.... the Qur'an mandates the wearing of a khimar for women. khimar is a word that is interpreted in many ways by Islamic scholars. most agree that it means headscarf.also your argument that because the burqa/hijab were around before Islam it is not religious falls flat as well because of that line in the Qur'an, and because of its religious significance in Islamic history in general.
Yes, the Qur'an requires modesty.. "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands..."... Basically, cover up 'hidden gems', ie sexualised parts of the body.
....also your argument that because the burqa/hijab were around before Islam it is not religious falls flat as well because of that line in the Qur'an, and because of its religious significance in Islamic history in general.
That as well is a fact. References to fully veiled arab women predate Islam. I had to google, but here is a reference: Tertullian, The Viling of the Virgins, 200AD: "..Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
Strabo, writing in the first century AD, also refers to covering the face as a practice of some Persian women (Geography 11.13. 9-10).
Now Mohamed's wives... Yes, he did demand they cover up to 'protect' them. He had his wives in seclusion, even more so as he conducted his affairs next to his home and people were coming and going all the time. "And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs." During his life, no other women veiled their faces.
..and i absolutely agree that it is wrong for a man to force his wife or female relative to wear the burqa, and that part of the law should absolutely stay (though 'force' should be made more apparent by exactly what they mean so there are no loopholes).
"Article 2
Est puni de deux mois d’emprisonnement et 15 000 € d’amende la violation du principe mentionné à l’article 1er. Est puni de la même peine l’incitation à violer ledit principe.." The law is for all face covering. In any type of face covering, it would be difficult to prove that someone 'incited' another person to cover up. It will be even more difficult for the women as they will not speak up.
Ok, people should be able to wear what they want, in most cases.
That said, all these religious books that give dress codes???? Seriously???? If you need any more reason to believe that it was written (or changed) by "man" in order to control and govern the masses than I'm not sure what to tell you.
.... the Qur'an mandates the wearing of a khimar for women. khimar is a word that is interpreted in many ways by Islamic scholars. most agree that it means headscarf.also your argument that because the burqa/hijab were around before Islam it is not religious falls flat as well because of that line in the Qur'an, and because of its religious significance in Islamic history in general.
Yes, the Qur'an requires modesty.. "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands..."... Basically, cover up 'hidden gems', ie sexualised parts of the body.
the part where it says draw their veils over their bosoms. the word used is 'khimar'.... you just ignored my entire argument and pulled up some random translation, but like I said, people translate it differently.....
....also your argument that because the burqa/hijab were around before Islam it is not religious falls flat as well because of that line in the Qur'an, and because of its religious significance in Islamic history in general.
That as well is a fact. References to fully veiled arab women predate Islam. I had to google, but here is a reference: Tertullian, The Viling of the Virgins, 200AD: "..Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
Strabo, writing in the first century AD, also refers to covering the face as a practice of some Persian women (Geography 11.13. 9-10).
I know it's a fact, I was saying that just because people wore it before Islam does not make it any less significant in Islam....
Now Mohamed's wives... Yes, he did demand they cover up to 'protect' them. He had his wives in seclusion, even more so as he conducted his affairs next to his home and people were coming and going all the time. "And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs." During his life, no other women veiled their faces.
I'm not sure you can make the claim that no other women veiled their faces during his life, but my point was that because some of wives covered their faces (actually I believe only one wore the actual burqa, the rest wore headscarves), people see that and use it as justification... you see this is starting a whole discussion about what is constituted mandatory in Islam, which I could get into and point out all the different angles here, but you still don't address the issue that it is not our place to tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. we can certainly discuss it with other people of course on an individual basis, but to ban this is not justified on the grounds that 'it's not religious so it's ok' or whatever. i know that's not the main argument, but you and several other people in this thread have used that to deflect the argument that this has targeted religious expression and it's simply a wrong argument.
..and i absolutely agree that it is wrong for a man to force his wife or female relative to wear the burqa, and that part of the law should absolutely stay (though 'force' should be made more apparent by exactly what they mean so there are no loopholes).
"Article 2
Est puni de deux mois d’emprisonnement et 15 000 € d’amende la violation du principe mentionné à l’article 1er. Est puni de la même peine l’incitation à violer ledit principe.." The law is for all face covering. In any type of face covering, it would be difficult to prove that someone 'incited' another person to cover up. It will be even more difficult for the women as they will not speak up.
I agree and this presents an issue but it does not justify forcing women who choose to wear this to take it off
the more people allow legislation that controls the every day lives of the governed, the more people will feel like revolting. It is far more dangerous to try to control every aspect of the masses lives through legislation than it is to wear a fucking burqa.
Government officials will never get it. they will never understand that people would be happier if they were just left alone to live how they choose
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the part where it says draw their veils over their bosoms. the word used is 'khimar'.... you just ignored my entire argument and pulled up some random translation, but like I said, people translate it differently.....
OK.. I used a different word - semantics. Let's use khimar. Description on how the khimar is to be worn:
" here are specific descriptions given in the tafasir of how exactly Allah SWT has commanded the khimar to be worn:
Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi: "Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar."
Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir: "'Draw their khumur to cover their bosoms' means that they should wear the khimar in such a way that they cover their chests so that they will be different from the women of the jahiliyyah who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests uncovered and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered."
From the above we can see that the khimar covered the hair, but left the forehead, ears, neck, and upper chest uncovered. When Allah SWT commanded the women to draw their khimars to cover their bosoms, the women were to draw the ends of the khimar forward and fasten it so that their foreheads, ears, necks, and upper chests were covered. This does not mention the covering of the face.
I'm not sure you can make the claim that no other women veiled their faces during his life, but my point was that because some of wives covered their faces (actually I believe only one wore the actual burqa, the rest wore headscarves), people see that and use it as justification...
From what I understand, during his lifetime, this 'privilege' was reserved for his wives. Without wanting to be disrespectful, Mohamed was also a pedophile (a 6 year old betrothed to him, marriage consumed aged 9).. do we use this as justification?
but you still don't address the issue that it is not our place to tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. we can certainly discuss it with other people of course on an individual basis, but to ban this is not justified on the grounds that 'it's not religious so it's ok' or whatever. i know that's not the main argument, but you and several other people in this thread have used that to deflect the argument that this has targeted religious expression and it's simply a wrong argument..
I have addressed the issue in previous posts. I have also stated what the actual proposed law is for ALL face covering though it does seem to specifically target certain people. There are already laws banning the wearing of overt religious apparel in state institutions, schools, hospitals, etc. It would be so much easier for France if the burqa/niqab was defined as religious apparel.
Regardless, I think women should be able to wear whatever they want to wear.
I believe women should legally be able to go topless as men can. But there is legislation against that.
You should be glad to know, then, in Columbus Ohio women are allowed to go topless in public. I have personally never exercised this right, but I could if I wanted to!
the identification issue has been discussed, so apart from that, what about the Muslim women who wear the veil by choice in their normal day to day activities. what should we tell them?
that they are deluded? that they lack the ability to make this decision for themselves because they have been brainwashed? that they are simply aiding in their own oppression? that laws like this are designed to "liberate" them?
the fact is that this law denies women the right to choose what they wear, and isn't that every bit as wrong as men denying women the right to choose what they wear???
The Qur'an requires modest dress equally from men and women (should we be looking at the religious requirements).
TA - if the woman wears the burqa ENTIRELY by choice, fair enough. Most of them don't though.
Well, there's choice and then there's choice, right? So what about the women who choose to wear it because they're oppressed? Do I want women to be oppressed? Absolutely not. But I still don't know that it's right to forbid them from wearing it.
As a probably poor analogy, let's consider the case of women in abuse relationships. Many women choose to stay in abusive relationships. I'm not blaming the victim by any means; I realize they usually choose to stay because they don't feel like they have a choice, but that's why I think it's somewhat analogous to women who cover themselves because they are oppressed. Anyway, should we pass a law saying all women who are abused must leave their partners? I don't think we can do that. I think we have to give women all the tools we possibly can to have other choices and recognize them, but then I think we have to trust them to do what they think is best, when they are ready to do it. And I think forcing a woman to get out of an oppressive situation is oppressive in itself. Ya know?
Regardless, I think women should be able to wear whatever they want to wear.
I believe women should legally be able to go topless as men can. But there is legislation against that.
You should be glad to know, then, in Columbus Ohio women are allowed to go topless in public. I have personally never exercised this right, but I could if I wanted to!
I believe women should legally be able to go topless as men can. But there is legislation against that.
You should be glad to know, then, in Columbus Ohio women are allowed to go topless in public. I have personally never exercised this right, but I could if I wanted to!
I'm moving!
Believe me, it's not worth living in that shit hole just to see those uglies.
You should be glad to know, then, in Columbus Ohio women are allowed to go topless in public. I have personally never exercised this right, but I could if I wanted to!
I'm moving!
Believe me, it's not worth living in that shit hole just to see those uglies.
I'm a woman. My uglies would be joining the others Really though, I wouldn't impose that on anyone!
the part where it says draw their veils over their bosoms. the word used is 'khimar'.... you just ignored my entire argument and pulled up some random translation, but like I said, people translate it differently.....
OK.. I used a different word - semantics. Let's use khimar. Description on how the khimar is to be worn:
" here are specific descriptions given in the tafasir of how exactly Allah SWT has commanded the khimar to be worn:
Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi: "Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar."
Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir: "'Draw their khumur to cover their bosoms' means that they should wear the khimar in such a way that they cover their chests so that they will be different from the women of the jahiliyyah who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests uncovered and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered."
From the above we can see that the khimar covered the hair, but left the forehead, ears, neck, and upper chest uncovered. When Allah SWT commanded the women to draw their khimars to cover their bosoms, the women were to draw the ends of the khimar forward and fasten it so that their foreheads, ears, necks, and upper chests were covered. This does not mention the covering of the face.
I know I said I wouldn't respond, I just wanted to point out that I completely agree with you here. I've said this before. However, if other people believe it to be differently then who are we to say otherwise?
Interesting but let me comment on a couple of points relating to France and it's laïcité
2. The special case of France. I did not discuss France in my piece, but since some readers did, let me comment. The French policy of laïcité does indeed lead to restrictions on a wide range of religious manifestations, all in the name of a total separation of church and state. But if one looks closely, the restrictions are unequal and discriminatory. The school dress code forbids the Muslim headscarf and the Jewish yarmulke, along with “large” Christian crosses. But this is a totally unequal burden, because the first two items of clothing are religiously obligatory for observant members of those religions, and the third is not: Christians are under no religious obligation to wear any cross, much less a “large” one. So there is discrimination inherent in the French system.
The two first items are obligatory during worship/prayer but not obligatory to wear at all times. Being secular, schools do not have prayer time, therefore the first two items would not be necessary. Just like the law banning full face covering, this law is very general as well. It does not specifically mention any of the 'religious manifestations'. The one little article in the 'Code de l'Education' is: "Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit." That's it.
Would French secularism be acceptable if practiced in an even-handed way? According to U.S. constitutional law, government may not favor religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. For example, it was unconstitutional for the University of Virginia to announce that it would use student fees to fund all other student organizations (political, environmental, and so forth) but not the religious clubs (Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U. S. 819 (1995)). I must say that I prefer this balanced policy to French laïcité; I think it is fairer to religious people. Separation is not total, even in France: thus, a fire in a burning church would still be put out by the public fire department; churches still get the use of the public water supply and the public sewer system. Still, the amount and type of separation that the French system mandates, while understandable historically, looks unfair in the light of the principles I have defended.
The fact that churches still get to use public services is because when the law on the separation of church and state in 1905 came into effect, churches (and other existing places of worship) became
property of the local government (or something similar) who undertook to take care of these buildings. This was no longer the case after.
by choice? bwahahahahaha. what choice would that be??? the choice supposedly laid out in the quran, is that the choice you speak of???? if you think that 'someone' has not 'told' them whether or not to cover up then im afraid youre as deluded as they are. ýou did notice you said MUSLIM women/girls, right? in this context choice is oxymoronic.
no, you said they're deluded, and the reason they need to cover up is to stop the temptation of men. i said some women choose. it's not always about men not being able to handle a bit of skin..to use your words....
ok then tell me why do women çhoose to cover up??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
your intolerance to religion is very apparent, no need to make it any more so. and your arrogant way in making yourself 'better' than these women is extremely disrespectful and borderline racist (by saying 'they're deluded' because they have a certain belief you don't agree with, which implies that you think you are superior to them). if you don't like it that's fine but to deny others the right to express is inappropriate. by denying certain women who choose to wear this the right to, or by calling them 'deluded' because they choose to (and yes it is a choice, just like religion itself is a choice), you're no better than the men who force certain other women to wear these things against their will.
your intolerance to religion is very apparent, no need to make it any more so. and your arrogant way in making yourself 'better' than these women is extremely disrespectful and borderline racist (by saying 'they're deluded' because they have a certain belief you don't agree with, which implies that you think you are superior to them). if you don't like it that's fine but to deny others the right to express is inappropriate. by denying certain women who choose to wear this the right to, or by calling them 'deluded' because they choose to (and yes it is a choice, just like religion itself is a choice), you're no better than the men who force certain other women to wear these things against their will.
my intolerance of religion has never been a secret here on the board. nor is it in my everyday life. and how can i be racist, borderline or otherwise, against people whom i consider to be of my own race???
i do not consider myself to be superior to these women because they çhoose to cover up. i consider it deluded that it is thought it is a choice whether to or not when it is ingrained within their religion. how much of a choice is it really when youve grown up with it from the day you were born???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think it's completely disrespectful and condescending to suggest that any woman who chooses to cover up is not thinking for herself. Plus it's just not true.
I also think there are no facts when it comes to religion - there are only interpretations - so it is not our or anyone else's place to tell a woman who has chosen to cover up because of her religious beliefs that she is not covering up for religious reasons. If it is her intention to follow her religion and she thinks her religion wants her to cover up, then she is covering up for religious purposes - whether or not her religion actually dictates that she cover up.
Personally, I know several intelligent, modern, free-thinking, American women - feminists even - who chose to cover themselves for religious reasons. And I respect them and their decisions. And I think everyone else should too.
I think it's completely disrespectful and condescending to suggest that any woman who chooses to cover up is not thinking for herself. Plus it's just not true.
I also think there are no facts when it comes to religion - there are only interpretations - so it is not our or anyone else's place to tell a woman who has chosen to cover up because of her religious beliefs that she is not covering up for religious reasons. If it is her intention to follow her religion and she thinks her religion wants her to cover up, then she is covering up for religious purposes - whether or not her religion actually dictates that she cover up.
Personally, I know several intelligent, modern, free-thinking, American women - feminists even - who chose to cover themselves for religious reasons. And I respect them and their decisions. And I think everyone else should too.
^^^^^
this.
and as for the notion that all women who cover their heads or faces are a sorry, oppressed, and pitiful bunch of humanity. well, if this is the case then there really shouldn't be so many millions of victims of domestic violence in the US or anywhere else in the world for that matter, in homes which do not follow Islam. should there?
“I kept losing things or leaving them behind,” she said. “But it’s like when you first put on high heels or a bra. It’s not the most comfortable thing, but there’s a purpose, and you believe that purpose outweighs the discomfort.”
What a great article! Do you mind if I ask the source? (I only ask because I live near these sisters.)
Also, I particularly like the quote above. Fantastic analogy! I think the same argument could be made about bras and heels - that they are worn for men and are oppressive to women. I think I'm going to start a movement to ban bras and heels!!
I think it's completely disrespectful and condescending to suggest that any woman who chooses to cover up is not thinking for herself. Plus it's just not true.
I also think there are no facts when it comes to religion - there are only interpretations - so it is not our or anyone else's place to tell a woman who has chosen to cover up because of her religious beliefs that she is not covering up for religious reasons. If it is her intention to follow her religion and she thinks her religion wants her to cover up, then she is covering up for religious purposes - whether or not her religion actually dictates that she cover up.
Personally, I know several intelligent, modern, free-thinking, American women - feminists even - who chose to cover themselves for religious reasons. And I respect them and their decisions. And I think everyone else should too.
i understand all that however my problem lies with religion. it always has.
and please do not tell me who i should have respect for. respect is earned not given freely due to someones actions. and definitely not because they choose to follow religion. if your so called intelligent modern free thinking feminist friends can not see religion as the misogynist doctrine it is that is not my problem.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
“I kept losing things or leaving them behind,” she said. “But it’s like when you first put on high heels or a bra. It’s not the most comfortable thing, but there’s a purpose, and you believe that purpose outweighs the discomfort.”
What a great article! Do you mind if I ask the source? (I only ask because I live near these sisters.)
Also, I particularly like the quote above. Fantastic analogy! I think the same argument could be made about bras and heels - that they are worn for men and are oppressive to women. I think I'm going to start a movement to ban bras and heels!!
i am a no shoes girl whenever i can get away with it! i hate heels!
I think it's completely disrespectful and condescending to suggest that any woman who chooses to cover up is not thinking for herself. Plus it's just not true.
I also think there are no facts when it comes to religion - there are only interpretations - so it is not our or anyone else's place to tell a woman who has chosen to cover up because of her religious beliefs that she is not covering up for religious reasons. If it is her intention to follow her religion and she thinks her religion wants her to cover up, then she is covering up for religious purposes - whether or not her religion actually dictates that she cover up.
Personally, I know several intelligent, modern, free-thinking, American women - feminists even - who chose to cover themselves for religious reasons. And I respect them and their decisions. And I think everyone else should too.
i understand all that however my problem lies with religion. it always has.
and please do not tell me who i should have respect for. respect is earned not given freely due to someones actions. and definitely not because they choose to follow religion. if your so called intelligent modern free thinking feminist friends can not see religion as the misogynist doctrine it is that is not my problem.
You should have respect for all people cate - especially those who are not harming anyone.
“I kept losing things or leaving them behind,” she said. “But it’s like when you first put on high heels or a bra. It’s not the most comfortable thing, but there’s a purpose, and you believe that purpose outweighs the discomfort.”
What a great article! Do you mind if I ask the source? (I only ask because I live near these sisters.)
Also, I particularly like the quote above. Fantastic analogy! I think the same argument could be made about bras and heels - that they are worn for men and are oppressive to women. I think I'm going to start a movement to ban bras and heels!!
i am a no shoes girl whenever i can get away with it! i hate heels!
I think it's completely disrespectful and condescending to suggest that any woman who chooses to cover up is not thinking for herself. Plus it's just not true.
I also think there are no facts when it comes to religion - there are only interpretations - so it is not our or anyone else's place to tell a woman who has chosen to cover up because of her religious beliefs that she is not covering up for religious reasons. If it is her intention to follow her religion and she thinks her religion wants her to cover up, then she is covering up for religious purposes - whether or not her religion actually dictates that she cover up.
Personally, I know several intelligent, modern, free-thinking, American women - feminists even - who chose to cover themselves for religious reasons. And I respect them and their decisions. And I think everyone else should too.
i understand all that however my problem lies with religion. it always has.
and please do not tell me who i should have respect for. respect is earned not given freely due to someones actions. and definitely not because they choose to follow religion. if your so called intelligent modern free thinking feminist friends can not see religion as the misogynist doctrine it is that is not my problem.
You should have respect for all people cate - especially those who are not harming anyone.
even hitler???
define harm.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I know I said I wouldn't respond, I just wanted to point out that I completely agree with you here. I've said this before. However, if other people believe it to be differently then who are we to say otherwise?
Each and everyone can have their interpretation. I was raised a catholic - my mother made sure I was dressed appropriately when I went to church, ie head covered (yep... some kind of dainty lil' triangular veil/scarf), shoulders covered and not too short dress/skirt). Did she have the same considerations when I was not in a place of worship? Nope (and thank god she didn't when we lived in Hawaii and it was bloody hot!). Now some very conservative (and generally older) staunch catholics will still keep this dress code outside of church and deem it part of what their religion requires. Same kind of thing with the women to say they wear the burqa/niqab for religious observation. It's not a requirement, it's the interpretation they give to their faith.
Laws cannot cater for each individual, they work on the most commonly agreed base point. Maybe for religions it would be what the 'higher' people in each religion dictate - I don't know who has authority for those decisions. But if the 'good books' in the various religions say cover up in places of worship but you don't have to outside and the top guys agree on that, then that's what the lawmakers will look at. Not each person's thoughts on how they wish to see things.
From a purely legislative point of view, there is a 'cut off' point. No different than the £1 or $1 that puts you into the higher tax bracket. That extra £1 or $1 may make you worse off and cause hardship but you cannot argue your individual issue - it's a blanket decision. There are numerous laws that end up targeting a certain part of the population (some against women, others the elderly, etc) whether intentional or not.
Once again, this law does not mention any islamic dress but is valid for all items that hide the face and it is based on security. And before people respond by saying it's aimed at specific 'dress', please check out posts where I have addressed this. I am speaking purely from a legislative point of view, not a more emotional one. This law already exists in Belgium, somewhat in The Netherlands, locally in various parts of Italy, etc.
the identification issue has been discussed, so apart from that, what about the Muslim women who wear the veil by choice in their normal day to day activities. what should we tell them?
that they are deluded? that they lack the ability to make this decision for themselves because they have been brainwashed? that they are simply aiding in their own oppression? that laws like this are designed to "liberate" them?
the fact is that this law denies women the right to choose what they wear, and isn't that every bit as wrong as men denying women the right to choose what they wear???
yes theyre deluded. the reason they need to cover up is to stop the temptation of men. when are we going to stop kowtowing to this kind of bullshit. if men cant handle a bit of skin then lets deal with THEM, lets not make women cover up to satisfy some stupid men and their lack of control, ok??? women have to stand up for themselves and say , you know what guys?? it is not acceptable that we are made to cover up cause yuo cant control your urges. and dont get me started on the religious aspect of this bullshit.
men should have to walk around with a cardboard box on their head
Comments
Yes, the Qur'an requires modesty.. "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands..."... Basically, cover up 'hidden gems', ie sexualised parts of the body.
That as well is a fact. References to fully veiled arab women predate Islam. I had to google, but here is a reference: Tertullian, The Viling of the Virgins, 200AD: "..Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."
Strabo, writing in the first century AD, also refers to covering the face as a practice of some Persian women (Geography 11.13. 9-10).
Now Mohamed's wives... Yes, he did demand they cover up to 'protect' them. He had his wives in seclusion, even more so as he conducted his affairs next to his home and people were coming and going all the time. "And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs." During his life, no other women veiled their faces.
"Article 2
Est puni de deux mois d’emprisonnement et 15 000 € d’amende la violation du principe mentionné à l’article 1er. Est puni de la même peine l’incitation à violer ledit principe.." The law is for all face covering. In any type of face covering, it would be difficult to prove that someone 'incited' another person to cover up. It will be even more difficult for the women as they will not speak up.
That said, all these religious books that give dress codes???? Seriously???? If you need any more reason to believe that it was written (or changed) by "man" in order to control and govern the masses than I'm not sure what to tell you.
I'm not sure you can make the claim that no other women veiled their faces during his life, but my point was that because some of wives covered their faces (actually I believe only one wore the actual burqa, the rest wore headscarves), people see that and use it as justification... you see this is starting a whole discussion about what is constituted mandatory in Islam, which I could get into and point out all the different angles here, but you still don't address the issue that it is not our place to tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. we can certainly discuss it with other people of course on an individual basis, but to ban this is not justified on the grounds that 'it's not religious so it's ok' or whatever. i know that's not the main argument, but you and several other people in this thread have used that to deflect the argument that this has targeted religious expression and it's simply a wrong argument.
I agree and this presents an issue but it does not justify forcing women who choose to wear this to take it off
Government officials will never get it. they will never understand that people would be happier if they were just left alone to live how they choose
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
OK.. I used a different word - semantics. Let's use khimar. Description on how the khimar is to be worn:
" here are specific descriptions given in the tafasir of how exactly Allah SWT has commanded the khimar to be worn:
Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi: "Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar."
Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir: "'Draw their khumur to cover their bosoms' means that they should wear the khimar in such a way that they cover their chests so that they will be different from the women of the jahiliyyah who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests uncovered and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered."
From the above we can see that the khimar covered the hair, but left the forehead, ears, neck, and upper chest uncovered. When Allah SWT commanded the women to draw their khimars to cover their bosoms, the women were to draw the ends of the khimar forward and fasten it so that their foreheads, ears, necks, and upper chests were covered. This does not mention the covering of the face.
From what I understand, during his lifetime, this 'privilege' was reserved for his wives. Without wanting to be disrespectful, Mohamed was also a pedophile (a 6 year old betrothed to him, marriage consumed aged 9).. do we use this as justification?
I have addressed the issue in previous posts. I have also stated what the actual proposed law is for ALL face covering though it does seem to specifically target certain people. There are already laws banning the wearing of overt religious apparel in state institutions, schools, hospitals, etc. It would be so much easier for France if the burqa/niqab was defined as religious apparel.
You should be glad to know, then, in Columbus Ohio women are allowed to go topless in public. I have personally never exercised this right, but I could if I wanted to!
Columbus, OH 5/6/10
Cincinnati, OH 10/1/14
Well, there's choice and then there's choice, right? So what about the women who choose to wear it because they're oppressed? Do I want women to be oppressed? Absolutely not. But I still don't know that it's right to forbid them from wearing it.
As a probably poor analogy, let's consider the case of women in abuse relationships. Many women choose to stay in abusive relationships. I'm not blaming the victim by any means; I realize they usually choose to stay because they don't feel like they have a choice, but that's why I think it's somewhat analogous to women who cover themselves because they are oppressed. Anyway, should we pass a law saying all women who are abused must leave their partners? I don't think we can do that. I think we have to give women all the tools we possibly can to have other choices and recognize them, but then I think we have to trust them to do what they think is best, when they are ready to do it. And I think forcing a woman to get out of an oppressive situation is oppressive in itself. Ya know?
I'm moving!
Believe me, it's not worth living in that shit hole just to see those uglies.
I'm a woman. My uglies would be joining the others
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... ef=opinion
Interesting but let me comment on a couple of points relating to France and it's laïcité
2. The special case of France. I did not discuss France in my piece, but since some readers did, let me comment. The French policy of laïcité does indeed lead to restrictions on a wide range of religious manifestations, all in the name of a total separation of church and state. But if one looks closely, the restrictions are unequal and discriminatory. The school dress code forbids the Muslim headscarf and the Jewish yarmulke, along with “large” Christian crosses. But this is a totally unequal burden, because the first two items of clothing are religiously obligatory for observant members of those religions, and the third is not: Christians are under no religious obligation to wear any cross, much less a “large” one. So there is discrimination inherent in the French system.
The two first items are obligatory during worship/prayer but not obligatory to wear at all times. Being secular, schools do not have prayer time, therefore the first two items would not be necessary. Just like the law banning full face covering, this law is very general as well. It does not specifically mention any of the 'religious manifestations'. The one little article in the 'Code de l'Education' is: "Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit." That's it.
Would French secularism be acceptable if practiced in an even-handed way? According to U.S. constitutional law, government may not favor religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. For example, it was unconstitutional for the University of Virginia to announce that it would use student fees to fund all other student organizations (political, environmental, and so forth) but not the religious clubs (Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U. S. 819 (1995)). I must say that I prefer this balanced policy to French laïcité; I think it is fairer to religious people. Separation is not total, even in France: thus, a fire in a burning church would still be put out by the public fire department; churches still get the use of the public water supply and the public sewer system. Still, the amount and type of separation that the French system mandates, while understandable historically, looks unfair in the light of the principles I have defended.
The fact that churches still get to use public services is because when the law on the separation of church and state in 1905 came into effect, churches (and other existing places of worship) became
property of the local government (or something similar) who undertook to take care of these buildings. This was no longer the case after.
ok then tell me why do women çhoose to cover up??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
+1
What he said.
Well I oppose that legislation too.
my intolerance of religion has never been a secret here on the board. nor is it in my everyday life. and how can i be racist, borderline or otherwise, against people whom i consider to be of my own race???
i do not consider myself to be superior to these women because they çhoose to cover up. i consider it deluded that it is thought it is a choice whether to or not when it is ingrained within their religion. how much of a choice is it really when youve grown up with it from the day you were born???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I also think there are no facts when it comes to religion - there are only interpretations - so it is not our or anyone else's place to tell a woman who has chosen to cover up because of her religious beliefs that she is not covering up for religious reasons. If it is her intention to follow her religion and she thinks her religion wants her to cover up, then she is covering up for religious purposes - whether or not her religion actually dictates that she cover up.
Personally, I know several intelligent, modern, free-thinking, American women - feminists even - who chose to cover themselves for religious reasons. And I respect them and their decisions. And I think everyone else should too.
this.
and as for the notion that all women who cover their heads or faces are a sorry, oppressed, and pitiful bunch of humanity. well, if this is the case then there really shouldn't be so many millions of victims of domestic violence in the US or anywhere else in the world for that matter, in homes which do not follow Islam. should there?
What a great article! Do you mind if I ask the source? (I only ask because I live near these sisters.)
Also, I particularly like the quote above. Fantastic analogy! I think the same argument could be made about bras and heels - that they are worn for men and are oppressive to women. I think I'm going to start a movement to ban bras and heels!!
i understand all that however my problem lies with religion. it always has.
and please do not tell me who i should have respect for. respect is earned not given freely due to someones actions. and definitely not because they choose to follow religion. if your so called intelligent modern free thinking feminist friends can not see religion as the misogynist doctrine it is that is not my problem.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashi ... gewanted=1
You should have respect for all people cate - especially those who are not harming anyone.
Me too! And a no bra girl. I hate bras! They really are oppressive. :evil:
even hitler???
define harm.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's a whole other thread.
Each and everyone can have their interpretation. I was raised a catholic - my mother made sure I was dressed appropriately when I went to church, ie head covered (yep... some kind of dainty lil' triangular veil/scarf), shoulders covered and not too short dress/skirt). Did she have the same considerations when I was not in a place of worship? Nope (and thank god she didn't when we lived in Hawaii and it was bloody hot!). Now some very conservative (and generally older) staunch catholics will still keep this dress code outside of church and deem it part of what their religion requires. Same kind of thing with the women to say they wear the burqa/niqab for religious observation. It's not a requirement, it's the interpretation they give to their faith.
Laws cannot cater for each individual, they work on the most commonly agreed base point. Maybe for religions it would be what the 'higher' people in each religion dictate - I don't know who has authority for those decisions. But if the 'good books' in the various religions say cover up in places of worship but you don't have to outside and the top guys agree on that, then that's what the lawmakers will look at. Not each person's thoughts on how they wish to see things.
From a purely legislative point of view, there is a 'cut off' point. No different than the £1 or $1 that puts you into the higher tax bracket. That extra £1 or $1 may make you worse off and cause hardship but you cannot argue your individual issue - it's a blanket decision. There are numerous laws that end up targeting a certain part of the population (some against women, others the elderly, etc) whether intentional or not.
Once again, this law does not mention any islamic dress but is valid for all items that hide the face and it is based on security. And before people respond by saying it's aimed at specific 'dress', please check out posts where I have addressed this. I am speaking purely from a legislative point of view, not a more emotional one. This law already exists in Belgium, somewhat in The Netherlands, locally in various parts of Italy, etc.