[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I see the Burka as a symbol of oppression, and to be quite honest I applaud Germany and France for banning it. It's backward and demeaning to women, If they don't like it then don't go to those countries.

Unfortunately its not the whole of Germany, only the state of Hesse.


Wonder if they will also fine brides wearing veils on the way to get married.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Unfortunately its not the whole of Germany, only the state of Hesse.


Wonder if they will also fine brides wearing veils on the way to get married.

Don't be silly

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Don't be silly

Oh you mean its okay for christian, jewish hindi etc women to wear veils for traditional, religious and cultural reasons but not for muslim women to do the same?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Oh you mean its okay for christian, jewish hindi etc women to wear veils for traditional, religious and cultural reasons but not for muslim women to do the same?

Now you're being deliberately disingenuous - of course veils are worn at such ceremonies, but they are NOT worn 24/7 as you well know. To walk around in Britain today totally unidentifiable is unacceptable, and unfortunately the muslim community are doing themselves no favours when they insist on us respecting their culture and then don't have the decency and consideration to respect ours. I am particularly outraged at the two muslim councillors, ironically from the Respect Party, who refused to honour Matt Croucher who won the George Cross. Such bloody hypocrisy.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Now you're being deliberately disingenuous - of course veils are worn at such ceremonies, but they are NOT worn 24/7 as you well know. .

Fully agree with the mutual respect part of your post, however the burqa isnt worn 24/7 either, its only worn when the female is in a location when males other than her husband/family may see her.

Also the requirement is removed if she is on pilgrimage. (Ihram)

The point I was making unless the ban is enforced reference bridal veils etc, it could be seen by the buffoons of ECHR as being discriminatory on religious/cultural grounds

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Fully agree with the mutual respect part of your post, however the burqa isnt worn 24/7 either, its only worn when the female is in a location when males other than her husband/family may see her.

Also the requirement is removed if she is on pilgrimage. (Ihram)

The point I was making unless the ban is enforced reference bridal veils etc, it could be seen by the buffoons of ECHR as being discriminatory on religious/cultural grounds

Well that says it all, really, doesn't it?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Oh you mean its okay for christian, jewish hindi etc women to wear veils for traditional, religious and cultural reasons but not for muslim women to do the same?

Veils worn with a wedding dress is fashion, it's worn for a day and it isn't repressive.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Unfortunately its not the whole of Germany, only the state of Hesse.


Wonder if they will also fine brides wearing veils on the way to get married.

The state of Hessel is runned by Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by chuck.pass

The state of Hessel is runned by Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats.

Yeah so I read, should be quite amusing if a muslim runs with this to the ECHR on "religious" grounds and challenges the bans on it, especially if the court backed the right to wear and declared the ban illegal.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah so I read, should be quite amusing if a muslim runs with this to the ECHR on "religious" grounds and challenges the bans on it, especially if the court backed the right to wear and declared the ban illegal.

No danger of that happening seeing as how the wearing of the Burka is NOT a religious requirement - and I defy anyone on this forum to find such a dictat in the Qu'ran.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

No danger of that happening seeing as how the wearing of the Burka is NOT a religious requirement - and I defy anyone on this forum to find such a dictat in the Qu'ran.

Its a question of interpretation,

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"

Qur'an Sura Nur Chapter: The Light. Verse 31

Thanks to Wikipedia

A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on his Saudi Arabian website Islam QA, states:

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman

Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid is a quite well respected Islamic jurist albeit not very moderate in his beliefs.

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Its a question of interpretation,



A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on his Saudi Arabian website Islam QA, states:

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman

Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid is a quite well respected Islamic jurist albeit not very moderate in his beliefs.

I honestly believe that the prophets people worship would be horrified by the justifications made in their name. Literal interpretations of the moral meanderings of holy men thousands of years ago are unacceptable and illogical. Reading anything while ignoring its historical context and trying to directly apply its teaching to a completely different time just makes no sense whatsoever - and this applies to the literal interpretation of the Christian bible too.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

I honestly believe that the prophets people worship would be horrified by the justifications made in their name. Literal interpretations of the moral meanderings of holy men thousands of years ago are unacceptable and illogical. Reading anything while ignoring its historical context and trying to directly apply its teaching to a completely different time just makes no sense whatsoever - and this applies to the literal interpretation of the Christian bible too.

Very true, however there are other Muslim scholars and jurists who make similar sort of interpretations, there always will be I suppose. And as you say it does happen in other religions too.

And there will always be people who follow them.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Its a question of interpretation,



A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on his Saudi Arabian website Islam QA, states:

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman

Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid is a quite well respected Islamic jurist albeit not very moderate in his beliefs.

"The most tempting part of her body" good grief, what a pathetic indictment of the male species to suggest they have so little self control over their own bodies that they have to demonise women as the "temptresses" and cover them up in case they are seduced against their will. It's never the fault of their wayward dicks is it?

The very fact that a supposedly intelligent and educated man has actually stated this just goes to demonstrate the mindset of a religion still firmly stuck in the middle ages when women were chattels and, unfortunately, in the 21st century, still are to muslim men. Let's not forget what Muhammad told his male followers in his Farewell Sermon - that women were helpless captives in their households and they were entitled to discipline them. Over all these centuries nothing has changed.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by angus58

No danger of that happening seeing as how the wearing of the Burka is NOT a religious requirement - and I defy anyone on this forum to find such a dictat in the Qu'ran.

Find a requirement in the Bible that states that "nuns" should have to cover themselves.