If Islam is so innocuous and Islamic immigrants are so compatible with Western European society then there would be no need to ban Islamic hijab headscarf wearing by teachers and students in European schools. Yet French President Jacques Chirac told a group of secondary school students in Tunis Tunisia that headscarfs and veils are "aggressive".
Jacques Chirac hinted strongly yesterday that France will soon introduce legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to school, saying most French people saw "something aggressive" in the veil and that the secular state could not tolerate "ostentatious signs of religious proselytism".
Chirac says the behavior of a small minority can create problems for the rest of society.
"In our public schools, a veil has something aggressive about it which presents a problem of principle, even if only a small minority wears it."
A government commission appointed by President Jacques Chirac recommended Thursday, December11 , issuing new law to ban "conspicuous" religious signs, including Hijab, in state schools.
A source in the20 -member commission, chaired by former minister Bernard Stasi, told IslamOnline.net that the50 -page made no reference to a specific religious sign to avoid antagonizing the Muslim or any other minority.
Bernard Stasi sees a threat that may destabilize the republic.
But he added: "We must be lucid -- there are in France some behaviors which cannot be tolerated. There are without any doubt forces in France which are seeking to destabilize the republic and it is time for the republic to react."
Well geez Bernard, if the threat is that big shouldn't you be doing more than just banning headscarves? How about something bolder like stopping the influx of Islamic immigrants and the deportation of illegal immigrants currently in France?
UPI Religious Affairs Editor Uwe Siemon-Netto provides some interesting insights into the headscarf debate including the fact that Muslims may choose to attend Christian schools in order to be able to wear headscarves.
France also has an extensive private school system, run mainly by the Catholic Church, where such a law would presumably not apply. This means that if it is adopted, children from strictly Islamic families might flock even more Christian schools, where veiled Muslim girls are already a frequent sight.
Clearly fearing that Christian and Jewish symbols, though usually more discreet than the "hidjab," will also be threatened, the leaders of the Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches warned against such legislation in a joint statement prior to Thursday's announcement; they were joined by grand rabbi Sitruk.
Saida Kada, co-author of a book defending hijab headscarf wearing, says headscarf wearing is a religious matter that has nothing to do with politics.
Mrs. Kada said hijab has nothing to do with politics, but is one of the rules of the Islamic faith.
She underlined that hijab was being used as a pretext to paper over some social ills inside the French society.
Here we start to get to the heart of the matter. Mrs. Kada strikes me as either naive or disingenuous. Islam is all about politics. An Islamic matter is a political matter because Islam does not separate the political sphere from religious sphere.
French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter sees headscarfs as a threat to equality for women.
"If we allow women to wear headscarves in state schools, then the republic and French democracy have made clear their religious tolerance but they have given up on any equality of the sexes in our country," says French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter
One fear is that if headscarves are allowed eventually fundamentalist male Islamists will start punishing any girls and women who do not wear them.
Many prominent French women have signed a petition for a ban on the headscarf.
DOZENS of prominent French women, including the actresses Emmanuelle Béart and Isabelle Adjani and the designer Sonia Rykiel, have issued a plea to Jacques Chirac, the president, to ban traditional Muslim veils as a "visible symbol of the submission of women".
The petition, which was signed by more than 60 of France’s most influential women and published in this week’s edition of French Elle, attacks the Islamic headscarf as "an intolerable discrimination against women" and calls for a law to reinforce the principle of a "lay" republic.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy favors appeasement.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has long opposed such a law, arguing that any ban would increase, rather than reduce, militancy among Muslims.
So Sarkozy is worried about Islamic militancy and opts for appeasement as the preferred response. Sorry Mr. Sarkozy, appeasement is not a solution that works in the long run.
Two German states are moving to ban Islamic headscarfs in schools.
Bavaria, after Baden-Wuerttemberg, is the second state to propose a ban.
Bavarian Education Minister Monika Hohlmeier said the headscarf was increasingly used as a political symbol.
"With this law, we are defending pupils against a potential fundamentalist influence and are respecting the wishes of the majority of parents," she said.
Christian and Jewish symbols are not included in the ban.
The Germans are not trying to pretend for the sake of an appearance of even-handed fairness, that Christian or Jewish religious symbols pose a similar threat.
Meanwhile, the battle over headscarfs continues in Turkey.
To Mazlumder, an Islamic human rights group that campaigns on behalf of women like Yilmaz, such figures are misleading. Worse, the military and police are putting pressure on women not to cover themselves, said Gulden Sonmez, the vice president of the group's Istanbul office.
Clashes between covered women and Turkish authorities have propelled the issue into the public eye. The Turkish president refused to invite the head scarf-wearing wives of Turkey's ruling party to a reception Oct. 29 commemorating modern Turkey's 80th anniversary. Most of the party's members stayed away in protest.
On Nov. 6, a female lawyer who appeared as a defendant before the Turkish Court of Appeals was ordered to leave the courtroom while her case was being heard because she refused to remove her scarf.
If Turkey is accepted as a member of the European Union my guess is that eventually a future Turkish government will relax and eventually do away with headscarf bans.
Update: For those who do not understand why the head scarf debate should even be a political issue decided by governments see some of my previous posts: John Tierney On Cousin Marriage As Reform Obstacle In Iraq, Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development, and Muslim Hijab Worn To Protect Females As Property.
Update II: Stasi special commission secretary Remy Schwartz says Muslim girls are pressured into wearing the veil by fundamentalist Muslims.
Schwartz said Muslim girls said they were pressured into wearing veils by family and "outside groups" - a reference to activists officials say are promoting strict religious practices among French Muslims, who are of mostly North African origin.
Schwartz also says that Jewish children have had to leave some French public schools out of fear of their safety.
French chief rabbi Joseph Sitruk advises young French Jewish men to not wear yarmulkes in public in order to avoid being attacked.
"I ask them to replace the yarmulke with the baseball cap," he told Radio Shalom on Monday.
The official spin on the anti-Jewish attacks in France is absurd.
At five million and 650,000 respectively, France has the largest Muslim and Jewish communities in Europe, and government officials and most Jewish leaders argue that the rising inter-community tensions are almost invariably the consequence of political, rather than religious or racial, differences.
Police and court records show that almost all the perpetrators of the latest anti-semitic attacks are young Muslims.
How can the differences be only political and not racial or religious? Would these young Muslims be attacking Jews if the Muslims were not Muslims? Are there Christian immigrants to France who are attacking Jews? In Islam the political is religious.
Update III: The wearing of veils and chadors in France is not voluntary for many Muslim women.
The commission reported that many public schools have become cultural hot spots where Muslim students and families question the authority of women educators, forbid girls to play sports, assault Jewish students and disrupt classes about historical issues such as the Holocaust.
Personnel in public hospitals told the commission about Muslim men demanding that only women doctors treat their wives and daughters, and about other patients, whose ethnicity was not identified in the report, refusing to be treated by doctors "because of their perceived religion," according to the report.
The report described an alarming rise in sexist abuse of girls in schools and housing projects where young men, threatening ostracism and violence, intimidate girls into wearing veils and other religious garb. Islamic extremism — Chirac referred Wednesday to "fanaticism gaining ground"— contributes to a vicious cycle of discrimination and alienation of jobless youths of Muslim descent, who retreat into the refuge of hard-core Islam, according to the report.
...
"They say that if the youth weren't so aggressive, it wouldn't have come to this," the intelligence official said. "You have more and more girls wearing veils or chadors. And it's not their parents, it's their brothers who are demanding that they put it on."
People who think the headscarf/veil issue is just a matter of individual choice versus state power are missing the oppression of Muslim females by Muslim males.
The US State Department is predictably clueless about the problem the French are wrestling with.
Where people "are peacefully practising their faith, is it really necessary to be outlawing their manifestation of their own faith?" John Hanford, the US ambassador at large for international religious freedom, asked.
"Where people are wearing these with no provocation simply as a manifestation of their own heartfelt beliefs, we don't see where this causes divisions among peoples," he said.
Writing for the New York Times Christopher Caldwell sees the headscarf debate as a consequence of a larger set of problems with Muslims in France.
Last year, the sociologist Emmanuel Brenner assembled a 200-page book, "The Lost Territories of the Republic,'' recounting dozens of incidents in which students directed ethnic slurs at their teachers and ridiculed lectures on the Holocaust. The book reportedly made a deep impression on Mr. Chirac. A half-dozen Jewish institutions have been burned to the ground, most recently in November, when an Orthodox primary school was torched in Gagny, a Paris suburb.
Jews are eventually going to have to leave France if the Muslim population in France continues to increase.
By Randall Parker at 2003 December 11 02:24 PM Clash Of Civilizations | TrackBackI wonder whether France will ban those fish symbols that say Linux inside them...
Even though I'm not a fan of religion, the free speech implications are revolting. So what if someone is wearing a necklace with a crucifix on it or a woman wants to wear a yard of cloth over her head? As long as they're not badgering people and minding their own business, who cares what they wear.
Posted by: Reptoid on December 11, 2003 08:54 PMReptoid, One fear is that if some women are allowed to wear headscarves then, as I stated in my post, other women will be pressured and even attacked for not wearing them. This fear keeps many women covered in Afghanistan among other places. The head scarf issue is so important that Ataturk banned them in Turkey decades ago in order to create a secular society there.
Posted by: Randall Parker on December 11, 2003 10:24 PMI hadn't thought about how such a law could actually liberate people from oppression, even though some part of me still finds the law scary. Wish I would've had that example about Ataturk when I had to defend Plato's argument that it's better to have a "philosopher king" than a democracy. Oh well, the chaos of democracy, even a half-assed one, is better than having society micro-managed by some all powerful control freak.
Posted by: Reptoid on December 12, 2003 03:41 AMWhat nonsense.
How does one make the argument that the Hijab is a political statement? It is very clearly an Islamic injunction.
Besides, the point of secularization is to prevent the mixing of religion in the LAWS of the country not to prevent any particular religious group from wearing whatever they see fit as their mandated Hijab. To follow this logic, why does not Frannce deconstruct Churches, Synagogues and Mosques, not to mention Hindu temples, Sikh gudwara's....the list goes on.
And who the hell asked those French women what THEY think about what the Hijab is - THEY are promoting the "Hijab is subjugation of Islamic women" by speaking on behalf of a community that is being ignored. The Muslim women in French are highly educated. They can speak for themselves and they overwhelming majority of them WANT the Hijab. Why do you say "freedom" on one hand and the with the other you impose upon them what YOU think is better for them? So who's doing the subjugation?
As for the silly argument that Muslim "fundamentalists" would punish girls/women who do not wear it - get real. That is ILLEGAL in France and those women have recourse to the law to prevent such actions.
It seems that the issue is more than the Hijab, it is indeed only a pretext. What benefit does any country get from banning the Hijab? I thought we want to rid the bigotry of thought - that girls should not be educated etc.
Seems like French will prevent the education of girls in the public sphere. Sounds much akin to the Taleban than western democracy!
Good points, Abu Mujahid. If major schools of Islamic thought separated secular from religious matters, you'd have a winning argument.
As it is, your thoughts about the hijab will mean most to those who are ignorant of the challenges that fundamentalist Islamists intend to pose to secular, Enlightenment-based societies. Your words will also be taken at face value by the well-meaning if naive accomodationists who are unwilling to face the implications of these issues. Fortunately, that leaves you with a large and receptive audience in Western Europe and North America. Given your screen name--Abu-nom-de-guerre honorific; Mujahid-mujahedin, holy warrior--I suppose you know all that.
Here's a year-old article by Theodore Dalrymple that describes social conditions in the suburbs outside France's major cities, inhabited by angry and unassimilated North Africans: "The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris."
Posted by: AMac on December 12, 2003 06:20 AMHoly Warrior,
Islamic injunctions are political injunctions and will remain so until Islam overwhelmingly embraces ecumenism and takes the enlightened position that secular law remains separate from and reigns over religion in the temporal world. Until that seemingly distant time, the Hijab will remain a political statement.
Recourse to the law will not protect a young woman before her mother beats her, her uncle rapes her or her brother kills her. Your suggestion is asinine. Sure, the police may investigate the crime (if ever reported,) and they may even achieve a conviction inspite of the family's attempts to impede justice. Not even a conviction, however, will unbeat, unrape or unkill the young woman.
Secular public education serves a number of functions including the provision of a safe environment for youth. While I believe in freedom of speech, I have no objection to placing limits on that right within a limited context--especially within a context limited to the care of minors. Adults enjoy many rights that children and youths simply lack, and I see no problem with this at all. Children and youths are not emotionally or cognitively prepared for the responsibilities or consents required by some rights enjoyed by adults.
If France and Germany resemble the other western democracies, I suspect that private religious schools must still meet certain curricular standards. Thus, those young women who choose to study in a private institution will still receive a quality education, which is quite different from the Taliban who simply banned young women from any kind of study.
"The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris."
I have read the above article, and is typical of the style of writing one gets here in British papers about immigrants. Though our preferred term is "asylum seekers". This could have been written by a descendent of Enoch Powell who made a similar statement in the 1960s.
This is simple racist scapegoating of Paris's social problems to a so called outside group. And what of this Theodore Dalrymple : "I go to Paris about four times a year and thus have a sense of the evolving preoccupations of the French middle classes." Ah well of course then surely there are "barbarians" just waiting to attack the good proper Parisian peoples. But these "barbarians" also seem to share the Parisan middleclass's sense of the justice system failures according to Theodore. Well surely that is an issue which unites these two groups?
Indeed this able commentator on Paris life (remember he goes there four times a year folks) is able to lazily blame the people of the public housing projects without providing an analysis that may provide solutions.
And so we are asked:
"Whether France was wise to have permitted the mass immigration of people culturally very different from its own population to solve a temporary labor shortage and to assuage its own abstract liberal conscience is disputable" What is this "temporary" labor shortage Theodore refers? Who now services the low-paid jobs in Paris cities, shops, apartments?
Without looking at the logic of the economic situation Theodore does not "describe social conditions in the suburbs outside France". He merely perpetuates racist stereotypes, e.g. how vile these people are look at how the "gang rape" their womenfolk. Currently a court case of two mudered schoolgirls here in UK has ended. If a commentator applied Theodore's analysis to this case then there is something truely different about the world of school caretakers and classroom assistants. Something in their "culture" that makes them so.
I think I have wasted enough time on this so called article.
regards
"The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris."
I am the one who cited the above article, to illustrate the broader social context that Abu Mujahid ignored in his post. I rather doubt it is typical of the style of writing one gets in British papers. Bernie seems to think immigrant communities are best described as populated by "asylum seekers". A curious euphemism.
This could have been written by a descendent of Enoch Powell
An ad hominem attack. For all I know, Powell once claimed that the sun rises in the east.
simple racist scapegoating, etc.
Bernie's mind is made up, and not to be confused with the facts.
Interested readers can follow the hyperlink to evaluate the article for themselves.
Googling the author's name gives a broader picture of Dalrymple's writing, on a variety of subjects. This may help readers decide whether Bernie's remarks are valid critiques of Dalrymple's actual perspectives. Certainly, creeping, de facto dhimmitude is more of a concern for some people than for others.
Describing a group of people as "barbarians" is not ad hominem? My Powell remark was positively tame compared to that.
Immigrants are described in the British press mostly as "asylum seekers". Please refer to this link http://www.medialens.org under the latest section and look for
"ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION Comparing the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent".
I see that Theodore longs for the past where "They were better Frenchmen than either their children or grandchildren: they would never have whistled and booed at the Marseillaise, as their descendants did before the soccer match between France and Algeria in 2001, alerting the rest of France to the terrible canker in its midst." Ah yes, the past where the French had an identity, a colonial one; where French were French and the colonised knew their place.
The only interesting feature of the article is the section on Le Corbusier and the effect of one's environment on one's state of mind. This indeed is an aspect that deserves more attention.
regards
Bernie, So then there are no barbarians? I guess we should just remove the word from the dictionary.
France with colonial identity: Then France never had a national identity that existed independent of the colonial empire? I guess De Gaulle ceased to be a nationlalist the moment he pulled the French troops out of Algeria and immediately became an enthusiastic proponent of the death of nationalism. I guess we all need to go back and reread his speeches and find the secret code with which he attacked French nationalism as totally based on obsolete imperialism. Your two implicit alternatives of nationalist imperialist and non-nationalist amount to a strawman argument.
Holy Warrior Abu Mujahid: Why do you call yourself such a name? Sounds very political. Would you call yourself that name if you were not a Muslim? Me thinks not. There is no separation between the political and the religious in Islamic belief. You very well know that.
Posted by: Randall Parker on December 13, 2003 11:28 AM"barbarian" is a very ironic term, considering that it was originally used to describe the tribes of North Europeans, one of which sacked Rome. During these "dark ages" the Muslim scholars were busy rescuing all the Ancient Greek knowledge, which were subsequently re-discovered in Europe's Middle Ages, that led consequently to Northern Europe's Enlightenment.
The idea that the secular policy was set up to discriminate against Islam, or disproportionately targets Muslims, is a red herring. The policy is completely neutral between religions. It was the display of Catholic symbols in public institutions of the state that was and remains targeted by this policy.
I do not claim to know much of French history, though I do understand that they are very protective of their "secular" nature. Then one could argue that "secularism" is a form of religion, i.e. based on certain values from the Enlightenment period of North European history.
The following is a quote from Media Lens (www.medialens.org)poster brcosin:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1790-1 the French Republic made great efforts to adjust the Catholic Church to national bourgeois-democratic conditions, and these were supported by a great majority of the faithful and a sizeable majority of rank-and-file priests. The hierarchy and Rome however insisted that the international hierarchy must be preserved, and the problem of dealing with this anti-democratic body remained and even intensified with the First Vatican council of 1870 which condemned out of hand socialism, liberalism, indifferentism and Protestantism, while proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope when speaking officially (ex cathedra) on matters of faith and morals - a sphere which he and his church could define at will. The French hierarchy, reinvigorated since the defeat of the Republic and the Empire in 1815 remained opposedto any Fench republic and to all liberal and democratic movements (including that of 'modernism' in its own ranks). Celricals and militarists united with monarchists in the great Dreyfus fraud.
The secularists governments of the early 20th century made a firm attempt in the 1905 Act separating Church and State to reduce these enmities and to keep the state completely secular, while ensuring that the private practice of religion was unimpeded. The prominent display of any religious symbols, of whatever religion, in any state institution was forbidden as part of this package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie,
A few thoughts, then I'm done and you can have the last word.
Describing a group of people as "barbarians" is not ad hominem?
Good policy can only come from honestly describing and evaluating reality. Is "barbarian" a fair description of a person who participates in group rape? Who denies freedom of religious practice to others? Who is free in intimidating and doing violence to others? Is it reasonable to describe a group of such like-minded people as "barbarians"? Your concern for the tender feelings of these nasty and brutish individuals is quaint, in a Panglossian sort of way.
If you are implying that Dalrymple uses "barbarian" to describe all French Muslims rather than those who engage in the uncivilized practices he describes, you are a careless reader or a disingenuous writer. Other readers can judge for themselves.
Immigrants are described in the British press mostly as "asylum seekers".
You linked to a site that proudly features Western-civ-hating John Pilger on its front page, warning enough. The only relevant page I could find was this Chomsky-praising screed by George Monbiot, one of Pliger's fellow-travelers. The peculiar notion that second- and third- generation Muslim residents of Britian or France are usually (or best) described as "asylum seekers" remains unsupported.
You quote Dalrymple, "They were better Frenchmen than either their children or grandchildren: they would never have whistled and booed at the Marseillaise, as their descendants did before the soccer match between France and Algeria in 2001, alerting the rest of France to the terrible canker in its midst."
Some readers of these comments may not realize that "they" refers to first-generation North African immigrants, not to the inhabitants of some mythical vielle France. Your mocking tone suggests that you might prefer to welcome immigrants who despise their adopted country rather than appreciate it. If so, your wish has certainly been granted for England (Brighton, etc.) and for France (the cite's). Chacun a son gout is altogether too glib to describe this tragedy in the making.
I have to say, as a Muslim American, and yes, educated female who wears hijab whenever i leave my home (by choice), this issue has everything to do with religion. People who like to use the old and worn out arguement that the hijab represents some type of oppression are not the women who wear it, and therefore are not in a position to judge or regulate our reasoning and ability to wear it or not. Is the pro choice arguement that the same feminists are behind only limited to what a woman can do to her body and not what she chooses to put on it? What type of society celebrates the flaunting of flesh (under the guise of 'liberation') and condemns modesty? See how the many shades of hypocrisy and historic delusions of cultural superiority are revealed when we dont willingly conform. Nothing new. Call it repression, opression, backwards, fundamentalism, extremism, it is ours. Law or no law the hijab will stay.
Yasmine,
Nobody is taking away your right to express yourself. The proposals would only limit that right within a very narrowly defined context: public education.
If the hijab is more important to you than public education, seek private education and wear the hijab, or seek public education in a country governed by sharia law.
You may have come to the desire to wear the hijab without any coercion; however, you do not and can not speak for all women in muslim families. Since Islam explicitly and specifically prohibits the separation of politics from religion, your decision is a political as well as a religious decision. Unless of course, you reject that tenet of your faith.
I doubt the young women who were forcibly prevented from fleeing a burning school in Saudi Arabia would claim their modesty was uncoerced--if they had survived, that is.
Posted by: Bob Badour on December 18, 2003 04:19 PMAgain, i wore hijab all the way through public school, and it never caused a problem for me or anyone else. I come from a family of very successful female educators, physicians, and writers etc who did as well. My right to wear hijab cannot be LIMITED because the government says we dont like it Especially given the nonsense reasoning behind it. As for women who are forced to wear hijab, i dont speak for that cause because that is not islam, that IS oppression, i speak for Muslim women and for Islam. There is no law in France that makes women wear hijab, so its abt choice or lack there of, so again that oppression arguement is out of place here. And another thing, being that I am an American citizen i dont and shouldnt have to seek private school or leave the country because i choose to look differently.(unless we should change those laws too)
I ask what problem does my head scarf have within the educational process of myself and others. Dont speak for a group of ppl when they are openly speaking for themselves and attempt to tell them what is best for them. Yes my submission to God includes getting an education AND wearing hijab, one will not be sacrficed for the other and it hasnt yet nor will it ever.
Maybe only a muslim woman can truly understand my passion about the hijab, and why even in the "narrowly defined context" its not disposable. If its so damaging to French society, they should provide the money for them to attend private school or better yet transport them to islamic countries. We know thsts not the solution, so they sould just leave this issue alone.
Again, i wore hijab all the way through public school, and it never caused a problem for me or anyone else. I come from a family of very successful female educators, physicians, and writers etc who did as well. My right to wear hijab cannot be LIMITED because the government says we dont like it Especially given the nonsense reasoning behind it. As for women who are forced to wear hijab, i dont speak for that cause because that is not islam, that IS oppression, i speak for Muslim women and for Islam. There is no law in France that makes women wear hijab, so its abt choice or lack there of, so again that oppression arguement is out of place here. And another thing, being that I am an American citizen i dont and shouldnt have to seek private school or leave the country because i choose to look differently.(unless we should change those laws too)
I ask what problem does my head scarf have within the educational process of myself and others. Dont speak for a group of ppl when they are openly speaking for themselves and attempt to tell them what is best for them. Yes my submission to God includes getting an education AND wearing hijab, one will not be sacrficed for the other and it hasnt yet nor will it ever.
Maybe only a muslim woman can truly understand my passion about the hijab, and why even in the "narrowly defined context" its not disposable. If its so damaging to French society, they should provide the money for them to attend private school or better yet transport them to islamic countries. We know thsts not the solution, so they sould just leave this issue alone.
Yasmine,
Your comments are strong and represent myself aswell,
The beauty of the hijab is undescribable. I am liberated because I do not need to expose my body for lustful men to gaze upon. I am liberated because I do not have to wake up 4 hours early in the morning before school starts so I can look like 'britney spears' and 'christina aguilera'. I am liberated because I am known for me, my character- I don't need a push up bra and mini skirt to express my opinions and be heard- unfortunately only ignorance will not understand this sort of liberation. I am a convert who has embraced Islam for 4 years now- and Islam and HIJAB are one of the greatests things that have happened to me- but what would a society that sells the feminine body know? They post bulletin boards and advertise on TV the very female image, degrading and immoralizing the very body they came out of when coming into this world. I tell you- what is wrong with modesty- even if it is covering the head??? Didn't their very own women cover their heads with huge hats and find it disrespectful when taken off in public????, I'm not even talking about nuns here! They say it represents aggression- they lie. It represents ISLAM- and when they are ignorant of ISLAM they are scared of Islam. Learn people- because only ignorance dissipates the foundation of humanity. Learn and explore with an open mind- why must we be so narrowminded and scared of things when we don't understand??? Why are people so scared of a piece of clot wrapped around a head when they don't even know about it!!! For God's sake are people going to ban hooded sweaters because they have hoods on them for people to use??? What is this world coming to- do people want to raise their children in a world where covering up now is a sin?? Only that day they will understand when something dear to them is taken away...hijab is not a political gesture people...it becomes a part of you - it makes up who you are- it makes you a BETTER person! Only I have seen its beauty cause I have also been without it- why make such a big fuss and use it against the women of Islam? whoever says it is not a rule of Islam- quit your ignorance you fools- and do some exploring. First of all, I would like to quote the verses in the Holy Qur’an that speak of the hijab. Please see verses 30-31 in Surah 24 of the Holy Qur’an, which give the meaning of:
*{Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. 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 or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.}*
See also verse number 59 in Surah, which give the meaning of:
*{O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them [when they go abroad]. That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.}*
The above verses very clearly show that it is Allah Almighty Himself, Who commands the women to wear hijab, though that word is not used in the above verses. In fact, the term hijab means much more than the covering of the body; it refers to the code of modesty outlined in the verses quoted above.
Look at the expressions used: “Lower their gaze”, “be modest”, “not to display their adornment”, “draw the veils over their bosoms” “not to stamp their feet” etc.
It must be clear to any thinking person what is meant by all the above expressions in the Holy Qur’an. Women in the Prophet’s time used to wear a kind of dress that covered the head, but not the bosom properly. So when they are asked to draw their veils over their bosoms so as not to reveal their beauty, it is clear that the dress must cover the head as well as the body. And hair is considered by people in most cultures of the world - not only in the Arab culture - as an attractive part of a woman’s beauty. Men don't even have the chance to gaze lustfully at women- what is wrong with this???? We want to be looked upon with respect and dignity like the nuns do, like the religious folks do- why use our very own shield against us? If it is so agressive 'looking' don't look at us, and move away from us- but don't interfere with it! I have one thing that keeps me going in this world, and it is the fact that I know I'm a good person, and that this only matters to me and God...but one thing for sure- for the muslims and I mean the "muslims" not the "yea i'm muslim, but I drink, oppress and gamble etc" if they had the choice to break the law of the Quran or the law of society- what do you think its going to be? I'd rather break the law of society...
Posted by: Hamida on December 20, 2003 12:09 AMRandall Parker,
If the women you are referring to in Afghanistan who wear thier "burkahs" are wearing them out of fear as you say, consider the fact that the burkah, the all-covering one piece number that has been associated with the Taliban, was worn by the Afghani women decades before The Taliban, and continue to wear them now, by choice....
As i have said, and will say again, Dont continue to speak for a group of people who are speaking for themselves esp when its under the guise that you care abt their status in the world, it is a fear and ignorance of Islam that causes an opposition to the hijab amongst non-muslims and muslims alike.
Thank you sister Hamida for your words of wisdom and passion and for sharing the quranic verses.
Shaha, But it remains the case that there are many women in Afghanistan who wear the burkah out of fear. There are women in other countries who do so as well. In Saudi Arabia even fearless women could not remove their head covering because to do so is against the law.
You may wear a scarve or full body coverout out of choice. But there are many women in Muslim countries (including women who are not even Muslims) who wear that covering out of fear or because it is against the law to do otherwise.
Do you think it is okay or even good for Muslim governments to require the wearing of headscarfs or burkahs? Do you think it is okay for Muslim men in Afghanistan to punish women who do not wear burkahs? Are they being good Muslims when they do this?
Hamida, if Mohammed said to cover the bosom why do you say he said to cover the face? If he meant to say to cover the face he would have said to cover the face. What you think is obvious seems quite untrue to me.
Posted by: Randall Parker on December 20, 2003 08:43 AMRandall,
The one fact that you are not including in your arguement is that France does not have laws requiring hijab, so its not a rule that is based on oppression, it is in fact about choice, and taking that away. Also your view or opinion about hijab that you commented to Hamida about does not hold even an ounce of weight. Even if the hijab was up to interpretation, it certainly would not be up to yours, it would be for Muslim women to decide.(thats if it was) The commandment was for "the believing women" Whether you agree or think something "seems quite untrue" matters not.
I encourage the French Muslimahs to don their hijab ban or no ban. The laws of man are just that, and our ultiamte judge is not them.
I had an incident in which a principal told me i couldnt wear my hijab in class, as it was a "distraction" while my fellow classmates were allowed to wear short skirts, see --through and tube tops, as the teachers commented on how cute they looked (See the wisdom of the western 'emlightened" thinkers) Needless to say i wrote a 13 page paper to him, the superintendent, the teachers, students etc, and they had no choice but to allow me to wear it (as if I was going to remove it anyways)
** oh and It was GODS commandment for the women to cover in that manner, not Muhammad's, he was relaying that message to them. What was mentioned about covering the face that you disagree with and whats your real beef with hijab?
Yasmine,
My right to wear hijab cannot be LIMITED
Well, I would say it cannot be limited any more than anyone's right to expose their genitals in public can be limited. Rights are not absolute.
As for women who are forced to wear hijab, i dont speak for that
By denying the issue, you do speak for it. According to my religious beliefs, denial is the single absolute evil in this world--for all evil hides behind denial.
i speak for Muslim women and for Islam
... Dont speak for a group of ppl
Your hypocrisy underwhelms me. I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. As I mentioned previously, you do not and can not speak for all muslim women. You speak for yourself and for your own experience.
they are openly speaking for themselves
Those who suffer coercion and threats do not speak openly. The absurdity of your non sequitur is asinine. You make a very poor ambassador for your faith.
There is no law in France that makes women wear hijab
So? Nobody claimed France does. Do you have a point?
being that I am an American citizen i dont and shouldnt have to seek private school or leave the country because i choose to look differently.
Plenty of Americans already do seek private school or home schooling for religious reasons, and the public school systems in the US already prohibit many forms of expression. The Satanists often have their religious garb prohibited in public schools in the US.
Here is a thought experiment: Suppose a hypothetical creed believes God created man in God's beautiful image and that God has deemed it blasphemy to cover God's beauty for any reason other than warmth or protection. Adherents of this faith demand the public school system allow their children to attend classes in the nude. Does the school system have the right to insist these children clothe themselves in public schools? If not, does this also apply in Islamic countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia?
one will not be sacrficed for the other and it hasnt yet nor will it ever
I find your histrionic bravado absurd. I suppose you would prefer to have been one of those Saudi girls who were sacrificed in agony for both education and modesty by being burned alive as they fought desperately to escape the flames? ?
Maybe only a muslim woman can truly understand my passion about the hijab
That's quite a conceit. Maybe only NAMBLA members can truly understand their passion about pederasty. Does that mean only NAMBLA members are allowed to express opinions regarding prohibitions of pederasty?
why even in the "narrowly defined context" its not disposable
In that case, you would have to dispose of the narrowly defined context. I have no qualms about requiring you to make that choice, and I fully support your right to choose freely among the options allowed by law without fear or coercion.
they should provide the money
Why? You should cover the costs of your own religious conceits. I cover the costs of mine.
so they sould just leave this issue alone
Who died and elected you Queen of France?
You seem to suffer under the delusion that education is a right. Education is an obligation. (Just ask the Mennonites around here after the truant officers hunt down their kids and cart them off to school.)
Hamida,
The beauty of the hijab is undescribable.
That's very convenient. It lets you off the hook in the event anyone else cares about its beauty.
I don't need a push up bra and mini skirt to express my opinions and be heard
Believe me: Attractive young women in push up bras and mini skirts are often noticed but never heard. In fact, I am not sure whether it is possible to prove or to disprove the conjecture whether any have ever expressed an opinion. I think the conjecture falls into the category of Zen-like questions such as one hand clapping or a tree falling in the forest or something.
unfortunately only ignorance will not understand this sort of liberation.
Good thing we all understand it then.
I am a convert who has embraced Islam for 4 years now
Why should anyone care about the fickle opinions of a self-admitted apostate?
what would a society that sells the feminine body know?
Um... Might they know how to make lots of money without much effort? [Don't you just hate it when they answer the rhetorical questions? -Ed.]
They post bulletin boards and advertise on TV the very female image, degrading and immoralizing the very body they came out of when coming into this world.
I say "idolizing" and you say "degrading". I say "revering" and you say "immoralizing". I say tomatoe and you say tomatoe. As a hedonistic idolater, I resent your public denigration of my religious observances!
tell you- what is wrong with modesty- even if it is covering the head???
Nothing is wrong with true modesty. Forced and coerced modesty is oppression, and oppression is just wrong.
It represents ISLAM
Um, would that be the political and religious movement founded by larcenous, genocidal pedophile? Would that be the political and religious movement whose religious texts grant second-class human status to Christians and Jews but consider devout Atheists like myself vermin suitable only for extermination? I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
when they are ignorant of ISLAM they are scared of Islam.
While I am far from being an Islamic scholar or theologian, I am also far from ignorant about Islam. I know more than a little about the history of Islam, and I have read its core religious texts. I suggest to you that only those who are ignorant of Islam have no fear of Islam. It fills me with the kind of fear that instills caution and resolute determination--like seeing a poisonous snake or recognizing the symptoms of a deadly contagion.
They say it represents aggression- they lie.
If you claim that Islam's history from its inception to the present day is anything less than aggressive, you lie.
Learn and explore with an open mind- why must we be so narrowminded and scared of things when we don't understand???
If I have learned and have failed to conform to your strict and limited view of your faith, which of us is narrowminded? Am I allowed to fear things I do understand? Or does my fear of a poisonous snake or of a deadly contagion indicate narrowmindedness?
Why are people so scared of a piece of clot wrapped around a head when they don't even know about it!!!
Your assumption of ignorance is closeminded ad hominem. Your attribution of fear to a piece of cloth is absurd and suggests further ad hominem.
What is this world coming to- do people want to raise their children in a world where covering up now is a sin??
Sin is an issue of religious belief and of morality. Public school dress codes are issues of law and of administration. I suggest a narrowminded interpretation of your faith leads to your confusing the two. Nobody has claimed that modesty is a sin, nor would the proposed laws prevent any muslim woman from educating herself while preserving her modesty according to her faith.
Only that day they will understand when something dear to them is taken away...hijab is not a political gesture people
The proposed laws would not take anything away from anyone. I have already explained why the hijab is a political statement, and your proclamation of denial does nothing to change the actual facts.
it becomes a part of you - it makes up who you are- it makes you a BETTER person!
I suggest that taking one's identity from a garment indicates neurosis and psychological vulnerability. Nobody can strip me of my identity.
Only I have seen its beauty
That's quite a conceit.
use it against the women of Islam?
Indeed. By banning it in public schools, the French and German governments seek to prevent anyone from using it against women of Islam. There is little risk of anyone using the Hijab against women of Islam by allowing them to remove it, and the risk of fundamentalists using it against them by forcing them to wear it is well documented and quite serious.
whoever says it is not a rule of Islam- quit your ignorance you fools- and do some exploring.
Nobody has claimed it is not a rule of Islam. In fact, the risk comes from those who would use force against young women to enforce it as a rule of Islam. I suggest you take your own advice and quit your ignorance.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. ... bosoms...adornment...
Well, then the proposed laws pose no problem to the faithful. The believing men can lower their gaze and the issue is resolved. The Hijab prevents Muslim men from achieving purity. Since nobody is requiring muslim girls to expose their bosoms or requiring they wear any adornment, I see no textually supported argument against the proposed laws.
The above verses very clearly show that it is Allah Almighty Himself, Who commands the women to wear hijab
Some book says something, and some guy once claimed the book expressed God's words. But I don't see anything in the quoted verses insisting that anyone wear any specific garment.
Look at the expressions used: “Lower their gaze”, “be modest”, “not to display their adornment”, “draw the veils over their bosoms” “not to stamp their feet” etc.
Indeed. I see no incompatibility between the proposed laws and any of those expressions. The proposed laws do not compel Muslim boys to gaze in any particular direction nor do they compel Muslim girls to wear any adornment or to stamp their feet. Muslim girls' clothing could become as plain, shapeless and frumpy as they want without them wearing the Hijab.
It must be clear to any thinking person what is meant by all the above expressions in the Holy Qur’an.
If that is so, I suggest thinking people will not understand your objection to the proposed laws.
what is wrong with this????
What is wrong with fundamentalist family members threatening young women with violence if they fail to conform to the family's demands? Do you honestly have to ask?
If it is so agressive 'looking' don't look at us, and move away from us
Moving away from you is all the proposed laws would do. If wearing the Hijab is so important to you, you will be happy to seek your education at home or in a religious school--away from those who find the garment aggressive. Since your religious texts allow Muslims to knowingly ignore religious observances when the cost of conformance is prohibitive, those who lack the means to acquire an education anywhere except in the public school system are explicitly released from the Hijab requirement by your faith. Apparently, so says Allah, if you believe in Allah and in his recited word, that is. I know, I know, I know: I am a hypocrite if I dare to express any opinion regarding Islam.
I have one thing that keeps me going in this world, it is the fact that I know I'm a good person
I have lots of things that keep me going, and one of them is the fact that I know I'm a good person. Nobody is trying to take that away from either of us.
if they had the choice to break the law of the Quran or the law of society- what do you think its going to be? I'd rather break the law of society
I have no problem with that as long as you accept the consequences of doing so.
Saha,
The one fact that you are not including in your arguement is that France does not have laws requiring hijab
Nor will it have a law prohibiting hijab. It will have a law allowing hijab everywhere except in a narrowly defined context related to the education and care of minors.
so its not a rule that is based on oppression
You seem unable to think logically and clearly.
it is in fact about choice
Indeed. It is about the choice of whether to remove the hijab.
and taking that away.
Nonsense. Muslim girls will still have the choice whether to remove the hijab and attend public school or to wear the hijab and attend school elsewhere.
Also your view or opinion about hijab that you commented to Hamida about does not hold even an ounce of weight.
Since your religious texts prohibit you from thinking about, considering or giving an ounce of weight to anything Randall or I say, I do not find your statement surprising or at all informative.
Even if the hijab was up to interpretation, it certainly would not be up to yours
Nor would it be up to yours. How do we resolve this?
it would be for Muslim women to decide.
Each for herself, which is exactly what the proposed laws would allow.
The commandment was for "the believing women" Whether you agree or think something "seems quite untrue" matters not.
To believing women, I agree. If a woman believes my children are little more than vermin suitable for extermination, I don't want her near my children in the public school system in the first place. Presumably, women who so believe will go elsewhere for their education.
I encourage the French Muslimahs to don their hijab ban or no ban.
As do I. I encourage them to don their hijab while homeschooling or attending a religious school.
The laws of man are just that, and our ultiamte judge is not them.
Indeed. If you care about your everlasting soul, you will move somewhere ruled by sharia law. It is your religious duty to live according to the command of Allah.
Wow...athiests speaking for the religious women of Islam....lol...says alot doesn't it
Posted by: Amy on December 20, 2003 11:29 PMIf they want to wear it- let them wear it- if they don't they don't. It is hypocritical to say the ban on hijab is a positive approach in decreasing it's oppression when you are oppressing the desires of those who want to wear the headscarf....its a bunch of bullshit that comes from ignorance and racist folks out there- It was the jews- and now its the muslims...ridiculous
Posted by: Daryl on December 20, 2003 11:32 PMBob Badour- your comments are baseless and discriminating. Support the food bank, or homeless shelter if you want to be a good citizen. If it "really" is the oppression of women you are concerned about....
"what is wrong with this????
What is wrong with fundamentalist family members threatening young women with violence if they fail to conform to the family's demands? Do you honestly have to ask?"
Give me the evidence - a few situations do not do and DO NOT represent the majority- but ofcourse there are hidden intentions to this ban and you and I know it.... and no one has the right to ask another to leave a country- they are citizens of a country- and their view must be respected and considered, the Hijab is harmless and to say people are forced to wear it is a pathetic reason to ban this religious requirement....Islam is not a threat- it is the minds of people like you that pose a threat to others. As for your knowledge on Islam- you have no knowledge about Islam- your knowledge is based on racist emotions and the regurgitated views of the opponents of Islam....
Posted by: Goldberg on December 20, 2003 11:44 PMSaha/Shaha (who are the same IP address),
The one fact that you are not including in your arguement is that France does not have laws requiring hijab, so its not a rule that is based on oppression, it is in fact about choice, and taking that away.
There is oppression in France coming from Muslim believers who are, in some cases, intimidating women into wearing headscarves. It is the same pattern seen in some Musliim countries. The French rationale for banning the headscarves is in part the same as the Turkish rationale: If some women are allowed to cover their heads any women who do not do so will be intimidated into doing so in any area with a sizeable Muslim population. Given that France has about a 10% Muslim population it is not surprising that the intimidation by fanatical believers is beginning to become a problem.
Governments are not the only sources of oppression. Fanatical followers of intolerant religious doctrines can be just as oppressve as governments.
Also your view or opinion about hijab that you commented to Hamida about does not hold even an ounce of weight. Even if the hijab was up to interpretation, it certainly would not be up to yours, it would be for Muslim women to decide.(thats if it was) The commandment was for "the believing women" Whether you agree or think something "seems quite untrue" matters not.
If Hamida wants to offer a verse from a religious text to justify a position then it makes perfect sense to point out that the offered verse doesn't even order women to do what Hamida is claiming is a religious obligation.
I encourage the French Muslimahs to don their hijab ban or no ban. The laws of man are just that, and our ultiamte judge is not them.
God is not appearing in public before us all to tell us what his judgements are on these questions. So it really is left up to men and women to make their own judgements.
I had an incident in which a principal told me i couldnt wear my hijab in class, as it was a "distraction" while my fellow classmates were allowed to wear short skirts, see --through and tube tops, as the teachers commented on how cute they looked (See the wisdom of the western 'emlightened" thinkers)
An argument can certainly be made for requiring students to dress in ways that are less distracting. An argument can also be made for requiring students to dress in ways that are less political (and of course Islam is a religion that is inherently political).
Needless to say i wrote a 13 page paper to him, the superintendent, the teachers, students etc, and they had no choice but to allow me to wear it (as if I was going to remove it anyways)
They had no choice? They certainly did have a choice. They just decided to let you wear it.
Currently in Iran women must cover their heads. It is the law. Do you support that law? It is the law in Saudi Arabia too. Are you in favor of that law?
** oh and It was GODS commandment for the women to cover in that manner, not Muhammad's, he was relaying that message to them. What was mentioned about covering the face that you disagree with and whats your real beef with hijab?
If is your very human opinion that it was God's commandment. You can't prove that it was God's commandment. There is no scientific evidence to show that it is. You can't even prove that God exists.
Posted by: Randall Parker on December 21, 2003 12:32 AMAmy,
I do not speak for anyone but myself. I expressed an opinion in support of the right and of the responsibility granted to the representatives of the peoples of France and of Germany to pass and to enforce whatever laws seem necessary to provide a safe and productive environment for learning in their public school systems. I have expressed further opinions regarding the quality and the validity of the arguments presented by three young women who seem unwilling to recognize the scope of the issue and who seem to ignore anything inconvenient to their unthinking obedience to their religious masters.
Daryl,
Nothing in the proposed laws would interfere with a Muslim girl's choice to wear the Hijab. The only difference is her choice would now imply a choice to attend her education outside the public school system. By removing the visible manifestations of her choice from the public arena, the peoples of France and of Germany would diminish the political imperative of the choice and free the young woman to make the choice more for religious than for political ends.
In the sense that the proposed laws would allow young Muslim women to wear the Hijab in public everywhere except in a narrowly defined context of public school education, the proposed laws are far from an outright ban of the Hijab. Since devout young Muslim women would have plenty of other educational opportunities allowing the Hijab, I fail to see how the laws would oppress them in any way.
I find your unsupportable, knee-jerk exclamations of racism and ignorance needlessly inflammatory and unconvincing ad hominem. I ask you to ponder seriously whose ignorance those knee-jerk reactions truly demonstrate.
Goldberg,
your comments are baseless and discriminating
Where possible I have tried to provide the basis of my arguments, if I have failed in one or two instances, you are free to point those specifics out and to request an explanation for the basis of my statements. Demanding I prove a negative, however, is nothing more than transparent sophistry of the lowest sort.
If by discriminating you mean, "perceptive" or "exhibiting the ability to draw fine distinctions" or "showing fine judgement or fine taste" or "analytical" or "serving to distinguish, distinctive", then I thank you for the compliment. If you mean "prejudiced", then I must simply dismiss your ad hominem as further unconvincing sophistry of the lowest sort.
Give me the evidence - a few situations do not do and DO NOT represent the majority
Are you suggesting we prohibit murder because the majority would otherwise commit murder? Are you suggesting we limit a person's right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because the majority would otherwise do so? Are you suggesting we prohibit the torture of non-Catholics because the majority of Catholics believe torturing the heathens into repenting their sins will grant them entry to paradise? I find your demand nothing more than absurdly petulant sophistry.
but ofcourse there are hidden intentions to this ban and you and I know it
I am not sure what intentions you believe are hidden. The openly stated intention to hobble a dangerous, aggressive, hostile political movement seems reasonable and sufficient to me to justify the proposed laws. The submitted arguments against the law do not seem valid to me. I admit France is less forthcoming about the intention, which I assume is driven by their surrender to the pressures of political correctness. I suggest to you that constant speculation regarding hidden animus reveals an untrustworthy person, because most people see in others what they know of themselves.
no one has the right to ask another to leave a country- they are citizens of a country
Nobody has asked them to leave any country. I presented several options for young Muslim women to gain a valuable education while maintaining their modesty according to their beliefs. One of those options involves a choice to move to an area governed by Sharia law, but I leave the choice to the believers. I find their reluctance to make that choice very telling.
view must be respected and considered
I see no reason to believe their view received insufficient consideration or respect. Are you suggesting that Christian fundamentalists in the US who choose to homeschool their children receive any lack of consideration or respect?
the Hijab is harmless and to say people are forced to wear it is a pathetic reason to ban this religious requirement
For those forced to wear it against their own wishes, I would say the cloth Hijab is about as harmless as a cloth Mogen David. For those confronted with this political symbol in their classrooms, I would say the Hijab is about as harmless as a brown shirt.
If the Hijab were truly about modesty, I doubt we would ever see one in our public schools. The truly modest young religious devotee would seek education in a religious school that segregates the sexes. The truly modest young woman would insist on it.
I, personally, see no reason to encourage a dangerous ideology to conscript young women to its front lines. Do you think such conscription is fair to the young women?
Islam is not a threat
Have you read the base texts of the Islamic faith? I have read them, and I reach very different conclusions from you.
it is the minds of people like you that pose a threat to others
I have never flown a plane with hundreds of innocent victims into a building with thousands of innocent victims. I have never condoned, admired, celebrated, congratulated or excused any similar act. I have never funded any organization that has condoned, admired, celebrated, congratulated or excused any similar act. I have never apologized for any individual or organization that has condoned, admired, celebrated, congratulated or excused any similar act. You have an odd perspective on relative risk.
As for your knowledge on Islam- you have no knowledge about Islam- your knowledge is based on racist emotions and the regurgitated views of the opponents of Islam
Your unsupportable, unthinking, knee-jerk ad hominem underwhelms me. Please cite the specifics of what I have said that lead you to this "conclusion". When I know what you object to, I will cite you chapter and verse.
P.S. As a good person with a sound understanding of basic economics, the last things I would support are food banks and homeless shelters. I think it takes a perversely selfish arrogance and conceit to seek one's psychological solace by fostering an environment of growing dependence among a growing underclass. I prefer to work toward ending the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers that depletes one country of a relatively valuable resource while debasing and devaluing the like resource in another country.
Posted by: Bob Badour on December 21, 2003 08:02 AMBob,
Your OPINION about what Muslim women wear or dont wear is not up for debate. Its not even up to French government. Ok so you have read about Islam and call yourself an expert. Its obvious you dont agree with Islamic teachings,(and quite obvious you have bias based off some of the comments you have made) and thats fine too, but what you have not attempted to just accept is that no matter how well you pick apart anyones comments and express your own Opinion abt what was said or what was lacking or how illogical cerain statements are to you, it DOESN't MATTER. As long as there are Muslims on the earth there will be people who dont agree with it and some who wish to eradicate it all together, and we know and accept that, thats a battle obviously worth fighting according to us. Maybe it is a threat to your way of life, that doesnt matter much either. The Sept 11th arguement is one of the worst in giving proof as to how much of a threat Islam is. Maybe you should consider devoting your time to a cause that you can actually do something about.
Posted by: saha on December 21, 2003 01:10 PMSaha,
Your OPINION about what Muslim women wear or dont wear is not up for debate.
I have not anywhere above expressed an opinion about what Muslim women wear or don't wear. I expressed an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the representatives of the peoples of France and of Germany to limit freedom of expression within a narrowly defined context related to the care and education of minors.
Its not even up to French government.
Correct. It is only up to the French government what dress code the people of France will enforce in their public schools, which says nothing about anyone's attire at home or in other public venues.
Ok so you have read about Islam and call yourself an expert.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I am quite capable of doing that myself. At no time have I called myself an expert on Islam. Your continual retreat to sophistry is disappointingly unimpressive if somewhat typical.
Its obvious you dont agree with Islamic teachings,(and quite obvious you have bias based off some of the comments you have made) and thats fine too
We all have bias. As an atheist, I read the Qur'an with different eyes than an apologetic believer. You read with eyes that deny most of what the text actually says. If all Muslims were so inclined, we would have no problem. Unfortunately, the Bin Ladens of the world read the texts quite literally as I do.
what you have not attempted to just accept is that no matter how well you pick apart anyones comments and express your own Opinion abt what was said or what was lacking or how illogical cerain statements are to you, it DOESN't MATTER.
It doesn't matter to you. You will continue to support terrorists in subtle and indirect ways. It doesn't matter to the people of France who will decide these issues for themselves. Have you considered how little your comments matter when they are so obviously illogical and irrational? To whom do you think your comments should matter? Just curious.
As long as there are Muslims on the earth there will be people who dont agree with it and some who wish to eradicate it all together
I am not sure who you think wants to eradicate the earth of Muslims. That's quite a leap from prohibiting a single political symbol in the classroom. (kookoo) On the other hand, many Muslims have openly and aggressively pursued the eradication of Israel, and the founder of your faith actually engaged in open, unapologetic acts of genocide. Or do you deny the history of your faith?
we know and accept that, thats a battle obviously worth fighting according to us.
It's this kind of backward logic that makes you and your brethren such a dangerous scourge. No matter how peaceful and loving your neighbours, given enough time, you will always find some excuse for waging Jihad against us. Are you trying to convince Randall's readership that you are a clear and present danger? You are doing an excellent job.
Maybe it is a threat to your way of life
The core religious texts of Islam command those who submit to Allah to seek to end my actual life and not just its way. Somehow you find this instruction acceptable yet find a minor inconvenience related to public school dress some kind of abomination. Please forgive me for finding your value system wrought to the ends and means of evil.
The Sept 11th arguement is one of the worst in giving proof as to how much of a threat Islam is.
I don't recall giving a Sept. 11th argument per se, because I included similar acts, which I assume would include things like genocide in Africa, suicide bombings, genocide in Indonesia, bloody clashes on the subcontinent, fatwas calling for the extermination of the Jews and the eradication of Israel, serial sniping in Virginia, driving tanks over homosexuals, beating women with sticks for dress code violations, the genocide of the Banu Quraiza ... I'll stop here because I just don't have all day.
What did you think of the argument based on the content of the core religious texts of Islam and of Islam's well-recorded history?
Maybe you should consider devoting your time to a cause that you can actually do something about.
I have a number of causes. What makes you think this is a cause I can do nothing about?
Randall,
I just noticed your third update to the article. If I were a Jew in Europe, I would have fled by now or at least have started making visa arrangements by now.
To Israel, to the US--or even to Canada. I wonder what the political environment is like for Jews in New Zealand and Australia?
Ok Islam is a threat to you. No arguing with that.
Posted by: saha on December 21, 2003 07:49 PMOk Islam is a threat to you. No arguing with that.
Posted by: saha on December 21, 2003 07:49 PMSaha,
A touch of honesty--how refreshing!
Posted by: Bob Badour on December 22, 2003 07:41 AMRandall,
"Hamida, if Mohammed said to cover the bosom why do you say he said to cover the face? If he meant to say to cover the face he would have said to cover the face. What you think is obvious seems quite untrue to me."
How did you get this impression? I did NOT say he said to cover the face. Please do not put words into my mouth- Thank You.
"If is your very human opinion that it was God's commandment. You can't prove that it was God's commandment. There is no scientific evidence to show that it is. You can't even prove that God exists."
An atheist ofcourse does not believe in any 'commandments' of any faith....You can't prove that it wasn't God's commandment and YOU can't PROVE that God does not exist....
Hamida,
I am the atheist. Randall does not suffer from such silly superstitions. As far as I understand, he is agnostic, and he is absolutely correct that none of us will know the truth of the matter in this life. That does seem to make it only your opinion that it is God's commandment, which was Randall's exact point.
Hair, face, neck -- whatever, none of those are the bosom.
I really don't understand your objection to these proposed laws. Nobody is telling you that you cannot or should not wear the Hijab. The proposed laws would only require you to choose which is more important to you: a public education or the Hijab. If you prefer the Hijab, seek a private education. Christian fundamentalists in the US do exactly this every day.
What are your thoughts on having someone calling himself "Holy Warrior" speaking for you? Do you agree with his representation and his demeanor? Does that mean you consider yourself at war with the Kafr? You certainly have not voiced any objection to having such bellicose representation. What are we to conclude?
Just because I have not voiced my opinion to having such "bellicose representation" does not mean I agree with it. I have to say, a kafr is an unbeliever, and in Islam to call someone a Kafr can be a great sin- afterall what does anyone know about what someone's heart contains? Someone can be a christian, and be a far greater person than a "muslim", so to generalize that all muslims think this way is from ignorance.
I find this whole issue to deal more with the knowledge that non-muslims seem to have or should I say lack. I understand that there are muslims out there that take things to the extremes and bring down the name of Islam, but most muslims practice Islam- but are moderate, meaning they do not interfere with how others live, are surely not aggressive (if they are really trying to be muslim) and yet are religious at the same time. Some say that if a women is so religious as to cover her head- she should then go to a private school and practice her faith religiously. Covering the head may be a requirement- but for someone that wears it, it doesn't mean that she would love to stay indoors and not ever look at a man (exaggerating here). Now, when I say this I wouldn't be surprised if it is used against me- but myself, I am a student, an employee and a daughter all in the public sphere- and the hijab has never posed a threat to anyone...There are many more like me..and it seems like these people are being ignored.
Yes- I understand that this ban is just in public schools, but this is how it really starts. First its in public schools and the workforce, then it just crumbles down from there. If young children are not exposed to such differences, what are they being taught in school? Women in hijab are very alienated- creating an even more tense situation...When I say these things I'm not saying these to offend anyone- I'm voicing a concern not just for the religious peoples- but for the children attending those schools and their upbringing in such a society.
With regards to your comment. Head,neck or face- ofcourse they are not the bossom- If you maybe had read the whole paragraph you may have understood what that whole subject was about.
"Women in the Prophet’s time used to wear a kind of dress that covered the head, but not the bosom properly. So when they are asked to draw their veils over their bosoms so as not to reveal their beauty, it is clear that the dress must cover the head as well as the body."
I find it hard to believe a society is coming to this...I'm just very glad I'm in Canada...
Hamida,
Just because I have not voiced my opinion to having such "bellicose representation" does not mean I agree with it.
Your outrage has driven you to speak out on rather trivial matters. Even when asked, you have refused to make any statement explicitly stating "Holy Warrior" does not speak for you. The message in your actions is clear enough to me.
Perhaps, this time you could answer the questions instead of trying to avoid them: What are your thoughts on having someone calling himself "Holy Warrior" speaking for you? Do you agree with his representation and his demeanor?
I have to say, a kafr is an unbeliever, and in Islam to call someone a Kafr can be a great sin- afterall what does anyone know about what someone's heart contains?
As a publicly self-proclaimed atheist, I suggest you take my word for it when I say I am a Kafr. If it is such a sin to call anyone a Kafr, why are your core religious texts so full of this word? Being quite happy to be me, I take no insult in any term you can dream up that means me.
Again, please answer the question instead of trying to avoid it: Do you consider yourself at war with the Kafr?
Someone can be a christian, and be a far greater person than a "muslim", so to generalize that all muslims think this way is from ignorance.
What do muslims think about atheists? As a devout Atheist, I care little what muslims think about christians. There goes that ad hominem again. Believe me, I am far from ignorant about Islam. Perhaps you could address my points directly instead of dissembling and resorting to sophistry?
I find this whole issue to deal more with the knowledge that non-muslims seem to have or should I say lack.
You and your "sisters" show a tremendous amount of bigotry and prejudice in what you write. Not every Kafr is ignorant of your religion. Your repeatedly and explicitly stated assumption that we are all ignorant only exposes your bigotry.
If I am so ignorant, what do your core religious texts say about me as a devout Atheist and as a hedonistic idolater? Many muslims have recently claimed that Islam favours freedom of religion.
it doesn't mean that she would love to stay indoors and not ever look at a man (exaggerating here).
Attending a private school means none of the things you allege. Perhaps you could stick to what people actually say instead of attacking absurd fantasies.
and the hijab has never posed a threat to anyone
You are in no position to judge what poses a threat to someone else. The peoples of France and of Germany have clearly stated they find it threatening in the public school system. Perhaps, you could allow them to speak for themselves.
If young children are not exposed to such differences, what are they being taught in school?
Perhaps you should address the question to people from Saudi Arabia or Iran or Yemen or Afghanistan where children are protected from any kind of difference. Your suggestion that children in western democracies have no exposure to other cultures is absurd and completely backward.
Women in hijab are very alienated
For many, that is a self-imposed alienation. The others were forced into the alienation by their relatives. I grew up with one boy who used to wear a baseball cap over his yarmulke.
I'm voicing a concern not just for the religious peoples- but for the children attending those schools and their upbringing in such a society.
Their proper guardians and custodians already speak for them, and the reach contradictory conclusions. I suggest you accept the judgement of those specifically charged with overseeing the care and welfare of these children. They are in a much better position to judge what is best for their kids.
you maybe had read the whole paragraph you may have understood what that whole subject was about.
With all due respect, what consideration should we give to a lame rationalization invented by a human being 14 centuries after the fact when we are asked to consider God's own word?
Other religions point to the timelessness of their core texts and teachings as proof of divine inspiration. Some of them would consider Islam the work of the devil specifically for being stuck in the seventh century.
I find it hard to believe a society is coming to this...I'm just very glad I'm in Canada...
You are very welcome. By any chance, are you of first nations' descent? You did mention your apostacy, but you did not explain your ethnicity.
Bob,
An Answer to the "holy warrior" questiom:
I dont mind if someone calls themselves this, a warrior does not have to be someone who goes to war physically. Jihad, a term commonly used to mean just actual fighting, is not only a violent war, but a greater internal struggle for the believer. Are both necessary, def. so. Perhaps you prefer to focus on one meaning of these words.
Bob,
IT's quite obvious that you have no respect for Islam as seen in the following responses:
"With all due respect, what consideration should we give to a lame rationalization invented by a human being 14 centuries after the fact when we are asked to consider God's own word"
Herein we find the true motives behind your seemingly passionate debate for the right of the French Govt, and or the french ppl who find the hijab too scary for their school children. This "lame rationalization" as you call it is what you clearly have a problem with, and so anything coming from it (hijab for ex) obviously rubs you the wrong way. How dare you call someone a bigot sir or maam?
Yes I agree you are a kufr (and all that applies to that) and yes i agree with the idea of someone calling themselves a -holy warrior- representing me. I find it necessary being that there are ppl that are willing to fight to take my right to practice my religion(which includes wearing Hijab in and out of school) away, and yes i would fight in order to ensure that right for myself, present, and future generations of Muslims. Its a reality, no need to sugar coat it.
Maybe your disbeleif in God is too offensive for me, i think i shall try to get your right to post notes on this message board taken away. Its a Joke no need to
Saha,
Islamic history shows that the predominant Islamic views briefly emphasized spiritual Jihad (in the eighth or ninth century if I recall correctly.) That particular sect of Islam was quickly quashed by more bellicose varieties and for the other thirteen centuries of Islamic history has been marginal at best. Overwhelmingly throughout Islamic history, the unqualified term Jihad has referred to the expansion of Dar al Islam by violent means both by Muslims and by their victims.
You ask me to ignore the predominant meaning of the word to focus on marginalities. Apparently, you think me a fool.
When someone declares himself both a warrior and my enemy, I reserve the right to kill him, to imprison him or to otherwise strip him of any and all rights for my own self defense and the defense of my family and my neighbours. I will worry about semantic quibbling after I send him to damnation.
Bob Badour- ok so you are athiest (kafr) AND Racist =)
Posted by: Hamida on December 23, 2003 06:51 PMYasmine,
How exactly do I show disrespect for Islam by suggesting one give greater weight to the alleged actual word of God over a lame rationalization of human origin and recent invention? I find your illogic remarkable.
Herein we find the true motives
I don't recall saying anything about my motives in that sentence. Are you suggesting you can read my mind or something?
This "lame rationalization" as you call it is what you clearly have a problem with
I merely suggested we give greater weight to the alleged actual word of God. What, exactly, is your objection to giving God's actual word greater weight?
How dare you call someone a bigot sir or maam?
I suggest you reread what you and your "sisters" wrote and examine the apparent assumptions. Such as the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically ignorant.
(consider what that last one says about your true opinion of Kafrs)
How, exactly, does your behaviour differ from the behaviour of a bigot? How, exactly, do you justify your open and explicit prejudice?
Yes I agree you are a kufr (and all that applies to that)
By "all that applies to that", do you mean you accept your religion's doctrine that I am vermin suitable only for extermination?
to fight to take my right to practice my religion
How exactly is anyone doing that? You seem to object very strongly to a minor limitation in a narrowly defined context related to the public education of minors in a foreign country. What are your opinions on the religious restrictions in Mecca, Medina, Teheran, Aden and Khartoum?
yes i would fight in order to ensure that right for myself, present, and future generations of Muslims.
Are you suggesting it would be appropriate for the Kafr to do the same to ensure religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, for instance?
Its a reality, no need to sugar coat it.
Then why the apparent reticence to reveal it?
Hamida,
Of course, I am a devout Atheist. Your accusation of my atheism strikes me as superfluous -- like me accusing you of being a muslim.
I am not a racist, and your accusation of racism I find a despicable slur and sophistry that is lower than low. How do you face yourself in the mirror? Or do you cover your face to escape your conscience?
I repeat the questions you so steadfastly avoid and apparently find uncomfortable:
My thoughts on having someone calling himself "Holy Warrior" doesn't really stand out to me. I really couldn't care less what people are calling themselves. As for your comment on the representation of muslims through this one title- Sure we all are Holy Warriors. And I have absolutely no problem with this representation. We are all Holy Warriors-when we are being attacked, when our religion is being attacked. We are defending our religion - and if this makes us "Holy Warriors" no shame in that. The brothers of Afghanistan who fought against the soviets were Holy Warriors- fighting to defend their country. As for "Abu Mujahid's" demeanor- isn't this pathetic of you to pick on a person and use this person as a subject of your reasoning? However, because again you insist- I agree with this person 100% so what?
As for your thoughts on the word 'Kafr' and its use in the Qur'an. Maybe you don't understand this- but In Islam- GOD is ALL-Knowing- he knows who the kafrs are and who are not.He can use this word as much as he wants to. Although we may use this term- it is not in our knowledge to give such a title to someone..so we use it cautiously and therefore can be sinful if we use this term freely all the time especially with our brothers and sisters.
A kafr is a disbeliever- meaning they have the knowledge regarding the faith but due to pride and selfishness they insist on ignoring this knowledge and attack the principles of this faith. So if you are asking me if I find myself to be in war with Kafrs- Sure- anyone that attacks my faith and prevents me from carrying out my religious duties are against Islam - Yes I am at war with them. In Islam creating wars is a sin- but defending ourselves in war is a blessing. =)
I'm not sure what all muslims think about Athiests. But I'll tell you what I think- Athiests have gone astray- and according to Islam those who have gone astray are punished. However saying this one has to keep in mind that God is All knowing and All merciful - and the supreme Judge. I treat atheists the same way I'd treat anyone else around me- UNTIL they interfere with my beliefs.
And No I am not of First Nations descent- and If I were- why does it matter?
By the way- I'm sorry If I've offended you by calling you a racist- but at times I feel your comments to be rooted from a long history of hate towards Islam and muslims.
PS. I have a conscience- but I find those who oppress the religious rights of others because they do not understand it to have none...and Can you please tell me how covering one's face one is able to escape their concience? =)
Bob,
Since when has recognizing a person's Ignorance, or lack of knowlege, meant that you are a bigot? Every comment, by the 'sisters' you use to support this claim refers to the ignorance of non-muslims about Islam. Even if you yourself are not lacking in knowledge about this religion, do you deny the fact that much of the 'rest' of the western world that share your same opinion in this matter, is in fact very limited in their knowledge about Islam? My experience living here tells me different. Is there something wrong with being ignorant, yes, is it a sentence to death, NO. Much of my own family (outside of my immediate), didnt know much about my religion, until we shared and encouraged them to know more about it. Which is what we are doing here. We are all ignorant about something or another and thats not the problem here. The problem is when people don't admit and accept the alternative when its being given to them. In this case, it seems to be the ignorance, or plain out denial that the french Muslimahs insist on wearing the hijab in and out of school and work.
You said to my reply;
"How exactly is anyone doing that? You seem to object very strongly to a minor limitation in a narrowly defined context related to the public education of minors in a foreign country"
The "ignorance", if i may use the word, in this statement is that after being told repeatedly that Islam does not make exceptions to its laws to satisfy people, you AGAIN make this remark. Islam is a faith that requires its followers to submit to Gods commandments, not those of man, and cannot be adjusted beacuse it appears offensive to the public. Whether you or anyone else agrees that Muslims are valid in our claim to follow Gods laws and not some 'lame rationalization" as you call it, does not matter in this case.
I said:
"yes i would fight in order to ensure that right for myself, present, and future generations of Muslims."
You reply:
"Are you suggesting it would be appropriate for the Kafr to do the same to ensure religious freedom in Mecca, Medina.... for instance?
Consider the fact that they, (the places listed) clearly define who and what they do and dont want there. (good for them!) See how its clear. (What religious freedoms would they be fighting to ENSURE there???) Whereas in France they clearly give ppl these rights of religion. The word ignorant is given to a person who goes there (saudi or the like) under the assumption that they can for ex., preach Christianity or atheism publically etc. Again ignorant meaning they dont know the law in this case. If they know and openly challenge this, they would not be ignorant, they would in a sense be a "holy warrior" as well. (Would you like to go there and have the right to define yourself as an athiest publically? If you do, more power to you, at least you have a cause) If the US attempted to take the right to hijab within the public setting away as well, it would be a contradiction of the right to religous freedom that the US clearly allows, and desires to 'share' with the rest of the world, and should be challenged. See how it works? The civil rights movement was not about necessarily changing the law, but ensuring the law is actually protecting all peoples freedoms and not just those of one group. Did the efforts of that movement become match those within a revolution, yes, thats because the Us has a long history of hypocrisy too. If you (not meaning you as an individual) are going to promote freedom, make sure its really being upheld, and not there to serve the interest of just one group. If a foreign country elsewhere does not wave that same banner of freedom, what can you say, at least there is no contradction within the law. If they want Islamic laws in these places, then they have the right to employ them. If they dont want religious Freedom in France, that should be clear too. Maybe they should take a lesson from those countries.
Again, We are not arguing opinions, as i said before, its very clear through YOUR words how u feel abt Islam (And no i dont read minds, i read words) We are discussing rights and the laws. This is where the battle lies, not in what ppl think should be considered or validated as Gods words. Thats not what this is about.
I said:
"Its a reality, no need to sugar coat it."
You reply:
"Then why the apparent reticence to reveal it?"
LOL, i didnt know I had to respond to the message board in a timely manner that would satisfy each and every remark and question you have. Comments like these dont belong in an intelligent debate. I dont attempt to make Islam seem less threatening or more 'comfortable' for the people. It is what it is. And yes like you and I said you are a Kufr, you obviously understand that title well, there needs to be no more time, effort,or emotion WASTED on that particular topic if you are comfortable having it.
Hamida,
Is it fair to conclude from your embrace of Holy Warrior's representation that you embrace aggressive, belligerent representation provided such representation agrees with and attempts to further your religious goals?
Given that Holy Warrior at least dissembles if not outright lies when he implicitly denies Islam's religious injunctions against seperating politics from religion or morality from law, is it fair to conclude you embrace dishonesty and deceit to advance your religious cause?
If we can conclude you lack credibility and that you embrace aggressive, belligerent representation, can we assume you embrace the young men who murdered thousands of innocent victims on Sept. 11, 2003 or the seemingly countless terrorists who strap bombs to themselves or the men who patrol Afghanistan beating women who do not satisfy their male standards of female modesty? Even in spite of any denial?
Holy Warrior asks "Who is doing the subjugation?" As Randall's third update demonstrates, in many cases, the young women's brothers are doing the subjugation. (As an aside, one wonders when Islam ceased to be a religion about subjugation to Allah.)
We are all Holy Warriors-when we are being attacked, when our religion is being attacked.
With all due respect, neither I nor the French government nor the German government are attacking you or your religion. The source of aggression and intolerance is invariably young men of your faith in France, in Germany, in Montreal, in Tonawanda, in Boston, in New York, in Paterson and in Florida (not to mention Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt etc.).
Your perverse, twisted logic uses Islamist aggression and violence to justify your own aggression and violence. Shame on you.
The brothers of Afghanistan who fought against the soviets were Holy Warriors- fighting to defend their country.
Do you mean the same men who are attacking and killing members of your armed forces for trying to protect the rights and religious freedoms of young women in Afghanistan right now?
As for "Abu Mujahid's" demeanor- isn't this pathetic of you to pick on a person and use this person as a subject of your reasoning?
Holy Warrior is a self-declared belligerent, a self-declared enemy to liberalism and an unabashed liar. Is it not pathetic to defend and apologize for these obvious character defects? Again and again and again, you and your "sisters" have leaped enthusiastically to ad hominem attacks picking on me and using some fantasy of me you concocted as a subject of your reasoning. Does that mean you find yourself and your "sisters" pathetic? Or do you apply a double standard here as well?
I agree with this person 100% so what?
Thus, in spite of your attempts to draw a cloak of western liberal vocabulary around your illiberal intolerance, you encourage young thugs in France and in Germany to beat and to threaten their female relatives into frightened submission, and you oppose any mild action by the state that attempts to protect these young women and their classmates from such intimidation. You support the public denial of your faith's true nature and teachings to use western liberal values against western liberals. At least, that is if you agree with this person 100%.
[Allah] knows who the kafrs are and who are not.
I really do not care what you believe about this mythical beast. What I find repugnant is your assumption that anyone should find the term insulting. Such prejudice reveals deep and abiding bigotry and intolerance. That you find "Kafr" an insult and "Muslim" an honorific boggles my mind.
A kafr is a disbeliever- meaning they ...
Let's just leave it as meaning they disbelieve. I reject Islam out of horror, repugnance and compassion -- not out of pride or selfishness, which is only a fantasy concocted by your prejudice and bigotry. According to Islamic history, when one strips away the apologetics and rationalizations, Mohammed was a larcenous, genocidal pedophile and a ruthless tyrant. He was in all aspects a completely vile man, and I find his religious teachings (or schizoid rantings) equally vile.
Since you are a Muslim, you must be accustomed to apologizing, rationalizing and denying Mohammed's vile nature. I do not find it surprising to find you apologizing, rationalizing and denying the vile nature of many of your co-religionists today.
anyone that attacks my faith and prevents me from carrying out my religious duties are against Islam
Nobody has attacked your faith in several centuries; although, your co-religionists attack every other faith across the whole globe. What, exactly, are you whining about?
Yes I am at war with them. In Islam creating wars is a sin- but defending ourselves in war is a blessing.
Get real. Your empty rationalizations are a scourge on this earth. Islam has created every war it has fought in fourteen centuries. It stretches reason beyond all credibility to ask people to accept that every religion on earth is aggressive toward Islam while none are aggressive to each other. The source of aggression is clear to any rational being who is willing to honestly examine the evidence. What is the common factor?
who have gone astray are punished.
And if I think Muslims have gone astray? Should they be punished?
I treat atheists the same way I'd treat anyone else around me- UNTIL they interfere with my beliefs.
In other words, it is perfectly okay for Muslims to interfere with other people's beliefs but not okay for Kafrs or for secular representatives to limit aggressive religious expression no matter how obliquely, gently, limited or justified the interference. That is quite a double standard.
And No I am not of First Nations descent- and If I were- why does it matter?
Then you are very fortunate that I am not a racist and that I reject all forms of collectivism and tribalism. Otherwise, I and my Algonquian brethren might feel justified in applying the instructions prevalent in your core religious texts to hunt you down and to drive you off our land. How do you justify living in Canada on the land stolen from me?
Isn't that kind of injustice to me an injustice to all mankind? Why do I not see you fighting to right that injustice? Do you choose your causes for your personal convenience? I stand for my principles no matter the inconvenience.
As it happens, I fully embrace western liberal values, and I think Canada is a much better place for my Algonquian ancestors having lost. Unlike you, I do not demand anyone apply western liberal values for my sake for whom I would not reciprocate. I fully reject the illiberalism and intolerance of your chosen value system.
My ancestors, their brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours fought and died for my religious freedom as well as yours. Most Muslims who have fought and died, have fought and died trying to deny my religious freedom. If you were a good and decent person, perhaps you would express more gratitude and less defiance.
I feel your comments to be rooted from a long history of hate towards Islam and muslims.
My comments are rooted in my earnest study of your vile creed's core religious texts and recorded history. Your feelings are rooted in your own prejudice and bigotry.
I find those who oppress the religious rights of others because they do not understand it to have none.
You are lucky I am more tolerant of your wanton oppression of the religious rights of others. I care naught whether you understand my religion or whether you even attempt to understand it. If you are to deserve religious rights, you must respect and sanctify my religious rights. Regardless, I respect and sanctify your right to practice your religion freely to the full extent allowed by law. Until Islam overwhelmingly embraces ecumenism and secular law in the temporal world, it will remain a vile and brutal political ideology.
Can you please tell me how covering one's face one is able to escape their concience?
Since I have no reason to desire to escape my conscience, I have no idea what might be effective nor any desire to find out.
Yasmine,
Since when has recognizing a person's Ignorance, or lack of knowlege, meant that you are a bigot?
It is not possible to "recognize" nonexistent ignorance in a learned man such as myself or Randall. Thus, your accusation does not come from any external evidence, but from your own internalized bigotry.
Every comment, by the 'sisters' you use to support this claim refers to the ignorance of non-muslims about Islam
Given that none of the non-muslims participating in this thread of discussion are ignorant of Islam, I politely suggest your knee jerk retreat to ad hominem reveals a deep and abiding bigotry.
do you deny the fact that much of the 'rest' of the western world that share your same opinion in this matter
Most of the rest of the western world are completely ignorant of Islam, which is why your strategy of cloaking your intolerance and illiberalism behind a mask of western liberal vocabulary has fooled them so effectively. You seem unable to extrapolate the effects of your dissemblance to the inevitable backlash it will cause after your co-religionists' next act of vile aggression on western soil.
Much of my own family didnt know much about my religion
Does that mean you are an apostate like Hamida?
Which is what we are doing here.
If that were true, you and your sisters would not accuse me of ignorance and racism for making accurate descriptions of your core religious texts and recorded history. I find it very telling that you do not try to deny any of those accurate descriptions. I am sure you find it very inconvenient that your history describes your religion's founder as a larcenous, genocidal pedophile and tyrant, and that your core religious texts specifically deny my religious freedom and label me little more than vermin suitable only for extermination.
You and I both know I am not ignorant. You and I both know I can support my statements using your core religious texts and recorded history, which is why you avoid the facts and retreat to such lame sophistry.
it seems to be the ignorance
How do you justify your accusation of ignorance when the evidence Randall supplied suggests anything but ignorance as the cause?
The wearing of veils and chadors in France is not voluntary for many Muslim women.
The commission reported that many public schools have become cultural hot spots where Muslim students and families question the authority of women educators, forbid girls to play sports, assault Jewish students and disrupt classes about historical issues such as the Holocaust.
...
The report described an alarming rise in sexist abuse of girls in schools and housing projects where young men, threatening ostracism and violence, intimidate girls into wearing veils and other religious garb.
...
And it's not their parents, it's their brothers who are demanding that they put it on.
Last year, the sociologist Emmanuel Brenner assembled a 200-page book, "The Lost Territories of the Republic,'' recounting dozens of incidents in which students directed ethnic slurs at their teachers and ridiculed lectures on the Holocaust. The book reportedly made a deep impression on Mr. Chirac. A half-dozen Jewish institutions have been burned to the ground, most recently in November, when an Orthodox primary school was torched in Gagny, a Paris suburb.
You take part of the below out of context and suggest it has something to do with ignorance:
to fight to take my right to practice my religionYou then accuse me of ignorance because: Islam is a faith that requires its followers to submit to Gods commandments, not those of man, and cannot be adjusted beacuse it appears offensive to the public.
How exactly is anyone doing that? You seem to object very strongly to a minor limitation in a narrowly defined context related to the public education of minors in a foreign country. What are your opinions on the religious restrictions in Mecca, Medina, Teheran, Aden and Khartoum?
Islamic injunctions are political injunctions and will remain so until Islam overwhelmingly embraces ecumenism and takes the enlightened position that secular law remains separate from and reigns over religion in the temporal world. Until that seemingly distant time, the Hijab will remain a political statement.
Do not confuse the fact that we are slow to anger with the foolish idea you are making headway in your campaign to destroy liberal democracy, secular liberalism and the separation of church and state. You will fail utterly, and in the backlash your wailing sorrow will fall on deaf ears.
Whether you or anyone else agrees that Muslims are valid in our claim to follow Gods laws and not some 'lame rationalization" as you call it,
Please stick to what I actually said. The lame rationalization was the invented story about the dress of women in Mohammed's time contrasted with what Mohammed actually claimed was God's own word. One of you criticized Randall for responding to God's own word while ignoring the lame rationalization of more recent invention.
Consider the fact that they, (the places listed) clearly define who and what they do and dont want there. (good for them!) See how its clear.
As clear as mud. France and Germany clearly define who and what they do and don't want there. Apparently, they don't want the Hijab in their public school system. Good for them! See how a two-way street works?
(What religious freedoms would they be fighting to ENSURE there???)
Oh... my religious freedom ?? The freedom to practice atheism without threat of oppression. The freedom of young women born to Islam to choose atheism or christianity or judaism or shintoism or buddha instead. The Jews' religious freedom--for instance, to make pilgrimage to the location where their brethren the Banu Quraiza were massacred in cold blood and the holy place where their bones remain to this day. Being the enlightened person fighting for liberal religious freedom you claim to be, you would not want to tolerate any kind of double standard. Would you? Of course not, that would be indefensible hypocrisy.
Whereas in France they clearly give ppl these rights of religion.
Oh, so it is okay not to give religious rights to anyone if you are in Islam, but it is mandatory everywhere else. That is indefensible hypocrisy.
The word ignorant is given to a person who goes there (saudi or the like) under the assumption that they can for ex., preach Christianity or atheism publically etc.
Well, then. You will have no objection to the people of France finding a person similarly ignorant for preaching Islam or practicing Islamic rites like the Hijab in a tradionally Christian society like France. You seem completely and profoundly ignorant of the fact that western liberalism is a two-way street. It would seem your arguments are based entirely on ignorance and hypocrisy--by your own apparent standards for determining hypocrisy and ignorance.
Again ignorant meaning they dont know the law in this case.
You mean like someone who is ignorant that western liberalism transcends the law? And who is ignorant of the fact that western liberalism is the means by which we judge the justness of the law in the temporal world?
(Would you like to go there and have the right to define yourself as an athiest publically? If you do, more power to you, at least you have a cause)
Because I actually value and embrace western liberal values, I would find it extremely hypocritical and arrogant to immigrate to another country and then demand the country reject its values in favour of mine. Just as I find you hypocritical and arrogant for trying to use my western liberal values as a weapon for the destruction of those very values.
If the US attempted to take the right to hijab within the public setting away as well, it would be a contradiction of the right to religous freedom that the US clearly allows, and desires to 'share' with the rest of the world, and should be challenged.
The US already limits religious expression. Human sacrifice, for instance, is not tolerated in the US. Many localities no longer observe the Lord's Prayer in the classroom. Canada severely restricts freedom of expression with its hate speech laws and with the fascist Bill 101 in Quebec.
See how it works?
Yes, indeed, I do. You have one set of standards for Islam and another set of standards for everyone else.
make sure [freedom of expression is] really being upheld, and not there to serve the interest of just one group.
Believe me, I support freedom of speech including the right of those whose politics I find vile and repugnant. However, I have no problem with placing limitations on freedom of speech within narrowly defined contexts especially narrowly defined contexts related to the care and education of minors. Do you t