French MPs vote to ban full veil

fuck

redrock wrote:

scb wrote:

redrock wrote:

Full covering is not religious.

But there are some women who cover their heads or faces because they believe it is religious, no?

I haven't met any. Those I know cover because if they don't, they will get abuse from their men folk. For them, is self-preservation. This 'tradition' of full covering dates from before Islam.

ah, so your expertise on this subject is based off of "I haven't met any, so it's not religious." I'm glad it's finally been pinpointed out. so all your islamic rulings that you have been giving have been based off of you not meeting anyone who wears it because they believe it is religious - well guess what, I've met several women who wear it because they believe it is religious. Additionally, I know from experience that there are conversations regarding what is required in Islam regarding the veil - is it simply headscarf or full burqa, etc

Instead of looking at France, let's look at Afghanistan for example. Before the Taliban were a force to reckon with, women were quite liberated and the chadri was hardly seen. Since, the Taliban are enforcing their rule to wear it and women who never wore one, now do - for their own safety (not a legal/religious requirement). For the western world, what has happened to women in Afghanistan was seen as a huge step backwards for them - the full covering being a symbol of womens' oppression and one of the obvious signs of the Taliban's suppressive regime. To the other 'extreme' Tunisia has BANNED the wearing of the veil in state institutions, schools, etc (though not in the street). Whereas in countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, etc. women are harrassed if not covered, in Tunisia they can be harrassed if they are. What is right?

haha, "instead of looking at the liberal democracy France, let's look at war-torn afghanistan." how is this applicable? the issue here is that in France, people should have the freedom to wear what they want. I understand that many women are forced to wear it by their husbands and that is wrong, but those who wear it because they want to should be punished now? it's like since women get beaten by their husbands, we should outlaw marriage. Also, either of those cases is wrong. harrassing people in general because they don't follow a certain standard should be considered wrong. also in tunisia did they ban the full burqa, or just a headscarf? if they banned the headscarf that's absolutely wrong, if just the burqa then it's understandable to do it in state institutions to an extent

fuck

redrock wrote:

TA - if the woman wears the burqa ENTIRELY by choice, fair enough. Most of them don't though.

oh? most of them don't? is this again based off of those you've met? since when it is appropriate to start claiming things as fact based off of polling the people you've met.

fuck

Hub. wrote:

redrock wrote:

scb wrote:

But there are some women who cover their heads or faces because they believe it is religious, no?

I haven't met any.

+1

They're a REAL minority.

Generally, they don't choose. Some of them say it's a choice, because they have to agree with men and they can't say the contrary.

My friend Leila (she's French, but her father is Algerian), has been oppressed by him for many years.

And because of her past and the way her mother was treated too, she hates any form of oppression and, to her, the veil is a sign of it.

the veil as in simply a headscarf or the full veil (burqa)? there is a difference.

and those who wear it by choice are a real minority? really? i've met many people who wear the burqa, many of them tell me they do it by choice. that's not to say it's not true that only a real minority do it by choice, maybe i just happened to meet many of them, but i have a hard time just accepting that

fuck

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

catefrances wrote:

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.

i said the Muslim women/girls who cover up by choice. their choice. not because someone has told them to. not because some man expects them to. who are we to tell them what they should or shouldn't do or how they should or should not feel.

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.

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.

_

TriumphantAngel wrote:

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???

Amen!

_

redrock wrote:

scb wrote:

redrock wrote:

Full covering is not religious.

But there are some women who cover their heads or faces because they believe it is religious, no?

I haven't met any. Those I know cover because if they don't, they will get abuse from their men folk. For them, is self-preservation. This 'tradition' of full covering dates from before Islam.

Instead of looking at France, let's look at Afghanistan for example. Before the Taliban were a force to reckon with, women were quite liberated and the chadri was hardly seen. Since, the Taliban are enforcing their rule to wear it and women who never wore one, now do - for their own safety (not a legal/religious requirement). For the western world, what has happened to women in Afghanistan was seen as a huge step backwards for them - the full covering being a symbol of womens' oppression and one of the obvious signs of the Taliban's suppressive regime. To the other 'extreme' Tunisia has BANNED the wearing of the veil in state institutions, schools, etc (though not in the street). Whereas in countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, etc. women are harrassed if not covered, in Tunisia they can be harrassed if they are. What is right?

I think we're not looking at this from the same perspective. I know there are misogynist cultures, with which i disagree, that more or less force women to cover themselves. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about women who chose to cover themselves, for whatever reason. I could have sworn for some of them it was religious, but I'll have to double-check. Regardless, I think women should be able to wear whatever they want to wear. So neither Afghanistan or Tunisia are right, in my opinion. (Maybe we are talking about the same thing. )

redrock

redrock wrote:

Again, they can express their religious observations. Full covering is not religious.

_outlaw wrote:

this is getting ridiculous. Ayatollah Redrock has now ruled that full covering is not religious. Thank you Mr Ayatollah for your islamic ruling

:roll: you're getting a bit flippant here. It's a fact. As the Qur'an does not dictate the wearing of the burqa (or other similar garments) in order to follow the faith it is not necessary for religious observation (as opposed to the wearing of the daastar which is mandatory). Simple. Should women with to define the wearing of this kind of garment as religious, that is fine.

Egypt may seem OK on the surface, but it has changed in the past 15 years or so and you can see it in the streets. I'm white (very!) but tan easily. Because of my features, as my tan gets darker, I have been 'mistaken' as a 'native' and have definitely been treated differently at the end of my stay where it was not obvious I was not from their country. Also, though the constitution, though is does say equal rights for both and no discrimination, women are still under a male dominated/controlled system - for example, they still can't travel abroad without their husband's permission (by law), some professions are still out of bounds for the (by law), etc.

This article describes some of the noticeable changes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... tism-women

Shall I rephrase North Africa and say Maghreb (though it means the same thing) to clarify that my knowledge of North Africa did not specifically include Egypt (though I have visited the country several times).

redrock

_outlaw wrote:

oh? most of them don't? is this again based off of those you've met? since when it is appropriate to start claiming things as fact based off of polling the people you've met.

If you cared to read outlaw, this is what I said:
"Looking at women's rights, all I know is what I have seen and heard from the women I worked with (none of which covered themselves willingly or knew of others covering themselves willingly), what I have personally experienced in muslim countries and what my very good arab female friends have experienced in so-called progressive muslim countries. I'm very aware that similar issues exist in non muslim countries (change burqa to mini skirt for example, keep the oppression/abuse from fathers/husbands, etc.) but in those cases, there are laws to protect the women."

These women were not just women I 'met' or polled - you are being very dismissive of the hardship these women suffer (yes, suffer). They were women from extremely traditional households having major issues with adapting in Belgium. As I said before, what they were experiencing were paramount to domestic abuse (for which we have laws against) but were deemed perfectly natural from the men in the family. These weren't off the cuff conversations, the women were followed for months on end and stories told were similar.

EDIT: I would also like to add that these women were not seeking help (in secret) for themselves as they had sort of accepted their fate many years ago, but primarily for their daughters so they did not have to live the way their mother did (think how it is for, all of a sudden, an 11/12 year old not being able to go out like she did before but have to cover herself from head to toe, knowing it could be for life, on top of the 'servitude' the womenfolk are under). They also did it for their sons, hoping they could 'break the cycle'.

redrock

scb wrote:

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.

fuck

redrock wrote:

redrock wrote:

Again, they can express their religious observations. Full covering is not religious.

_outlaw wrote:

this is getting ridiculous. Ayatollah Redrock has now ruled that full covering is not religious. Thank you Mr Ayatollah for your islamic ruling

:roll: you're getting a bit flippant here. It's a fact. As the Qur'an does not dictate the wearing of the burqa (or other similar garments) in order to follow the faith it is not necessary for religious observation (as opposed to the wearing of the daastar which is mandatory). Simple. Should women with to define the wearing of this kind of garment as religious, that is fine.

I don't know where you're getting this information from but actually 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. some contend that it simply means the covering up of the body, others that it includes the face. additionally, I believe one of Muhammad's wives wore a burqa, which is why it became a religious symbol and some people argue that it is religiously obligatory. i personally disagree and think it doesn't make any sense. but my point is if others believe it, who am I to say that they can't wear it? 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.

Egypt may seem OK on the surface, but it has changed in the past 15 years or so and you can see it in the streets. I'm white (very!) but tan easily. Because of my features, as my tan gets darker, I have been 'mistaken' as a 'native' and have definitely been treated differently at the end of my stay where it was not obvious I was not from their country. Also, though the constitution, though is does say equal rights for both and no discrimination, women are still under a male dominated/controlled system - for example, they still can't travel abroad without their husband's permission (by law), some professions are still out of bounds for the (by law), etc.

This article describes some of the noticeable changes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... tism-women

Shall I rephrase North Africa and say Maghreb (though it means the same thing) to clarify that my knowledge of North Africa did not specifically include Egypt (though I have visited the country several times).

I lived in Egypt for a year and have visited several times and I disagree with the article. The first paragraph claims "It's no secret that in Egypt religious conservatism is growing. The only people denying this fact are the conservatives themselves, who tell us that we are on a path to hell in blind imitation of the west." it's funny that because I deny this I'm considered a conservative when in reality I'm nothing close to what you'd consider religious. but it actually is becoming super westernized, I was just in Egypt a few weeks ago and went out with a bunch of people I knew there, including girls, and we were not harassed or anything. in fact, I saw many men and women out together. this is not to suggest that there is not any oppression going on in Egypt - there are certainly religious people who are less tolerant of that and I'm sure some women face discrimination. but this is largely exaggerated (Egypt is nothing like, for example, Saudi Arabia where fucking even movie theaters are banned and women can't drive)... I also have a lot more issues with the article that I won't get into right now, but a lot of it is definitely exaggerated instances (for example with the al-Azhar imam who said niqab had nothing to do with Islam, much of the controversy surrounding this issue was not simply what he said but the fact that he went up to a girl wearing it and ripped it off her face....)

regardless, my main issue with the discussion of arab countries is I don't see how this should affect women's freedom to wear the burqa in France. western people may see it as a symbol of oppression but I think this is a very ignorant way of looking at things. if you want to liberate women then western governments should stop supporting the dictatorial regimes in the middle east rather than force women to have to remove something some of them chose to wear. 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).

redrock

_outlaw wrote:

.... 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.

_outlaw wrote:

....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.

_outlaw wrote:

..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.

cincybearcat

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.

fuck

redrock wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

.... 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.....

_outlaw wrote:

....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.

_outlaw wrote:

..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

fuck

anyway i feel like we're going in circles here, i think we covered most of the arguments so i'll refrain from responding next...

mikepegg44

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

redrock

_outlaw wrote:

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.

_outlaw wrote:

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?

_outlaw wrote:

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.

catscheller

redrock wrote:

scb wrote:

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!

_

redrock wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

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?

redrock

catscheller wrote:

redrock wrote:

scb wrote:

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'm moving!

cincybearcat

redrock wrote:

catscheller wrote:

redrock wrote:

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.