To Hijab or not to Hijab

**Tuuvi** · 09-02-2015, 03:22

Funnily enough, even ISIS brags about how racially tolerant it is in its propaganda. Discriminating based on religion isn't the same thing as discriminating based on race.

**Brenus** · 09-02-2015, 08:56

"There is no Aryan equivalent in Islam" What about Muslim? Fitting well IMO. Muslims at the top, all others under the heel, summit or/and die.

"Funnily enough, even ISIS brags about how racially tolerant it is in its propaganda." Yeap and Nazi made beautiful movie about how the Jews were happy in their new settlements. They even had an orchestra... So Isis doesn't kill Christians and Jews... Nice to hear it.

"Discriminating based on religion isn't the same thing as discriminating based on race." This needs a little of explanation. Yes, you can convert. But it is the same principals. One above the others, and kill/oppress the others. I can't see any difference.

"Islamophobic defense mechanism" And this the typical Muslim Fanatic extremist defense when cornered. See, I can do it as well.
Then you have to tell me what is wrong to fear a religion, or to hate a religion? Religion are concepts, so I can hate or fear racism (you mixes with xenophobia), freedom, democracy, dictatorship etc. Why religions should be exempted? To be fair, yes I do hate the lack of democracy, the open discrimination, gender inequality, food prohibition, mind control, promotion of violence, promotion of slavery, call to murders, oppression of others recommended in holly books. Christianity and Jewish faith have been tamed by the Enlightenment and hundred years of Religious wars.
So it is perhaps time for Muslim Scholars to recognise (and some do exactly this) it. And it is time to educate the Muslim faithfuls of what is really the Koran, and to put a stop on legends.
As soon as the Imam will tell hat the Koran was not written directly but years after "God" dictated to the prophet, that as the Christians for the New Testament, the scholars choose what should be in it, that later, new scholars decide what was Islamic or not. Then we will start to make progress.
But of course the Muslim Clergy in majority doesn't want this. First of all, because themselves don't know it. And the ones who know don't want to loose power in the masses.

**Gilrandir** · 09-02-2015, 15:13

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Too mini", "too high", "common sense", "too much" and "right balance" are not juridical terms." Yes they are. As maximum and minimum. Judges used these notions in every day judgement and recommendations to juries.

"A law or an ordinance must be precise, otherwise there will be a mess, both on the part of those who enforce it and those who are supposed to abide by it." Wrong again I afraid. You have the law, the spirit of the law, and that is why sentences are dealt with Judges and not by computers, e.i. poor taking food from a bin is technically a theft, however few judges will sentence them on this charge.

Again I strongly doubt the usage of such vague terms in a law. So I would dearly like you to quote the decoration law to see the wording of it.

As for enforcing the law: each time one is spotted wearing a decoration some decoration supervisor submits a complaint to the jury and they pass a verdict of wearable/nonwearable? I don't think this is the way it is.

I believe that usually when someone is dissatisfied with another wearing something unacceptable he complains to the line manager or some other boss and the boss just tells the alleged perpetrator to take the thing off. The same, I believe, happens at school with the principal acting as executioner, judge and jury.

But such orders again should be based on some legally stipulated size otherwise they are arbitrary which again brings us to the neccessity of quoting the law in question.

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Does the driving law you refer to say: "you are to drive where common sense tells you, not too much to the right or too much to the left, just find a right balance"?" In fact yes, as you are allowed to cross on the other side to avoid a danger or an unexpected event (bicycles, child running after his ball, etc). Common sense in action.

These are VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW which are justified by an emergency. And the latter is questionable. What if you drive to the other side of the road to avoid hitting a child running after the ball and collide with another car killing the driver? Would the judge praise you for saving the kid or condemn you for killing another driver?

I spoke of the LAW ITSELF which clearly orders you to drive on one side of the road only.

Originally Posted by Brenus

"be my guest and make yourself at home."

It is their home. Nice from you to welcome them in their home

This idiom was used here in the meaning "there are no hostilities toward you (singular or plural) here" with no reference to ANY home.

Originally Posted by Brenus

To be fair, yes I do hate the lack of democracy, the open discrimination, gender inequality, mind control, promotion of violence, call to murders, oppression of others recommended in holly books.

And by Marxism-Leninism as well.

**Brenus** · 09-02-2015, 17:55

"Never lied either. You keep bringing up irrelevant isht like stoning to a garment." Not me. It is a practice in some Countries where the Islamic Law is enforced. So, if the garment is not in Islam, why the women are killed?
You are the one ho in one hand say the ban is islamophobic and the one say the garment is not Islamic.

"You do not know the meaning of the word, and it is misleading to describe it as racist when it does not discriminate based on racial group"

Nazi kill the Jews, and it is a religion as you can convert to an other religion. Didn't stop the Nazi to kill the Jews. I give you this one is tricky, as notion of racism is tricky.
In reality, it just make no difference. Religions discriminate, segregate, kill and oppress.

"And by Marxism-Leninism as well." Some did. Well observed.

"I don't think this is the way it is." You are right.

"I don’t believe it needs defending" Hmm, interesting point of view.

"Again I strongly doubt the usage of such vague terms in a law." You might but you are wrong. Read what I wrote. When the Judge in his/her summary, said that juries have to agree "beyond doubts", can you quantify? I can't. Nor I can measure a doubt btw.

"But such orders again should be based on some legally stipulated size otherwise they are arbitrary which again brings us to the neccessity of quoting the law in question." Yes, just go in a internal code of clothing in any company, or schools, and they provide length, colours and other style you are allowed to wear at work. In UK, schools have uniforms, and no ones seems to care too much. Just it seems the religious stipulation has more power in UK than in France. They even different helmets in the Police to make sure than Sikhs, Muslim and others can be recognised immediately, then they complain about discrimination.

"These are VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW which are justified by an emergency" No, there are not. If you kill a kid running after his ball then pretext of the respect of the law for doing it, you will find out it is not a lawful argument.

**AE Bravo** · 09-02-2015, 18:08

Not me. It is a practice in some Countries where the Islamic Law is enforced. So, if the garment is not in Islam, why the women are killed?
You are the one ho in one hand say the ban is islamophobic and the one say the garment is not Islamic.

I just told you that not covering is not punishable by stoning or death. Stoning is not relevant to this issue, there is no reason to try to reinforce your point by using stoning.
It's Islamophobic in the sense that it shows a lack of understanding of different communities that happen to be Muslim. Covering your head is not a symbol of oppression. I can't think up of a reason why this bothers people so much other than their thirsty asses thinking for some reason they can't get in her pants if she's wearing one. That's just not true. I know a few (openly) hoes that wear a niqab.

Did I mention that not wearing stuff on your head is not punishable by stoning?

**Pannonian** · 09-02-2015, 19:52

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

I just told you that not covering is not punishable by stoning or death. Stoning is not relevant to this issue, there is no reason to try to reinforce your point by using stoning.
It's Islamophobic in the sense that it shows a lack of understanding of different communities that happen to be Muslim. Covering your head is not a symbol of oppression. I can't think up of a reason why this bothers people so much other than their thirsty asses thinking for some reason they can't get in her pants if she's wearing one. That's just not true. I know a few (openly) hoes that wear a niqab.

Did I mention that not wearing stuff on your head is not punishable by stoning?

The niqab should be banned, for the same reason as the burka. Covering the head is ok. Covering the face is not. The argument may be very slightly different if it's a garment with a significant history in the host country. But it's a garment introduced from abroad, so it doesn't have that saving grace. I wouldn't mind if balaclava helmets are banned either for the same reason. A scarf over the face to keep warm is acceptable outdoors when it may be required. Once indoors, which is when identification of individuals is required as a society, there is no reason to keep the face obscured.

No good reason anyway. Those guys who tried to rob a jewellery store in burkas just confirmed my dislike of clothing designed to obscure identification of individuals.