Islam, Law, and the Niqab

[Colpy]

Recently, courts have been considering whether an Islamic witness in court must remove her niqab........so the court can judge the truth of her statements by seeing her face, and the accused is granted the right to face his accuser.

No need to explain my stand on the question!

But here is the view of a Muslim woman....it was a surprise:

Canadian courts must face down Islamism’s niqab - The Globe and Mail

 

[Machjo]

I agree. I've read the Qur'an myself and though there is one verse which, if interpreted literally could suggest total covering, has throughout Muslim history never been interpreted that way by the majority of Muslims, and though I don't know the subtleties of the wording in Arabic, it would seem that most Muslims at least reject the literal interpretation.

I guess it's similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses insisting that they not take blood because Jesus said not to take another's blood, which most Christians take as an expression meaning to murder, not literally meaning to take a blood transfusion.

It's essentially a parallel issue but within a separate religious community.

 

[Cliffy]

Well written and intelligent which most fundamentalists of any religion are not. If we are to have a multi cultural society, we do need to be tolerant but to bow to the whims of the lunatic fringes is put the rest of society in danger of repressive laws. I have no problem with women who choose to cover their faces as long as it doesn't interfere with the execution of the law. I mean, how ridiculous is it to have a photo on a driver's license if the face is covered? It is heartening to see that not all Muslims are fundamentalists as the media has been portraying.

 

[Colpy]

Another woman of principle fighting medieval madness......

CBC News - Canada - The nomad who is Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

[Avro]

Speaking of madness....

In a stunning development, Aqsa Parvez’s father and her youngest brother admitted on Tuesday they strangled her in her bedroom.
Muhammad Parvez, 60, and son Waqas, 29, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the 16-year-old Mississauga high school student’s death on the morning of Dec. 10, 2007.
But whose bare hands were around the Grade 11 student's neck remains unknown.
In pleading guilty, neither the father nor the son took sole blame for the murder, admitting only that they both were responsible for causing the neck compressions that led to her death.
Aqsa's blood was on Muhammad's hands when he was arrested after he called 911 and confessed to using his hands to murder his youngest daughter, according to the agreed statement filed as an exhibit in a Brampton courtroom.
DNA results also showed Waqas's DNA was under Aqsa's right hand finger nails, court was told.
At the time, Aqsa’s death sent shock waves through the GTA prompting heated debate on the hijab, the challenges of integration for newcomers, and whether or not her death was the GTA’s first crime of honour or a horrible case of domestic violence.

 

[ironsides]

Well written and intelligent which most fundamentalists of any religion are not. If we are to have a multi cultural society, we do need to be tolerant but to bow to the whims of the lunatic fringes is put the rest of society in danger of repressive laws. I have no problem with women who choose to cover their faces as long as it doesn't interfere with the execution of the law. I mean, how ridiculous is it to have a photo on a driver's license if the face is covered?

Or a beauty contest..

Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma


Oklahoma is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban state judges from relying on Islamic law known as Sharia when deciding cases.

 

[shadowshiv]

Speaking of madness....

In a stunning development, Aqsa Parvez’s father and her youngest brother admitted on Tuesday they strangled her in her bedroom.
Muhammad Parvez, 60, and son Waqas, 29, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the 16-year-old Mississauga high school student’s death on the morning of Dec. 10, 2007.
But whose bare hands were around the Grade 11 student's neck remains unknown.
In pleading guilty, neither the father nor the son took sole blame for the murder, admitting only that they both were responsible for causing the neck compressions that led to her death.
Aqsa's blood was on Muhammad's hands when he was arrested after he called 911 and confessed to using his hands to murder his youngest daughter, according to the agreed statement filed as an exhibit in a Brampton courtroom.
DNA results also showed Waqas's DNA was under Aqsa's right hand finger nails, court was told.
At the time, Aqsa’s death sent shock waves through the GTA prompting heated debate on the hijab, the challenges of integration for newcomers, and whether or not her death was the GTA’s first crime of honour or a horrible case of domestic violence.

That crime is really disheartening. Killing your daughter because she "dishonoured" you? I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING honourable about that killing at all. I hope that those two scumwads get a long sentence in jail, and hopefully that would make the next jackass that wants to try something like this to think again. 25 years in jail would be a nice start.

Recently, courts have been considering whether an Islamic witness in court must remove her niqab........so the court can judge the truth of her statements by seeing her face, and the accused is granted the right to face his accuser.

No need to explain my stand on the question!

But here is the view of a Muslim woman....it was a surprise:

Canadian courts must face down Islamism’s niqab - The Globe and Mail

It is a telling sign when the 'comments' section has been disabled for that article.8O

 

[spaminator]

Mississauga dad in jail for daughter's honour killing dies | Toronto & GTA | New

 

[gopher]

belly dancer wears niqab:

 

[Remington1]

Banning Sharia should not be necessary, what sense does it make to have more than one law for all? This is sheer nonsense.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Banning Sharia should not be necessary,

It isn't. Sharia doesn't control anything in the U.S. or Canada.

what sense does it make to have more than one law for all? This is sheer nonsense.

Well, gotta have a different law for college athletes, rich-kid rapists, an Wall Street bankers. Aside from that, I'm OK with one law for all. Are you aware of someplace that doesn't have that?