:01am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Why obsess about, and fear face veiling when it is really a tiny minority of Muslim women.  What about the health, emotional, social..., for those priests and nuns who live celibate?  Are we to rant about dehumanization of a nuns life and extrapolate this to cast a shadow of fear and concern that all Christians are seeking a antiquated biblical lifestyle?  Are you 'Henny-penny; 'the sky is going to fall' when seeing how some orthodox Jew dress?  Fear not.  Muslims are by no means homogeneous.  We are as diverse as the rest of humanity. 


I was talking about face veils, Abuayisha. Europeans are concerned about people hiding their faces. And nuns don't hide their faces. Are you aware that many Muslims living in France are against niqabs and burqas too? See the speech below.

I'm against forced celibacy. I think it's wrong. Protestant ministers do marry, in fact many Protestant ministers are now women. I'm concerned about the Christian ultra conservatives in America seeking antiquated biblical lifestyles. If someone here on Islamicity posts about these people I will speak out against them with all their hatred against liberals and homosexuals. Christianity isn't perfect and it's up to us Christians to improve it. So like Muslims, Christians are by no means homogeneous. We too are as diverse as the rest of humanity.

Back to the threads topic: niqabs. Why do so many Europeans see it as a danger to our freedom and our values? And why do many European Muslims also have a problem with niqabs and burkas? Well, I think Djemila Benhabib, a very intelligent woman from Algeria can explain it. She spoke before the French parliament on November 13, 2009, see below. I agree with most she said, but not everything. Still, I think it's food for thought.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 7:08am
Parliamentary Commission on the Wearing of the Full Islamic Veil: An address read before the French parliament on November 13, 2009

by Djemila Benhabib



Mesdames les sénatrices, Mesdames les présidentes, Mesdames et messieurs les dignitaires,

Chers amis,

I thank you wholeheartedly for this great honor, for being counted among you today, among the Femmes debout; thank you for this opportunity to allow my voice – the voice of a woman from a Muslim culture, a feminist and an advocate of secularism – to resonate in this prestigious institution of the French Republic.

I thank you, my friends from the Femmes solidaires and the Ligue du droit international des femmes for your relentless, endless work that is so very essential. I thank you for your work on the local scene, with women who are victims of violence and discrimination, for your work with undocumented immigrants. I thank you for your work in the political arena and with officials from the UN. It is on the local level that the work for women’s rights takes root and then resonates on an international scale. Women’s March for liberty and equality is one and indivisible. When one woman suffers somewhere on this planet, it concerns us all, men and women alike. Thank you for making us feel in a thousand ways that we are links in the same chain.

Several years ago, I would never have imagined that my life as a woman, that my life as a militant, would be so intimately connected to feminism and secularism. I will perhaps surprise you in admitting that I did not become a feminist by turning the pages of The Second Sex, nor by plunging myself into Aragon’s magnificent book Les Cloches de Bâle, where he talks about, among other things, Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxembourg, two hallmark figures for feminism and world peace. I did not become a secularist by bathing myself in the light of Spinoza, of Ibn Al-Arabi, Descartes, Ibn Khaldoun or even Voltaire, my teacher. Absolutely not.

I could have averted my gaze to lose myself in the happy childhood of my generous, cultured family, so open to the world and to others, so deeply engaged in the cause of democracy and social justice. I could have lost myself in the beauty of the seaside city of Oran, where life was so wonderful. Oran is the city that propelled the literary career of Albert Camus towards a Nobel prize in literature for his renowned novel The Plague. I could have seen nothing, heard nothing of the anger, contempt, humiliation and violence poured out on women.

I chose to see and to hear, at first with my child’s eyes and ears. Later, I chose to voice the aspirations of all these women who marked my life forever, so that no woman in the world would be ashamed of being a woman. Quite honestly, when I was a child and especially when I was a teenager, I never dreamed of marriage, of a Prince Charming, of a long gown, a big house, children and a family. The handful of marriages I had attended, in Algeria, made me feel like women were objects more than subjects. Needless to say, my perspective was very much in the minority, because women are programmed from childhood to become wives and then mothers. I must have been around five or six, possibly seven years old at most, when I was summoned to join my grandmother in the kitchen – because my natural place was at the stove and the laundry… so that my cooking and cleaning talents could shine when the time came.

In 1984, Algeria adopted a family code inspired by the Islamic sharia (canonical law). I was 12 years old at the time. In short, this code demands that the wife obey her husband and his parents. It allows polygamy and the repudiation of the wife, strips her of any parental authority, allows the husband to punish her. As for inheritances and giving testimony, inequality is systematically established, since it takes the voice of two women to equal the voice of one man… the same inequality applies to inheritance.

As for secularism, I understood its necessity when, in the early 1990s, the FIS (Extremist Islamists) brought my country Algeria to its knees, through fire and blood, by killing thousands of Algerians. Today we must admit that things have not really changed. Too many women in the world are humiliated, beaten, assaulted, repudiated, assassinated, burned, whipped and stoned.

In the name of what?

Of religion, of Islam to be specific, and in the name of its exploitation. For refusing an arranged marriage, refusing to wear the Islamic veil or even for asking for a divorce, wearing pants, driving a car or going out without the permission of the male, women, so many women, are subjected to the barbarity of physical cruelty. I am thinking in particular of our Iranian sisters who marched in the streets of Tehran, causing one of the world’s worst dictators – Ahmadinejad—shudder.

I am thinking of Neda, this young Iranian assassinated when she was 26 years old. We’ve all seen the image of Neda lying on the ground, blood flowing from her mouth. I am thinking of Nojoud Ali, this little ten year-old Yemenite girl, who was forced to marry a man three times her age. She fought to obtain the right to divorce and won. I am thinking of Loubna Al-Hussein who shook the government of Kharoum last summer because of the way she dressed.

The worst feminine condition in the world is in Muslim countries. This is a fact and we must recognize it. That is our first responsibility towards all women who defy the worst tyrannical regimes in the world. Who would dare say otherwise? Who would dare claim the opposite to be true? Islamists and their accomplices? Assuredly. But they are not the only ones!

There is also a current of relativist thought claiming that, in the name of culture and tradition, we must accept the regression that confines the other to the perpetual role of victim. This thinking tries to make us feel guilty for our social choices in labeling us racist and Islamiphobic for defending secularism and equality between the sexes. It is this same left that opens its arms to Tarik Ramadan, for him to strut from city to city, from one television stage to another, spitting on the values of the French Republic.

Know that there is nothing in my culture that destines me to be hidden under a shroud, that ostentatious emblem of difference. Nothing destines me to have to accept the triumph of the *****, the fool and the coward, especially when small minds, the mediocre, are set up as judges. Nothing that prepares me for having my sexual organs butchered without my indignation. Nothing predestines me to a life of physical punishment. Nothing says I must repudiate beauty and pleasure and accept a cold, harsh blade against my throat. And if that were the case, I would deny my mother’s belly, my father’s caress, and the sunshine of my childhood days, without a moment of regret or remorse.

Islamic politics is not the expression of a cultural specificity, as some people in this world claim. It is a political matter, a collective threat that attacks the very foundation of democracy in promoting a violent, sexist, misogynistic, racist and homophobic ideology. We have seen the way that Islamic movements, with the complicity, cowardice and support of certain political sectors, guarantee the profound regression that has settled into the very heart of our cities.

And yet, in Canada, we came very close to having Islamic courts. That is already the norm in several communities in Great Britain. From one end of the planet to another, wearing the Islamic veil is spreading and becoming commonplace, even becoming an acceptable alternative in the eyes of some, because it is at least better than the burqa!

What can be said about Occidental democracies that abdicate their responsibility to protect the primordial issues upon which community and citizenship are based: the defense of public schools, public services, the neutrality of the State, for example?

What can be said about the retreat on the accessibility to abortion, right here in France?

However, it is still possible to make societies move forward, thanks to our courage, our determination and our audacity. I am not telling you that these are easy choices. Far from it. The pathways to freedom are always steep and uphill. They are the only pathways leading to human emancipation; I know of no others.

This wonderful page of history, of OUR history, teaches us that suffering is not submitting. Because beyond the injustices and the humiliations, there is also resistance. To resist is to give oneself the right to choose one’s destiny. For me, this is what feminism is about. A destiny is not individual but collective, for the dignity of ALL women. This is how I give meaning to my life, in tying my destiny as a woman to all those who dream of equality and secularism, as the very foundation of democracy.

History is full of examples of religions that go beyond the private sphere and invade the public sphere to become law. Women are always the first to lose in this context. But not only women. Life, in its multiple dimensions, suddenly becomes sclerotic when the law of God meddles with the law of men in order to control our every move. There is no longer any room for progress in science, literature, theatre, music, dance, painting, cinema. In short, there is no room for life. What grows is regression and restriction. Moreover, this is why I have a profound aversion to all fundamentalists of any sort, because I am in love with life.

Let us remember something: when religion directs the life of a community, we are no longer in the realm of the possible, where there is room for doubt, where Reason and the rationality so dear to those of the Enlightenment guide us. Separating the public and the private by affirming the State’s neutrality seems indispensable to me, because only the secular provides for a common space – a system of reference where the notion of citizenship is central, removed from beliefs and disbeliefs, in order to take in hand the fate of the community. Before I conclude, I would like to share with you a letter addressed to one of your elected officials.

I hesitated for a long time before writing to you. Perhaps out of fear of being perceived as a woman coming from somewhere else, bursting into “French affairs.” Let propriety be damned. I wasn’t given any talent for propriety, especially when it’s in the interest of the strongest, the most powerful and the most arrogant. Moreover, if I had had to live according to what others thought, I wouldn’t have made much of my life. When it comes to women’s rights, what is suitable must give way to what is essential.

The essential being this: liberty, equality and the emancipation of women. I still hear my French friends insisting: speak to him, tell him, write to him. Curiously, their words remind me of the title of a magnificent film by Almodovar: Talk to Her, where in the opening moments, the curtain is furtively raised for several seconds on a dance featuring the body of a woman – Pina Bausch, who so well and forthrightly expressed in her choreographies the violence trained against women.

Mr. Gérin, my remarks are addressed to you. I would like to talk to you, to tell you about the fear I felt on March 25, 1994 when I was living in Oran, in Algeria and the Islamic Army Group (GIA) ordered that the women of my country must wear the Islamic veil. That day, I and thousands of other Algerian women, marched with our bare heads, to challenge death. We played hide-and-seek with the bloodthirsty GIA. The memory of Katia Bengana, a young 17 year-old high school girl who was killed as she was leaving school on February 28, 1994 was hovering over our bare heads. There are founding events in a life, that give a particular direction to the path of every one of us. That was one for me. Ever since that day, I have a deep aversion for everything having to do with the hidjab, veil, burqa, niqab, tchador, jilbab, khimar, in all their forms. Today you head a parliamentary commission charged with studying the wearing of the full veil in France.

Last March in Quebec, I published a book titled Ma vie à contre-Coran : une femme témoigne sur les islamistes. From the very first sentences, I used the tone of what has become my life, in terms of political engagement, by writing this: “I have lived the premise of an Islamist dictatorship, in the early 1990s. I wasn’t even 18 years old. I was guilty of being a woman, a feminist and secularist.” I must tell you that I am not feminist and secular by vocation but by necessity, by the strength of things, the suffering that impregnates my body because I cannot abide seeing political Islam gain ground here and everywhere else in the world. I became feminist and secular through seeing around me women suffering in silence behind closed doors, to hide their gender and their pain, to suffocate their desires and silence their dreams. There was a time when France considered the question of the Islamic veil being worn in its schools. Today it is a question of the full veil. Instead of expanding the 2004 law to university establishments, we are debating about the possibility of allowing caskets to walk around in our streets. Is this normal? Perhaps tomorrow polygamy will be the order of the day. Don’t laugh. That’s what happened in Canada; the courts had to intervene. Because after all, it’s easy to blame culture when it comes to oppressing women. By a strange irony of fate, I noticed in several neighborhoods that skirts are getting longer and are disappearing little by little. The array of colors is getting smaller. It has become commonplace to camouflage one’s body behind a veil; wearing a skirt has become an act of resistance. Just the same, the film “The Day of the Skirt” takes place in a French suburb. While in the streets of Tehran and Khartoum women are uncovering themselves more and more, risking their lives, here in outlying areas of the French Republic, the veil has become the norm.

What is going on? Has France been taken ill?

The Islamic veil is often presented as part of a “collective Muslim identity.” It is nothing of the sort. It is the emblem of the fundamentalist Muslim everywhere in the world. If it has a particular connotation, it is political, especially since the advent of the Islam revolution in Iran in 1979.

Let us not be mistaken about this: the Islamic veil hides women’s fear, their bodies, their freedom and their sexuality.

Worse yet, the perversion is pushed to paroxysm in veiling girls less than five years old. Some time ago, I tried to remember at which moment precisely in Algeria I saw this veil appear in the classroom. During my childhood and up until the moment I started high school, in 1987, wearing the Islamic veil was only marginal around me. In grade school, no one wore the hidjab, not the teachers and especially not the students.

I have been living in Quebec for 12 years. Its motto, written on car license plates, is Je me souviens, “I remember.” Speaking of memory, what should France remember? That it is the messenger of the Enlightenment, that millions of women are nourished by the writings of Simone de Beauvoir, whose name is inseparable from that of Djamila Boupacha. That’s an understatement. I have no doubt that France is a great country; this confers on you responsibilities and duties towards all of us, the smaller countries. Moreover this is why today our eyes are on your commission and why we are expecting you to be courageous and responsible, by forbidding the burqa.

As for us in Quebec, we remember that in 1961, for the first time in history, a woman, and moreover an attorney, was elected to the Legislative Assembly in a bye-election. Her name is Claire Kirkland; she goes on to become minister. An old parliamentary rule mandating that women wear hats to appear in the Legislative Assembly was invoked; she was told to cover her head during sessions. She refused. A scandal. One newspaper headline read: “A woman with uncovered head in the Legislative Assembly!” She fights and wins.

What we must understand from this is that the rights we have gained are fragile and must be fiercely, relentlessly defended. We must understand that they are the result of collective battles fought by millions of women and men committed to liberty and justice. I dare to hope, Mr. Gérin, that the commission over which you are presiding will take into account all these sacrifices and all these socially aware aspirations around the world, over the course of centuries.

To you, dear friends, if there is one thing, only one, that I would like you to retain from these words, it is this: despite a certain resigned left, the racism of the extreme right and the laisser-faire and complicity of governments, we have the possibility of changing things. More, we have the historic responsibility of advancing the rights of women. In a way, we are responsible for our future and our children’s future.

Because it will take the direction we give it.

We the citizens. We the people of the world. By our gestures, our actions and our mobilization.

All socially aware energy is necessary, from one country to another, beyond borders. The future belongs to us. The woman is the future of the man, Aragon used to say. And as to men, I want to salute one present here today: my father, to whom I owe everything.

I conclude by quoting Simone de Beauvoir: “We have the right to shout but our cry must be heard, it must hold up, it must resonate in others.”

I dare to hope that my cry will echo among you.

Djemila Benhabib

http://www.djemilabenhabib.com/



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 8:46am
Originally posted by Chrysalis

The word is "self-criticism" Matt. Not, "I'll be the one to tell you whats wrong with your community-criticism".


I was sharing an impression I have. This doesn't say anything about whether this is right or wrong. You might have a different impression. And we can explore the matter. It gives me an opportunity to challenge my assumptions.

Originally posted by Chrysalis

And like Abuayisha pointed out - how do you know to what extent there is criticism in the Muslim world?


I was talking about my impression in this forum. No one seem to have asked the question why people in Europe might get angry when they see a fully cloaked woman. Again, I could be wrong. Therefore I'm raising the issue. Because mutual understanding is so important. I want to understand how you and other users feel and what you think when I'm sharing my impressions. This isn't meant to be an attack.

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Since many automatically think of Saudi Arabia or Iran when Islam is talked about - naturally they assume that is the case.


Sorry, no. Educated people in Europe and America don't just think about Saudi Arabia or Iran or Sudan or Somalia. They also think of what's going on in Turkey, Algeria, Lebanon, Pakistan and above all Egypt, the heart of Sunni Islam where the influence of Islamism is on the rise and all the millions of tolerant Muslims are having a hard time.

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Unlike Judaism & Christianity where the common educated man cannot question or engage in religion, and where religious matters are the domain of the clergy or rabbis.


This is simply not true. Especially for Protestants. The name comes from the word protest. But even the Pope lost the battle against the common man Catholics who challenged long-held views and dogmas. Everything gets questioned every day. Celibacy. Ordaining women. And so forth.

Originally posted by Chrysalis


2 days ago I saw a you-tube video of a Scholar in Pakistan discussing terror tactics, suicide bombings & Jihad. While the answer was pretty much common sense, he explained it so nicely. I wish non-Muslims could see it too. Unfortunately there is that language barrier. However I am thinking of subtitling it... We need a subtitled Muslim channel on you-tube in response to that "Memri Tv" urgh. I'm working on it. Hopefully inshAllah that shall reflect how much critical analysis and WIDE range of though exists in the Muslim world.


I think this is a great idea. Yes, because of the language barrier people in the West can get wrong impressions. It's good that you pointed this out. Yes, I'm sure there are TV channels in Pakistan or Lebanon which are  critical and this doesn't get noticed in Europe and America.

I searched for Hissa Hilal on Pakistani websites only (ending with .pk) and there are 55 hits, for example

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\01\main_1-4-2010_pg9

A Saudi housewife who wears a burqa while reading poetry denouncing attitudes to women in her country is poised to win the Middle East’s equivalent of ‘Pop Idol’. Hissa Hilal has become a heroine to many across the Arab-speaking world for her appearances on ‘Million’s Poet’.

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Trust me, if men actually behaved the way the Prophet did, we wouldn't have these problems. The problems occur when twisted minds try to come up with their own versions. 90% of the cases that we hear of are not even Islam, but some twisted cultural offshoot.


I need to read more about Islam and the life of the Prophet to get a better understanding. There's a lot of English literature, but it's sometimes difficult what to choose. But they all seem to agree that the suras in Mecca are different from the ones in Medina.

Originally posted by Chrysalis

To most Muslims it is not okay to oppress women either. And again, a woman's testimony is not "half".


I know, but can this majority of Muslims keep the Islamists in check? The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has a lot of supporters in other countries as well, and from what I heard their numbers are growing.

Saudi Arabian clergy makes sure that a lot of money is distributed in the Arab world and Europe to support the Islamist movement. Should Europeans not be worried about this?

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Again, lets focus on positive grounds shall we? For me as a Muslim woman, I find it extremely oppressive & submissive when a non-muslim woman has to forego her family name and take the name of her husband after marriage.


Has to forgo her family name? Can you name one country where this is required? Certainly not in Germany, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_name#Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_name#Germany

"In Germany, the name law has been ruled by sexual equality since 1994: a woman may adopt her husband's surname or a man may adopt his wife's surname. One of them—man or woman—may use a name combined from both surnames."

Originally posted by Chrysalis

We don't want to force our sisters to give up something they are comfortable with or they want to practice. We also don't force our sisters to wear the niqab. Or the hijab.


I'm glad you see it this way, but I heard and read about many cases when women are forced to wear them. See article above.





-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 9:01am
Sign Reader, rape happens in the US, France, Germany, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, India, Japan... The list is endless. It's a despicable crime and all countries should do everything that helps prevent it.

The same applies to genital mutilation for cultural or religious reasons. As an example a 2005 study found that over 95% of Egyptian women have undergone some form of female genital cutting.

I already shared my views about adultery above.


-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Are you aware that many Muslims living in France are against niqabs and burqas too? See the speech below.


Matt: She(Djemila Benhabib) is not a Muslim, nice try anyways!
Why should any one give her any importance over here?

France created a mountain of a molehill, it is their problem to live with it!

If they had not colonized Algeria we wouldn't be discussing this! Would we?
If the illiterate Algerians migrated to the masters lands and discovered their lost faith and then some of the French women found solace in Islam than the French nudity so what is so novel about it?

IMO it is also a political statement if done by the local French ladies...


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Sign Reader, rape happens in the US, France, Germany, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, India, Japan... The list is endless. It's a despicable crime and all countries should do everything that helps prevent it.

The same applies to genital mutilation for cultural or religious reasons. As an example a 2005 study found that over 95% of Egyptian women have undergone some form of female genital cutting.

I already shared my views about adultery above.

You are obfuscating the point, I know it happens other places! I quoted you a living case where the victim is being literally abused and you have gone on a tangent!
Prevent itConfused Tell how to?



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 1:39pm

Matt Browne see even the Orthodox Jews are better than the Bible thumpers!
http://www.vosizneias.com/66626/2010/10/20/canada-orthodox-jews-challenge-quebec-on-niqab-ban - http://www.vosizneias.com/66626/2010/10/20/canada-orthodox-jews-challenge-quebec-on-niqab-ban

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 20 November 2010 at 2:11pm

I don't understand why the sensitivity to someone saying Muslims should self-criticize their community as as well as theirselves. I believe individually we can use some constructiuve criticism however, I do believe which is what I've been saying earlier is that in the media Muslims are losing the battle and many concinced people believe Islam deplores women. I know there is no discernment between country and religion but I can't take my brain and place it to the millions or so people being sensitive to the comment is not going to change the fact thaqt people in this world really make that association.




Print Page | Close Window