French burka ban proposal riles Muslims

[ironsides]

CBC News - World - French burka ban proposal riles Muslims



They argue that it's all about protecting women from being oppressed and being told what to wear.... yet what they're doing is oppressing & dictating what women can and can't wear, how much of their skin is exposed, etc.

Kind of ironic when I don't remember them ever actually asking the women in question what they thought or even if they're wearing them by their own free will as an adult..... or if they even have men in their lives whom could tell them what to wear or not.

In extremist places that follow Islam, sure I bet some men are forcing women to wear them.... but most moderates I've seen interviewed who wear them in western civilizations said they wear them by their own choice and free will and like the fact that they don't have to deck themselves out in makeup and such when they want to head out somewhere, in order to impress strangers on the street when it's none of their concern how they look. They don't have to worry about men heckling them or checking them out on the streets, which we all know us men do from time to time.

So when can we expect the same dress codes being applied to other religious groups like the Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nuns, Priests, Rabbis, etc.?

Of course it never once surprised me that something like this half-brained idea would come from Sarkozy.... he's a womanizing pig anyways, married a super model, constantly caught in photo opts checking women out.... if he had his way, he'd have France setup like the Feringi Homeworld where all women must be naked at all times and banned from wearing clothes.

Sarkozy is protecting women from oppression? Sounds like he's protecting his right to have women to check out and oogle.

And the whole argument on security and people hiding bombs under burqas is so baseless and stupid, it's not even funny.

To bad.

 

[Scott Free]

BTW, a couple small bombs could be enough to cause a massive panic in a stadium resulting in more people being killed and injured than a larger bomb in one spot.

Bombs can be hidden anywhere and look like anything. You going to pull apart every camera, phone, shoe, etc.?

So we should just ignore big bombs? Or that many bombs are more likely to be discovered than one big bomb? Or that hiding bombs in burkas is a preferred method for muslims? Or that if a new method is discovered it too should be addressed? Or are we simply to bury our heads in the sand until we have to accept the Mudhound at knife point?

Anyway, searching burkas won't do much. Idiots will simply choose a different method of transporting bombs.

Not if the idiot liberals have their way.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

To bad.

Actually they still have to worry. Under the Taliban, women were whipped if their shoes made a sound when they walked. they were whipped if the wind blew their chadri and 'exposed' their bodies.
And quite frankly, why should they be whipped for providing 'temptation' to men? Why aren't the men being whipped for being so damned weak that they can't control themselves?

 

[Colpy]

If you are referring to Sikhism, dagger is a religious requirement for them, as is turban. In their Holy Book, Granth Sahib, it is written that Sikhs must carry five things with them all the time, the five ‘k’s. Dagger, turban, hair, a bracelet and a comb (they all apparently start with a ‘k’ in their language).

That is why the courts in Canada ruled in their favor, both for turban and kirpan. I think the courts were right to do so. However, when it comes to veil, nowhere in Koran does it say that women must wear a veil. As such, veil is a cultural symbol, and not a religious requirement. So if a country wishes to ban veil, that is their right and nobody’s business.

Yep, and in the Holy Book of the Order of the High Power it is written that adherents must always carry 43 things........a Browning High Power 9mm pistol, 3 magazines, and 39 115 grain hollowpoints.

And the ancient common law right of going armed is much much much older than the Sikh religion.

Actually they still have to worry. Under the Taliban, women were whipped if their shoes made a sound when they walked. they were whipped if the wind blew their chadri and 'exposed' their bodies.
And quite frankly, why should they be whipped for providing 'temptation' to men? Why aren't the men being whipped for being so damned weak that they can't control themselves?

BINGO!

The burka is a symbol of extreme oppression.

 

[AnnaG]

So we should just ignore big bombs? Or that many bombs are more likely to be discovered than one big bomb? Or that hiding bombs in burkas is a preferred method for muslims? Or that if a new method is discovered it too should be addressed? Or are we simply to bury our heads in the sand until we have to accept the Mudhound at knife point?

Nope. But if we panic and see the boogeyman around every corner, under every bed, in every shadow, in nooks, and in crannies, what good is freedom?

Not if the idiot liberals have their way.

Yeah, bombers are idiots. They see the newspaper article about checking burkas so they'll be loading up every burka in sight with bombs.

Just wondering, when was the last time someone wearing a burka exploded a device in a stadium here?

BINGO!

The burka is a symbol of extreme oppression.

You ol lech, you. You just wanna see us all run around nekkid. lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So a Burka and being naked are the same thing?

They may be equally disgusting to some people, Avro.

Are you saying that a government can ban anything it wants?

This sounds a lot like the helmet law, or the seat belt law.

Government can ban anything it wants provided people support it, and provided it does not violate the constitution.

It was a requirement added in 1699, from what I understand.

You may be right, I am not that familiar with Sikhism. But the point is that it was added to Granth Sahib, and kirpan, turban etc. from an integral part of Sikhism. Same cannot be said of Islam and burka.

Anyway, Sikhism is a fairly recent religion, so modifications to it also may be fairly recent.

Seems to work here just fine.

I see no evidence to the contrary.

Quite so, Avro. I am a strong supporter of multiculturalism. But this is an internal matter for the French to decide (since it does not impinge upon anybody's religious freedom). If they tried to pass such a law in Canada, I probably would be opposed to it.

However, I cannot condemn the French for the law. They are not restricting anybody's religious freedom, so this is an internal matter for them to decide, and nobody's business.

 

[TenPenny]

You may be right, I am not that familiar with Sikhism. But the point is that it was added to Granth Sahib, and kirpan, turban etc. from an integral part of Sikhism. Same cannot be said of Islam and burka.

Anyway, Sikhism is a fairly recent religion, so modifications to it also may be fairly recent.

You are not that familiar with it, but you seem to consider yourself an expert. And it's a fairly recent religion, so it's okay, whereas anything Islamic doesn't count.

Credibility approaching negative numbers, captain.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are not that familiar with it, but you seem to consider yourself an expert. And it's a fairly recent religion, so it's okay, whereas anything Islamic doesn't count.

Credibility approaching negative numbers, captain.

I may not know a lot about Sikhism, but what I said here is accurate enough. Kirpan and turban are in integral part of Sikhism. The same cannot be said for Islam and the veil.

That is why courts were so sympathetic to Sikhs in the issue of kirpan and turban. I don't think they will be so sympathetic to Muslims when it comes to the veil.

 

[TenPenny]

I may not know a lot about Sikhism, but what I said here is accurate enough. Kirpan and turban are in integral part of Sikhism. The same cannot be said for Islam and the veil.

Kirpan and turban are an integral part of Sikhism because a religious leader decided they were.

Some religious leaders claim the veil is an integral part of Islam.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Kirpan and turban are an integral part of Sikhism because a religious leader decided they were.

Some religious leaders claim the veil is an integral part of Islam.

Again, you miss the point. Some religious leader may have decided that kirpan and turban are integral to Sikhism, but it is also written in their Holy Book.

What a religious leader says doesn't matter, what is written in the Holy Book does. So a religious leader claiming that veil is an integral part of Islam means nothing. Osama Ben laden claims that terrorism is an integral part of Islam, that doesn't make it so.

The fact is, Koran says nothing about veil, while Granth Sahib specifically mentions that kirpan and turban are an integral part of sick religion.

 

[AnnaG]

Kirpan and turban are an integral part of Sikhism because a religious leader decided they were.

Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th guru of Sikhism, to be exact.

Some religious leaders claim the veil is an integral part of Islam.

Quite a few to be exact. Notice the word "advise" here:

"The Qur'an advises the wives of the Prophet (SAS) to go veiled (33: 59).​

In Surah 24: 31(Ayah), the Qur'an advises women to cover their "adornments" from strangers outside the family. In the traditional and modern Arab societies women at home dress quite differently compared to what they wear in the streets. In this verse of the Qur'an, it refers to the institution of a new public modesty rather than veiling the face. " - Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D. That has been twisted to mean women must wear veils because the Quran says so.
​

Again, you miss the point. Some religious leader may have decided that kirpan and turban are integral to Sikhism, but it is also written in their Holy Book.

Why didn't the 9 previous gurus declare that? I think you'd better show us what their book says.

What a religious leader says doesn't matter, what is written in the Holy Book does. So a religious leader claiming that veil is an integral part of Islam means nothing.

A whole lot of Muslims would disagree with you.

Osama Ben laden claims that terrorism is an integral part of Islam, that doesn't make it so.

Is he a religious leader?

The fact is, Koran says nothing about veil,

I just posted from the Quran proving you wrong.

while Granth Sahib specifically mentions that kirpan and turban are an integral part of sick religion.

But is it from their book or just from Guru Gobind Singh?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th guru of Sikhism, to be exact.

Quite a few to be exact. Notice the word "advise" here:

The Qur'an advises the wives of the Prophet (SAS) to go veiled (33: 59).​

In Surah 24: 31(Ayah), the Qur'an advises women to cover their "adornments" from strangers outside the family. In the traditional and modern Arab societies women at home dress quite differently compared to what they wear in the streets. In this verse of the Qur'an, it refers to the institution of a new public modesty rather than veiling the face. That has been twisted to mean women must wear veils because the Quran says so.
​

Quite so, all Koran says is htat women must dress modestly. That is why veil does not have the same degree of protection as turban or kirpan does. Interfering with turban or kirpan means that a society is interfering with freedom of religion of the Sikhs, while banning veil does not curtail the freedom of religion of Muslims.

And now, I really must take leave of the forum, temporarily. We are off to Iceland tomorrow for two weeks, back on 27th. I will try to post a few photos when I return.

Happy blogging.

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so, all Koran says is htat women must dress modestly.

NO! WRONG! IT advises women to dress modestly in public. You can't tell the difference between "advises" and "must"? That's sad.

We are off to Iceland tomorrow for two weeks Happy blogging.

Have fun. Try to learn stuff rather than trying to convert reality to your POV. k?

 

[Mowich]

I beg to differ here. What is happening over there and in England we will have to face here . If we are not careful which is getting late , we will have to put our foot down and make laws like that .

To some extent, your province already has, Bart.

Have any of you ever considered the FACT that is just fashionable and the women choose to wear them?

Good point, petros. In the National Post article by Peter Worthington " France attacks oppressive burqas" he states - ‘it is a growing cultural fad among converts to Islam, who regard the full veil as testament to their pious commitment to their new faith.’

Mandatory isn't as common as most think and it's only mandatory in public. In Saudi Arabi LaSenza is the most popular store for women. If you knew what they wore under the outdoor gear your jaws would drop.

That would not surprise me in the least, petros.

 

[Bar Sinister]

In a way banning the burqua is a natural reaction from Western states, given the fact that many Muslim states demand that Western women visiting their countries suffer the same restrictions as their own women do. In fact many Muslim nations treat their own women so poorly that when Queen Elizabeth visited the Middle East a few years ago she was man an honourary man.

 

[Colpy]

You ol lech, you. You just wanna see us all run around nekkid. lol

True True....but beside the point.

 

[TenPenny]

Again, you miss the point. Some religious leader may have decided that kirpan and turban are integral to Sikhism, but it is also written in their Holy Book.

What a religious leader says doesn't matter, what is written in the Holy Book does. So a religious leader claiming that veil is an integral part of Islam means nothing. Osama Ben laden claims that terrorism is an integral part of Islam, that doesn't make it so.

The fact is, Koran says nothing about veil, while Granth Sahib specifically mentions that kirpan and turban are an integral part of sick religion.

Again, you miss my point, but I'm not surprised.

A religious leader in 1655 decided to make those requirements to Sikhism, and subsequently, they were written down. Sure, they're in the Granth Sahib, but only because someone decided to make those changes.
By the way, I don't think there's any need to call it a 'sick' religion.

Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons.

 

[Colpy]

Sorry, but I don't see how multiculturalism adds to any of that.

Immigration does though....are you agianst that?

...beacuse that's a different topic.

From the Toronto Star, no less!

Multiculturalism muffles ?honour killing? criticism - thestar.com

 

[CDNBear]

I find it humourous, that people that appear as though they would have supported the burning of bra's, the emancipation of women, and the rise of female equality, would support the oppression and forced segregation of women through the burqa.

The burqa serves no purpose to but to facilitate the oppression of women, remove the responsibility of men, and proliferate misogyny. It has no religious foundation, above the declaration of a man, claiming to be in touch with Allah, and stems from the belief that women are inferior and lesser than.

It may very well be part of a cultural identity, but it is an abhorrent and archaic part. It is as ignorant as female circumcision, honour killings and segregation.

Anyone that supports its existence in any form, IMHO, is morally and ethically bankrupt.

 

[petros]

I find it humourous, that people that appear as though they would have supported the burning of bra's, would support the oppression of women through the burqa.

The burqa serves no purpose to but to facilitate the oppression of women, remove the responsibility of men, and proliferate misogyny.

It may very well be part of a cultural identity, but it is an abhorrent and archaic part. It is as ignorant as female circumcision, honour killings and segregation.

Anyone that supports its existence in any form, IMHO, is morally and ethically bankrupt.

And that goes for any religion that suppresses rights whether Heredy Heebs, Hutterites, Mennonite, Islam, Mormon etc etc etc