Islamic face veils + FRANCE

[ZARDOZ]

France MPs' report backs Muslim face veil ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8480161.stm

A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils. The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport. It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

Thoughts? Where do you stand?

Are you "When in Rome, do as the Romans?" or are you "France is oppressing Muslim women!"

[Thunder]

sorry folks, but pubic safety trumps religious freedom.

time to show your face.

[Francesca R]

It doesn't need to be a law (in France) IMO. The "security issue" is tiny.

[Thunder]

It doesn't need to be a law (in France) IMO. The "security issue" is tiny.

i do not want people with their face covered, walking behind me. or towards me.

sorry. my right to feel safe and be safe trumps your right to abide by 7th century religious traditions that can't even be found in the Koran.

[Francesca R]

Time will tell what "trumps" what. I don't think you live in France. Therefore currently you're being told to get over it. :)

I read that approx 2000 women in France wear a niqab. Horrors!

[Badger]

i do not want people with their face covered, walking behind me. or towards me.

sorry. my right to feel safe and be safe trumps your right to abide by 7th century religious traditions that can't even be found in the Koran.

How about someone with a hat pulled down low over their eyes, and the collar of their coat turned up? Should that be banned too?

I think that they're fine, but that requests for them to be removed for identification purposes (such as drivers licenses) are reasonable requests.

[Francesca R]

I think that they're fine, but that requests for them to be removed for identification purposes (such as drivers licenses) are reasonable requests.I agree.

[Sporanox]

I agree.

Same. Not the right way to combat extremism, practically or ethically.

[Darat]

If there is a genuine security issue then I'm all for treating religious folk the same as any other folk. For instance in the UK there are many public and private places that enforce a "no motorcycle helmets to be worn" policy for "security reasons" so in those places I don't see why a religious belief should mean you are exempted.

And come to think of it haven't we had actual terrorists use such garments to try and evade capture?

[HansMustermann]

TBH, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of people covering their faces except where absolutely needed for their own security.

As a trivial example, down here the photo from speed cameras serves not just to identify the license plate number, but also it's important that it allows some degree of identifying the face of the person at the wheel. Because there is no shortage of people who'll go, "someone else was at the wheel."

The face is also, for better or worse, the thing that witnesses identify a suspect by. Sure, we'd all love to believe someone that he/she/it personally would _never_ do something unlawful, but sadly we still have to identify suspects every day. And even when they are innocent, or perhaps _precisely_ when they're innocent, it is useful to be able to distinguish them from the one that did it. Being one of thousands of identical women with burqas does not really help in that aspect.

[Thunder]

if I was a victim of harassment and abuse by a stalker, crazy girlfriend, nutty Truther, and had taken out a restraining order on the guy, i would definitely NOT want people walking around me with their faces covered.

what is to stop a man from putting on a full burka, and going into the ladies room to check out some T & A?

this is an issue of safety. NO ONE has the right to anonymity when in public.

i respect the need for religious freedom. i really do. but this is about safety and security. its that simple.

[dudalb]

Sorry, but some of us feel that it is an attack on Islam with security as a very thin excuse.

[Sporanox]

this is an issue of safety. NO ONE has the right to anonymity when in public.

You sure about that, parky? Better stay away from ski resorts or cold regions of the world, like here in NY for instance.

[Thunder]

You sure about that, parky? Better stay away from ski resorts or cold regions of the world, like here in NY for instance.

ummm....I live in NYC. you rarely see folks with a full face covering anymore.

nice try though.

but, if you wanna play that game, I suggest that we pass a law stating unless it is for health or weather related reasons, full face coverings should be illegal. religious or not.

..except for Halloween. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/483671.stm

NYC was already successful in banning the KKK from marching with their masks on.

[Francesca R]

It seems like an overly heavy handed piece of government action, fuelled by a combination of (inexcusable) illiberal intolerance and (irrational) paranoia. Hardly sceptically-minded on either count.

[Sporanox]

ummm....I live in NYC. you rarely see folks with a full face covering anymore.

nice try though.

but, if you wanna play that game, I suggest that we pass a law stating unless it is for health or weather related reasons, full face coverings should be illegal. religious or not.

..except for Halloween. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/483671.stm

NYC was already successful in banning the KKK from marching with their masks on.

Really? Well, here in upstate NY, it's not uncommon to see bikers with full face masks, or people skiing with full face masks, and so on.

I'm fairly certain your ban would also violate the first amendment.

[Badger]

if I was a victim of harassment and abuse by a stalker, crazy girlfriend, nutty Truther, and had taken out a restraining order on the guy, i would definitely NOT want people walking around me with their faces covered.

what is to stop a man from putting on a full burka, and going into the ladies room to check out some T & A?

this is an issue of safety. NO ONE has the right to anonymity when in public.

i respect the need for religious freedom. i really do. but this is about safety and security. its that simple.

Because YOU are inconvenienced or fearful, restricting the rights and freedoms of others is an appropriate solution?

I think not.

EVERYONE has the right to anonymity when in public.

[Almo]

I heard someone (a UK native) say on the radio today that they feel safer when talking to men with their full veil on. I think that says a lot about how this person has been treated by men.

[Arcade22]

Good. While i think that aren't going far enough. They should ban all 'Arabic and African' clothes.

[Thunder]

Really? Well, here in upstate NY, it's not uncommon to see bikers with full face masks, or people skiing with full face masks, and so on.

I'm fairly certain your ban would also violate the first amendment.

the SCOTUS has upheld NYC's ban on a KKK march with their masks on.

[Thunder]

Good. While i think that aren't going far enough. They should ban all 'Arabic and African' clothes.

don't you mean all 'Arabic and African' people?

i just wanna see people's faces. I don't care what religion they are. wear a full burka for all I care. just show your face.

[Thunder]

EVERYONE has the right to anonymity when in public.

i am not telling people to wear a name tag everywhere they go. but i do think folks should be forced to show their faces, unless health or weather make that difficult.

never mind the fact that nothing in the Koran says a woman has to cover her face.

public safety and security trumps 7th century traditions. sorry charlie.

I am a Jew. if some group of Orthodox Jews suddenly decided that they wanted to cover their faces, I would not be on their side.

[Sporanox]

the SCOTUS has upheld NYC's ban on a KKK march with their masks on.

I believe the Supreme Court rejected the appeal instead. Moreover, the reason the appeal was upheld in lower levels was because the KKK's other clothing was significant enough to identify them as members. Could you say the same for Muslim women? I'm not sure.

[Badger]

i am not telling people to wear a name tag everywhere they go. but i do think folks should be forced to show their faces, unless health or weather make that difficult.

never mind the fact that nothing in the Koran says a woman has to cover her face.

public safety and security trumps 7th century traditions. sorry charlie.

I am a Jew. if some group of Orthodox Jews suddenly decided that they wanted to cover their faces, I would not be on their side.

There's nothing in the Koran that says Lady Gaga should wear a veil. There's nothing in the Koran that says Marilyn Manson should wear makeup. There's nothing in the Koran that says Robert Lancaster or Dr Matt should wear a beard.

Your argument has little to stand on.

I think that if you stated "People should be able to be identified upon request" you'd get more traction. It'd eliminate the arguments surrounding motorcycle helmets, scarves and facemasks on cold days, dark sunglasses, low brimmed hats, etc.

[Thunder]

There's nothing in the Koran that says Lady Gaga should wear a veil. There's nothing in the Koran that says Marilyn Manson should wear makeup. There's nothing in the Koran that says Robert Lancaster or Dr Matt should wear a beard. .

Lady Gaga..is not a Muslim.

Marilyn Manson...is not a Muslim.

Robert Lancaster...is not a Muslim.

Dr. Matt...is not a Muslim.

just thought you should know.

[Newtons Bit]

As I recall, the rule for forcing face masks on women comes from Hadith, not the Koran.

[Sporanox]

Lady Gaga..is not a Muslim.

Marilyn Manson...is not a Muslim.

Robert Lancaster...is not a Muslim.

Dr. Matt...is not a Muslim.

just thought you should know.

You completely missed the point.

[dudalb]

Good. While i think that aren't going far enough. They should ban all 'Arabic and African' clothes.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

[dudalb]

There's nothing in the Koran that says Lady Gaga should wear a veil. There's nothing in the Koran that says Marilyn Manson should wear makeup. There's nothing in the Koran that says Robert Lancaster or Dr Matt should wear a beard.

Your argument has little to stand on.

I think that if you stated "People should be able to be identified upon request" you'd get more traction. It'd eliminate the arguments surrounding motorcycle helmets, scarves and facemasks on cold days, dark sunglasses, low brimmed hats, etc.

And Outlaw Halloween while you are at it.

[boyntonstu]

From the article:

"It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism.

Alyaa Ebbiary: 'All the women I know wear it totally out of choice'

"This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing."

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


Do women have a choice?

What are the choices from which Muslim women are selecting?

What will happen to a woman who chooses not to wear a veil?

(In some Muslim countries, women who wear trousers are lashed.)

[Thunder]

You completely missed the point.

let me know when you attempt to make one.

[Cleon]

Do women have a choice?

What are the choices that Muslim women are selecting?

What will happen to a woman who chooses not to wear a veil?

(In some Muslim countries, women who wear trousers are lashed.)

France is not a Muslim country. Women are not required to wear any sort of veil if they choose not to.

[Thunder]

(In some Muslim countries, women who wear trousers are lashed.)

in some Jewish countries, women who wear shorts are stoned. can you guess which one?

:)

[ANTPogo]

let me know when you attempt to make one.

He did.

The point was "The fact that the Koran doesn't mandate something is not a legitimate reason to ban it", by pointing out a number of things that also aren't mandated in the Koran that as yet remain unbanned.

[ZARDOZ]

Here's my take. The niqab/burqa is the repression of women dictated by religious clerics. In my eyes it has nothing to do with religious freedom, unless your religious freedom involves the repression of women.

So I feel women should have the opportunity to live in France free from the servitude and degradation the hijab/burqa represents. But if they choose to wear it at home, or in a private social club, then they should be free to do that.

[Thunder]

Here's my take. The niqab/burqa is the repression of women dictated by religious clerics. In my eyes it has nothing to do with religious freedom, unless your religious freedom involves the repression of women. .

i have not researched the issue enough to have an opinion either way, as far as freedom goes. my concern is the safety of the general public.

[Cleon]

Here's my take. The niqab/burqa is the repression of women dictated by religious clerics. In my eyes it has nothing to do with religious freedom, unless your religious freedom involves the repression of women.

So I feel women should have the opportunity to live in France free from the servitude and degradation the hijab/burqa represents. But if they choose to wear it at home, or in a private social club, then they should be free to do that.

And women who choose to freely wear the hijab, niqab, or burqa should be prohibited from doing so. Because that's freedom. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

i have not researched the issue enough to have an opinion either way, as far as freedom goes.

And yet, you won't quit yapping about it.


my concern is the safety of the general public.You apparently haven't bothered researching that issue, either.

[Arcade22]

don't you mean all 'Arabic and African' people?

Well since they are going to be here a while they should conform and dress like the people whose country they are living in. If i were to move to Iraq i would dress like an Iraqi is expected to do.

[Bob Blaylock]

i respect the need for religious freedom. i really do. but this is about safety and security. its that simple.


“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

[KingMerv00]

If there is a security issue, I'm willing to take that risk.

[Thunder]

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

if you follow this logic to the fullest extent, barring people from owning fully automatic weapons, bazookas, and VX gas..... should stop.

its sacrificing liberty in the name of security..right?

[Cleon]

if you follow this logic to the fullest extent, barring people from owning fully automatic weapons, bazookas, and VX gas..... should stop.

its sacrificing liberty in the name of security..right?

If you seriously see a parallel between a woman freely choosing to cover her hair, or her face, and private ownership of bazookas and nerve gas, you need to move on over to the Perspective Platform and get back on the Reality Railroad.

[Praktik]

Well France does have this cultural tradition that goes back a few centuries, laïcité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9), and this fits in that tradition. And while I am fine calling the policy "illiberal" it is ironic perhaps that the tradition of laïcité is rooted in the liberal tenet of separation of church and state.

So you can see how it fits in their culture but to those who have grown up outside that tradition it can seem a little silly, and yes, "illiberal".

[Thunder]

If you seriously see a parallel between a woman freely choosing to cover her hair, or her face, and private ownership of bazookas and nerve gas, you need to move on over to the Perspective Platform and get back on the Reality Railroad.

clearly you have no been reading my posts. Muslim women can cover themselves from head to toe in purple velvet if they like.

i just want to see their faces...that's all.

[Badger]

if you follow this logic to the fullest extent, barring people from owning fully automatic weapons, bazookas, and VX gas..... should stop.

its sacrificing liberty in the name of security..right?

Sacrificing liberty in the name of security? I'll take the risk rather than the restriction, thanks.

Once someone decides I must sacrifice "this" to be safe from "that", what's to stop someone else from deciding that I need to go to the gulag to protect their ideology?

What gives you the right to decide what's appropriate for me? What gives me the right to decide what's appropriate for you?

If you wish to sacrifice your liberty for your security, why do you even leave your house?

[Thunder]

Once someone decides I must sacrifice "this" to be safe from "that", what's to stop someone else from deciding that I need to go to the gulag to protect their ideology?

the NYPD have the right to check my bag before I enter a Subway station.

I have no problem with that, and welcome the short inconvenience which may one day save my life.

after 9-11, the NYPD pulled over my car when I entered Manhattan from Queens. They asked to see my id. I was inconvenienced for about 32 seconds. Big deal.

[Cleon]

clearly you have no been reading my posts. Muslim women can cover themselves from head to toe in purple velvet if they like.

i just want to see their faces...that's all.

Which is still not anywhere near comparable with the ownership of bazookas and nerve gas.

[Newtons Bit]

And women who choose to freely wear the hijab, niqab, or burqa should be prohibited from doing so. Because that's freedom. :rolleyes:

It's hard to tell who is doing it because they choose to and who is wearing it because they are forced to. Their needs to be a way to free people who are being forced to live in that culture. Banning it seems just a tad bit on the extreme, however.

[Arcade22]

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

Yeah, because wearing a niqab or burqa is an essential freedom. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif

[ZARDOZ]

Yeah, because wearing a niqab or burqa is an essential freedom. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif

Ya. My sentiments exactly. Nothing says "freedom" like oppressing women by demanding they perpetuate their servitude under a niqab or burqa. ;)


ETA:

No where in the Koran does it say that a woman has to wear a niqab or burqa. So it is not a religious freedom, but rather a construct of religious clerics which perpetuates the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women.

[Cleon]

Yeah, because wearing a niqab or burqa is an essential freedom. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif

Freedom of religion is essential for a free and democratic society.

[Badger]

the NYPD have the right to check my bag before I enter a Subway station.

I have no problem with that, and welcome the short inconvenience which may one day save my life.

after 9-11, the NYPD pulled over my car when I entered Manhattan from Queens. They asked to see my id. I was inconvenienced for about 32 seconds. Big deal.

The society you live in has given the NYPD the authority to.......

I think the semantic difference is important.

If you, or your society chooses to give up this or that freedom in exchange for perceived increase in security, that is your democratic right as a group and individual.

I just think that restricting a vast number of people's freedoms to guard against a vanishingly small risk is silly, at least, and a dangerous abdication of personal freedom and responsibility at most.

[dudalb]

I love the way people try to say that taking away somebody's rights is really "liberating" them.

[ZARDOZ]

Freedom of religion is essential for a free and democratic society.

No where in the Koran does it say that a woman has to wear a niqab or burqa. So it is not a religious freedom, but rather a construct of religious clerics which perpetuates the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women.

Unless you can produce the part of the Koran that mentions niqabs or burqas.

[Darat]

No where in the Koran does it say that a woman has to wear a niqab or burqa. So it is not a religious freedom, but rather a construct of religious clerics which perpetuates the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women.

Unless you can produce the part of the Koran that mentions niqabs or burqas.


Whilst I agree that the wearing of such garments is at least culturally determined as it is religious your point is really a "no true Scotsman" argument.

[Cleon]

No where in the Koran does it say that a woman has to wear a niqab or burqa. So it is not a religious freedom, but rather a construct of religious clerics which perpetuates the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women.

Unless you can produce the part of the Koran that mentions niqabs or burqas.

This line of reasoning is just insipid.

First, there is more to Islam than the Quran itself, just as there's more to Judaism than the Torah. Just because it isn't found in the Quran doesn't mean it isn't a religious requirement.

Second, the very concept of religious freedom means that it's not the government's place to dictate theology; so whether you personally feel that Islam dictates the covering of women's hair (or face) is completely irrelevant to their right to do so if they so choose.

[ZARDOZ]

Whilst I agree that the wearing of such garments is at least culturally determined as it is religious your point is really a "no true Scotsman" argument.

My point is that the wearing of the niqab or burqa is a construct of religious clerics and not mandated in the Koran. The Koran mention cloaks and veils:

Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31

"‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze, and protect their private parts and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) "

Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith # 282

"They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,"

..but the words niqab or burqa do not appear in the Koran. The old saying goes: "Say something long enough and people start to believe it, even if it's untrue..."

[ZARDOZ]

This line of reasoning is just insipid.

First, there is more to Islam than the Quran itself, just as there's more to Judaism than the Torah. Just because it isn't found in the Quran doesn't mean it isn't a religious requirement.

Second, the very concept of religious freedom means that it's not the government's place to dictate theology; so whether you personally feel that Islam dictates the covering of women's hair (or face) is completely irrelevant to their right to do so if they so choose.

So then you are defending the right of Islam to perpetuate the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women. Got it.

[Cleon]

My point is that the wearing of the niqab or burqa is a construct of religious clerics and not mandated in the Koran. The Koran mention cloaks and veils:



..but the words niqab or burqa do not appear in the Koran. The old saying goes: "Say something long enough and people start to believe it, even if it's untrue..."

It. Does. Not. Matter. Your entire point is completely irrelevant, whether the requirement is in the Quran, the Hadith, or just something some imam dreamed up a couple centuries ago.

[Badger]

No where in the Koran does it say that a woman has to wear a niqab or burqa. So it is not a religious freedom, but rather a construct of religious clerics which perpetuates the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women.

Unless you can produce the part of the Koran that mentions niqabs or burqas.

What if I want to wear a burqa with a huge cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban on it, just to make a point?

[Cleon]

So then you are defending the right of Islam

No, you don't "got it." I'm not defending the "right of Islam," I'm defending the rights of people to practice their religion.

[ZARDOZ]

No, you don't "got it." I'm not defending the "right of Islam," I'm defending the rights of people to practice their religion.

And I am defending the right of the government not to cave in to people who are defending their religious right to oppress and subjugate women.

ETA

The burka is a symbol of servitude... and deeply deeply misogynistic. (I.E. "women make men rape them") It is not a religious mandate.

[boyntonstu]

in some Jewish countries, women who wear shorts are stoned. can you guess which one?

:)

What government orders the stoning of women?

[Cleon]

And I am defending the right of the government not to cave in to people who are defending their right to oppress and subjugate women.

No, like dudalb said, you're just advocating that people's rights are taken away and dressing it up as "liberation."

There is no good reason why, if a woman wants to wear a burqa, she should be prohibited from doing so.

[Badger]

And I am defending the right of the government not to cave in to people who are defending their religious right to oppress and subjugate women.

Do they not already have laws against assault, and confinement? Perhaps, rather than wasting time, effort, and resources on legislation against burqa's specifically, they should create more women's shelters, and support groups.

That would do a lot more good than the legislation in the OP, without taking away freedom of choice.

[Plagiarius]

Zardoz, does your perspective of the burka being a tool of repression ring true with most of the muslim women who choose to wear it, in countries where they are not under fear of reprisal should they not? I thought it was seen by muslims as a way of preserving the sanctity of the female form when in public, granted they do get a difficult time in other areas of life in certain countries. Regardless of all this, what's to say other religious freedoms could be excised for scant concerns over security if this passes? Won't the threat extend from extremists concerned over political repression rather than the women themselves? Isn't the percieved provocation going to harm security interests more than the wearing of these materials?

[ZARDOZ]

No, like dudalb said, you're just advocating that people's rights are taken away and dressing it up as "liberation."

There is no good reason why, if a woman wants to wear a burqa, she should be prohibited from doing so.

I am all for anyone wearing anything they want to. Where I draw a line in the sand is when that right is abused. Such as in the instance where I chose to run around wearing a Nazi uniform or a KKK cloak in public.

I see the niqab or burqa as a symbol of servitude... and it's purpose is not religious, but to oppress and subjugate women. So I am ok with the government saying one can do what they want in their own homes or private clubs... but in public places we as a society disagree with the "right" to run around A) naked, B) in Nazi uniforms, C) in KKK cloaks, or in D) niqabs and burqas.

ETA

...and the counter argument is "it's their right to wear anything they want..." To which I argue, "For the greater good of society we should not stand by and see women opressed and subjugated by the constructs of religious clerics."

[Cleon]

I am all for anyone wearing anything they want to.

Apparently not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Where I draw a line in the sand is when that right is abused.

Nonsensical.


I see the niqab or burqa as a symbol of servitude...

And the Muslim women who disagree with you? Well, **** them, they don't know any better, right?


and it's purpose is not religious,

As I already pointed out - this is false, and not your call to make.


but in public places we as a society disagree

You're trying to dress up anti-religious-freedom as a "majority rule" thing here. The very point is to protect religious minorities from the bigotry of the majority.

with the "right" to run around naked, in Nazi uniforms, KKK cloaks, niqabs and burqas.

False equivalence. Nazi uniforms and KKK hoods are efforts at intimidation. This is not the case for burqas, hijabi, or niqabs.

[ZARDOZ]

And the Muslim women who disagree with you? Well, **** them, they don't know any better, right?

People thought the earth was flat until someone showed them it was not. Eventually I hope Muslim women will see that the niqab or burqa is a symbol of servitude. I can only hope.

You're trying to dress up anti-religious-freedom as a "majority rule" thing here. The very point is to protect religious minorities from the bigotry of the majority.

There you go again. The niqab/burqa is a construct of religious clerics and not mandated in the Koran.

False equivalence. Nazi uniforms and KKK hoods are efforts at intimidation. This is not the case for burqas, hijabi, or niqabs.

The niqab/burqa is a symbol of servitude. Just like a Nazi uniform or KKK hood is a symbol of intimidation.


ETA

Zardoz, does your perspective of the burka being a tool of repression ring true with most of the muslim women who choose to wear it, in countries where they are not under fear of reprisal should they not?

There is a quote I love... it goes "for good people to do bad things, it only takes religion."

[Thunder]

there appears to be a general consensus among many people, especially in Europe, that the full burka is a symbol of servitude for women. The Koran does not call for women to cover their face, let alone cover their whole bodies.

Men in Muslim countries are able to dress pretty much as they like, while women are FORCED to abide by very strict dress codes. it is not hard to understand how Western liberals would view this as discrimination and 2nd class citizenship.

you guys can't tell me you are not troubled by images of people in Iran or Saudi Arabia, of men wearing pants, short sleeve shirts, and shaved faces, with women covered from head to toe. there is something not right there.

[Thunder]

oh, and I will never forget, when I read a Muslim opinion about the need for the burka. He stated that men have no sense of control, and the burka is for the protection of women. by covering up their bodies, women are less likely to be objectified and raped.

that's why women should wear burkas. because men can't control their hormones. so instead of instilling better and more respectful and tolerant values in men, we simply punish the women. instead of demanding that men respect their fellow human beings, or face very hard criminal penalties, we force women to rap themselves from head to toe. the ultimate form of blaming the victim.

nice.

[Cleon]

People thought the earth was flat until someone showed them it was not. Eventually I hope Muslim women will see that the niqab or burqa is a symbol of servitude. I can only hope.

Or, for the time being, simply restrict them from practicing their religion until they adopt a more acceptable one. :rolleyes:


There you go again. The niqab/burqa is a construct of religious clerics and not mandated in the Koran.

There you go again. Whether it's in the Quran or not is irrelevant, as is whether clerics came up with the idea or Muhammed himself.


The niqab/burqa is a symbol of servitude.

In your opinion.

Just like a Nazi uniform or KKK hood is a symbol of intimidation.

False equivalence. Again.


There is a quote I love... it goes "for good people to do bad things, it only takes religion."

And there's a quote I love:

"You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant ('ceptin' Alice)."

Like yours, though, it's irrelevant to the question at hand. The women who desire to wear burqas aren't doing a "bad thing."

[Badger]

I am all for anyone wearing anything they want to. Where I draw a line in the sand is when that right is abused. Such as in the instance where I chose to run around wearing a Nazi uniform or a KKK cloak in public.

I see the niqab or burqa as a symbol of servitude... and it's purpose is not religious, but to oppress and subjugate women. So I am ok with the government saying one can do what they want in their own homes or private clubs... but in public places we as a society disagree with the "right" to run around A) naked, B) in Nazi uniforms, C) in KKK cloaks, or in D) niqabs and burqas.

ETA

...and the counter argument is "it's their right to wear anything they want..." To which I argue, "For the greater good of society we should not stand by and see women opressed and subjugated by the constructs of religious clerics."

So, why not argue against it, instead of legislating reduction of freedoms?

[Thunder]

Or, for the time being, simply restrict them from practicing their religion until they adopt a more acceptable one.

Cleon is suggesting that forcing Muslim women to show their faces in schools, government buildings, and buses and trains, is equal to preventing them from practicing Islam.

I think a few hundred million Muslims would greatly disagree with you on that one.

Face-cover does NOT equal Islam.

[Cleon]

Cleon is suggesting that forcing Muslim women to show their faces in schools, government buildings, and buses and trains, is equal to preventing them from practicing Islam.

I think a few hundred million Muslims would greatly disagree with you on that one.

Face-cover does NOT equal Islam.

No, Cleon is not "suggesting" that "face cover=Islam," and that's a really pathetic attempt at a strawman.

Cleon is stating that prohibiting them from wearing the religious clothing of their choice is unreasonably hindering their free exercise of religion.

And as much as you try to justify it, it remains the case.

[boyntonstu]

Imagine a 92* F day in Sunny Florida.

You see a couple walking down the street.

The man is wearing trousers and a short sleeve shirt.

The woman is covered from head to toe in black.

Is there any logic regarding dressing for the weather in this scene?

I have seen it happen, and believe me, the woman was profusely sweating and she seemed very uncomfortable.

Her choice of dressing?

I don't think so.

[Thunder]

Imagine a 92* F day in Sunny Florida.

You see a couple walking down the street.

The man is wearing trousers and a short sleeve shirt.

The woman is covered from head to toe in black.


i feel very bad for the woman. can't she at least wear white?

just as i feel very bad for Orthodox Jewish men wearing all black. funny how with Jews, the rules are kinda reversed. women can wear colorful clothes, men have to look all plain and Amish and crap. :D

[Thunder]

No, Cleon is not "suggesting" that "face cover=Islam," and that's a really pathetic attempt at a strawman. .

honestly, in this case, I do not believe it was a strawman at all. Cleon appears to be suggesting that by asking a woman to simply show her face, while still wearing a full burka, we are restricting her freedom of religion.

i honestly can not agree that forcing a woman to show her face, is an infringement on her rights to practise Islam.

sorry.

[Cleon]

honestly, in this case, I do not believe it was a strawman at all. Cleon appears to be suggesting that by asking a woman to simply show her face, while still wearing a full burka, we are restricting her freedom of religion.


Now you've got it, but at least let's dispense with the "honestly" part, as it's now obvious you have no intention of being remotely honest. At no point did I say, suggest, or imply that "face-cover equals Islam."

The fact is, you are restricting her freedom of religion. Argue that it's justified if you will - I'd like to see you try - but let's not pretend it's not a restriction on free exercise of religion.


i honestly can not agree that forcing a woman to show her face, is an infringement on her rights to practise Islam.

sorry.

Then you're quite simply wrong. Sorry.

It's an infringement on her right to practice her religion as she fits. Trying to frame it in any other words is just spin.

[Rolfe]

I don't care whether it's religious or cultural. Restricting the freedom of women to wear any damn thing they like is a very, very slippery slope.

I think it's a bit strange. And I can see the security issues. But it's a solid fact that some perfectly rational women, expressing themselves freely, say the want to wear these things.

Take that right away at your peril.

Rolfe.

[MikeMangum]

France is not a Muslim country. Women are not required to wear any sort of veil if they choose not to.

I'm conflicted on this one, as my default position is to come down on the side of greater individual freedom, but this above quote seems to be very ignorant of the situation. No, women are not required to wear any sort of veil by the government, but they can be required to wear a veil by their relatives, who will sometimes enforce that requirement with murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

An honor killing (also called a customary killing) is the murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonor upon the family, clan, or community. This perceived dishonor is normally the result of (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to the family (b) wanting out of an arranged marriage or choosing to marry by own choice or (c) engaging in certain sexual acts.

I don't believe that banning the use of a veil is the way to deal with that problem, but I think it is a more complicated than saying that banning the veil is because it is a symbol of political Islam.

[Thunder]

I don't care whether it's religious or cultural. Restricting the freedom of women to wear any damn thing they like is a very, very slippery slope.


the argument is being made, that many women are not covering their faces out of free choice, but due to intimidation from their families and communities.

[Thunder]

It's an infringement on her right to practice her religion as she fits. Trying to frame it in any other words is just spin.

then you are gonna have to prove to me that most women who cover their faces due it out of pure free choice, and not due to intimidation from their relatives, community, and religious leaders.

[Sporanox]

then you are gonna have to prove to me that most women who cover their faces due it out of pure free choice, and not due to intimidation from their relatives, community, and religious leaders.

Doesn't democracy protect the rights of the individual?

[Thunder]

Doesn't democracy protect the rights of the individual?

you are playing games.

[Sporanox]

you are playing games.

Well, that would be the litmus test, would it not?

[Cleon]

then you are gonna have to prove to me that most women who cover their faces due it out of pure free choice, and not due to intimidation from their relatives, community, and religious leaders.

Huh-uh. That's not how it works, and you know it, parky. It's your claim that most women are being forced into it; the onus is on you to substantiate it.

Even if you do believe that the majority are forced into it, it's time for a reality check; a woman in a truly abusive, possessive relationship will not be suddenly freed because she shows her face in public.

So at the end of the day, even if you're correct, you're wanting to restrict religious expression for no significant payoff.

My take on it is much simpler: if even one woman chooses freely to wear the niqab or burka, then it's her right to do so. In my mind, if you want to restrict religious expression, you better have a damn good reason for doing so; I have no problem with virgin sacrifice being illegal, or locking up a guy who claims he was doing God's bidding when he took a crap on the salad bar at Denny's. There are reasonable restrictions on religious expression.

But banning a piece of clothing? Because you don't like it? No, no, that doesn't cut the mustard as a "good reason." Anything remotely in the vicinity of "I don't like the message it sends" is exactly the wrong direction from anywhere approaching mustard-cutting. That just makes it an affront to free speech as well as freedom of religion.

Parky, you make a point to mention at least once in every thread that you're Jewish. If that's the case, the picture you yourself are painting is not one that should be giving you warm and fuzzy feelings of comfort and security.

[Thunder]

Parky, you make a point to mention at least once in every thread that you're Jewish. If that's the case, the picture you yourself are painting is not one that should be giving you warm and fuzzy feelings of comfort and security.

my point was that even as a Jew, who comes from a community of folks who ALSO have strange modesty requirements for dressing, I still would follow the same rules of not allowing folks to cover their faces, even if it affected friends and loved ones.

i don't know why you didn't grasp that. funny huh?

[Cleon]

my point was that even as a Jew, who comes from a community of folks who ALSO have strange modesty requirements for dressing, I still would follow the same rules of not allowing folks to cover their faces, even if it affected friends and loved ones.

i don't know why you didn't grasp that. funny huh?

Yeah. I suggest you actually read all the words in my post, as you seem to be replying to something else entirely.

[Thunder]

But banning a piece of clothing? Because you don't like it?

you quote where I said I want it banned simply because "I don't like it", and I will Paypal you $10.

[ZARDOZ]

..it's time for a reality check; a woman in a truly abusive, possessive relationship will not be suddenly freed because she shows her face in public.

But she will be partially "freed" if she no longer is forced to wear a niqab/burka 100% of the time while she is outside of her home spring, summer, winter, and fall from the day she is born until the day she dies. The niqab/burka is a tradition and not a religious obligation.

So at the end of the day, even if you're correct, you're wanting to restrict religious expression for no significant payoff.

As I see it the "payoff" is gender equality for muslim women, the "payoff" is muslim women will no longer be marginalized. The niqab/burka is a tradition and not a religious obligation.

My take on it is much simpler: if even one woman chooses freely to wear the niqab or burka, then it's her right to do so. In my mind, if you want to restrict religious expression, you better have a damn good reason for doing so; I have no problem with virgin sacrifice being illegal, or locking up a guy who claims he was doing God's bidding when he took a crap on the salad bar at Denny's. There are reasonable restrictions on religious expression.

The niqab/burka is a tradition and not a religious obligation. It is a symbol of servitude which subjugates Muslim women.

That just makes it an affront to free speech as well as freedom of religion.

No matter how many times you say "freedom of religion" the niqab/burka remains a tradition, and not a religious obligation.

Sarkosy put it bluntly:

"It will not be welcome on French soil," he said." We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. That is not the French republic's idea of women's dignity."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8113778.stm

[boyntonstu]

i feel very bad for the woman. can't she at least wear white?

just as i feel very bad for Orthodox Jewish men wearing all black. funny how with Jews, the rules are kinda reversed. women can wear colorful clothes, men have to look all plain and Amish and crap. :D


When was the last time that an Orthodox Jewish man was lashed for not wearing black clothes?

Why didn't you say that Amish men must also wear black?

Maybe if the Amish were Jews, you would have.

The Orthodox black garb is an example of how a tiny element of truth sidetracks the issue at hand.


"Plain and Amish an crap"? Are you the self appointed fashion expert who decides what looks like crap?

[Thunder]

"Plain and Amish an crap"? Are you the self appointed fashion expert who decides what looks like crap?

oh, I'm sorry. did i offend you? just call me a stupid Goy and you will feel much better.

:p

[Francesca R]

This was your argument yesterday:sorry folks, but pubic safety trumps religious freedom.Now you've switched to this:there appears to be a general consensus among many people, especially in Europe, that the full burka is a symbol of servitude for women.Face-cover does NOT equal Islam.Probably because of how desperately weak your "public safety" appeal is.

Well restricting freedom in this direction for reasons that appear to be "because it's for their own good" or "because you know better than they do" are worse. Your position is ridiculous IMO.

[KingMerv00]

How many people have used the face veil for criminal purposes? A rough estimate will do.

[Cleon]

No matter how many times you say "freedom of religion" the niqab/burka remains a tradition, and not a religious obligation.

And no matter how many times you say that, it's still not true. Even if it were, it's irrelevant.

[Thunder]

And no matter how many times you say that, it's still not true.

Sorry to bring up the "Jew thing" again, I know how it upsets you...but..

black hats, black pants, black jackets, are NOT a religious obligation found in either the Hebrew Bible or the Talmud.

it is a relatively new phenomenon, developed in Eastern Europe over the last 300 years.

the only religious obligation regarding clothing found in Jewish texts, is to not mix types of cloth, and dress moderately. not even the kippah is found in the Torah.

and it is the same for the burka. it is a cultural tradition that developed over centuries. it is not based on any literal understanding of the Koran. and as such, it is NOT....a religious obligation.

[Darth Rotor]

Imagine a 92* F day in Sunny Florida.

You see a couple walking down the street.

The man is wearing trousers and a short sleeve shirt.

The woman is covered from head to toe in black.

Is there any logic regarding dressing for the weather in this scene?
Given that bizarre world of fashion, who the hell knows? Might also be a burkha babe.
I have seen it happen, and believe me, the woman was profusely sweating and she seemed very uncomfortable.

Her choice of dressing?
Thousand Island, of course.

DR

[Cleon]

Sorry to bring up the "Jew thing" again, I know how it upsets you...but..

You still haven't bothered to actually read that post.


black hats, black pants, black jackets, are NOT a religious obligation found in either the Hebrew Bible or the Talmud.

They are still part of religious expression. Ergo, the distinction is irrelevant.

However, since you aren't advocating banning these items of clothing, the analogy is pointless.


it is a relatively new phenomenon, developed in Eastern Europe over the last 300 years.

Actually, that's not true. Don't confuse the Hassids with Haredim.


and it is the same for the burka. it is a cultural tradition that developed over centuries. it is not based on any literal understanding of the Koran. and as such, it is NOT....a religious obligation.

it is NOT....relevant. It's not your call to make whether something is a religious obligation or just religious expression. That's the point of freedom of worship.

It doesn't make your case any better to wrap it in the suppression of free expression rather than suppression of religious observance (which it still is).

[ZARDOZ]

And no matter how many times you say that, it's still not true. Even if it were, it's irrelevant.

If it is not "true" - (your claim here) - then produce the part of the Koran which specifically orders women to dress in or wear a niqab/burka. And it IS highly relevant that the niqab/burka is a tradition and not a religious obligation.

I back my position up with this:

Egypt's top Islamic school, al-Azhar, banned women from wearing the burka, or face veil, inside all its affiliate schools on Monday as a top cleric said the burka was only a tradition and not necessary in Islam.

The majority of Islamic scholars say the face veil is not obligatory in Islam and is merely a custom that dates back to tribal, nomadic societies living in the Arabian desert before Islam began.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/10/06/87110.html

[Beerina]

i do not want people with their face covered, walking behind me. or towards me.

sorry. my right to feel safe and be safe trumps your right to abide by 7th century religious traditions that can't even be found in the Koran.

No, you right doesn't trump their right to walk around with a veil.

However, their right to wear a veil doesn't trump the power the government has to make you remove it for a driver's license*, or a security scan.





* Though apparently it does, if it's for religious reasons, in the US. :(

[Cleon]

If it is not "true" - (your claim here) - then produce the part of the Koran which specifically orders women to dress in or wear a niqab/burka.

Why do you cling to this absurd idea that the Quran is the only source of religious observance in Islam?

And it IS highly relevant that the niqab/burka is a tradition and not a religious obligation.
No, it really isn't. As I said - it doesn't make your position one damn bit better if it's suppression of expression rather than suppression of religion. It is not the place of government to dictate religious beliefs.

[ZARDOZ]

Why do you cling to this absurd idea that the Quran is the only source of religious observance in Islam?

And there goes the goal posts. Watch them move. ;)

Allow me to quote you:

Freedom of religion is essential for a free and democratic society.

You conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.

Just because it isn't found in the Quran doesn't mean it isn't a religious requirement.

Again, you conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.

No, you don't "got it." I'm not defending the "right of Islam," I'm defending the rights of people to practice their religion.

And again, you conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.

It is not the place of government to dictate religious beliefs.

And yet again, you conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.

Need I go on?

[Undesired Walrus]

but, if you wanna play that game, I suggest that we pass a law stating unless it is for health or weather related reasons, full face coverings should be illegal. religious or not.

..except for Halloween. :)


Why? I thought you wanted to feel safe on the street? What absurd law would state that you cannot wear masks except for on Halloween?

Are you saying you would tolerate being followed by a man in an E.T mask as long as it was October 31st? What about someone in a Father Christmas beard covering his face? Would that be fine as long as it was Christmas (And if so, between which days would the law be suspended)?


NYC was already successful in banning the KKK from marching with their masks on.

I'm guessing that had something more to do with the KKK than security concerns.

[Cleon]

And there goes the goal posts. Watch them move. ;)

You clearly don't know what that expression means.


Again, you conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.


Which it is. That does not mean, as you apparently believe, that it must be in the Quran. Because the Quran is not the only source of religious observance in Islam. There is also the hadith, clerical commentary (fatwas), and so on. The fact that it's not in the Quran doesn't mean it's not religious.

Orthodox Jews wear yarmulkes 100% of the time. Non-Orthodox Jews only wear them in synagogue and special occasions. That there is disagreement on this matter doesn't mean that yarmulkes aren't religious practice, only that religious practice is not uniform among Jews, any more than face-covering is uniform among Muslims.

[Thunder]

Why? I thought you wanted to feel safe on the street? What absurd law would state that you cannot wear masks except for on Halloween? .

ok

[Guybrush Threepwood]

And it IS highly relevant that the niqab/burka is a tradition and not a religious obligation.

Just for my education, how does one distinguish between a tradition and a religious obligation?

[ZARDOZ]

You clearly don't know what that expression means.

Now we are into semantic games. Either the niqab/burka is a religious issue or it is traditional garb. Make up your mind please.

The fact that it's not in the Quran doesn't mean it's not religious.

For the 20th time you again conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.

Orthodox Jews wear yarmulkes 100% of the time. Non-Orthodox Jews only wear them in synagogue and special occasions. That there is disagreement on this matter doesn't mean that yarmulkes aren't religious practice, only that religious practice is not uniform among Jews, any more than face-covering is uniform among Muslims.

Goal posts are moving yet again. Please stick with the program, the program is about the niqab/burka not about "Orthodox Jews who wear yarmulkes." :)

[Undesired Walrus]

there appears to be a general consensus among many people, especially in Europe, that the full burka is a symbol of servitude for women. The Koran does not call for women to cover their face, let alone cover their whole bodies.

Men in Muslim countries are able to dress pretty much as they like, while women are FORCED to abide by very strict dress codes. it is not hard to understand how Western liberals would view this as discrimination and 2nd class citizenship.

you guys can't tell me you are not troubled by images of people in Iran or Saudi Arabia, of men wearing pants, short sleeve shirts, and shaved faces, with women covered from head to toe. there is something not right there.

I thought you didn't care about the religous element, you just wanted to be able to 'see their face'?

If so, what's the point in the above?

[Cleon]

Now we are into semantic games. Either the niqab/burka is a religious issue or it is traditional garb. Make up your mind please.

For the 20th time you again conclude that the niqab/burka is a religious issue.


Cutting out the parts of my post you find inconvenient does not actually make them magically go away. So I will repeat myself:


Which it is. That does not mean, as you apparently believe, that it must be in the Quran. Because the Quran is not the only source of religious observance in Islam. There is also the hadith, clerical commentary (fatwas), and so on. The fact that it's not in the Quran doesn't mean it's not religious.


Goal posts are moving yet again.You still don't know what that phrase means.

Please stick with the program, the program is about the niqab/burka not about "Orthodox Jews who wear yarmulkes." :)And that's a rather pathetic attempt to dodge a point you don't like.

[ZARDOZ]

Just for my education, how does one distinguish between a tradition and a religious obligation?

I don't know. All I do know is some heavy-duty scholars in Egypt back me up:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/10/06/87110.html

Egypt's top Islamic school, al-Azhar, banned women from wearing the burka, or face veil, inside all its affiliate schools on Monday as a top cleric said the burka was only a tradition and not necessary in Islam.

The majority of Islamic scholars say the face veil is not obligatory in Islam and is merely a custom that dates back to tribal, nomadic societies living in the Arabian desert before Islam began.

[Francesca R]

I thought you didn't care about the religous element, you just wanted to be able to 'see their face'?

If so, what's the point in the above?Probably the purpose of that is as I speculate in (my) post 95. I consider the poster's arguments withdrawn.

[Undesired Walrus]

ok

Huh?

[ZARDOZ]

And that's a rather pathetic attempt to dodge a point you don't like.

So now I am pathetic. Is that the best argument you have regarding your multi-repeated position that the niqab/burka is a religious issue?

ETA

http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed01.htm

"In many Muslim societies, for example in traditional South East Asia, or in Bedouin lands a face veil for women is either rare or non-existent; paradoxically, modern fundamentalism is introducing it", writes Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/24/76922.html

As for the Islamic reaction Egypt's Grand Imam, Sheikh Mohammad Tantawi, said the face veil was not compulsory in Islam and said every head of state had the right to accept or prohibit it.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm

To wear the Hijaab is certainly NOT an Islamic obligatory on women. It is an innovation (Bid'ah) of men suffering from a piety complex who are so weak spiritually that they just cannot trust themselves!

[Arcade22]

Freedom of religion is essential for a free and democratic society.

The fact that you have the freedom to believe in whichever religion you want doesn't give you the right to wear a burqa or a niqab.

[ANTPogo]

The fact that you have the freedom to believe in whichever religion you want doesn't give you the right to wear a burqa or a niqab.

There's more to religion than simple belief. Your argument is akin to arguing that it's perfectly okay to ban all the ritual associated with the Catholic mass, because the Bible doesn't mandate any of it, since you can still believe in the Catholic catechism all you want. That's the reason why many religious freedom statements, such as the US First Amendment, describe the right to "free exercise of religion", not just belief.

[Arcade22]

There's more to religion than simple belief. Your argument is akin to arguing that it's perfectly okay to ban all the ritual associated with the Catholic mass, because the Bible doesn't mandate any of it, since you can still believe in the Catholic catechism all you want. That's the reason why many religious freedom statements, such as the US First Amendment, describe the right to "free exercise of religion", not just belief.

The right to 'free exercise of religion' isn't absolute. I shouldn't be allowed to build this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/196310940_d56747f3ee_b.jpg) around buildings like these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Bonnstan.jpg). Same thing with burqas and niqabs, they don't fit the local culture and poison the atmosphere.

[Badger]

The fact that you have the freedom to believe in whichever religion you want doesn't give you the right to wear a burqa or a niqab.

Whether the burqa/hiquab/hijab is a religious obligation or tradition, restricting the choice to wear them or not is an impingement on freedom.

IF people are worried about the pressures by family members to force women to wear these things, they should also be concerned about other forms of familial and spousal abuse by non-muslims, and should direct their energies to rectifying these situations, rather than restricting freedoms.

I can see a muslim family banning its women from going out in public at all, if the burqa is banned in France. How does that help the women become more free?

[Newtons Bit]

There's more to religion than simple belief. Your argument is akin to arguing that it's perfectly okay to ban all the ritual associated with the Catholic mass, because the Bible doesn't mandate any of it, since you can still believe in the Catholic catechism all you want. That's the reason why many religious freedom statements, such as the US First Amendment, describe the right to "free exercise of religion", not just belief.

Most western countries have banned polygamy, which is a core belief for some religions (such as with the FLDS). And though this is vastly different than banning clothing, banning polygamy is interfering with free exercise of some religions.

[Pardalis]

Meh, if they want to isolate themselves from the rest of society they can go right ahead, I'll continue to ignore them.

[Sporanox]

So now I am pathetic. Is that the best argument you have regarding your multi-repeated position that the niqab/burka is a religious issue?

It's not the state's job to decide the one true religious position out of a multi-pronged world religion with many different traditions. As ANTPogo has posted - same with Christianity.

[ZARDOZ]

It's not the state's job to decide the one true religious position out of a multi-pronged world religion with many different traditions. As ANTPogo has posted - same with Christianity.

Leading Islamic scholars and Imams in Egypt have said repeatedly that the niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I quoted their very words. One would think that leading Egyptian Islamic Imams and scholars are far more in-touch and knowledgeable than people posting here on the JREF message board.

Yet posters here keep repeatedly connecting the niqab/burka with Islam as a form of religious expression. Why is that so hard for some here to process that niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief?

ETA

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03iht-edeltahawy.html?_r=1

I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.

The best way to debunk the burqa as an expression of Muslim faith is to listen to Muslims who oppose it.

Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.

[ANTPogo]

Leading Islamic scholars and Imams in Egypt have said repeatedly that the niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I quoted their very words. One would think that leading Egyptian Islamic Imams and scholars are far more in-touch and knowledgeable than people posting here on the JREF message board.

Yet posters here keep repeatedly connecting the niqab/burka with Islam as a form of religious expression. Why is that so hard for some here to process that niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief?

Islam, despite numerous assertions to the contrary, is not a monolithic religion any more than Christianity is. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying it's okay to ban the rituals of the Catholic mass because leading theologians of the Southern Baptist Association say the Bible says such rituals are not required.

[ZARDOZ]

Islam, despite numerous assertions to the contrary, is not a monolithic religion any more than Christianity is. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying it's okay to ban the rituals of the Catholic mass because leading theologians of the Southern Baptist Association say the Bible says such rituals are not required.

The niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I have cited this REALITY repeatedly. Therefore the niqab/burka does not equal rituals of the Catholic mass.

ETA

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/death-for-refusal-of-burka-and/

The murder of 16-year-old Canadian teen, Aqsa Parvez, by her Pakistani immigrant father for her refusal to wear a burka or hijab has shocked and saddened the nation. As people from all walks of life are mourning her tragic death, Muslims — particularly their religious leaders — have joined the chorus of denials that “Islam has nothing to with the death of Aqsa.”

Here is a Muslim riddle. When one criticizes the practice of Muslim women wearing the burka or hijab, Muslims quickly respond that their religious symbol or choice is being attacked, but when girls like Aqsa die for refusing to accept the same religious symbol, Muslims quickly respond by saying their religion has nothing do with the death.

[Cleon]

The niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I have cited this REALITY repeatedly.

Oddly, repeating something over and over doesn't magically make it true.

[ANTPogo]

The right to 'free exercise of religion' isn't absolute. I shouldn't be allowed to build this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/196310940_d56747f3ee_b.jpg) around buildings like these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Bonnstan.jpg). Same thing with burqas and niqabs, they don't fit the local culture and poison the atmosphere.

Most western countries have banned polygamy, which is a core belief for some religions (such as with the FLDS). And though this is vastly different than banning clothing, banning polygamy is interfering with free exercise of some religions.

That's true. However, those bans on certain aspects of religious expression were not done because such expressions were considered illegitimate aspects of those religions or nonreligious traditions, but because those expressions were seen to conflict with other rights and obligations. No one said "polygamy isn't part of the Mormon religion, but just a tradition, so we can ban it", but "banning polygamy is better for our society as a whole, regardless of how entrenched or not entrenched in the religion it is, so we can ban it."

In other words, you can make the case that banning the burqa/niqab is a good idea for security reasons, or for humanitarian and feminist reasons (that is, in fact, the core debate...whether it is a good idea for those reasons or not).

But you can't say that banning the burqa/niqab is a good idea because the Koran doesn't mandate it and all subbranches of Islam don't require it. Not legitimately, at any rate.

[Sporanox]

The niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I have cited this REALITY repeatedly. Therefore the niqab/burka does not equal rituals of the Catholic mass.

Who are you to determine what is Islamic/unIslamic? Is there some sort of scientific method for religion I should be aware of? And are you aware that Egyptian scholars don't speak for most of Islam?

What are you going to tell the people who believe the face covering IS tied to religious expression?

[Pardalis]

Punks are allowed to wear studs and piercings, but private companies and shops have a right to set their own dress codes and turn them away. I think this should apply to these women. They can walk the streets in those hideous things, but shops and restaurants should be able to refuse them.

And they, like punks, should remove their paraphernalia when they pose for passports and when they go vote.

[ANTPogo]

The niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I have cited this REALITY repeatedly. Therefore the niqab/burka does not equal rituals of the Catholic mass.

So, the outward display of certain garments, as discussed in secondary religions scriptures, isn't a "religious expression"? What do you think a "religious expression" is?

And perhaps you can tell me where the call-and-response chants, the order and placement of the Introductory Rites, and the doxology at the end of Communion are mandated in the Bible, and how a ban on any or all of these interferes with the belief and expression of the Christian faith. I mean, there are lots of Christians who don't do all that, right? Why do some of them feel the need to do that?

[Newtons Bit]

That's true. However, those bans on certain aspects of religious expression were not done because such expressions were considered illegitimate aspects of those religions or nonreligious traditions, but because those expressions were seen to conflict with other rights and obligations. No one said "polygamy isn't part of the Mormon religion, but just a tradition, so we can ban it", but "banning polygamy is better for our society as a whole, regardless of how entrenched or not entrenched in the religion it is, so we can ban it."

In other words, you can make the case that banning the burqa/niqab is a good idea for security reasons, or for humanitarian and feminist reasons (that is, in fact, the core debate...whether it is a good idea for those reasons or not).

But you can't say that banning the burqa/niqab is a good idea because the Koran doesn't mandate it and all subbranches of Islam don't require it. Not legitimately, at any rate.

Right. I was attempting to address a single point made by you arguing against someone else. Certain ideas get lost in that translation.

I personally hate the niqab as it appears, to me at least, a way of enslaving an entire gender. Whether it needs to be banned is a very hard question.

[ZARDOZ]

Who are you to determine what is Islamic/unIslamic?

"I" am not determining anything. I am simply letting you know that the niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief. I arrived at this conclusion because I have posted and linked the words of leading Egyptian scholars and Imams who ALSO SAY the niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief.

And are you aware that Egyptian scholars don't speak for most of Islam?

I defer to the words of leading Egyptian scholars and Imams who say the niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief, rather than the claims of non-Islamic posters on JREF.

What are you going to tell the people who believe the face covering IS tied to religious expression?

i would tell them that they should investigate for themselves whether the niqab/burka is tied to religion expression or belief.

Oddly, repeating something over and over doesn't magically make it true.

When you are ready to back up your repeated claims then please by all means feel free get back to the discussion.

Allow me to remind you:

Freedom of religion is essential for a free and democratic society.

Just because it isn't found in the Quran doesn't mean it isn't a religious requirement.

No, you don't "got it." I'm not defending the "right of Islam," I'm defending the rights of people to practice their religion.

It is not the place of government to dictate religious beliefs.

[ANTPogo]

I defer to the words of leading Egyptian scholars and Imams who say the niqab/burka is not tied to religion expression or belief, rather than the claims of non-Islamic posters on JREF.

You didn't answer his question. Are you aware that those scholars and Imams don't speak for Islam as a whole?

And how do you know that any of us are not Islamic?

i would tell them that they should investigate for themselves whether the niqab/burka is tied to religion expression or belief.

And what if they do so, and say "no, it looks like the niqab/burka is tied to my religious expression and belief after all". What then? Tell them "no, your beliefs about your own religion are wrong, because these guys who you don't recognize the religious authority of say so"?

[Sporanox]

i would tell them that they should investigate for themselves whether the niqab/burka is tied to religion expression or belief.

Right before you fine them for such...does that sound right, in any way, to you? :boggled:

[ZARDOZ]

You didn't answer his question. Are you aware that those scholars and Imams don't speak for Islam as a whole?

OK. Who does speak for Islam as a whole? if leading Egyptian Islamic scholars and Imams are not good enough of a source then please give me a name and I shall attempt to see what they say about the niqab/burka.

And how do you know that any of us are not Islamic?

I dont. So are you? ;)

And what if they do so, and say "no, it looks like the niqab/burka is tied to my religious expression and belief after all". What then? Tell them "no, your beliefs about your own religion are wrong, because these guys who you don't recognize the religious authority of say so"?

I am only here to dispel the MYTH that the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. That's what skeptics do I thought. I hold my belief because religious leaders in Egypt along with Islamic scholars agree that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression....

Why do people here have such a hard time processing that information?

ETA

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/09/tarek-fatah-burn-your-burka.aspx

In October 2006, when Britain’s former foreign secretary Jack Straw asked a constituent wearing a face-mask in his office to remove her veil, he was lambasted by UK’s mosque establishment and clerics as a racist and Islamophobe. Three years later, it was the mother of all Islamic clerics — Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt — who found himself in Jack Straw’s shoes. Speaking to students in a girls’ school in Egypt, Sheikh Tantawi asked a girl draped in a head-to-toe black burka to take off the veil from her face. The girl refused, leading the frustrated Egyptian cleric to say he will issue a fatwa (religious edict) against the growing trend among Muslim women to wear the niqab (a dark veil covering the entire face, leaving a hole only for the eyes). He told the young woman that full-face veiling is a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) is now adding its voice to Sheikh Tantawi’s, and all the others who demand an end to this insult to the female gender. The MCC, an organization that I once led, has asked Ottawa to introduce legislation that will “ban the wearing of masks, burkas and niqabs in public.”

[Sporanox]

OK. Who does speak for Islam as a whole? if leading Egyptian Islamic scholars and Imams are not good enough of a source then please give me a name and I shall attempt to see what they say about the niqab/burka.


The future chosen one of Shi'ism. I guess his opinion would only count for that sect, though...

Sorry, but until all Islam is unified under another caliphate THERE IS NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY.

I am only here to dispel the MYTH that the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. That's what skeptics do I thought.

No, they don't. The reason is that a religious belief (EDIT: have to rephrase this...a religious belief in the spiritual significance of a particular tradition) is not something you can scientifically or empirically test.

I hold my belief because religious leaders in Egypt along with Islamic scholars agree

To which a Muslim on the opposite side may very well reply "I hold my belief because religious leaders in Iran along with Islamic scholars agree..." See the problem?

[ANTPogo]

OK. Who does speak for Islam as a whole? if leading Egyptian Islamic scholars and Imams are not good enough of a source then please give me a name and I shall attempt to see what they say about the niqab/burka.

No one speaks for Islam as a whole. Just like no one speaks for Christianity as a whole. Each division and subdivision has its own theology and religious leaders. There is no "Islamic pope". The Egyptian ulema and imams you cited speak only for those members of the umma who recognize their authority, but they have no power or influence outside that - what those imams and ulema say has no bearing on what imams and ulema in Saudia Arabia, or Iran, or the US think or believe, and vice versa.

Again, think of it like this - the Pope in Rome makes a proclamation. Does what he says have any bearing on what members of the Church of England think and believe? And remember that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are a lot closer in beliefs and traditions than many Islamic branches are to each other...


I dont. So are you? ;)

If I am, would you accept what say?

I am only here to dispel the MYTH that the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. That's what skeptics do I thought. I hold my belief because religious leaders in Egypt along with Islamic scholars agree that the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression.

Why do people here have such a hard time processing that information?

Because, as I'm trying to point out to you, your belief (and the belief of the Egyptian ulema who you cite) has no bearing whatsoever on whether any or all Muslims think of the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression.

EDIT: Tantawi is a Sunni. One of the leading Sunni imams, in fact. A Shia Muslim, for instance, isn't bound (or likely) to recognize him as an authority, any more than the members of your local Catholic diocese are to obey the Archbishop of Canterbury. Less so, in fact, given the theological divisions between the two branches and their long history of violence against each other.

So, if I'm a Shia, why is what Tantawi says important to or binding on me?

[ZARDOZ]

To which a Muslim on the opposite side may very well reply "I hold my belief because religious leaders in Iran along with Islamic scholars agree..." See the problem?

I see the problem, and it is that people refuse to process the information that the niqab is a tradition... not a form of religious expression.


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1254573360090&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

The head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world, has ordered a school girl to remove her niqab during a visit to an Al-Azhar school, saying he would seek an official ban for the face veil in schools, Al-Masri Al-Youm newspaper reported on Monday, October 5.

“The niqab is a tradition and has nothing to do with Islam.”

“I tell you again that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and it is only a mere custom. I understand the religion better than you and your parents.”

Sheikh Tantawi’s remarks coincided with those of Higher Education Minister Hani Hilal who has banned the face-veil in student hostels.

[ANTPogo]

I see the problem, and it is that people refuse to process the information that the niqab is a tradition... not a form of religious expression.

Again, Tantawi, as a Sunni, has no religious authority whatsoever to the 190 million Shia Muslims in the world. You're quoting Pope John Paul II and expecting it to be a valid expression of belief for all two billion Christians in the world.

[Sporanox]

I see the problem, and it is that people refuse to process the information that the niqab is a tradition... not a form of religious expression.

Oh, so the problem is that they refuse to goose-step their religious traditions with an authority they don't recognize, or alternatively, you.

The head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world,

This has already been said but I feel it bears repeating...there is a sect you're ignoring...

[ZARDOZ]

Again, Tantawi, as a Sunni, has no religious authority whatsoever to the 190 million Shia Muslims in the world. You're quoting Pope John Paul II and expecting it to be a valid expression of belief for all two billion Christians in the world.This has already been said but I feel it bears repeating...there is a sect you're ignoring...

Guys... please. Why do you have such a difficult time processing the information I am linking and posting?

How about this then...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_sunni_muslim_population_of_the_world

85% of the Muslim population is Sunni, so there are approximately 1.5 billion Sunni Muslims in the world at this moment in time.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1254573360090&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

The head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world, has ordered a school girl to remove her niqab during a visit to an Al-Azhar school, saying he would seek an official ban for the face veil in schools, Al-Masri Al-Youm newspaper reported on Monday, October 5.

“The niqab is a tradition and has nothing to do with Islam.”

After the girl complied he insisted she should not wear it any more.

“I tell you again that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and it is only a mere custom. I understand the religion better than you and your parents.”

So the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and it is only a mere custom. And 85% of the Muslim population on Earth is Sunni.

So if the head of the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world which represents 85% of the Muslim population on earth tells me that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam, and it is only a mere custom, I accept his credentials.

[ANTPogo]

Guys... please. Why do you have such a difficult time processing the information I am linking and posting?

Because you're using it wrong and drawing faulty conclusions from it!

So the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and it is only a mere custom.

You don't get it, do you?

That's good for the Sunnis. But Sunni doesn't = Muslim, any more than Catholic = Christian.

And 85% of the Muslim population on Earth is Sunni.

So, the 15% of Muslims who aren't Sunni (and therefore don't recognize any proclamations issued by Tantawi) aren't following Islam? That's the only way you can claim that whatever the head of Al-Azhar says means that's what "Islam" believes.

And since that's patently not true, where does that leave you? If I'm a Shia, and I reject anything that any Sunni says about Muslim theology, am I no longer a Muslim? Can you say about me "Islam believes whatever Tantawi says, so obviously you believe that too," and when I say "no, I'm a Muslim, and I and 190 million other Muslims don't believe whatever he says," what do you do? Tell me I'm wrong, and that I do believe that? Tell me that I'm not really a Muslim?

Come on, ZARDOZ. I'm a Shia Muslim, and me and almost a quarter billion other people on this planet reject Tantawi as a religious authority. His statements have absolutely zero meaning to us. What do you say to us?

So if the head of the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world which represents 85% of the Muslim population on earth tells me that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam, and it is only a mere custom, I accept his credentials.

So if the Pope, who likewise represents the majority of all Christians on this planet, makes a proclamation of theology, then that represents the belief of Christianity as a whole, right? If, say, a member of the Eastern Orthodox faith, who doesn't recognize the Pope as any kind of religious authority, disagrees with the Pope on that theological matter and in fact believes the exact opposite of what the Pope says, is he wrong? Do you still say "Well, Christianity believes X because the Pope said it" anyway, because you accept his credentials as a spokesperson for Christianity as a whole?

[ZARDOZ]

Because you're using it wrong and drawing faulty conclusions from it!

I am drawing no conclusions. I am stating what the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states.

You don't get it, do you? That's good for the Sunnis. But Sunni doesn't = Muslim, any more than Catholic = Christian.

Ok. Great. So what evidence can you produce that will inform me that Shiites consider the niqab a religious form of expression.

So, the 15% of Muslims who aren't Sunni (and therefore don't recognize any proclamations issued by Tantawi) aren't following Islam?

That would be a strawman argument. I have never said that 15% of Muslims who aren't Sunni aren't following Islam.

And since that's patently not true, where does that leave you?

Well whom do I believe? You? Who has yet to produce any evidence? Or do I believe the head of Al-Azhar the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world? Here's my conundrum.. you as a shiite say the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world is full of crap. While I say the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world, has the credentials to be a reputable source for 85% of Muslims who happen to be Sunni.

If I'm a Shia, and I reject anything that any Sunni says about Muslim theology, am I no longer a Muslim?

Not at all. But if the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world, says something I tend to believe him over you... a poster on a message board.

Can you say about me "Islam believes whatever Tantawi says, so obviously you believe that too," and when I say "no, I'm a Muslim, and I and 190 million other Muslims don't believe whatever he says," what do you do? Tell me I'm wrong, and that I do believe that? Tell me that I'm not really a Muslim?

Once again a strawman argument. I have never said "you are not really a muslim."

Come on, ZARDOZ. I'm a Shia Muslim, and me and almost a quarter billion other people on this planet reject Tantawi as a religious authority. His statements have absolutely zero meaning to us. What do you say to us?

All I am asking is that you produce the evidence that the niqab/burka is tied to religious expression or belief for shiites. Because I have already cited and linked that the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states that the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief for Sunnis... who make up 85% of the Muslim world.


(edited for spelling)

[Sporanox]

I am drawing no conclusions. I am stating what the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states.

If you're drawing no conclusions, stop posting since you are just spamming on behalf of Al-Azhar. The school doesn't need you to do that. Oh, and by the way, you should have quoted this part of the article:

The majority of Muslim scholars believe that a woman is not obliged to cover her face or hands.

They believe that it is up to every woman to decide whether to take on the face-cover or not.

As in, a religious decision. Now you will inevitably punch back with the fact that the head of the highest seat of learning in Islam says it's just a custom - however, you are tripping over yourself when you equate Tantawi to the Pope.

Finally, I believe all of this misses the underpinning of the objection to banning face coverings.

However, those bans on certain aspects of religious expression were not done because such expressions were considered illegitimate aspects of those religions or nonreligious traditions, but because those expressions were seen to conflict with other rights and obligations.

As far as I know, one does not have to establish that their religious belief is supported by the central authority of their religion in order to have their free exercise of that belief guaranteed. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, since you are asserting that the ban would be legal in the US - are you not?

[ZARDOZ]

If you're drawing no conclusions, stop posting since you are just spamming on behalf of Al-Azhar.

I am not spamming. Other posters keep saying the niqab/burka is tied to religious expression or belief. So I have to debunk that myth by going to as high a source as I could find in the Muslim world, the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning for Sunni Muslims. I think he's a pretty reputable source for information since he is the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt.

As in, a religious decision. Now you will inevitably punch back with the fact that the head of the highest seat of learning in Islam says it's just a custom - however, you are tripping over yourself when you equate Tantawi to the Pope.

Not at all. I am not equating anyone to the Pope. I am simply quoting with links the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University as a REPUTABLE and KNOWLEDGEABLE source for this topic. That is all. :)

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, since you are asserting that the ban would be legal in the US - are you not?

I have never brought up the USA in this thread. I have always been referencing France and the fact that the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief per the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University.

[Sporanox]

I am not spamming. Other posters keep saying the niqab/burka is tied to religious expression or belief.

Problem: in the US, valid religious belief is determined close to the individual level, as far as I know. In France, this may be different.

Not at all. I am not equating anyone to the Pope.

Then you should have no problem accepting that some Muslims' belief in wearing the face covering is a valid religious belief.

I have never brought up the USA in this thread. I have always been referencing France and the fact that the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief per the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University.

Well, we have been discussing the USA, so that must have been a source of confusion. However, do you know how freedom of religion is treated in France?

[ZARDOZ]

Then you should have no problem accepting that some Muslims' belief in wearing the face covering is a valid religious belief.

Here's what I believe. I believe the guy who's in charge of the highest seat of learning for Sunni Muslims when he tells me that in his qualified knowledgeable opinion the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief.

On the other hand I have posters on a message board saying he's full of crap but unfortunately those posters have yet to reference any material that would enlighten me.

So right now I have my money on one horse, and he's he Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt. :)

[Sporanox]

Here's what I believe. I believe the guy who's in charge of the highest seat of learning for Sunni Muslims when he tells me that in his qualified knowledgeable opinion the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief.

Okay, believe away, but you still have to establish that it's okay to interfere with other people's beliefs based on your preferred authority's conclusion - in either the US or France.

[ddt]

Here's what I believe. I believe the guy who's in charge of the highest seat of learning for Sunni Muslims when he tells me that in his qualified knowledgeable opinion the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief.

On the other hand I have posters on a message board saying he's full of crap but unfortunately those posters have yet to reference any material that would enlighten me.

So right now I have my money on one horse, and he's he Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt. :)

And that doesn't matter one bit. Saudi clerics most probably disagree with him. Interpretation of islamic faith and what islamic traditions are differ from country to country, also within the Sunni muslims. Wahhabi's are also nominally Sunni's, but - apart from the question who is the right heir of Muhammed - differ much more in their ideas what constitutes Islam from other Sunni's than Shia's do.

You try to picture Tantawi as a sort of Pope of the Sunni's. He's not. Try to look at him like the Schillebeeckx of the Sunni's.

[ANTPogo]

I am drawing no conclusions. I am stating what the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states.

And since he doesn't speak for all of Islam, you can't say that the wearing of the niqab/burka is not a part of Muslim religious expression.


Ok. Great. So what evidence can you produce that will inform me that Shiites consider the niqab a religious form of expression.

As I said before, there's no one religious authority for Islam (not even all Sunnis listen to Tantawi, since Saudia Arabia is majority Sunni and the niqab is as common there as rainless days.

That would be a strawman argument. I have never said that 15% of Muslims who aren't Sunni aren't following Islam.

So, when you say that the niqab and burka aren't part of Muslim religious expression because a Sunni alim says so, and there are many Muslims who don't accept his teachings (including many Sunni, as Saudia Arabia proves), where does that leave those Muslims who don't listen to Tantawi and think that niqab and burka are part of their religion? Either Tantawi doesn't speak for Islam (in which case you cannot say that "Islam doesn't think niqab/burka are not part of Islamic religious expression"), or those who disagree with/reject Tantawi are not Muslim.

If you think this is a false dichotomy, then where do you think non-Sunnis stand? Are they wrong about their own religion? Does Tantawi's fatwa override any theological thoughts they may have on the subject?

Well whom do I believe? You? Who has yet to produce any evidence? Or do I believe the head of Al-Azhar the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world? Here's my conundrum.. you as a shiite say the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world is full of crap.

Yes. Just as a Baptist preacher thinks the head of the largest denomination in Christianity is full of crap. Is he wrong, and the Pope right, about what Christianity stands for and how it should be expressed?

While I say the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world, has the credentials to be a reputable source for 85% of Muslims who happen to be Sunni.

Does that make every single non-Sunni wrong about what constitutes an expression of religion in their own faith? Never mind the fact that not even all Sunnis believe as Tantawi does.

Not at all. But if the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world, says something I tend to believe him over you... a poster on a message board.

So, you're saying that even though that as a Shia I may reject Tantawi, as a Sunni, as any kind of religious authority, I'm wrong and he's right about what my religion considers a form of religious expression?

Once again a strawman argument. I have never said "you are not really a muslim."

But if I reject Tantawi's authority to rule on matters theological, what does that make me? What does that make Islam's thoughts as a whole on the niqab/burka matter?


All I am asking is that you produce the evidence that the niqab/burka is tied to religious expression or belief for shiites. Because I have already cited and linked that the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states that the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief for Sunnis... who make up 85% of the Muslim world.


Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest-ranking Shia alim in Iraq (and the closest Shia equivalent to Tantawi), believes that women should wear the niqab, to the point where only if wearing it arouses "disapproval by and dislike of the general public in a particular country" (in al-Sistani's own words) is it permissible to remove it, otherwise a woman is obligated to wear it unless in a state of ihram (ie, on hajj).

Not that I agree with him, but there you go.

[ANTPogo]

I
As far as I know, one does not have to establish that their religious belief is supported by the central authority of their religion in order to have their free exercise of that belief guaranteed. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, since you are asserting that the ban would be legal in the US - are you not?

Well, that's the real question. I personally don't like the niqab/burka, because it mostly (though not entirely) is used as a means of oppressing women. On the other hand, I'm not really comfortable with banning it completely, so that even those who want to wear it as a part of their own personal religious expression would no longer be able to.

But I think that a legal case could be made that such a ban would be Constitutional in the US (even if I personally don't like the idea of such a ban); as pointed out, a number of religious expressions have been so banned. The issue is whether the reasoning used to establish such a ban would be accepted by the courts or not.

My point, though, was to say that the above issue is entirely separate from, and totally unreliant on, the fact that the wearing of the niqab may or may not be mandated by the Qu'ran, or may or may not be accepted by various divisions of Islam and the individual ulema thereof. I'm saying that such an argument as ZARDOZ is making is a totally irrelevant nonstarter to the issue of whether the wearing of the niqab/burka in a Western country should be banned by that country or not.

[ddt]

Reading through this discussion, it seems that it's a hopeless mission to convince, e.g., Zardoz, that what constitutes religion doesn't stop with scripture, or what esteemed officials say it is, but that religion also extends to traditions that have formed through the centuries. I'll try to take a shot too, nevertheless. :)

Haredim Jews have already been mentioned as an example where part of a religion upholds different dress codes. I could add that various Dutch protestant churches also uphold modest dress codes; and the Amish, to name a few Christian examples. Even the Catholic church is not a monolith entity. In various countries, RC clergy implores their flock (or the female part of it) to dress "modestly", whereas, say, a Dutch RC pastor wouldn't think of trying to preach that to his flock (or even believe in it himself). As another example, in the Philippines Catholics have the tradition to stage live crucifixions, and consider that part of their religious tradition - though the Pope disapproves.

And the Pope in the RC church is the single person that comes closest to a central authority. It bears stressing in this respect, that Islam doesn't have a central authority like the Pope. In fact, the RC church is about the only church which has such a central authority: the various protestant branches, and the various branches of Judaism all are decentralized religions.

But all of this really is of no importance to the question at hand. The question is: should veils be banned? That is a secular question, and the answer to that question needs a secular justification, without any reference to religion at all. As much as polygamy is outlawed because our secular standards don't allow it - irrespective whether a Mormon practices it, a Hindu or an atheist, they all have to comply with the same standards - a ban on burqas should not be a ban on burqas, as an Islamic garb, but a ban on face coverings for whoever uses them.

[FlamingMoe]

i do not want people with their face covered, walking behind me. or towards me.
So I guess people in my neck of the woods (http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/home.do?agency=NorthStar) should sacrifice their noses (http://www.amazon.com/Knit-Ski-Mask-Hole-Winter/dp/B000ZQAFIQ) to satisfy your paranoia.

[Rolfe]

How many people have used the face veil for criminal purposes? A rough estimate will do.


Dunno, but a very chunky male BBC reporter managed to be first into Afghanistan under a burqa.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I don't care whether it's religious or cultural. Restricting the freedom of women to wear any damn thing they like is a very, very slippery slope.

I think it's a bit strange. And I can see the security issues. But it's a solid fact that some perfectly rational women, expressing themselves freely, say the want to wear these things.

Take that right away at your peril.


the argument is being made, that many women are not covering their faces out of free choice, but due to intimidation from their families and communities.


I appreciate that this argument is being made. And so, to "liberate" these women, you legislate that other women may not dress as they freely choose?

I think this is an extremely bad idea. I think, if your aim is to improve the lot of women in certain Moslem families, you have to tackle it at a far deeper level than passing stupid laws that will do nothing but cause resentment and grievance.

However, was that the swish of moving goalposts I heard? I thought it was all about security, and not having people hiding their faces. Women's Lib didn't really feature in that bit.

If security is the issue, you can't treat these veils any different from motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, ski masks, pollution masks or fancy-dress costumes.

Rolfe.

[KingMerv00]

When will they get around to banning Carnival? For the safety of the public of course.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/02/18/venetian10_gallery__600x400.jpg

(That picture was taken in France btw.)

[asmodean]

Well since they are going to be here a while they should conform and dress like the people whose country they are living in. If i were to move to Iraq i would dress like an Iraqi is expected to do.

You're right. We should immediately ban all clothing in Sweden except for:

http://www.sverigedrakten.se/story/gift1-ang.jpg

None of this funny foreign stuff. Perhaps we can ban all clothing, food, drink, music, books that have not been in the country since before those damn vikings started running around the world getting tainted by foreign customs...

right?

[ZARDOZ]

Reading through this discussion, it seems that it's a hopeless mission to convince, e.g., Zardoz, that what constitutes religion doesn't stop with scripture, or what esteemed officials say it is, but that religion also extends to traditions that have formed through the centuries. I'll try to take a shot too, nevertheless. :)

Actually I am always open to looking at different points of view. But here is how I see it.

I say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. I backed that claim up by citing and quoting:

1) The top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world - Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt.

2) The Muslim Canadian Congress.

3) Tarek Fatah, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress.

4) Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.

All four sources are independent of each other and highly reputable. And all four say that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

While the other camp here at JREF says the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. They backed that claim up by citing and quoting:

1) NOBODY.

(albeit ANTPogo did reference Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in one sentence without a citation or quote)

Therefore I still maintain that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. It's really as simple as that. Yet if people WANT TO BELIEVE it is a religious form of expression then I agree to disagree. :)

[Undesired Walrus]

Actually I am always open to looking at different points of view. But here is how I see it.

I say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. I backed that claim up by citing and quoting:

1) The top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world - Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt.

2) The Muslim Canadian Congress.

3) Tarek Fatah, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress.

4) Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.

All four sources are independent of each other and highly reputable. And all four say that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

While the other camp here at JREF says the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. They backed that claim up by citing and quoting:

1) NOBODY.

(albeit ANTPogo did reference Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in one sentence without a citation or quote)

Therefore I still maintain that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. It's really as simple as that. Yet if people WANT TO BELIEVE it is a religious form of expression then I agree to disagree. :)

None of this matters. You can't seriously suggest that the traditions of every religion on Earth are there because they are mandated in specific Holy Books. Nor is religous observations allowed simply because they are derived from Holy Books.

The reason the burka is a form of religous expression is due to the simple fact that it follows in the tradition of Mohammed's wives, who wore niqabs. It's like people acting out the passion. It isn't mandated in the Bible, but it is tradition.

Freedom of religion isn't granted to a strict interpretation of a religion. By your logic, a new religion that wrote a new Holy Book mandating that: "Ye dress yourself from head to toe in black garmants or face the fires of hell" should have the freedom to wear the niqab just because it was in their Holy Text, in black and white.

[ANTPogo]

"How can the Anglicans claim that women can be priests, when the Pope (who is the leader of the largest Christian community and the head of the oldest and largest theological community in Christendom), as well as the heads of the Southern Baptist Conference and the Eastern Orthodox churches say they can't? Oh, sure some poster here claims that the United Methodists allow women pastors, but he didn't link to any news reports like I did. Therefore, it's obvious that we can pass a law banning women preachers and pastors, since it's obvious that they're not really a part of the Christian religion, as the above leaders clearly state."

In other words, yeah, I think I'm done with you.

[osbo]

Niqab is not just a tradition, but for a large sect of the Muslim faith, it is a expression of their religious faith.

Qur'an 33:59
O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the women of the faithful, to draw their wraps over them. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them. God is forgiving and kind.

Now that is an important verse for the Niqab wearing Muslims. They were brought to that very belief and very specific interpretation of that Qur'an verse by the many Hadith's they were taught in learning their faith.


Volume: 5, Book Number: 59, Hadith Number: 462
"...When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja.

Sunnan Abu Dawud 1:1833
The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah in ihrām When they came near, each of us would lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover our faces.

Sunnan Abu Dawud 32:4091
The woman is to bring down her Jilbāb from over her head and [then place it] upon her face.

Sahih Muslim 2:2770
The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah in ihrām When they came near, each of us would lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover our faces.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3:311:1
We used to enter upon Hafsah bint Sirīn who had put her Jilbāb thus and covered her face with it, and we would say to her: May Allah have mercy on you. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment” [al-Noor 24:60]. And she would say to us: What comes after that (of the āyah)? We would say: “But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them”. And so she said: [Referring to, ‘But to refrain is better for them’], “It is to keep the Jilbāb.

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:282:1
They should draw their veils over their Juyubihinna," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:368:1
The Apostle of Allah used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized.

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:347:1
We were ordered the Apostle of Allah to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two 'Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from their Musalla. A woman asked, "O Allah's Apostle ' What about one who does not have a niqab?" He said, "Let her share the veil of her companion

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:572:1
And if one of the women of Paradise looked at the earth, she would fill the whole space between them the earth and the heaven with light, and would fill whatever is in between them, with perfume, and the veil of her face is better than the whole world and whatever is in it.

Sahih al-Bukhari 14:2482:1
A woman called Umm Khallad came to the Prophet while she was veiled. She was searching for her son who had been killed in the battle. Some of the Companions of the Prophet said to her: You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face? She said: If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty. The Apostle of Allah said: You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son. She asked: Why is that so, oh Prophet of Allah? He replied: Because the people of the Book have killed him.


While I do not agree with their religious beliefs, it is their religious freedom to believe whatever insane notion they want to. Their notion that this is a religious duty is backed up by the words and deeds by there Islamic Prophet. His wives also practiced this duty.

[Cleon]

Ahlan wa sahlan, osbo. :)

[ZARDOZ]

None of this matters.

That's funny. :) And frankly it's no different than a truther dismissing the expert's evidence in a 9-11 conspiracy thread - with a wave of the hand - and saying "None of this matters." ;)

You can't seriously suggest that the traditions of every religion on Earth are there because they are mandated in specific Holy Books. Nor is religous observations allowed simply because they are derived from Holy Books.

I am not talking about "every religion on Earth." I am saying that I have four independent reputable knowledgeable sources from the Islamic world who all say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. That is all I am saying.

The reason the burka is a form of religous expression is due to the simple fact that it follows in the tradition of Mohammed's wives, who wore niqabs. It's like people acting out the passion. It isn't mandated in the Bible, but it is tradition.

And I am saying that the top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, The Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues disagree. And all those people say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

Freedom of religion isn't granted to a strict interpretation of a religion. By your logic, a new religion that wrote a new Holy Book mandating that: "Ye dress yourself from head to toe in black garmants or face the fires of hell" should have the freedom to wear the niqab just because it was in their Holy Text, in black and white.

Nope. I never ever said "a new religion that wrote a new Holy Book mandating..." That's a strawman. What I have been saying repeatedly is that the top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, The Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues all say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. And I have cited and linked their statements.

So I guess they are all mistaken, and must be part of a global conspiracy to marginalize the niqab/burka! ;)

Niqab is not just a tradition, but for a large sect of the Muslim faith, it is a expression of their religious faith.

Mormons wear "magical underwear" but I know that's frankly insane. Scientologists use E-Meters but that to is wackyness. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions even if it will save their own life because they too are nuts. And frankly demanding women to wear the niqab/burka for their entire lives summer, spring, winter, and fall is medieval, extremist, and it marginalizes women. So I am not going to agree that marginalizing women under the guise of religious expression is acceptable. That's all. :)

[osbo]

Ahlan wa sahlan, osbo. :)

Shokran jazeelan, Cleon. :)

Mormons wear "magical underwear" but I know that's frankly insane. Scientologists use E-Meters but that to is wackyness. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions even if it will save their own life because they too are nuts. And frankly demanding women to wear the niqab/burka for their entire lives summer, spring, winter, and fall is medieval, extremist, and it marginalizes women. So I am not going to agree that marginalizing women under the guise of religious expression is acceptable. That's all.

I will agree with you that all those religious freedoms you just described are ridiculous and archaic, yet they are still able to freely express them with or without their governments approval. But I didn't think you were arguing that point. Unless I was mistaken, you were arguing that the Nijab wasn't a religious expression, and it is just that.

[ddt]

Actually I am always open to looking at different points of view. But here is how I see it.

I say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. I backed that claim up by citing and quoting:

1) The top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world - Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt.

2) The Muslim Canadian Congress.

3) Tarek Fatah, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress.

4) Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.

All four sources are independent of each other and highly reputable. And all four say that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

While the other camp here at JREF says the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. They backed that claim up by citing and quoting:

1) NOBODY.

(albeit ANTPogo did reference Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in one sentence without a citation or quote)

Therefore I still maintain that the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. It's really as simple as that. Yet if people WANT TO BELIEVE it is a religious form of expression then I agree to disagree. :)

You really want sources to refute your claim? Look no further than venerable wiki :), e.g., the page "Hijab by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country)". A few quotes:
Afghanistan
Under the Taliban, the burqa was obligatory. Under the current government, it is technically optional but in southern Afghanistan it is de facto obligatory.
Taliban means "religious students", doesn't it?
Kuwait's fatwa authority at the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs ruled in October 2009 that wearing the hijab is mandatory for Muslim women. The ruling has attracted support from Islamist and Salafist Members of Parliament.
Hmm, "fatwa", "salafist", sounds pretty religious to me.
Wearing the hijab is enforced in Saudi Arabia. All women living in Saudi Arabia (Muslim and the expatriate non-muslim) are required to wear a full black cloak, called an abaya and a face-veil, called a niqab. They can be harassed by the religious police if they do not.
Bolding mine.

[ZARDOZ]

Unless I was mistaken, you were arguing that the Nijab wasn't a religious expression, and it is just that. Yes. I am agreeing with the top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, The Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues who all say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

So what we have is a draw. You have one camp saying the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. And you have another camp saying the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. And I am 100% OK with that. :)

But I also must say that I personally find the niqab/burka medieval, extremist, and it marginalizes women. And frankly I do not ascribe to defending the "religious" right to marginalize women.

ETA

You really want sources to refute your claim? Look no further than venerable wiki...Taliban, Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Saudi religious police...

You have cited two hard-core extremist groups - the Taliban and the Saudi religious police. No wonder they think marginalizing women under the guise of religious expression is acceptable. ;)

[ddt]

So I guess they are all mistaken, and must be part of a global conspiracy to marginalize the niqab/burka! ;)
No, it just shows that Islam is not a monolithic entity as it is often portrayed. Interpretations of what is mandated by the faith and what not differ. Just as with different Christian denominations, or even within the RC church, as I argued before. But you conveniently glossed over that part.

[ddt]

Yes. I am agreeing with the top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, The Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues who all say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

So what we have is a draw. You have one camp saying the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. And you have another camp saying the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. And I am 100% OK with that. :)
And you know what? They're both wrong and they're both right. But in the end it doesn't matter one iota at all. If one individual does something and says "I do this out of my religious conviction", then for him/her it's religious expression. Don't need no fatwas or ulemas to ayatollahs to sanction that.


But I also must say that I personally find the niqab/burka medieval, extremist, and it marginalizes women.
I haven't heard anyone on this thread say otherwise. And if some people haven't said anything about it, that's more because it more or less goes without saying in these circles.


And frankly I do not ascribe to defending the "religious" right to marginalize women.
No, but, as Rolfe already pointed out, banning the burqa doesn't solve the problem. On the contrary. For those women who wear them because they're forced to by their husbands/surroundings, it most probably means they won't go out of the house at all. Nice solution.

[KingMerv00]

I'll admit that I don't contribute much to threads. That doesn't mean every question I ask is completely rhetorical or a joke. I will ask both of my questions again since no one gave me a serious response (that I noticed):

1) How many crimes have be facilitated by the use of a veil?

2) If we are concerned with public safety, why has France not banned Carnival masks?

[osbo]

Yes. I am agreeing with the top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, The Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues who all say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression.

So what we have is a draw. You have one camp saying the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. And you have another camp saying the niqab/burka is a religious form of expression. And I am 100% OK with that.

But I also must say that I personally find the niqab/burka medieval, extremist, and it marginalizes women. And frankly I do not ascribe to defending the "religious" right to marginalize women.

It's all well and good that you goosestep in line with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi to argue your point. He certainly has a following. But I am hopeful that you understand that he doesn't account for every Muslim that interprets their faith in a different way. That is already validated by the Hadith's. Islam is the 2nd largest faith system in the world, recognized by many countries all over the world.

One of those countries happens to be France, which guarantees freedom of religion in their constitution. This isn't a draw. This is their religious right.

[ANTPogo]

I hope you have better luck explaining this to him than I did, osbo.

[osbo]

By the way, I'm not sure you want to use the Muslim Canadian Congress as a cite/quote. This organization, and its members, tends to have a certain political strategy that consists of painting the majority of Muslims as dangerous fundamentalists. They represent only a tiny minority of Canadian Muslims.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to link with my low post count, but here are a list of other Canadian muslim organizations that believe the niqab is a religious freedom:

Ahlul-Bayt Centre Ottawa
Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN)
Canadian Council Of Muslim Theologians (CCMT)
Canadian Council of Imams
Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC)
Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association (CMCLA)
Canadian Muslim Women’s Institute (CMWI)
Canadian Muslim Forum (CMF)
Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals Toronto (CAMP Toronto)
Dar Al-Tawheed Islamic Centre
DawaNet Canada
Federation of Muslim Women
International Muslims Organization (IMO)
Islamic Ahlul Bayt Assembly of Canada, Richmond Hill
Islamic Circle of North America Canada (ICNA Canada)
Islamic Foundation of Toronto *
Islamic Society of British Columbia
Islamic Society of North America Canada (ISNA Canada)
Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA)
Islamic Society of Toronto
Jamat E-Islahul Muslimeen
Jami Omar Mosque
Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador
Muslim Council of Calgary (MCC)
Muslim Association of Canada (MAC)
Muslim Council of Montreal / Conseil Musulman de Montreal
Muslim Presence / Presence Musulmane
Muslim World League, Canadian Office
Salaheddin Islamic Centre
Scarborough Muslim Association
TARIC Islamic Centre, Toronto
Young Muslims Canada

[ZARDOZ]

It's all well and good that you goosestep in line with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi to argue your point.

I am not "goose stepping" to Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi. But since he runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world I respect his opinion based upon his expertise in the field. I ALSO quoted the statements of the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues. They too agree with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.

I guess Islam has a schism that it needs to be clarified because some high-ranking muslims say one thing, and other muslims say another thing. It is not for me to decide which camp is right. I only feel that defending the "religious" right to marginalize women is offensive to me.

He certainly has a following.

Since he is the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque, and the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University I would say that he must have some expertise in the field of Muslim religious customs.

But I am hopeful that you understand that he doesn't account for every Muslim that interprets their faith in a different way.

I completely understand that 1.5 billion Muslims are not all equal or similar, and that they all have different ways of interpreting their faith. That's a no-brainer. :)

ETA

I hope you have better luck explaining this to him than I did, osbo.

Hey guys. I ain't the enemy. But I am not going to agree that a "religious interpretation" of faith which marginalizes women with medieval and extremist customs is ok. Just like some people here don't agree that all the "religious interpretations" of Scientology are acceptable. That's all.

[ANTPogo]

Hey guys. I ain't the enemy. But I am not going to agree that a "religious interpretation" of faith which marginalizes women with medieval and extremist customs is ok. Just like some people here don't agree that all the "religious interpretations" of Scientology are acceptable. That's all.

No one is saying that it's acceptable, ZARDOZ. Not in this thread, at any rate. What we are saying, though, is that for many, many Muslims, the niqab and burka are indeed expressions of their religious faith. You can make a case for banning it on the grounds that such garments have been used historically as a tool in the oppression of women (I don't like the wearing of of niqab/burka myself, though I'm ambivalent about a blanket ban). But you can't ban it on the grounds that it's not an expression of the religious faith of some Muslims, because that's absolutely, positively, 100% not true.

Do you understand the distinction here?

[osbo]

Hey guys. I ain't the enemy. But I am not going to agree that a "religious interpretation" of faith which marginalizes women with medieval and extremist customs is ok. Just like some people here don't agree that all the "religious interpretations" of Scientology are acceptable. That's all.

You do not agree it is a religious interpretation of faith but you compare it to "All the religious interpretations of Scientology." I'm either ignorant of that statement or confused. Can you explain this alittle further?

[osbo]

I also want to add that I'm not attacking you Zardoz. I know you arn't the enemy! :) I'm just engaging in your arguement.

[FireGarden]

No one speaks for Islam as a whole. Just like no one speaks for Christianity as a whole. Each division and subdivision has its own theology and religious leaders. There is no "Islamic pope".

I agree with this.
In fact, no-one speaks for all the Sunni Muslims, and non-one speaks for all the Shia Muslims.

And remember that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are a lot closer in beliefs and traditions than many Islamic branches are to each other...

I think that is debatable.

Here's an interview with Tintawi:
http://www.majalla.com/en/interview/article9361.ece

The Mufti of the Shiites in Lebanon has asked me during his visit to Al-Azhar to allow Shiite students from Lebanon to study at Al-Azhar.

http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k8_news/feb/10alazhar_shiastudents.htm

In an unprecedented step, Head of Al-Azhar University (Al-Azhar Sheikh) Dr Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, has agreeed to accept the Shia Lebanese students to study in Al-Azhar University and institutes.

He said that Al-Azhar University teaches its students all Islamic sects, including the Shiite.

Months ago, Sheikh al-Azhar welcomed allowing the Iranian-secondary students to study in Al-Azhar University on the official request of Iran.

Not that I want to confuse the general point, which is that freedom of religion means being able to decide for yourself what is important to your religion. If the Pope himself decides that Catholic Mass is not Christian, then many Catholics should be free to ignore him.


All I am asking is that you produce the evidence that the niqab/burka is tied to religious expression or belief for shiites. Because I have already cited and linked that the head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world very clearly states that the niqab/burka is not tied to religious expression or belief for Sunnis... who make up 85% of the Muslim world.

This is what google turned up, I don't know much about the source:
http://www.livingislam.org/n/vii_e.html

Ayesha (rad.i-Allahu `anha) said: "By Allah, I never saw any women better than the women of the Ansar (i.e. the women of Madina) or stronger in their confirmation of Allah's Book! When Sura al-Nur was revealed -- "and to draw their 'khumur' over their bosoms" (24:31) -- their men went back to them reciting to them what Allah had revealed to them, each man reciting it to his wife, daughter, sister, and relative. Not one woman among them remained except she got up on the spot, tore up her waist-wrap and covered herself from head-to-toe (i`jtajarat) with it. They prayed the very next dawn prayer covered from head to toe (mu`tajirat)."

So, call it a tradition if you like, but women covering themselves up from head to toe goes back a long way in Islam.

Of course, regardless of what Tintawi says, the above could apply to both Sunni and Shia. A part of deciding what is part of Islam is deciding which Hadith to believe. This means almost everything is both part of and not part of Islam, depending on the choices made.


ETA: I see that Osbo beat me to it. Welcome to the forum!

[FireGarden]

Reading through this discussion, it seems that it's a hopeless mission to convince, e.g., Zardoz, that what constitutes religion doesn't stop with scripture, or what esteemed officials say it is, but that religion also extends to traditions that have formed through the centuries. I'll try to take a shot too, nevertheless. :)

Isn't the whole point of freedom of religion that you don't have to kowtow to some authority or other?

[Undesired Walrus]

Nope. I never ever said "a new religion that wrote a new Holy Book mandating..." That's a strawman. What I have been saying repeatedly is that the top guy who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, The Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues all say the niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression. And I have cited and linked their statements.


And I didn't say that you had said that, which makes your accusation of a strawman rather ironic.

You missed my point. If a new religion is created in which the Holy Text mandates in black and white that 'women should be covered from head to toe', does this mean that it is permitted in your world for women to wear the niqab?

[ddt]

I am not "goose stepping" to Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi. But since he runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world I respect his opinion based upon his expertise in the field.
He's a theologian, for God's sake, not a Pope. I mentioned Schillebeeckx before, a prominent RC theologian. He advocated against celibacy. Many Dutch priests followed suit and did marry - e.g. Huub Oosterhuis, who still runs a RC church. Are we now to conclude that celibacy is not part of the RC faith?


I ALSO quoted the statements of the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, and an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues. They too agree with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.
So what? Others disagree. I mentioned a couple. You totally disregarded them. You also have not engaged the argument that Islam - or even Sunni Islam is not a monolithic faith; wahhabis and salafists are Sunnis, but have quite different religious tenets than other Sunnis.

Even within one church, people can differ in their faith.

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Church_in_the_Netherlands) (Dutch: Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, abbreviated PKN) came into being on 1 May 2004 as a merger of the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, NHK), the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, GKN) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden).
So, that's Calvinists and Lutherans in one Church. They have quite differing opinions on, e.g. Communion, and you can't get much more fundamental within Christianity than that.

So could you at last acknowledge that your arguments were flawed?

[funk de fino]

If someone wants to cover their face in public or in the home then the govt has no right to ban it. If it is a security issue at any point then the temporary removal in a discreet manner should be the option.

I mean, it's not like any bunch of idiots has ever tried to ban the kilt....

[osbo]

France has Europe's biggest Muslim community that is estimated to be 5 million. Five thousand of those people practice the salafi form of Islam. Out of those 5,000 people, Le Monde reported last year that only 367 women wear Islamic veils that cover their faces.

Thats a heavy handed response to the very few people that do express their religious freedom this way. Do they really need legislation for fewer than 400 people?

[leftysergeant]

Niqab is not just a tradition, but for a large sect of the Muslim faith, it is a expression of their religious faith.

Qur'an 33:59


Now that is an important verse for the Niqab wearing Muslims. They were brought to that very belief and very specific interpretation of that Qur'an verse by the many Hadith's they were taught in learning their faith.

Shukran. I was looking for that passage, but have misplaced my study notes since the last time I moved.

When revealed to Muhammed, that order was meant to single out the Muslim women, as far as I can tell, to denote that they were not sexually available to unbelievers and, in the specific case of the wives of Muhammed, that they were to be given special deferrence, so as not to become allies or pawns of anyone attempting to subvert the Messenger.

I do not consider the Ahadith to be totally canonical, nor do many Muslims that I have met. Certainly, the Qur'an does not show Muhammed to be infalible. The custom among Muslims, to include the phrase "ins'allah" after every statement in the future tense arises from a case in which the Messenger rashly stated that a revelation on a matter would be forthcoming. God showed him a thing or two.

That some Muslim women choose to wear a particular style of purdah garb where it is not required by law, should not be a matter for mundane law. This goes doubly for France, where one of their founding documents states that all are entitled to their own opinions, "even such as shall be religious."

There are, for many women, good reasons to wear at least the hijab. It is a clear visual signal that they are Muslims. To other Muslims, this is an indication that they should be treated as firends and co-religionists, that they should be given the greeting "salaam aleikum," and that they are not looking to hook up, so men can just forget about that.

(I wonder how many American women would like there to be some badge they could wear that would tell the lounge lizards "I'm not interested," and that it would be automaticly honored.)

I see no justification for outlawing the wearing of the hijab or whatever purdah garments an individual wishes to wear. I would only make it an aggravating circumstance should any Muslim do violence to a Muslim woman for not wearing such garments in a country where Shari'a does not take precedence over mundane law. Nor do I, for that matter, consider it at all apprropriate that Shari'a is sometimes used to force this or several other more extreme religious practices that are not totally backed by the Qur'an.

I would dare go so far as to say that it seems to me that Aesha and Muhammed both let a few odds and ends from older times to slip into the sunna, and perhaps embelished Divine Writ with their own prejudices.

As I say, neither of them were infallible. That is one of the characteristics that distinguish Christianity from Islam.

As oppressive as some Muslim practices seem, the Islam expressed in the Qur'an was very much liberating, in the milieu in which it was handed down. Much of the 4th Surah, entitled, appropriately, "Women" represents probably the earliest codification of the rights of women in the whole of civilization.

Prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, women not only could not inherit and will property or a share of their husband's property on his death, they were their husband's property.

So, my suggestion to Zardoz is that he should really take the time to learn more about Islam in the historic context.

[ZARDOZ]

So, my suggestion to Zardoz is that he should really take the time to learn more about Islam in the historic context.

Here's my take. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi is the top man who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world. He also the Grand Imam of al-Azhar Mosque. So not only does Muhammad run the oldest university in the world - (al-Azhar University) - he is the Grand Imam of one of the oldest mosques in the world - (the Al-Azhar Mosque.)

My guess is Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi doesn't hold these two positions of great influence because he's some no-name, uneducated hack. My guess is that he holds these two positions of great influence because he's a respected and knowledgeable man. So when Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi says he niqab/burka is not a religious form of expression in 2009 I believe him because of his expertise in the field of Muslim religious customs. I don't think I am out of line on that one.

Additionally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqāb

The niqāb is regarded differently by the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhāhib).[5] The issue has continued to arouse debate between Muslim scholars and jurists both past and present concerning whether it is fard (obligatory), mustahabb (highly recommended), or forbidden for a woman to wear niqāb.

So even in the Muslim world there is no real answer either. Seems you guys are right for a percentage of the Muslim population and I am right for a percentage of the Muslim population. So it seems we are all correct in saying the niqab/burka is and is not a religious form of expression. :)

Sound fair?

[Rolfe]

No.

Rolfe.

[ddt]

Here's my take. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi is the top man who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world. He also the Grand Imam of al-Azhar Mosque. So not only does Muhammad run the oldest university in the world - (al-Azhar University) - he is the Grand Imam of one of the oldest mosques in the world - (the Al-Azhar Mosque.)
Your posts resemble a record that's stuck in the same groove. Care to address the points raised by others?


So even in the Muslim world there is no real answer either. Seems you guys are right for a percentage of the Muslim population and I am right for a percentage of the Muslim population. So it seems we are all correct in saying the niqab/burka is and is not a religious form of expression. :)

Sound fair?
No.

I agree with your assessment that some muslims see the burqa as a religious expression - let's call them category A -, and other muslims not - let's call them category B. It's great that you acknowledge that so quickly; we're only 184 posts in this thread, after all.

However, the question is if the women who wear the burqa, do this as a religious expression or not. And those women who wear a burqa - or those who speak on behalf of them - invariably cite religious expression as the justification. They belong to category A. Category B is wholly insignificant to this debate.

Let that sink in: burqas are invariably worn for religious reasons.

So, you're not right after all.

[dudalb]

If someone wants to cover their face in public or in the home then the govt has no right to ban it. If it is a security issue at any point then the temporary removal in a discreet manner should be the option.

I mean, it's not like any bunch of idiots has ever tried to ban the kilt....


And now we all break out in Jacobite songs....:D

[ZARDOZ]

It's great that you acknowledge that so quickly; we're only 184 posts in this thread, after all.

Well it only took 161 posts for someone - osbo - to actually post something RELEVANT to the topic. ;) While on the other hand I was repeatedly linking and posting the expert opinions from the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues and Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.

Just so the record is straight.

I agree with your assessment that some muslims see the burqa as a religious expression - let's call them category A -, and other muslims not - let's call them category B.

So who's right? Catergory A? Or B?

So, you're not right after all.

Oh. I see. Category B people are wrong. And Catergory A people are right. Got it! :D

[Cleon]

So who's right? Catergory A? Or B?

It doesn't matter. That's for them to decide. That's the point of the whole "freedom of religion" thing.

[ANTPogo]

Well it only took 161 posts for someone - osbo - to actually post something RELEVANT to the topic. ;)

He didn't say anything that the rest of us haven't been saying all along.

While on the other hand I was repeatedly linking and posting the expert opinions from the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues and Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.

And, as has been pointed out to you over and over and OVER, he doesn't speak for all Muslims, so his opinion on whether the burqa/niqab is part of any given Muslim's religious expression is utterly and completely irrelevant.

So who's right? Catergory A? Or B?



Oh. I see. Category B people are wrong. And Catergory A people are right. Got it! :D

They're both right! Category A is right when they say the burqa/niqab is part of their religious expression, and Category B is right when they say that the burqa/niqab is not part of their religious expression.

What will it take for you to understand that?

[Sporanox]

Well it only took 161 posts for someone - osbo - to actually post something RELEVANT to the topic. ;)

If you had bothered to get a clue about the sociopolitical structure of Islam, it wouldn't have taken this long. This was what we were trying to get you to understand.

[ddt]

Well it only took 161 posts for someone - osbo - to actually post something RELEVANT to the topic. ;) While on the other hand I was repeatedly linking and posting the expert opinions from the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues and Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.
Still with the broken record, I see. As if you somehow doubted there were also Muslim scholars who do think it's religious expression. That's common knowledge and I can only wonder why you'd even need a cite for that.


Just so the record is straight.
My records are round. I can see your problem. :D


So who's right? Catergory A? Or B?
Sigh. They're both right.


Oh. I see. Category B people are wrong. And Catergory A people are right. Got it! :D
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, or are you deliberately being obtuse? I'll rephrase it. It is irrelevant what all muslims think. It is only relevant what those muslims who actually wear a burqa think. And they consider it religious expression.

[ZARDOZ]

If you had bothered to get a clue about the sociopolitical structure of Islam, it wouldn't have taken this long. This was what we were trying to get you to understand.

Here's what I understand. I take the same position as the expert opinions I linked from the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues and Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the top man who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world.

While you, Cleon, ANTPogo, ddt and others do not. It's really that easy.

And, as has been pointed out to you over and over and OVER, he doesn't speak for all Muslims, so his opinion on whether the burqa/niqab is part of any given Muslim's religious expression is utterly and completely irrelevant.

I disagree. I personally think the man who runs the oldest Muslim University on Earth and nearly the oldest mosque in the world is qualified to render a expert opinion. And since you disagree with him thats 100% fine by me. :)

It doesn't matter. That's for them to decide. That's the point of the whole "freedom of religion" thing.

Well I put the niqab/burka right up there with the Mormon's Magical underwear. I am against marginalizing women, and I also find protecting the marginalization of women under the "freedom of religion" banner personally offensive. And that is my humble opinion. :)

[Sporanox]

While you, Cleon, ANTPogo, ddt and others do not. It's really that easy.

You lost me at what significance this might hold for any point you would want to prove.

[ddt]

Here's what I understand. I take the same position as the expert opinions I linked from the Muslim Canadian Congress, the former head of The Muslim Canadian Congress, an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues and Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the top man who runs the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world.

While you, Cleon, ANTPogo, ddt and others do not. It's really that easy.
Your posts compel me to question either your reading comprehension skills or if you actually read what others post.

It has been mentioned umpteen times that Islam is not a monolithic entity with one single set of rules. Examples have also been given from other faiths, notably Christianity and Judaism, that they aren't either. You have categorically ignored those arguments.

You still play your broken record about Tantawi. It really has gotten more than old.

And no-one of us denies that Tantawi exists, that he holds those views, and that he may be influential in Egypt. There aren't many women wearing burqas or niqabs in Egypt. You'll find them, though, in great numbers, in Saudi, in Kuwait, in Iran, in Afghanistan. Their local religious leaders say it's part of their faith. And you're trying to shove that fact under the carpet by holding up Tantawi as your strawman.

[ZARDOZ]

You still play your broken record about Tantawi. It really has gotten more than old.

Hey I can't help it if you and other people here want to erase the expert opinion from the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt and the oldest Muslim University in the world. I simply can't help you there.

And you're trying to shove that fact under the carpet by holding up Tantawi as your strawman.

Once again I can't help it if you and other people here want to erase the expert opinion from the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt and the oldest Muslim University in the world.

But I did read this...

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/egypt-launches-campaign-against-the-niqab-1.64265

Cairo: In a bid to curb the surge in donning the niqab (a full-face veil), among its female employees, the Ministry of Waqfs (Religious Endowments), has embarked on a controversial campaign to discourage wearing this garb.

"Islam requires women to be decently dressed without obliging them to cover their faces and hands," Abdel Gelil told Gulf News.

"A telling proof is that during the haj (Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia), women are not asked to put on the niqab."


The Religious Endowments Ministry in Egypt also wants to "discourage wearing this garb." Those infidels! Why they are as bad as me! :D

[ddt]

Hey I can't help it if you and other people here want to erase the expert opinion from the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt and the oldest Muslim University in the world. I simply can't help you there.

Once again I can't help it if you and other people here want to erase the expert opinion from the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt and the oldest Muslim University in the world.

I take very much issue with your choice of words. Are you trolling?

[ZARDOZ]

I take very much issue with your choice of words. Are you trolling?

Ahhh. There we go. ddt plays the troll card. Hahahaha... love it. :D

[Newtons Bit]

So it's impossible for a Muslim to disagree with "the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt and the oldest Muslim University in the world"?

[ANTPogo]

I'm going to try putting this to you one more time, ZARDOZ.

The Pope is the head of the single oldest Christian denomination in existence. He and his group of cardinals and theologians can draw on the oldest, most established, and best theological schools in the entire world.

The Mormon denomination, on the other hand, is a lot smaller than the Catholic church in terms of numbers, and much, much more recently established, with a far lesser tradition of theology and Biblical exegesis than the Catholic Church, even though they have a surprisingly large following in the United States.

Both denominations believe that one of the ways they express their faith is through adult baptism, immersing someone in water to represent Christ's cleansing of their sins. There's scriptural support for this, but there's some controversy about whether Christ directly intended and instructed that all Christians be baptized.

However, the Mormons firmly believe that you must be someone over the age of accountability who makes a conscious choice to be baptized, and that infant baptisms are invalid. The Catholics, on the other hand, believe that one may, even should, baptize newborns, and they don't recognize Mormon baptisms as valid (though they accept baptisms as valid when performed by most other protestant denominations). In other words, according to Catholicism, if you've been baptized Mormon, you really haven't been baptized at all. The Mormons, of course, don't accept the Pope as any kind of religious authority at all, so anything he says on the matter is completely ignored by them.

So, take all the above, especially regarding the weight of numbers and theological credentials of the Pope and his Church, especially when he says "Mormon baptisms are not a valid expression of the Christian faith."

Now, I ask you directly, yes or no...do you think, then, that Mormon baptisms can be considered a valid expression of the Christian faith? Or if someone wanted to pass a law banning Mormon baptism, would that be okay because the head of the largest branch of Christianity on the planet and the religious leader who has the most and oldest theological credentials says it's not a valid expression of Christianity and it has no place in any church as far as he's concerned?

[ZARDOZ]

So it's impossible for a Muslim to disagree with "the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt and the oldest Muslim University in the world"?

Not at all. "A Muslim" can disagree with anyone he/she wishes to. I am absolutely clear on that. All I am saying is that the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world probably knows far more about Islam than a bunch of random posters on JREF.

I'm going to try putting this to you one more time, ZARDOZ.

You don't have to. I agreed already that there is no ultimate word in the Muslim world regarding the wearing of the niqab/burka. :)

[Newtons Bit]

Not at all. "A Muslim" can disagree with anyone he/she wishes to. I am absolutely clear on that. All I am saying is that the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world probably knows far more about Islam than a bunch of random posters on JREF.

The Pope is obviously a "better" expert on me on the subject of Christianity. Does that mean he is correct and the form of Lutheranism that I practice is wrong?

[ANTPogo]

All I am saying is that the guy who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world probably knows far more about Islam than a bunch of random posters on JREF.

He may know more about his particular branch of Sunni Islam, but he's no more any kind of authority on Saudi Sunnism or Iraqi Shi'ism than the Pope is an authority on, say Baptism. So when a Baptist makes a theological claim about the brand of Christianity he believes, I should no more care what the Pope thinks about it than I should care what Tantawi thinks about it when a Shia Muslim makes a claim about the brand of Islam he believes.

And neither should you.

You don't have to. I agreed already that there is no ultimate word in the Muslim world regarding the wearing of the niqab/burka. :)

Then why do you keep harping on Tantawi's statements, if you now acknowledge that he's not the ultimate word in the Muslim world regarding the wearing of the niqab/burka? If no one is the ultimate word, then whatever Tantawi has to say on the subject is pretty irrelevant, isn't it?

[ZARDOZ]

He may know more about his particular branch of Sunni Islam, but he's no more any kind of authority on Saudi Sunnism or Iraqi Shi'ism than the Pope is an authority on, say Baptism.

In your opinion. I think he's far more knowledgeable about Islam than people give him credit for here at JREF.

The Pope is obviously a "better" expert on me on the subject of Christianity. Does that mean he is correct and the form of Lutheranism that I practice is wrong?

No. All I am saying is that the Pope knows alot more about Catholicism than a practicing layman. And frankly all I see is a bunch of posters trying to write the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world off... as if he's some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas! ;)

[Newtons Bit]

No. All I am saying is that the Pope knows alot more about Catholicism than a practicing layman. And frankly all I see is a bunch of posters trying to write the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world off... as if he's some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas! ;)

So what you're saying, is that if a group of experts get together and define what is and isn't part of the religion, than the government can use that to declare that something is not part of said religion?

Freedom of Religion and governments declaring what is and isn't YOUR religion are mutually exclusive. I can believe whatever the :rule10 I want. So can everyone else. The government gets no say.

[ANTPogo]

In your opinion. I think he's far more knowledgeable about Islam than people give him credit for here at JREF.

He's knowledgeable about his particular branch of Sunni Islam, something for which I'm happy to give him credit aplently.

However, he's no expert on Shi'ism, or Wahhabism, or Ibadism. So when discussing what each of those branches of Islam believe, Tantawi is less knowledgeable than the ulema of those branches, and therefore his thoughts on their beliefs and religious expressions is irrelevant.

No. All I am saying is that the Pope knows alot more about Catholicism than a practicing layman.

Does he know more about Baptism than a Baptist? Does he know more about Christianity as a whole, to be trusted as an authority on what's a true expression of the Christian religion and what isn't?

Yes or no?

Because you aren't (repeatedly) citing Tantawi as an authority on his branch of Sunni Islam (the equivalent of citing the Pope as the final authority in a discussion about Catholic matters), but as an authority on what is and isn't properly Islam as a whole (the equivalent of citing the Pope as the final authority in a discussion about Christianity as a whole).

And frankly all I see is a bunch of posters trying to write the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world off... as if he's some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas! ;)

Really? Can you link to the thread where you see them? Because I looked, and they sure aren't in this thread.

[Rolfe]

Nobody's record can be stuck in the groove that long.

I think this is turning into a wind-up. :rolleyes:

Rolfe.

[FireGarden]

...frankly all I see is a bunch of posters trying to write the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world off... as if he's some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas! ;)

The point isn't to write him off. I can accept that he is very knowledgable -- even about Shia Islam, let alone the Sunni variety.

The point is that "freedom of religion" does not allow such a man -- no matter that he prove he is omniscient -- to be an authority on how people express their faith. If Tantawi were to prove beyond all doubt that the Niqab is not part of Islam, then Muslims would STILL be permitted to make it part of their religious expression. He would have to convince them individually, rather than make a decree enforced by law.

[FireGarden]

He's knowledgeable about his particular branch of Sunni Islam, something for which I'm happy to give him credit aplently.

However, he's no expert on Shi'ism, or Wahhabism, or Ibadism. So when discussing what each of those branches of Islam believe, Tantawi is less knowledgeable than the ulema of those branches, and therefore his thoughts on their beliefs and religious expressions is irrelevant.

I don't think being knowledgeable is the point. The scholars who have been arguing this point for centuries aren't lacking in knowledge or understanding of the oppossing point of view. They are merely making different choices on which stories to believe/trust and how to interpret them.

And it's a damned good strategy to accept the principle than none of these scholars should get their opinion backed up by law.

[leftysergeant]

And frankly all I see is a bunch of posters trying to write the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world off... as if he's some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas! ;)

Not a bit of it. We are just saying that he is not a definitive authority. There is no such thing in Islam.

Only three major religions or sects in the world have a central authority capable of making decisions and issuing positions that are binding on all followers of the faith, and that would be the Roman Catholic Church, in which the Pope is the final arbiter, the LDS with their Prophets, and the Baha'i World Council of Justice.

You are elevating your Imam to a position that he does not and cannot hold within the Umma.

[ANTPogo]

I don't think being knowledgeable is the point. The scholars who have been arguing this point for centuries aren't lacking in knowledge or understanding of the oppossing point of view. They are merely making different choices on which stories to believe/trust and how to interpret them.

And it's a damned good strategy to accept the principle than none of these scholars should get their opinion backed up by law.

You're absolutely right.

I got derailed by ZARDOZ's interminable obstinacy, even after I saod that I wouldn't. Sorry...

[boyntonstu]

The Pope is obviously a "better" expert on me on the subject of Christianity. Does that mean he is correct and the form of Lutheranism that I practice is wrong?

Back to basics.

Was Martin Luther your role model?

Do you honor his name?

[boyntonstu]

The point isn't to write him off. I can accept that he is very knowledgable -- even about Shia Islam, let alone the Sunni variety.

The point is that "freedom of religion" does not allow such a man -- no matter that he prove he is omniscient -- to be an authority on how people express their faith. If Tantawi were to prove beyond all doubt that the Niqab is not part of Islam, then Muslims would STILL be permitted to make it part of their religious expression. He would have to convince them individually, rather than make a decree enforced by law.


Name a Muslim woman who favors wearing head to toe black garb.

[funk de fino]

Name a Muslim woman who favors wearing head to toe black garb.

Mrs Elsadawi from Libya.

Have you been to a muslim country?

[tsig]

In your opinion. I think he's far more knowledgeable about Islam than people give him credit for here at JREF.



No. All I am saying is that the Pope knows alot more about Catholicism than a practicing layman. And frankly all I see is a bunch of posters trying to write the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world off... as if he's some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas! ;)

Can you tell me the difference between:

"the man who runs the oldest mosque in Egypt, and the oldest Muslim University in the world ..(and).. some arbitrary crack-pot preacher working out of a trailer park in Arkansas!"

Looks to me like they're both drinking the Kool-Aid, just different flavors.

[FireGarden]

Not a bit of it. We are just saying that he is not a definitive authority. There is no such thing in Islam.

I go further. I say even if there was such a thing in Islam, such a person should not have their religious authority backed with the laws of a secular nation.




Name a Muslim woman who favors wearing head to toe black garb.

You're implying that all women who wear the niqab do so because they are forced. Of course, you can't prove that. So prefer to shift the burden of proof.

Maybe this has been linked to before, regarding a Canadian Muslim group's call for a ban on the burka:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/08/canada-muslim-burka-niqb-ban-government.html

At her home in suburban Montreal, Affifa Naz said she chooses to cover her face behind the loose grey veil that leaves only her eyes visible. Anyone who says she's being forced to do it is insulting her intelligence, she added.

Wiki turns up this site:
http://www.muhajabah.com/niqab-stories.htm

Ayesha UmmAmahtullah
http://www.muhajabah.com/my_niqab_story/ayesha_umm.php

I started wearing the head scarf right away [upon converting] and what I thought were Islamically correct clothes. At first I was afraid of what people thought, plus my mother was pressuring me about my religion and the head scarf and wouldn't allow me to wear it, so I moved back with my father who gave me religious freedom and who respects my beliefs, alhamdulilah. I then got a desire to dress more Islamically, One day at the Masjid, I met a woman who was a niqaabi, she donated three jelbabs to me and I was enthralled with her face veil, I had seen women in Saudi Arabia dressed like her and I liked the mysteriousness of them but I didn't understand what they were doing it for Allah.



And, although Manal Omar doesn't cover her face, I'll add this article regarding the burkini:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/apr/20/fashion.religion

Having spent my entire life in the United States, as a veiled Muslim woman I am no stranger to discrimination. In fact, as a child, I grew up in the hardcore territories of the south in the US, known as the Bible belt. Although I faced comments and questions, my personal lifestyle and space never felt invaded. In fact, the churchgoing community I lived in as a child welcomed me, and after my experience in the UK I want to go back to the local priest and kiss him on the forehead for not only preaching about respect but putting it into practice.

Looking back, what disturbed me the most about the debate was that my very identity was reduced to a cluster of cliches about Muslim women. I was painted in broad strokes as an oppressed, unstable Muslim woman. I was made invisible, an object of ridicule and debate, with no opinion or independent thoughts.

[leftysergeant]

Before the idiocy that arouse after 9/11, a lot of Muslim women whom I have known wore the hijab just to let people know that they wanted to make it clear that when they went out, they were not interested in meeting guys for casual sex.

Oddly, there are testosterone-driven fools even in a cosmopolitan city like Tacoma or Seattle who do not get the signifcance of the practice.

So, yes, I can see how some women would find a burqa useful. In the mean time, I think we need to respect their wishes. I do not see it as any of the state's business to deny them the right to wear a garment that so clearly says "Back off, horndog!"

Attaturk outlawed the wearing of many of the more extreme styles of Islamic garb in his attempt to create a secular state and got away with it. But Turkey had just lost a very destructive war and was going through a period of self-criticism that made it worth their while to re-assess what they believed. Turkey had also always been in rather close contact with other cultures around the Mediterranian. He got away with it.

The Shah of Iran tried to do the same thing but, because his people were still confortable with their religious heritage and national identification, the action came back to bite him.

France and the USA have a tradition of honoring religious choice, so long as that choice neither picks the pockets nor breaks the bones of those who do not follow that same choice.

The state's interest, then, my not include outlawing or requiring the wearing of any religious vestment or badge, but must prevent the use of force or violence or ridicule to punish those who choose to wear or not wear them.

[Rolfe]

Name a Muslim woman who favors wearing head to toe black garb.


Aishah Azmi.

Google it.

Rolfe.