To Hijab or not to Hijab

[Gilrandir]

Anyone who thinks it's ok to bring these cultural features over here against our objections can bugger off back whence they came.

The problem is that they don't bring this or that cultural feature piecemeal. They import culture as a whole. Some of it (like the food) you may like, others dislike, but if you allow people of an alien culture inside your country, don't expect them to bring in only those elements of the culture that may appeal to you.

[rory_20_uk]

The problem is that they don't bring this or that cultural feature piecemeal. They import culture as a whole. Some of it (like the food) you may like, others dislike, but if you allow people of an alien culture inside your country, don't expect them to bring in only those elements of the culture that may appeal to you.

When the native culture has primacy, this isn't an issue since some bits are adopted (curry after polo on the verranda with a nice G&T, or perhaps a nice BBQ listening to Reggae or Soca music) and others not (defecation in the streets, FGM, suttee).

[Pannonian]

Well, in your example the husband sounds like a thug but more generally there IS an element of arrogance to it. It says "look, see, I am a Muslim". I work with several girls who wear the Hijab, and absent that you would not be able to tell they were Muslims - they swear, they sit on chairs with their feet tucked under them, they wear lipstick and blush... So it's just about being SEEN to be Muslim, and in the UK with our history of religious violence ostentatious religious displays are unwelcome bordering on offensive.

One might presume that all women wearing the Burkha think all women should wear the Burkha.

Oh of course there is, the Hijab, the Niqab, the hats the men wear, having the Koran exclusively in Arabic. These are all cultural rather than religious markers. As I recall there's no mention of a woman covering her head in the Koran or the Hadith - you have to go back to the Torah for that. Actually, side point, there's at least one instance where the Prophet basically quotes the Torah in the Hadith - it's the passage relating to rape.

Several women have evaded border security wearing the Burkha, one terrorist escaped the country wearing his sister's Burkha. More generally the face veil prevents identification against photo ID and the Burkha is large and Bulky enough that you can hide a broken down assault rifle or an explosive belt under it.

Easy to dismiss, but the level of violence directed against Muslim women suggests that the population generally is unhappy.

It's easy enough to identify the female nutters by way of their clothing, of which the burkha is the most extreme form of saying that they have no wish whatsoever of adapting to western sensibilities. I wish there were an equivalent way of identifying the male nutters though, which because of their belief in this intensely patriarchal system, are the real a-holes in all this. For them, it's their attitude and behaviour that marks them out. Unfortunately, it's the victims they leave behind that concretely marks them out, and by that point it's too late. Although I'd venture a guess that anyone wearing a burkha would have a male nutter somewhere in the family.

[Pannonian]

When the native culture has primacy, this isn't an issue since some bits are adopted (curry after polo on the verranda with a nice G&T, or perhaps a nice BBQ listening to Reggae or Soca music) and others not (defecation in the streets, FGM, suttee).

Pity those who have to clear up after someone has committed suttee. Suttee and sweep is a grim combination.

[AE Bravo]

I don't support those states - I have repeatedly and consistently argued in favour of supporting popular revolutions in the Middle East for several years now. In particular, I have argued we should actively support them BEFORE they turn violent and if it is not practical to achieve overthrow of the regime in this way then to support the secular opposition militarily.

And then proceed to complain about barbarity.

One might presume that all women wearing the Burkha think all women should wear the Burkha.

One might be full of crap then.

Oh of course there is, the Hijab, the Niqab, the hats the men wear, having the Koran exclusively in Arabic. These are all cultural rather than religious markers. As I recall there's no mention of a woman covering her head in the Koran or the Hadith - you have to go back to the Torah for that. Actually, side point, there's at least one instance where the Prophet basically quotes the Torah in the Hadith - it's the passage relating to rape.

There is no universal Islamic culture. Look at what women in Tehran wear. Do you consider the Torah's Hebrew to be a cultural marker? God chose a people and their land as the spiritual birthplace for them to spread his message, can't get more religious than this. (also it doesn't matter what hats men wear, that's irrelevant)

More generally the face veil prevents identification against photo ID and the Burkha is large and Bulky enough that you can hide a broken down assault rifle or an explosive belt under it.

Who takes a photo ID with a niqab or burka on? I don't think that's even legal. Rain coats are large and bulky enough to hide explosives under too. LOL @ "broken down assault rifle." Not an argument.

Easy to dismiss, but the level of violence directed against Muslim women suggests that the population generally is unhappy.

Here it is, the level of violence directed against women by the native population. This is because the population is so incredibly ignorant of a large portion of the inhabitants of their own country.

http://tellmamauk.org/16-year-old-bo...-in-rotherham/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...t-of-sikh-man/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No. Witness the contradiction:



Not even becoming an anchorite could save you from the inconsistency.

OK, I don't see it - so you're going to have to explain, logically.

Okay, so the hijab says "I'm a muslim", and you don't have a problem with the hijab. Buka also says "I'm a muslim", but you do have a problem with it. Why?

No, I have a problem with both - but I'm willing to tolerate the Hijab, it's somewhat less anachronistic and I can almost appreciate it because my mother still wears a hat in Church and my Nan used to wear a scarf over her hair up until ten years ago - then she stopped bothering.

Let them think whatever the hell they want to think, or are we now going to punish people for thought crimes?

Punish people for thought crimes? No, certainly not, but I'm not above offending religious sensibilities if I consider a certain practice harmful to society at large - a few years ago certain shops started selling hoodies that basically zipped up to cover the hole head with holes for the eyes. I can't recall if they were actually banned, or if public pressure simply forced the companies to stop selling them but you don't see the garment at all now.

I would blame the incompetent border guards or customs agents for this.

Many of them are afraid of cries of "racist" or even "rape" to take a woman aside and have her remove the burkha - even if she's supervised by a female agent.

Yeah, it truly sucks to be a muslim woman. Enslaved by her kin and also piled on by the society at large.

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider hijabs or burkas to be something positive. I also can see how those can be offensive. My point is that the right to offend is a cornerstone of a free society.

I don't think there's anyone at the org who is more anti-islam than I am. I'm not on their side, I'm on the side of freedom.

As I said, for me personally, I consider the Niqab to be beyond the pale.

And then proceed to complain about barbarity.

The idea is to beat the Regime quickly before society falls apart completely and everybody starts eating each other. Granted, it doesn't always work, it may never work, but it's still better than letting the whole thing drag out until the entire country is nothing but rubble

One might be full of crap then.

These women consider the Burkha et Niqab to be the standard of modesty - are you saying that they don't think women who don't wear it are immodest?

There is no universal Islamic culture. Look at what women in Tehran wear. Do you consider the Torah's Hebrew to be a cultural marker? God chose a people and their land as the spiritual birthplace for them to spread his message, can't get more religious than this. (also it doesn't matter what hats men wear, that's irrelevant)

Wait, are you saying you don't think the Hebrew Torah is a cultural marker?

Iran is, ironically, quite a liberal Islamic state. On the other hand, compare similarities between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and IS.

Who takes a photo ID with a niqab or burka on? I don't think that's even legal. Rain coats are large and bulky enough to hide explosives under too. LOL @ "broken down assault rifle." Not an argument.

Errrrr.

Where to start.

1. The problem is when you ask them to take the Burkha off.

2. Pretty sure you have to take a heavy coat OFF and put it through the X-Ray seperately. It's been a while since I flew but I distinctly recall having to take my cord jacket off.

Here it is, the level of violence directed against women by the native population. This is because the population is so incredibly ignorant of a large portion of the inhabitants of their own country.

http://tellmamauk.org/16-year-old-bo...-in-rotherham/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...t-of-sikh-man/

It's not ignorance, it's dislike of difference.

[rvg]

Many of them are afraid of cries of "racist" or even "rape" to take a woman aside and have her remove the burkha - even if she's supervised by a female agent.

Nobody cares what they're afraid of. The law is the law. If a customs official doesn't have the guts to do his job, he should resign and let someone competent do it instead.

[AE Bravo]

The idea is to beat the Regime quickly before society falls apart completely and everybody starts eating each other. Granted, it doesn't always work, it may never work, but it's still better than letting the whole thing drag out until the entire country is nothing but rubble

Very idealistic and pretty much impossible. You forcefully change a country's political system, no matter how quickly and in the absence of a culture of peaceful reform, you will fail.

These women consider the Burkha et Niqab to be the standard of modesty - are you saying that they don't think women who don't wear it are immodest?

Personal preference. I don't sense them looking down on their veilless friends. Maybe it's a symbol of piety, maybe they just want to wear it. Where do you get all this? Bold assumptions.

Wait, are you saying you don't think the Hebrew Torah is a cultural marker?

Weird way of looking at it but okay, whatever. So in what language is the Bible a cultural marker? Tao Te Ching is cultural no matter what text you put it in for example. This is all bs so here is the point again: there is no universal Islamic culture and the fact you said "liberal Islamic state" proves that.

Iran is, ironically, quite a liberal Islamic state. On the other hand, compare similarities between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and IS.

First off what Iran presents isn't a variation of Islam. Second, how do any of these three solely define modern Islamic culture?

1. The problem is when you ask them to take the Burkha off.

They still take it off though so what's the problem...?

It's not ignorance, it's dislike of difference.

Which translates to beating up women in the streets and mixing up a Sikh with a Muslim. The Sikh guy got yelled at for being a terrorist before he was hospitalized, that's ignorance. You can twist and turn all you want but the fact is these people are non-Islamist women beaters and oppressors.

omg Islam is a religion of violence, UK is a nation of violence. Value judgements GTFO and take your women beaters with you.

[Husar]

That's a funky logic: We have people who hunt and beat up Muslim women in the streets -> Obviously there is something wrong with Muslim women...

How about there are people who blow up westerners -> Obviously there is something wrong with westerners...

I also don't see how one can complain about the culture or religion being way to patriarchal and that the burka is a sign of oppression of women and then claim they all want to wear it out of sheer arrogance. I suppose someone will claim that these arguments come from different people, but then maybe it would be nice if people who argue to ban something wouldn't give mutually exclusive answers as for why it is bad because that makes the arguments seem very silly.

[Montmorency]

OK, I don't see it - so you're going to have to explain, logically.

you can't have morals and traffic with the Devil, it doesn't wash.

To gerrymander a new understanding of "evil" for every separate occasion and then ignore the resulting cascades of inconsistency...

Let's be blunt, if you accept a notion like "evil" then you can't escape it with convenient No True Scotsman devices. To conceive evil is to live with it, at all times.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Despite all this talk, the political reality is that European voters are going to reject current "multiculturalism" policies within the next two election cycles (give or take for the country). This seems to be the trend according to the polls. European states/borders will become more militarized in response to the number of refugees/abusers that are flocking to western europe. Schengen will collapse, except for the trade portions as Monty pointed out. The social systems will take a hit as resources are diverted to the growing military forces patrolling the borders. This additional strain will only put more blame on the refugees that are already inside the borders and if the left does not change it's tune soon, the right wing extremists are going to have public support for more radical domestic policies.

[Husar]

Despite all this talk, the political reality is that European voters are going to reject current "multiculturalism" policies within the next two election cycles (give or take for the country). This seems to be the trend according to the polls. European states/borders will become more militarized in response to the number of refugees/abusers that are flocking to western europe. Schengen will collapse, except for the trade portions as Monty pointed out. The social systems will take a hit as resources are diverted to the growing military forces patrolling the borders. This additional strain will only put more blame on the refugees that are already inside the borders and if the left does not change it's tune soon, the right wing extremists are going to have public support for more radical domestic policies.

Is America still looking for qualified people or will I have to hide in a boat and save a fortune for a trafficker?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is America still looking for qualified people or will I have to hide in a boat and save a fortune for a trafficker?

We are a fair people. You and 1500 other Germans can come over.

[Pannonian]

Is America still looking for qualified people or will I have to hide in a boat and save a fortune for a trafficker?

You won't like the bit where they tell you to renounce your allegiances to any previous countries and instead pledge yourself to the US. Since it's exactly what you object to wrt Islam and Europe.

[Brenus]

“First off what Iran presents isn't a variation of Islam” Partially agree, as it is as well a “Persia against Arab” problem but really? Hidden Prophet? Battle of Karbala?
https://youtu.be/xwQjO-XmpE0
Well, some might say it was political, and it was certainly, but it made a rift between 2 streams of Islam. The first rift, followed by others, as Islam is not one.
Do note that the link present one side of the story (evil against good), and of course the other side wouldn’t agree with it.

“Which translates to beating up women in the streets and mixing up a Sikh with a Muslim.” Yeap, Muslim men haven’t the monopoly of violence against women and Religion neither. However some religions say it is ok to beat women.

“omg Islam is a religion of violence, UK is a nation of violence.” The Book itself contains the seeds of extremism and violence, as the life of the Prophet itself. I am not a professional in British laws, but I can tell you that English women beaters have not articles of law to present to a jury when in Court. Muslim men can because there is one.
Your point of view is Islam doesn’t need to be defended. It just can’t stand scrutiny. When laws by Secular State are bad, they are changed, but how can you change the words of God without first recognise they are not entirely the word of god?

“Maybe it's a symbol of piety, maybe they just want to wear it. Where do you get all this? Bold assumptions.” You are absolutely right. So, yes, you might see women wearing the Hidjab for fashion reason, but you might see some wearing for political/religious reason. And no state should be able or authorised to decide how faithful follow their religion/fashion within the frame work of the law it is up the law to draw a line when and where, at which condition. Same for nudity: authorised in some beaches, forbidden at work or in public places, even if you are a Druid.
It would be stupid to ban helmet when driving a motorcycle. However, it is not allowed to wear a helmet in a bank (even entering in a bank).

"You won't like the bit where they tell you to renounce your allegiances to any previous countries and instead pledge yourself to the US" Err, I was sure it was for Nationality Oath. So, you are telling that to work in the USA you need to pledge allegiance to the USA?
And some said that Europe is Fascist...

[rory_20_uk]

That's a funky logic: We have people who hunt and beat up Muslim women in the streets -> Obviously there is something wrong with Muslim women...

I don't think anyone has advocated beating up anyone who covers their face, muslim or otherwise. There are also people who beat up blacks / gays / cripples.

So getting away from the ...

The thing that is wrong is covering one's face in public, be that with a gas mark, a harlequin mask, an "anonymous" mask etc. I know many muslim women who manage to hold their creed without covering up their face - it is not a religious requirement and not something that should be tolerated (in as much in the same way we do not accept someone entering a bank with a bicycle helmet on), no more than we'd tolerate the KKK wearing full face coverings as part of their beliefs.

[Fragony]

That's a funky logic: We have people who hunt and beat up Muslim women in the streets -> Obviously there is something wrong with Muslim women...

Don't know if that is true, but if they wear full cover I don't feel sorry for them, I am not going to help, I am not even calling the policeor an ambulance. If you drop the glove it can be picked up, if I behave highly inapropiate I get beat up as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very idealistic and pretty much impossible. You forcefully change a country's political system, no matter how quickly and in the absence of a culture of peaceful reform, you will fail.

Well, we did it in Germany and Japan - we changed Germany so much they're now willing to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. Even the most charitable view of the traditional German Psyche would not allow for that.

In any case, it's not about being the force for change it's about picking a side - the best side you can find - rather than letting a corrupt and brutal regime destroy a country just so no one else can have it.

Personal preference. I don't sense them looking down on their veilless friends. Maybe it's a symbol of piety, maybe they just want to wear it. Where do you get all this? Bold assumptions.

Where I come from ostentatious symbols of piety are considered rude because they imply moral superiority. "I wear a Burkha, I am pious, you do not, you are not as pious as me".

It's inescapable. It's like me wearing a wooden cross, putting on an undyed wool robe and leather sandals and putting my Bible and all my worldly possessions into a leather scrip.

Weird way of looking at it but okay, whatever. So in what language is the Bible a cultural marker? Tao Te Ching is cultural no matter what text you put it in for example. This is all bs so here is the point again: there is no universal Islamic culture and the fact you said "liberal Islamic state" proves that.

Are you saying that Islam is not a defining feature of Pakistani or Saudi culture? I find that hard to believe - they produce the same kind of nutters.

First off what Iran presents isn't a variation of Islam. Second, how do any of these three solely define modern Islamic culture?

Because they're Shia?

They still take it off though so what's the problem...?

Sometimes they don't, or you have to take them into a side room - point is they require quite awkward special dispensations. I object to fuss on principle.

Which translates to beating up women in the streets and mixing up a Sikh with a Muslim. The Sikh guy got yelled at for being a terrorist before he was hospitalized, that's ignorance. You can twist and turn all you want but the fact is these people are non-Islamist women beaters and oppressors.

omg Islam is a religion of violence, UK is a nation of violence. Value judgements GTFO and take your women beaters with you.

Oh no, you misunderstand, they are ignorant - and they're thugs because they attack women - but the point I am making is that, intrinsically, Britons find a covered face provocative - choosing to cover your face in public as a way to show your religion is therefore making a deliberately provocative choice. These women either do it knowing they will offend, or they don't understand - in either case they're setting themselves apart from mainstream society.

That's a funky logic: We have people who hunt and beat up Muslim women in the streets -> Obviously there is something wrong with Muslim women...

How about there are people who blow up westerners -> Obviously there is something wrong with westerners...

Well, there's a lot wrong with what Westerners do in the Middle East, but to answer the thrust of your argument - some people (bad people) beat up Muslim women as a way to cope with the level of discomfort they feel, some people just refuse to look at them and some people internalise discomfort as guilt and become apologists.

I also don't see how one can complain about the culture or religion being way to patriarchal and that the burka is a sign of oppression of women and then claim they all want to wear it out of sheer arrogance. I suppose someone will claim that these arguments come from different people, but then maybe it would be nice if people who argue to ban something wouldn't give mutually exclusive answers as for why it is bad because that makes the arguments seem very silly.

You are saying that a woman cannot be oppressed and proud of her oppression but European society functioned on exactly that principle for generations. I think the idea of "Service" lasted longest in the UK because of our oh so healthy aristocracy but it was common across Europe at least until WW1 - the idea that the common man should be proud that his "betters" lorded it over him because that meant he was a good man and not a "ruffian" or a "scoundrel".

To gerrymander a new understanding of "evil" for every separate occasion and then ignore the resulting cascades of inconsistency...

Let's be blunt, if you accept a notion like "evil" then you can't escape it with convenient No True Scotsman devices. To conceive evil is to live with it, at all times.

Yes, I'm evil, you're evil, the Dali Lama is evil (and a tyrannous warlord who sided with the Mongols to oppress Tibet) but that doesn't mean there's no difference between us and Assad.

This is not about choosing a "lesser evil" it's about doing the best you can. We have allowed Syria to burn for years and all we have achieved is an increase in suffering and a refugee crisis that will reverberate across Europe for decades - so "saying out" of the Syrian Civil War was, I think, a bad choice.

Here's a poser for you - I know said I'd personally ban the Niqab because I think it's harmful to society at large but I realise this will isolate some Muslim women who will refuse to leave their houses - yet I'd still ban it. Why do you suppose that is?

[Montmorency]

We have allowed Syria to burn for years and all we have achieved is an increase in suffering and a refugee crisis that will reverberate across Europe for decades - so "saying out" of the Syrian Civil War was, I think, a bad choice.

It's about doing the best you can?

Here's a poser for you - I know said I'd personally ban the Niqab because I think it's harmful to society at large but I realise this will isolate some Muslim women who will refuse to leave their houses - yet I'd still ban it. Why do you suppose that is?

You suppose it will contribute some salutary effect to the social and political climate of the UK over the longer-term as clear limits are set, immigrants integrate, and violent elements are marginalized and rooted out.

A regular utilitarian.

[Husar]

You won't like the bit where they tell you to renounce your allegiances to any previous countries and instead pledge yourself to the US. Since it's exactly what you object to wrt Islam and Europe.

That's what I object to? I wasn't aware.
What does banning or not banning clothes have to do with allegiance to a country? Are you not allowed to wear Lederhosen in the US because that would show allegiance to Bavaria?

I don't think anyone has advocated beating up anyone who covers their face, muslim or otherwise. There are also people who beat up blacks / gays / cripples.

So getting away from the ...

Nice, you made up your own straw man and then put it into my mouth.
I never saw anyone arguing that either, PVC said there is something wrong with women wearing certain headgear if some natives feel the need to beat them up. That was one of the worst examples of victim blaming I've seen. And that was my point, that it was victim blaming and made no sense.

Don't know if that is true, but if they wear full cover I don't feel sorry for them, I am not going to help, I am not even calling the policeor an ambulance. If you drop the glove it can be picked up, if I behave highly inapropiate I get beat up as well.

Can you explain how or why a burka is highly inappropriate and warrants beating someone up?
Being gay used to and still is seen this way, e.g. in Russia. Should gays leave Russia because they deserve to get beaten up since being gay is highly offensive there? Now they may not be able to change it, but at least they should not dress or behave gay in public right? Some things should just be hidden in some places apparently.
I actually agree with rvg here that this completely undermines the personal freedom we used to value in the western world.
You don't have to like it, but it does not warrant violence or suspending any rights of these people.

Oh no, you misunderstand, they are ignorant - and they're thugs because they attack women - but the point I am making is that, intrinsically, Britons find a covered face provocative - choosing to cover your face in public as a way to show your religion is therefore making a deliberately provocative choice. These women either do it knowing they will offend, or they don't understand - in either case they're setting themselves apart from mainstream society.

How about you phrased it very unclear?
Again, Russians find gays offensive, and looking Chinese.
We used to find jews offensive. I find smoking offensive.
Does that mean smokers should stop smoking or take a beating from me while Fragony would not call an ambulance?

If someone has an irrational fear or a completely unwarranted response to a perceive offense, that's no reason to blame the victim, instead you should correct the guy who can't control himself. The gays also know their parades will offend some people and most people still think they have a right to do them. These women have a right to wear what they want and other people have the right to react to it as long as they do not harm them. Again, I don't like to see women wearing a burka myself, but that's not a reason to beat them up, not save their lives or throw them out of the country.

I don't buy that our justice system or values make us weak either, I think what makes us weak is that we do not apply them rigorously enough because too many people are biased either way and do not like parts of either system. We react to terror attacks by cutting into our own values for a false sense of security. We say it's necessary to have total surveillance but we never ask why the Boston bombing or other terror attacks happened anyway. And then we become xenophobic and throw even more of our values out the window. And then we cry that the immigrants will destroy us and our cultures while we ourselves are constantly throwing our own culture out of the window to react to minuscule threats. Yes there are problems such as parallel societies or gangs that the police cannot control. But how about we just apply existing laws or create proper laws to fight them instead of applying idiotic mass punishments over the threat of improper clothing?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's about doing the best you can?

Yes, trying to make the best choice you can - our leaders choose to make no choices. Ukraine is a similar example of the same malaise, we abhor war so we allow others to make it without censure.

You suppose it will contribute some salutary effect to the social and political climate of the UK over the longer-term as clear limits are set, immigrants integrate, and violent elements are marginalized and rooted out.

A regular utilitarian.

Well, that would be nice but I actually expect it to increase segregation and bad feeling over the short to medium term. However, I think that it might force people to chose, integrate on the terms of the host country or don't. One of the interesting things I have noted over the last decade or so is that Muslims are becoming more ostentatious in their faith - not just more pious but louder about it. I suspect part of that is a larger Muslim population which means people have a viable alternative to integrating with the mainstream - they can just live in all-Muslim communities, something that was far harder to achieve 10 and certainly 20 years ago.

at the end of the day, I simply don't think we should allow an incoming group to change our culture to the extent that we see face covering as acceptable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of Husar's response to my comment was fairly coherent and I have no real objection to most of it, but there is one important point - well two - that I want to make.

If we have principles they should, to an extent, be taken as read. I'm English, I'm so English I'm here drinking Early Grey Tea at almost two in the morning. I don't believe in attacking women, full stop, the end, never justified. Anyone who's interacted with me over the last decade should know that - that's not to say that I don't understand why some people attack these women.

Understanding is not agreement, I also understand why these women cover their faces to an extent. It is not, by and large, because they are afraid they fathers or husbands will beat them. No, most Muslim women wearing the Niqab do it because, as far as I have heard and read, they see it a as a necessary part of their faith. If you look at the way they describe themselves they use words like "demure" and "modest". These women believe that by hiding their faces and bodies they are acting in a morally right and proper way - some see it as intrinsically a moral necessity, some see it as a necessity in a Western culture where women are "immodest" and they need to be firm in their faith.

None of that changes the fact that it's a misogynistic practice rooted in the Biblical virgin/whore dichotomy which we would not find acceptable in any non-Muslim context and a practice we ourselves dispensed with more than a century ago (Victorian upper-class women habitually wore veils in public to be demure and modest).

[Husar]

If we have principles they should, to an extent, be taken as read. I'm English, I'm so English I'm here drinking Early Grey Tea at almost two in the morning. I don't believe in attacking women, full stop, the end, never justified. Anyone who's interacted with me over the last decade should know that - that's not to say that I don't understand why some people attack these women.

I also understand why some people want to rob me, but I don't see how that would be a reason to ban having money or valuables with you.
You could say it's very provocative to the poor and the homeless though.

Understanding is not agreement, I also understand why these women cover their faces to an extent. It is not, by and large, because they are afraid they fathers or husbands will beat them. No, most Muslim women wearing the Niqab do it because, as far as I have heard and read, they see it a as a necessary part of their faith. If you look at the way they describe themselves they use words like "demure" and "modest". These women believe that by hiding their faces and bodies they are acting in a morally right and proper way - some see it as intrinsically a moral necessity, some see it as a necessity in a Western culture where women are "immodest" and they need to be firm in their faith.

None of that changes the fact that it's a misogynistic practice rooted in the Biblical virgin/whore dichotomy which we would not find acceptable in any non-Muslim context and a practice we ourselves dispensed with more than a century ago (Victorian upper-class women habitually wore veils in public to be demure and modest).

So what? I know a Christian church where the women only wear skirts and no trousers for more or less the same reasons.
I wasn't aware that this sort of behavior was banned. These women can believe what they want as long as they do not harm anyone.
Pretty much all of the Christian churches I've been to teach that the world outside the church is rotten and immoral and so on.
I may not necessarily agree with it anymore but where is the reason for a ban as long as they do not want to destroy or harm that world they perceive as immoral?
Punks also think that, and communists, and buddhists and I would guess quite a few of the homeless do not think it is moral that they have to sleep on cardboard every night. Where are the politicians who want to end that?

[AE Bravo]

Well, some might say it was political, and it was certainly, but it made a rift between 2 streams of Islam. The first rift, followed by others, as Islam is not one.
Do note that the link present one side of the story (evil against good), and of course the other side wouldn’t agree with it.

To suggest that it is a variation implies that shia departs from Islam. They are different approaches that came at a crossroads as a result of fitna between a “companion” of the prophet and his grandsons. Sunna do not take pride in this event, they just constantly neglect it and both doctrines have a stubborn attitude towards each other. Both of them are stupid might I add. They are both popular and legit Islamic bodies of thought that adopt certain aspects of Islam to fit their agenda and cultural/political aspirations.

Yeap, Muslim men haven’t the monopoly of violence against women and Religion neither. However some religions say it is ok to beat women.

The point I was trying to make there is that incidents like these result from ignorance. Beating up someone in the street by mistaking their identity or by mere virtue of being brown is inherent in all the stupid people and you don’t need Islam to tell you to commit such things.

Your point of view is Islam doesn’t need to be defended. It just can’t stand scrutiny. When laws by Secular State are bad, they are changed, but how can you change the words of God without first recognise they are not entirely the word of god?

It can stand scrutiny, scrutiny that makes sense. What in your opinion, in the Qur’an, is in dire need of changing exactly? I am willing to bet anything you bring up has a contradiction on some other chapter. A Muslim who does not admit that this book has contradictions is uneducated and in denial. Even the most bigoted Saudis I know openly admit this. That does not discredit it, people who feel that their faith is threatened by such a thing .. they are the ones to blame not the Qur’an.

And no state should be able or authorised to decide how faithful follow their religion/fashion within the frame work of the law it is up the law to draw a line when and where, at which condition. Same for nudity: authorised in some beaches, forbidden at work or in public places, even if you are a Druid.

We’ve already been over this but you had to have noticed by now that even you can’t bring up something remotely similar or comparable to the hijab. This is a casual attire that does not threaten the well-being of anyone else nor does it have the potential to. Again, speaking about the hijab. I don’t care about no burkas or niqabs I agree they’re ridiculous.

Where I come from ostentatious symbols of piety are considered rude because they imply moral superiority. "I wear a Burkha, I am pious, you do not, you are not as pious as me”.

I don’t care about the burka, any veil that doesn’t cover the face can just be a fashion statement. What about “look at me I take pride in my Arabness,” don’t tell me you’re against that too …. And it being rude I don't think warrants banning it, I never knew this culture could be so overly-sensitive like many Muslims.

Are you saying that Islam is not a defining feature of Pakistani or Saudi culture? I find that hard to believe - they produce the same kind of nutters.

Once more, there is no universal islamic culture. These are two countries, and any other country I bring up is somehow a variation or “liberal?”

Because they're Shia?

Islamic Republic of Iran. You present a Saudi/Wahhabi view by describing it as an offshoot.

Sometimes they don't, or you have to take them into a side room - point is they require quite awkward special dispensations. I object to fuss on principle.

I don’t think it’s that much of a hassle honestly. Trivial.

[rvg]

I don’t care about the burka, any veil that doesn’t cover the face can just be a fashion statement. What about “look at me I take pride in my Arabness,” don’t tell me you’re against that too …. And it being rude I don't think warrants banning it, I never knew this culture could be so overly-sensitive like many Muslims.

Muslims do not have a monopoly on Arab culture. Headscarves and all that assorted crap, that's the legacy of the savages from Nejd. Civilized levantine arabs don't have a thing to do with it.

[AE Bravo]

"Civilized" Levantine Arabs were the centers of Islamic research for centuries. I understand that completely but whether you like it or not Islam formed the foundation of Arab culture no matter what creed.

I'd take my sand goon forefathers from coast of Oman, Yemen, and the Trucial states over your ilk any day of the week. If yall were so civilized how come you're doing so well? Check that superiority complex, especially considering where it's coming from lmfao.

[rvg]

"Civilized" Levantine Arabs were the centers of Islamic research for centuries. I understand that completely but whether you like it or not Islam formed the foundation of Arab culture no matter what creed.

That's just not true. It formed the culture of muslim Arabs, that is true, but there still are plenty left who never belonged to that religion.

I'd take my sand goon forefathers from coast of Oman, Yemen, and the Trucial states over your ilk any day of the week. If yall were so civilized how come you're doing so well? Check that superiority complex, especially considering where it's coming from lmfao.

Of course you will, as you said, they're your forefathers. The point is that they aren't mine, neither religiously, nor culturally, nor in any other way. As for how well the Levant is doing, Lebanon for instance is doing well enough. The real question is, what do the Gulf States have to show for all their wealth? Where is their industry, where is their professional workforce, where is their educated scientific elite?
What can the average guy from the gulf do, other than going on a falcon hunt, smoking his nargila until he's blue in the face, and talking about piety? How does that add to the GDP, how does that advance the human race? It doesn't.

[AE Bravo]

That's just not true. It formed the culture of muslim Arabs, that is true, but there still are plenty left who never belonged to that religion.

It formed the culture of Arabia. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you didn't belong to it you witnessed and contributed to its progress.

Of course you will, as you said, they're your forefathers. The point is that they aren't mine, neither religiously, nor culturally, nor in any other way.

Ethnically and culturally they are. When was the last time you got a good read of your buddy Bashar's Hizb manifesto?

As for how well the Levant is doing, Lebanon for instance is doing well enough.

Lebanon is an absolute disgrace right now and that is why Lebanese are flocking to the Gulf. They have Islamists as a legit party are you okay with that?

where is their professional workforce, where is their educated scientific elite?

Oh that would be the civilized Levantines thank you guys. :)

What can the average guy from the gulf do, other than going on a falcon hunt, smoking his nargila until he's blue in the face, and talking about piety? How does that add to the GDP, how does that advance the human race? It doesn't.

I have no idea what a nargila is. Do you guys actually call it that instead of shisha or are you a coconut Arab? No offense intended.
Iran is not your friend, and the Israelis ironically hate you more than the "pious" Gulf. When we house your non-Muslim minorities you will know whose turn it truly is to champion the middle east with the help of our Egyptian friends, the heart of Arabia.

[Montmorency]

I have no idea what a nargila is. Do you guys actually call it that instead of shisha or are you a coconut Arab? No offense intended. Listen unlike you I got mad respect for yall but the burning jealousy is oh so apparent. We've survived for this long and sorry to say we aren't going anywhere even when the oil runs out. You have been raped by the west and now you are carbon copies wearing penguin suits, shouting for reform and secularism and all that bs when it has constantly dragged you into the abyss. You have no desert survival instinct and are gradually becoming unfit for Arabia.

Iran is not your friend, and the Israelis ironically hate you more than the "pious" Gulf. When we house your non-Muslim minorities you will know whose turn it truly is to champion the middle east with the help of our Egyptian friends, the heart of Arabia.

Wow.

[AE Bravo]

Tough love from "savages."