[arista]

Originally Posted by InOne

This topic comes up alot, and I've always posted this vid. So no point breaking tradition. Pat can take it from here.

Youtube video

Bang On Right Pat

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing clothing and symbols of their faith. The burkha is different. If nothing else it's a threat to security. If you want to wear a hajib, fine. If you want to wear a burkha, go and wear it in Saudi.

To letmein, who likened the German's decision regarding the burkha to their treatment of the Jews... gimme a break. If a woman walked around in Saudi in a bikini, do you think they Saudis would be all cut up about stopping it? It's opposite ends of the same scale. If women want to adhere to a medieval dress code (and you say Europeans have learned nothing!), let them do it somewhere women haven't fought for emancipation.

Well done on this post
As with just about all of Livia's posts, the above is in my opinion the post of this thread.

Deep insight and perfectly presented. Pure fact,right and no invention in it whatsoever.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing clothing and symbols of their faith. The burkha is different. If nothing else it's a threat to security. If you want to wear a hajib, fine. If you want to wear a burkha, go and wear it in Saudi.

To letmein, who likened the German's decision regarding the burkha to their treatment of the Jews... gimme a break. If a woman walked around in Saudi in a bikini, do you think they Saudis would be all cut up about stopping it? It's opposite ends of the same scale. If women want to adhere to a medieval dress code (and you say Europeans have learned nothing!), let them do it somewhere women haven't fought for emancipation.

I think what letmein meant was that Germany in the Third Reich is possibly the most terrifying example of totalitarianism in recent history. Germany has had to learn the dangers of the Idea of Progress and social engineering the hard way.

I think this burkha ban demands a worldview predicated upon the ghastly notion that people can somehow, paradoxically, be coerced into being free. That to allow people to do, say (and wear) what they please somehow constitutes oppressing them and they are only free when they are made to see reason. The inevitable culmination of this idealistic mentality in revolutionary France was the Reign of Terror, in the 20th century and today, it is the modern police state.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

I think what letmein meant was that Germany in the Third Reich is possibly the most terrifying example of totalitarianism in recent history. Germany has had to learn the dangers of the Idea of Progress and social engineering the hard way.

I think this burkha ban demands a worldview predicated upon the ghastly notion that people can somehow, paradoxically, be coerced into being free. That to allow people to do, say (and wear) what they please somehow constitutes oppressing them and they are only free when they are made to see reason. The inevitable culmination of this idealistic mentality in revolutionary France was the Reign of Terror, in the 20th century and today, it is the modern police state.

Funny that, I have the complete opposite opinion - that Islam is a totalitarian political and religious ideology which is being imposed on us, the burka being a political statement NOT a religious one. I find it invidious that women in this country who have fought so long and hard for emancipation are expected to condone and accept this blatant visual reminder of the medieval mindset of a male dominated ideology without a murmur. THAT to me is oppressive and coercive.

It is not the garment per se, but its political symbolism of an intolerant and separatist "religion". I have no wish to live in such a society and its time women in this country made their voices heard, and braved the inevitable attempts to silence us with accusations of racism. We should oppose it not just for ourselves but for ALL women oppressed and subjugated by men. Furthermore, the notion that all women who wear the burka have CHOSEN to do so of their own free and unindoctrinated will and without the coercion of muslim men is a fantasy in the blinkered minds of idealists.

[Angus]

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity


Monday, 13 July 2009



Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity

I am a Shia Muslim and I abhor the burqa. I am offended by the unchallenged presumption that women covering their heads and bodies and now faces are more pious and true than am I.


Islam in all its diverse forms entitles believers to a personal relationship with Allah – it cuts out middlemen, one reason its appeal extended to so many across the world. You can seek advice from learned scholars and imams, but they cannot come between your faith and the light of God. Today control freaks who claim they have a special line to the Almighty have turned our world dark. Neo-conservative Islamic codes spread like swine flu, an infection few seem able to resist.

The disease is progressive. It started 20 years ago with the hijab, donned then as a defiant symbol of identity, now a conscript's uniform. Then came the jilbab, the cloak, fought over in courts when schoolgirls were manipulated into claiming it as an essential Islamic garment. If so, hell awaits the female leaders of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Soon, children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.

White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.

They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now.

What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence.

Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity?

Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.

As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.

We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?

Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out. We need an urgent, open conversation on this issue – which divides the Muslim intelligensia as much as the nation. Our social environment, fragile and precious, matters more than choice and custom should to British Muslims. If we don't compromise for the greater good, the future looks only more bitter and bleak. Saying so doesn't make me the enemy of my people.

y.alibhaibrown@independent.co.uk



I rest my case.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity


Monday, 13 July 2009



Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity

I am a Shia Muslim and I abhor the burqa. I am offended by the unchallenged presumption that women covering their heads and bodies and now faces are more pious and true than am I.


Islam in all its diverse forms entitles believers to a personal relationship with Allah – it cuts out middlemen, one reason its appeal extended to so many across the world. You can seek advice from learned scholars and imams, but they cannot come between your faith and the light of God. Today control freaks who claim they have a special line to the Almighty have turned our world dark. Neo-conservative Islamic codes spread like swine flu, an infection few seem able to resist.

The disease is progressive. It started 20 years ago with the hijab, donned then as a defiant symbol of identity, now a conscript's uniform. Then came the jilbab, the cloak, fought over in courts when schoolgirls were manipulated into claiming it as an essential Islamic garment. If so, hell awaits the female leaders of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Soon, children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.

White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.

They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now.

What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence.

Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity?

Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.

As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.

We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?

Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out. We need an urgent, open conversation on this issue – which divides the Muslim intelligensia as much as the nation. Our social environment, fragile and precious, matters more than choice and custom should to British Muslims. If we don't compromise for the greater good, the future looks only more bitter and bleak. Saying so doesn't make me the enemy of my people.

y.alibhaibrown@independent.co.uk



I rest my case.

Nicely expressed opinion from Yasmin, some excellent points, so good you posted it twice.

Notice she asks for open conversation not a ban.

Saying that though she does undermine your position that most women are forced or coerced into wearing it with this line:

"Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality."

Or this one

"They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled"

Both would seem to imply there are a lot of women who willingly adopt this dress style.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Scott

Wouldnt stop a male foot fetish having naughty thoughts would it?

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Wouldnt stop a male foot fetish having naughty thoughts would it?

[billy123]

Originally Posted by InOne

This topic comes up alot, and I've always posted this vid. So no point breaking tradition. Pat can take it from here.

Youtube video

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by angus58

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity


Monday, 13 July 2009



Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity

I am a Shia Muslim and I abhor the burqa. I am offended by the unchallenged presumption that women covering their heads and bodies and now faces are more pious and true than am I.


Islam in all its diverse forms entitles believers to a personal relationship with Allah – it cuts out middlemen, one reason its appeal extended to so many across the world. You can seek advice from learned scholars and imams, but they cannot come between your faith and the light of God. Today control freaks who claim they have a special line to the Almighty have turned our world dark. Neo-conservative Islamic codes spread like swine flu, an infection few seem able to resist.

The disease is progressive. It started 20 years ago with the hijab, donned then as a defiant symbol of identity, now a conscript's uniform. Then came the jilbab, the cloak, fought over in courts when schoolgirls were manipulated into claiming it as an essential Islamic garment. If so, hell awaits the female leaders of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Soon, children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.

White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.

They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now.

What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence.

Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity?

Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.

As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.

We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?

Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out. We need an urgent, open conversation on this issue – which divides the Muslim intelligensia as much as the nation. Our social environment, fragile and precious, matters more than choice and custom should to British Muslims. If we don't compromise for the greater good, the future looks only more bitter and bleak. Saying so doesn't make me the enemy of my people.

y.alibhaibrown@independent.co.uk



I rest my case.

A comprehensive and brilliant post........

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yes that reply was just a general comment on the whole "we have to cover up in their countries" argument that is often used as opposed to a specific response to your post

This is a secular country in all but name. Sure by law, the Queen is head of the CoE and we're a Christian nation but very few in this country hold a firm belief in God and Christianity is on the decline while Islam is on the rise. I am indeed well aware of the Queen's status so no need to be so patronising there.

Why is the burkha "different"? You didnt really give a reason there, you just stated that it was. The burkha is surely just an extension of the hijab, they are both intended to protect the Muslim womans modesty.

If there is a British Muslim woman and she considers the burkha crucial to her relgious beliefs then I feel she has every right to wear one, and I'd hope that she would be allowed to in a country that preaches civil liberties and freedom of religion, instead of being forced away to a fundamentalist and repressive country like Saudi.

It annoys me how people always say "they shouldnt have come here in the first place" and "we respet their culture" or something along those lines when more often or not your average Muslim in this country is just as British as you or I.

As British as you, perhaps. What annoys ME is that you're assuming that I'm a white Anglo-Saxon protestant because I disagree with the Burkha. I've said over and over that I support people's religious freedom. You make me sound like a member of the BNP.

I am a Jew whose family (mostly) came to this country as refugees following release from the death camps after WW2. I have family living who are tattooed with their concentration camp numbers. You cannot equate Germany's ban on the burkha to their previous history which is what you tried to do in your original post by saying that Germany especially should be aware of their past. I am paraphrasing, obviously.

I never said they shouldn't come here in the first place. I am hardly in a position to say that. I have (generally) found this country has treated my family and our religious beliefs with respect and in return my family respected the culture and traditions of the UK. In a country so accepting of other cultures, it surprises me that people accuse this country of being unaccepting because they disagree with the burkha.

Anyway, we clearly disagree on this. And that's fine.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Livia

As British as you, perhaps. What annoys ME is that you're assuming that I'm a white Anglo-Saxon protestant because I disagree with the Burkha. I've said over and over that I support people's religious freedom. You make me sound like a member of the BNP.

I am a Jew whose family (mostly) came to this country as refugees following release from the death camps after WW2. I have family living who are tattooed with their concentration camp numbers. You cannot equate Germany's ban on the burkha to their previous history which is what you tried to do in your original post by saying that Germany especially should be aware of their past. I am paraphrasing, obviously.

I never said they shouldn't come here in the first place. I am hardly in a position to say that. I have (generally) found this country has treated my family and our religious beliefs with respect and in return my family respected the culture and traditions of the UK. In a country so accepting of other cultures, it surprises me that people accuse this country of being unaccepting because they disagree with the burkha.

Anyway, we clearly disagree on this. And that's fine.

Hang on a sec, it was a different poster who made the compairson to the Nazi's (letmein I think), I never did such a thing, and it was not my intention to make you sound like a member of the BNP.

But yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Zippy]

I saw a woman on the train last week wearing a burka. Talk about drawing attention to yourself. Which, ironically, is apparently the opposite of its intention.

she may as well have been holding a sign saying keep the fck away from me because thats kinda the signal it sends out. Very sad.

[InOne]

It's worst when you have to talk to them when wearing one, when they're a shop owner or something. Their eyes always look really scary

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by InOne

It's worst when you have to talk to them when wearing one, when they're a shop owner or something. Their eyes always look really scary

worse than a balaclava.

somebody mentioned nuns...well nuns show their faces and are usually smiley and friendly(I used to live near a convent and saw them everyday). Seeing somebodies whole face makes a massive difference.

[Vicky.]

You know...I have never ever seen anyone actually in real life wearing a burka...

Plenty of hijabs but never a burka. I do think it would look quite creepy, especially having to talk to someone wearing one. I would be uncomfortable speaking to someone wearing a balaclava also, which I think is pretty much the same thing...I need to see faces, not just big scary eyes

[InOne]

Well, where I live quite a lot have them, it's a common thing lol It was at a market stall though, doubt they'd be allowed even in their own run shops. But yeah, it stands out massive and definitely makes a point. "Here I am, Muslim and free"

[arista]

Originally Posted by InOne

It's worst when you have to talk to them when wearing one, when they're a shop owner or something. Their eyes always look really scary

Yes they can look Scary.


But under that could be a Woman.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes they can look Scary.


But under that could be a Woman.

[Zippy]

there could be anything lurking beneath that gear, lets be honest. I think they just get used to not having to shave or take care of their looks.