Ban the niqab - Berlin

Here is an article from the international herald tribune. Its about the Niqab that is the head to foot black veil that Muslim women wear. I have noticed a few women round rosentaller plz wearing these. I thought Berlin was a bit further along that to allow something like this.
I have to say if you are on the street and you hide your face it not a good thing. My gut reaction is its WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. I know the brunchinistas will come out of the wood work and say cultural identity and diversity and a lot of other hokie but come we are in the 21st century surely there must be an end to this sort of thing.

another thing a quote from the article...


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/21/africa/veil.php

what gives you the right to ban it? Whether you agree with it or not (and just for the record, I don't like them), people have the right to choose what the wear.

I agree, only by strictly dictating aspects of people's lives can they be truly free!

Bekleidung Macht Frei!

I reckon it's sexy...who know's what kinda hottie lurks under there?!

If a woman is not insane and enjoys smashing her fist into her face then of course its her perfect right to do so. However if a man muslim or otherwise enjoys smashing up her face, there's a general feeling he should be prevented.

Likewise if a woman hapilly dons the niqab or burka, nothing wrong with that.

However is she wears it because she's afraid not to wear that. well that's opression.

So in banning it you're going to liberate far more women who wear it out of fear, than oppress women who happily embrace it, and as such a ban sounds like a jolly good idea.

By the way, it's Nijab and not Niqab.
I totally agree that this piece of clothing is unacceptable.

The problem enforcing such extremes is that, the people or the women who wear a nijab want to have it accepted as a mainstream attitude. Such clothing has been enforced by extremists and this is giving way to extreme values. A woman does not have to be forced to wear a big potatosack over her head. Yes you heard it right, I see this piece of clothing as a big potatosack put on a woman's body. This extreme attitude is deeply rooted in the fact that middle eastern men cannot control their sex drives so they need to stick women into big potatobags. There is no mention of Nijab in the Koran.

Western women might support "freedom of speech" and "freedom to dress as what they want" but they are not aware of the attitude and behavior that comes with this extreme values. If you travel to country which such extreme values are enforced, you will soon realize that beating women, torturing them and stoning them is also acceptable. Below is a photo of a woman being stoned in Iran. As you can see there is a woman in a Nijab picking up a stone to throw at the woman who is being "executed".

EDIT: if you are wondering why the woman who is being executed is wearing white, it's because Moslems dress up dead bodies in a white cloth, so she is to die at the end of this stoning/execution.

If we're talking about fully covering the face, then many western countries already have laws in place that make it illegal to mask your face in public except for holidays and special occasions. (Hallowe'en, a costume ball, etc) Many of these are old laws, which have nothing to do with religion. In many US States it is a misdemeanor with a fine. Headscarves are a separate issue because they don't obstruct the face.

It is indeed 'Niqab' (also called as 'Burqa') - From what I know.


They do this kind of execution procedure for a woman who's engaged in adultery. After throwing stones for a certain amount of time, if she's still alive, then she will be taken to the prison and imprisoned for the rest of her life. (Thats what I heard from some article, years back).

EDIT: Women in Middle-East (some countries) live a very restricted and very orthodox life. I think, Muslims in India have a better quality of life when compared to other muslims all over the world.

Are you sure that's Iran? They're actually pretty moderate and enlightened (compared to Sharia countries), hell they even hang (male)rapists.

The women in question had probably comitted some heinous crime like have a child while unmarried.

I think the problem with banning such things is that it comes with a backlash. If you try and oppress it people try and hold on to it more tightly as something you are trying to take away from them. While I do not agree with the attitude that is associated with the birka, ie why women should wear them, however I don't think 'oppressing' a culture is the way to go about it. I think education about such things and healthy social pressure might be a much better approach. I think unseating the deep set belief that men simply cannot help themselves is the first step forward. Making men accountable for their behavior w/ and towards women would be a huge and positive step forwards.

Correct

Correct

Correct

Correct

Incorrect, based solely on assumption and personal bias.

There was a case in London's East End not so long ago where a student was challenging her school's right to ban her wearing a Niqab (and it was indeed called a Niqab and not Nijab in that case). The school was a moslem girls school and the local immam and the governors of the school had declared that the Niqab did not conform to the school uniform directives and ALSO was not considered to be appropriate dress for women under orthodox islam.

The courts decided that it was entirely within the school's right to ban the student wearing Niqab as the school uniform was entirely adequate from a religious point of view so the ban could not be construed as infringing her religious life. However they noted that outside of school the student would be allowed to wear Niqab if she so wished.

Shortly afterwards, Jack Straw (the relevant cabinet minister) gave a speech with the full support of all the mosques in Bolton (his constituency) that the wearing of face covering was not islamic and was unacceptable in a free society. He did not call for a ban of it though.

Yep, thats Iran (as far as my knowledge goes).


Its for engaging in adultery(mostly).

By banning it do you liberate women or will they be allowed even less contact with the outside world.

In the end the Niqab is just a symbol of a particular kind of political islam that is abhored by most moderate moslems in the islamic world and advocated by only extremist Wahabbi clerics in Saudi. Surely it is the beliefs and actions that these views entail that should be proscribed rather than the clothes people choose to wear?

Ooooohhhh, you said Moslem. Stone him!



Link

Musselman is just too funny though.

Hey come on, I'm a brunchinista and I totally think veiling yourself is BS...mind you I'm also a fashionista haha.

But ya, I think it's hard to ban it becuase then the issue comes up with what you can and can't wear regarding religious expression. It's a huge grey area. But ya I think it's wrong, especially in a country that enjoys equal rights between men and women.

It's terrible as well. 'Adultery' in those countries is so loosely defined. If a woman is raped, she commited adultery, because she must have 'asked for it' in some sort of way. Terrible.

I totally agree.

Musselman is Urdu for Moslem/Muslim and I would be genuinely surprised if any British muslims gave a toss about this. Muslim is closer to the Arabic word and Moslem could be confused with a derogatory term in Arabic. But that is in the realm of sholars and PC journalists.

THOSE countries? Actually there is quite a wide variation in what is considered to be adultery in legal terms in the islamic world. The well publicised cases in Northern Nigeria and Sudan belie the fact that in some islamic countries it is not considered a crime at all.

According to wikipedia

Might be confusing nijabs and hijabs a bit there.

Let me give you all some schooling. The reason it exists is down to that number one genius conman Mohammed. One of his mates banged one of Mo's women, but Mo didn't wanna get all pissed off with his mate, they were the olden day equivalent of frat bro's, so decided it was clearly the woman's fault. She was a tasty bit of totty, so Mo could understand his mate fancying her; if nobody could see how sexy she was, nobody would try to shag her, problem solved.

And that's how it all started. Incidentally, he was also the bloke who got booze banned in Islam - purely because he was a complete lightweight, always lost at drinking games, and all his mates took the piss out of him for it.

Anyway, should ninja robes be banned? Well, I don't see any harm in them, if the woman wants to wear them. The only item of clothing I've ever seen that should be banned is fucking birkenstocks. Krout bastards.
The thing is though, it is now quite common for shopping centres and shops to ban stuff like hooded tops, or make you take the hood down at least - and lets be honest, a full-length cover-all robe goes a wee bit further than that.

Mind you, anyone that has ever been out for the night in Newcastle would probably join me in saying that ALL women, muslim or otherwise, should wear a fucking great sack over their head and body.

Agreed. I reckon the vast majority of problems which abound are a result of a small but vocal number of muslims getting offended about absolutely fucking everything!

Which goes on nicely to the Muslim "Offense Level" courtesy of The Religious Policeman.

just a note on Iranian stonings. Stoning is indeed the sentence for adultery and has been used in a number of cases. However, even in Iran these executions have raised very vocal protests. Therefore, the use of stoning is now actively discouraged and may even be removed from the statutes.

Under Sharia law it is actually technically very difficult to find someone guilty of adultery since the sexual act has to have been witnessed by four people willing to give eye-witness accounts. This is of course open to abuse.

Only a few moslem countries use Sharia as the legal code and even in those many (eg Pakistan) only use bits of it. Pakistan has attracted criticsm for the Hudood law that actually appears to discourage rape cases. The current administration there is reviewing the law and will likely repeal or amend it in due course.

What I think is interesting is that, in a recent thread, lolo declared that "ITS [sic] WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG" for a woman to keep her maiden name after marriage. Here lolo only has a 'gut reaction' that it's WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG (three fewer wrongs!). Clearly tolerance is making it's way into his mind.

I watched a BBC doco the other day which said that the only way out of being charged for adultry if you were a woman was if one eyewitness (male) backed up your story or 5 females (cos they're all lying bitches). He said the motivation for men not to do it was that the act of rape is unislamic.

my partner kept her maiden name after marriage...uh oh

who is this joker?

On a rather off-topic note, currently a Turkish citizen is awaiting execution in Saudi Arabia for "having insulted Allah". Apparently, the guy had an argument with some Egyptian guy and the Egyptian went and made a complaint, stating that he insulted god. So much for four witnesses (ok, I know, it is not adultery, but says a lot about Sharia, doesn't it?).

Oh and Don Riina,
Genious conman Mohammed? What happened to PBUH?

it's 1:2 not 1:5, and that too is a contentious issue open to interpretations. That 2 female witnesses are equivalent to 1 male is mentioned in one Quranic verse dealing with financial transactions. There are other verses that say 1:1 e.g. witness for a will, there is a verse that says 2 people (can be both female, both men, one of each) are to witness the will. Here's a more detailed explanation if you are interested. http://www.islamicvoice.com/april.2000/religion.htm


Have you ever traveled to "such a country where extreme values are enforced"? Just wondering coz your info seems to be top notch.

The punishment also applies to men. It's called a Niqab, and the "wearing white" part just like the rest of your statements is wrong too.

P.S. not condoning nor comdeming anything here...just putting the facts straight...and hoping that it causes some to stop presenting their gut feelings as facts.

thanks for that hasan

Well, this Sharia court judge in some shithole claimed it so...so someone is telling porkies.

I don't like someone approaching me with their full face covered so I can't even see their eyes. I think it's pretty cheeky actually. Human beings (long before bloody religion of any description) learned to read and interpret facial expressions. A baby apparently reponds much more to three dots laid out like a pair of eyes and a mouth than to three dots in a line. We have evolved to use our faces as a means of communication. As for banning them, well that's another matter but I certainly think that in any situation where a person is expected to present photographic ID (such as at an airport) that they should have to uncover themselves to be identified like everyone else.

I think we should draw this to an end this before someone else insults Allah again. For your own safety please tone it down. Read the whole article then comment on the Niqāb not Hijab or rape in Saudi or Pakistan.

Hahaha, talking about adultery, listen to this:

Moses said to the Israelites:
"The good news is, we're down to ten;
the bad news is, adultery is still in"

Pity to all those who are penalised/punished for adultery. Do we really have to care from which religious order such punishments are coming? Is a Christian verdict good, but a Moslem "fatwah" bad? What's the diff?

Someone is PARANOID, PARANOID, PARANOID, PARANOID...

Like with Hebrew, there are no fixed rules as to how to romanize Arabic words in the Latin alphabet.

Dostoyevsky, if you are joking, it's lame, if you're not, the transliteration does not apply here. Lifeisabuffet confused niqab with hijab and tried to correct it, coming up with nijab, ok?

Adultery is also illegal in Mexico Taiwan and Korea as well as several US states - technically Michigan in the USA still has life sentence as a potential penalty for adultery!

don't think he was joking. Same problem exists when romanicising Japanese, Chinese languiages and Persian too. Certain consonant sounds do not easily romanicise and could be renedered in two or more different ways.

Hmmm, yes. And which of these nations execute their punishment by stoning the adulterer to death?

I didn't say any of them did but neither does Iran these days either.

Sometimes it pays to read a bit further in the Wikipedia articles. From the same one on Adultery from whence you fetched the above tidbits:

and yet you and others point at Sharia law and its alleged penalties as if they are applied automatically in every moslem country when the truth is only one country, one of the closets allies to the USA, applies an extreme version of Sharia in full.

Definitely more than one country. Nigeria is another, Somalia and numerous other regions in Africa too.

Yeah, it seems like they've really pulled themselves out of that archaic and brutal practice.

Was this directed at me? If so, I challenge you to show where I said any such thing (I know I didn't). Also, it is not accurate to say that Saudi Arabia is one of the "closest" allies of the US.

okay, you personally haven't Conq as far as I can see. In my defence, on these threads all you neo-cons start to look the same.

BTC, funny that you also miss where I defended Islam against Timmeh's attacks or I mention that my research interests are related to Islam, that I am learning Arabic, or that I opposed taking action in Iraq in 2003. Sure, all that's really associated with neonconservatism. But you are perturbed when I point out that someone's position is a leftist one. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. Or maybe it's your anti-Americanism talking.

Timmeh is anything but a neocon, as I am sure he would tell you himself.