Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Krieg said:

It is impossible go through your life without saying any lie. And it is probably impossible not to coveat the wife of the neighbor (and women got it easy on this one, not fair), probably not easy not to coveat the house of the neighbor either.

Anyway, no Christian can follow the 10 commandments but you you expenct all Muslims to follow all their "rules", which it is ever more difficult because such rules do not explicitly exist, it is up to you to do your own interpretation of the sacred texts.

Yes, I expect people to be consistent. Is it too much to ask?

As I said before, i don't object to women wearing hijab, they are free to do it, from my point of view.

I only say that:

 

a) in the western societies hijab will not protect them from assaults.

b ) wearing hijab and a lot of makeup at the same time nullifies its purpose.

 

I do not care if the followers of other religions are as contradictive (and they are), we are talking about Muslims here.

When we discuss Christians and Jews, I will come up with examples too.

But two wrongs doesn't make it right in total.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krieg, the Five Pillars are "black letter law" as far as Islam is concerned, and a good starting point, much like the Ten Commandments are for Christianity.

 

L'Impulse, I don't think your policy proposals are original in the least, wherever their genesis may be and whatever your motivation for pontificating them. If you had come to Munich and met jeremy and me, you would certainly have had the opportunity to define yourself, but since you are afraid to make a speech on interfaith relations to a Muslim audience (you know, things like claiming you have no problem with a Christian or Hindu majority in Mecca and Medina), and thus don't want to come here, I'm left with drawing conclusions from your voluminous paper trail on this forum. You are far from the only one who parrots, although since you're still young, there may still be hope for you ;).

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Conquistador said:

 the Five Pillars are "black letter law" as far as Islam is concerned, and a good starting point, much like the Ten Commandments are for Christianity.

 

 

 

  So these are shada (?), accepting that there is no god but God and Mohammed is his messenger. 

  Namaz, 5 times a day

  Zekat (giving away a portion of your income to the poor)

  Fasting

  Going to Hac. 

 

I have grown up in a Muslim society. Unique in the sense that it is also a laicist regime, but people are even officially Muslim here. It is written on identity cards. Simply no one, no one I have met in my personal life does these 5 things together, and one or two maybe. I'm not exactly a spring chicken.  And I studied at state schools, I know my friends' families. These 5 things are not there for everyone. Everyone has gone through the shada probably, namaz during one or two bairams, funerals and maybe when you are old or something. Zekat, some do it. Fasting again some do it. Hac, rare, like grandparents before they die or something. Not only in urban areas, in the villages, too. Guys go to Friday namaz. People drink alcohol and there are strands of Islam where this is done anyway. 

 

I was not raised in an isolated way from the Muslim public here. This is quite a big portion of this society. As people, they will not identify with any conditions you mention. They identify with "You will not steal or abuse "kul" rights, this "kul" being someone created by God." People will say, I am an honest person, I'm not unfair to anyone, the rest is between me and God, and nobody's business." 

 

So, nobody I know here believes they have to start from where you are suggesting. I have homosexual Muslim friends, I have transsexual Muslim friends. All the same. If you are a good honest person and if you believe in God and Mohammed, that's it. Only God can question the rest and they believe this is the most important and will be forgiven by God and will not burn in heaven or anything - because they don't harm anyone else. 

 

Who are these people now? Are they not Muslims? Who decides that? They have accepted this religion willfully. Nobody can comment on the rest? Conservatives try to all the time and people are rejecting this, but they are not changing their faith identity. It's interpretation. 

 

This is the strand that believes only accepting God and Mohammed is enough. It is a very valid strand. Maybe not very "loyal"  but yes, still Muslims. Anything beyond this is considered pretty conservative actually. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zeino - how true is it that the islam most people think they know is only the Wahhabist doctrine? most muslims I knew were lovely people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zeino said:

 

So, nobody I know here believes they have to start from where you are suggesting. I have homosexual Muslim friends, I have transsexual Muslim friends. All the same. If you are a good honest person and if you believe in God and Mohammed, that's it. Only God can question the rest and they believe this is the most important and will be forgiven by God and will not burn in heaven or anything - because they don't harm anyone else. 

 

 

You have to understand Conquistador has been travelling on an apparently life-long safari in the Islamic wilderness and thinks that from the couple of slices of Muslim society he has personally experienced, he knows the true Muslim inner life (having been carefully constructed 1400 years ago in anticipation of milquetoast modern liberalism in order to conquer it from within through random internet arguers and Claudia Roth).  He frequently commands me to come to Munich to make an account of myself before the Conquistador-Jeremy Tribunal, on penalty of him obsessively confabulating more about my personal life, so that he can either debrief my "Psy Ops" against the West or disabuse me of my naive, stupid leftist notions. 

 

The thing is, there's really no point.  His fixed idea about what Islam Really Is means that all the personal experiences a Muslim might have that fall outside the bounds of his safari experience/entrenched confirmation bias, he can and does simply dismiss as either exceptional or invented as part of the takeover plot.

 

Anyway, this sort of thinking is pretty common and sadly politically influential, especially these days in US and European politics, as in: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/16/the-making-of-islamophobia-inc/

 

It's more or less the same pattern writ very, very small.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, klubbnika said:

Would please stop this nonsense.

Do you think throwing phrases with a collection of "academic words" will make them less absurd?

 

Sure, you can always refuse to understand.

 

3 hours ago, klubbnika said:

What "spiritual narrative" does hijab fit? It has a specific purpose - to make oneself sexually unattractive and therefore protect from the assaults.

HIjab is not a ritual, it's a protective gear.

Ritual would be to wash one's feet before praying.

 

 

For many Muslim women, hijab is in the same category as washing your feet before praying. 

 

But anyway, you are clearly the Decider of Meanings.  You will impose the predetermined meaning you have chosen on the object in question, over and above anyone else's interpretation, because (heaven forbid!) they may contain "academic words".

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, let's summarize:

 

1. Covering own hair with red hat is legal, free choice, no oppression:

static2.politico.com.jpeg.72ba3c37229534

 

2. Covering own hair with red scarf is totalitarian oppression, should be banned:

Screen_Shot_2017-01-22_at_8.44.58_AM_lar

 

Totally consistent, free, democratic, methinks.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

You have to understand Conquistador has been travelling on an apparently life-long safari in the Islamic wilderness and thinks that from the couple of slices of Muslim society he has personally experienced, he knows the true Muslim inner life (having been carefully constructed 1400 years ago in anticipation of milquetoast modern liberalism in order to conquer it from within through random internet arguers and Claudia Roth).  He frequently commands me to come to Munich to make an account of myself before the Conquistador-Jeremy Tribunal, on penalty of him obsessively confabulating more about my personal life, so that he can either debrief my "Psy Ops" against the West or disabuse me of my naive, stupid leftist notions. 

 

The thing is, there's really no point.  His fixed idea about what Islam Really Is means that all the personal experiences a Muslim might have that fall outside the bounds of his safari experience/entrenched confirmation bias, he can and does simply dismiss as either exceptional or invented as part of the takeover plot.

 

Anyway, this sort of thinking is pretty common and sadly politically influential, especially these days in US and European politics, as in: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/16/the-making-of-islamophobia-inc/

 

It's more or less the same pattern writ very, very small.

 

It all sounded a bit like The Heart of Darkness by Conrad until Claudia Roth, and then I delved into memories. :) A whole generation grew up with her here.  

 

I think that personal experience of Muslims is very important also because of Islam's nature as a social experience that sometimes has a claim to "corrective" aspects. I have a limited knowledge of Islam but in my geography, the Maturidi creed and its emphasis on rational reasoning methods is quite prominent in serious discussions, which poses a very different portrait of Islam that easily connects with democracy, regarding tradition a concept limited with time and not even necessarily applicable in all situations etc etc. 

 

Surely we do not experience political Islam at this depth around us, like many other things. But I also think discussions around Muslim women are not theological actually - they sound like more pop-culture to me. And I believe they don't need to be theological in the way we choose to understand it. These women are entitled to universal human rights (which does not necessarily mean that they can do whatever they want in social space, but that is like that for all of us anyway) and the more we discuss clothing, what it is, what it represents, the more that access becomes questionable and depenent on our opinion- as if the world had to arrive in a theological or other consensus to choose to "grant" these rights. To me this is very similar to what Judith Butler describes, like one first has to earn "the right to have a right". This isn't about what should be allowed or not but how that discussion is conducted. Free as well. Nothing about education, health, work, economy, consequences. Not very different from theoretically discussing Nietzsche or someone for the fun of it. 

 

I mean I can be against something, I can ban it, but why don't I just trust my decision and own it, like yes I have banned it based on X,Y,Z, live with it - probably sounds antidemocratic to the modern citizen. So, to hide this, I must "undo" the meaning of what I'm banning, so it sounds like "if" it deserved the value it asked for I would have assigned it. But it doesn't, so... I understand this nearly 100% as a conscience issue, that is ultimately self-serving actually. I genuinely think it has little to do with those women themselves. We cannot even claim to have approached that with this non-existent level of subjectivity. It just becomes another exercise on modulation. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

For many Muslim women, hijab is in the same category as washing your feet before praying.

Can you support you claim with any evidence?

Or is it, as usual, an attempt to manipulate the discussion by making baseless claims?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yourkeau said:

2. Covering own hair with red scarf is totalitarian oppression, should be banned:

Who said that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yourkeau said:

Again, let's summarize:

 

1. Covering own hair with red hat is legal, free choice, no oppression:

static2.politico.com.jpeg.72ba3c37229534

 

2. Covering own hair with red scarf is totalitarian oppression, should be banned:

Screen_Shot_2017-01-22_at_8.44.58_AM_lar

 

Totally consistent, free, democratic, methinks.

You realise that those pictures are form American and you guys are talking about the EU right?
Do those people take their hats off?

Religion may be part of the circle of life but at some point, some people should just let it go...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Sure, you can always refuse to understand.

 

 

For many Muslim women, hijab is in the same category as washing your feet before praying. 

 

But anyway, you are clearly the Decider of Meanings.  You will impose the predetermined meaning you have chosen on the object in question, over and above anyone else's interpretation, because (heaven forbid!) they may contain "academic words".

So it is now a purely religions garments and as such, a choice.

Anyone who cannot leave the house wearing a certain garment, someone for who not wearing it would cause them to actual not  be able to leave the house, is ill.
People who are not ill would just wear something else. A hat, a baseball cap, they will wear something else that provides for their need, bad hair day, it's raining, but they will still leave the house.

Anyone who would not leave the house as they could not cover there head is at the very least a very gullible person who believes this somehow will affect them, at worst, thy are ill. ADHD or whatever causes people to need a specific routine/garment to be able to leave the house.

 

A Friend's (old friend, do not have much contact these days) son was very attached to his little red riding hood hood/cloak combo. Got to the point where he would refuse to leave the house without it as he thought wolves would get him. Took them a while to change that as they felt it wasn't healthy. 

They were correct, it wasn't. It pout a major cramp on their lives. They had the choice to either get him used ot not wearing it or buy more to cover washing etc. 

They are religious people, I drew a comparison, they didn't like it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize how ridiculous would be a law forbidding to wear baseball caps or forbidding to wear mittens? Hey caps are OK except if the are baseball caps. And hand gloves are OK except mittens.

What about a law forbidding to wear those shoes with toes? They really look creepy, I would support that law. Maybe we should include UGGS as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Do you realize how ridiculous would be a law forbidding to wear baseball caps or forbidding to wear mittens? Hey caps are OK except if the are baseball caps. And hand gloves are OK except mittens.

What about a law forbidding to wear those shoes with toes? They really look creepy, I would support that law. Maybe we should include UGGS as well.

Once again, noone wants to forbid caps or headscarves.

 

The decision has been made to allow an employer, under certain circumstances, to ban religious symbols at workplace.

Burqa and niqab are security issues, and should not be allowed in public places. You can thank terrorists for that.

 

PS. I wear headscarf too when I work on my land. :) To protect the hair from dirt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To play the 'drag in other things that have nothing to do with the ability to ban religious and political symbols in work place'.. Given that no one said ban baseball caps..

 

What if that baseball cap has 'kill all [insert group]' on it - I would say it should be banned. How about a headscarf with the ISIS logo on it?

 

38 minutes ago, klubbnika said:

The decision has been made to allow an employer, under certain circumstances, to ban religious symbols at workplace.

I am not sure why people do not understand this.


Actually I do, they feel this is an attack on their beliefs and for some it goes against their one sided views on immigration.

Religion is a choice, as it taking drugs (at least the first time). If you are raised in an environment where it is the norm, the choice may not be as easy. It is however still a choice.
It is a choice to believe what some guy said years ago happened to him, he may be fibbing, maybe he even existed, maybe the story is bullshit but they hung it on a real guy. No one involved in the religion has any real reason to want to find that out.

 Anyone who sits at home as they cannot leave the house due to not being able to wear something is ill as they are dependent on an external thing to be able to function as a normal human being (although I expect someone to talk about breathing, cars, water, and other way to try to make religion sound normal).

They could wear a hat,a  really big hat. No, it has to be a given thing as it is written down in an old book, indoctrination springs to mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think almost no one here disagrees with the burqa ban in the way they presented it. But I think the past 15 pages were about discussing how Muslim women should not wear the hijab either.

Are you aware of the anti-Burkini ban in France? That was pretty ridiculous.

Hey you can swim but you have to wear gear like we say. Nope, you can't cover your legs and arms, nope. And you head, nope, we don't like that thing you are wearing in your head.

But all the other girsls are wearing swimming caps.

That's different, those are freedom caps.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, klubbnika said:

Can you support you claim with any evidence?

Or is it, as usual, an attempt to manipulate the discussion by making baseless claims?

 

 

 

You stated that a woman who wears hijab and attractive make-up was negating the purpose of wearing the hijab. I took the position that you were just making an assumption that the purpose of wearing a hijab was to become unattractive, and that the actual purpose depended on the subjectivity of the wearer.  You insisted that you had complete insight as to the individual reasons for wearing a hijab, which you probably got from reading one or another post hoc justification on some web site somewhere, or talking to one or another particular individual, which you then generalized. 

 

I pointed out that there are many ritual obligations in Semitic religion that have non-material justification. You yourself gave an example of one (an odd one, that one has stronger materialistic grounding, but whatever): washing your feet before prayer. 

 

But then, you continue to insist that you have insight into the One True Purpose of wearing a hijab.  It is illogical to accuse me of making baseless claims or demand evidence from me, when your claim is the more sweeping and tendentious, whereas I have only relied on well-known counterexamples.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Hey you can swim but you have to wear gear like we say. Nope, you can't cover your legs and arms, nope. And you head, nope, we don't like that thing you are wearing in your head.

How would you feel if a person would not leave the house unless they had their swimming cap on - just to go to the shops?

 

Ill is how most people would describe them. People would say they should get help as one day, they may not have a cap and would have trouble leaving the house.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How ill is that women are not allowed to go out topless when it is pretty hot outside?

Why don't you get that they just have a different line in what parts of the body must be covered? it is not even a complicated thing to understand.

Would you like a law forcing you to display some part of the body you do not want to display?

How difficult is to get that?

The worst part is that other types of head gear are totally OK. Just the hijab is bad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now