Well you're right , Of course law making work like that when was the last time the majority ask a minority what they think of a law that primarily affects them.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Independent: Denmark poised to ban Islamic full-face veils
- Thread starter Deleted member 888
- Start date
I'm just curious as to how this is a right? I was skimming the thread and noticed this post and I'm wondering if there's more context here that doesn't make this sound as silly as it's currently coming across as?
Correct. The fact it says a women should not cover her face when doing haj is enough evidence alone to show women at the time of the prophet did cover their face
Defending it isn't the issue. It's about given a women the choice rather than no choice
It not fake news as the sunnah goes with the Quran. Without the sunnah one wouldn't even know how to pray.
And yet you're a man claiming to speak on behalf of women.
funny how it is asking so much more from women than it is asking from men
The article is a hodgepodge and selectively sources its claims. It seems entirely agenda driven.
Here's where it talks about the four schools:
It mentions that the Hanafis view the niqab as obligatory (which is the largest school in terms of sheer number of adherents). It also selectively cites minority opinions within some schools and presents them as representative of the school. The hub of Shafi'i scholarship is Tarim in Yemen. The Shafi'i women there wear the niqab, as the Shafi'is of Tarim view the niqab to be obligatory. The Shafi'is differ on whether the niqab is obligatory but they don't differ on whether it is recommended. The difference of obligation even ends if a woman knows she is going to get unwanted attention.
The article also uses the term "awrah" to confuse people. The face is not considered the "awrah" by the vast majority of scholars. The "awrah" is something that would be covered during prayers. I haven't heard or read from a single scholar of any religious school (or even without a school such as the Salafis) who think that women have to cover their face in prayers. The niqab's obligation or recommendation is not based on whether the face is awrah. The Hanbali claim above, for example, is bogus in saying that they don't consider the niqab or covering the face obligatory. The Saudis even kicked out a well-renowned Salafi/Wahhabi scholar because he believed that the niqab wasn't obligatory, which isn't the majority opinion of the Hanbali school.
I'm speaking on behalf of my religion. If a Muslim woman doesn't want to follow what the religion says, that's up to her. Anyone forcing a woman to wear a niqab or even a hijab should be thrown in prison. But in terms of the legality of something, a non-Muslim trying to say something is legal or illegal in Islam despite not even having basic knowledge about it (such as not even knowing about the four schools) is like the blind leading the blind.
You're speaking on behalf of your interpretation of your religion, which happens to be from a male viewpoint. A Muslim woman may disagree, even if you claim she's not Muslim because of that disagreement.
"Funny"
I see it as showing Quran men as inherently more prone evil than women as they are first and foremost suggested to not look at women lustfully while women are not asked to do that in the same manner. It seems to be a one way street of men being asked to not show their stuff in public while not objectifying women while women are suggested to dress modestly and hide the parts which attract perverts the most. But this is my reading of it
I'd rather women not be oppressed, this isn't about racism.
I'm speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the interpretation of my religion. As I said, believing an ex-Mormon about what Catholics believe when Catholics themselves are saying otherwise would be idiotic just how believing an ex-Shia Muslim about what Sunnis believe when me, as a Sunni, am disputing him and providing evidence from Sunni scholars is idiotic.
If I as a Muslim were to say that the true Christians are Jehovah's Witnesses for whatever reason, you'd have a ton of Protestants and Catholics disputing that. And they'd be right. The majority is what matters in such issues since you can find some extreme fringe in any group and justify any and every viewpoint.
it's good that you can spin blatant misogyny into something positive
This sounds like a "Muslim man's burden" argument to me.
How about, instead of men supposedly being more evil and then women paying the price for that, individuals are held accountable instead?
If you're saying the majority interpretation is the correct one...wow. You're basically saying Shi'a are not really Muslim, and that Muslim women with a different interpretation aren't, and really, that anyone with a different take than the majority Sunni opinion isn't.
It's sad that a lot of the Sunni world feels similarly. The treatment of those deemed fake Muslims is truly evil.
I see this thread has turned into yet another dogpile on Islam from the usual suspects.
The vast, vast majority of rapists are men. Do you deny this fact?
Islam has different standards for men and different standards for women. Men must pay for the maintenance of their wives, children, and parents. Women have no such obligation. Men must pray in congregation if they live near a mosque. Women have no such obligation.
The vast, vast majority of rapists are men. Do you deny this fact?
What an utter load of rubbish. Not having a correct interpretation doesn't mean someone is or isn't Muslim. Please go learn something about what Islam is. You've basically described what Kharijism is.
We're also talking about majority views in this thread. You can find a radical fringe group that calls itself Muslim but rejects the Qur'an. Their interpretation, according to you, would not be any less valid than a Sunni or Shi'a.
Women paying the price? As per Quran the men will go to hell and women will not for being looked at. Per Islam the modesty is suggested and the level of it completely depends on the culture and the women. How hard is that to understand . Why do islamophobes or those not understanding Islam always apply the worse scenario e.g women are suppressed into wearing when they are not. It's not convincing anyone with the extreme pendulum shifts
Am I reading this right? Because this sounds like it might be banning full-on fursuits in public too and the thought is hilarious to me.
On topic: I'd really rather see sexist religious doctrines purged, so I'd be happy, but I'm 1. not sure of the intent behind it and 2. not sure if this would empower Muslim women who wear the burqa or alienate them.
On topic: I'd really rather see sexist religious doctrines purged, so I'd be happy, but I'm 1. not sure of the intent behind it and 2. not sure if this would empower Muslim women who wear the burqa or alienate them.
so i wasn't crazy, he's sticking to his non sunni=non muslim idea
I'm not dogpiling on Islam. I'm dogpiling on your claim that real Islam is what you say it is.
So men and women in Islam are separate but equal?
Yes, most rapists are men. Then why do women have the responsibility to prevent it?
It's the price we have to pay for freedom.
Honestly, these laws tend to have exceptions for masquerades and stuff like that, so your average furry convention should be safe.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Repeatedly defending sexism and misogyny
You literally called out two verses from the Qur'an.
Men AND women have the responsibility to prevent it.
What is your solution to stop rapists? Rapists are mentally deranged men (and sometimes women). They're looking for any excuse to rape.
I'm sorry but you really think most woman who wear these face covering garments do so with no expectations or pressure from their family/community?
No, you've shown how little you even know about Islam. Different interpretations doesn't make someone a non-Muslim, especially on something to do with fiqh like the niqab. Yusuf Qaradawi is a Salafi who does not promote the niqab but he is still considered a Muslim. There are even a few Maliki scholars who do not recommend the niqab. There are even Shi'as in Yemen who promote the niqab as well!
And it's so funny how you're passive aggressive. I thought you didn't want to respond to me, yet here we are.
If Denmark really does think that all the women wearing the Niqab are being suppressed into doing it by their husbands and if that were true, they are demeaning the women for their husbands acting in an unislamic manner where they will go out even less.
If however these women chose to wear in accordance to what they think is a modest garb then these women are being discriminated against for their choice
In both cases Muslim women lose out to a government and the islamophobes thinking for them
If however these women chose to wear in accordance to what they think is a modest garb then these women are being discriminated against for their choice
In both cases Muslim women lose out to a government and the islamophobes thinking for them
While some of the parties endorsing the face veil ban are doing it for anti-immigration reasons, it's worth noting the following:
Denmark has for many years had a ban on wearing masks in public. This is to prevent demonstrators from committing vandalism and not being prosecuted. With the banning of masks any participant in a demonstration wearing a mask can immediately be arrested.
By having so far allowed the cultural face veils it left a loophole for anyone planning to commit vandalism in a demonstration. They could just claim to be a muslim and that they were required to wear it. People's religious beliefs aren't registered in Denmark so the police would have to take their word for it.
While I don't completely agree with the reasoning behind the ban I absolutely agree with the effect.
Denmark has for many years had a ban on wearing masks in public. This is to prevent demonstrators from committing vandalism and not being prosecuted. With the banning of masks any participant in a demonstration wearing a mask can immediately be arrested.
By having so far allowed the cultural face veils it left a loophole for anyone planning to commit vandalism in a demonstration. They could just claim to be a muslim and that they were required to wear it. People's religious beliefs aren't registered in Denmark so the police would have to take their word for it.
While I don't completely agree with the reasoning behind the ban I absolutely agree with the effect.
Given the stated motivation does the law also ban wearing a mask or covering your face with other garments?
edit: answered
edit: answered
The government position stems from anti immigration, xenophobia and Islamophobia. Just recently the nations immigration minister said Muslims who fast should stay home because it will be dangerous for society
http://m.dw.com/en/ramadan-danish-i...3880121?xtref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Did I say that?
The point is some do out of choice and the answer isn't to take away that choice.
It's not shock when you see a family where some women will be wearing a a niqab, hijab while some won't be wearing any at all.
People follow the religion differently and there is is nothing wrong with that in the sense its there choice how they practice their religion.
Telling those that they can't cover their face is no different to those who tell them they must cover their face.
Unless those who cover their face are some kind of detriment to society causing havoc for everyone else I don't see why it should be banned.
Last edited:
So what is the answer then? keep suppressing women with these archaic rules of conduct?
There's always going to be some restrictions on individual freedom. If it's someone's religion to walk around naked in public they'd have trouble getting away with it too. Religion or no, I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for people to not go completely covered in public.
Help those who suppressed being forced to do things they don't want to do rather than a blanket ban.
All I can do is speak from experience and London seems to function just fine with people being able to dress how they please.
So let's make exceptions and adjustments to our laws to accommodate Muslims who "mightn't" be allowed outside of their home if we disallow people to cover their faces in public.
Imagine the situation was reversed. A religion mandated that women must be naked. Would you be in favour of making exceptions for that religion? Of course, being naked doesn't cause a security risk like covering up does so it's not an accurate comparison in that regard.
And these is the real crux of the issue and why I don't believe the ban is about the welfare of women.
If I have to choose between helping a woman whose forced to hide her face against her will over one who willingly hides her face. I will choose the first woman every time. Unless you have some kind of magic trick your not going to change the communities around the women anytime soon which will have to happen if we're going to solve this issue.
PERSONALLY I'm against the idea of women needing a burqa or niqab.
PRAGMATICALLY I don't see the gain in limiting the role these women can take in sociaty.
Everything from buying groceries too seeking help from abusive relationships will be waaaaay harder. This wil ultimately hurt the women and not help liberate her in any way shape or form.
CONTEXTUALLY we must recognize that this is a measure taken by a deeply islamophobic state. Between this and arguing for the removal of gold teeth from immigrants and the destruction of immigrant areas I'm not sure how one can read this and not smell the Islamophobia.
PRAGMATICALLY I don't see the gain in limiting the role these women can take in sociaty.
Everything from buying groceries too seeking help from abusive relationships will be waaaaay harder. This wil ultimately hurt the women and not help liberate her in any way shape or form.
CONTEXTUALLY we must recognize that this is a measure taken by a deeply islamophobic state. Between this and arguing for the removal of gold teeth from immigrants and the destruction of immigrant areas I'm not sure how one can read this and not smell the Islamophobia.
So those in favor of not banning face veils... would you then endorse legislation enabling men to wear them? You'd pretty much have to if you are in favour of equal rights.
The argument "but they've always done x. It's part of their culture" isn't a valid one. The same could be said for corporeal punishment of children, cannibalism, pedophilia, summary execution or mutilation for misdemeanors if we take a look through history.
The argument "but they've always done x. It's part of their culture" isn't a valid one. The same could be said for corporeal punishment of children, cannibalism, pedophilia, summary execution or mutilation for misdemeanors if we take a look through history.
If they are not banned, why would legislation be required to allow any one (men or women) to wear them?
You'll find that most muslims agree with this ban.
Having said that, it's a piece of clothing. Since when is a government allowed to dictate what someone can wear (unless it opposes public decency)?
Having said that, it's a piece of clothing. Since when is a government allowed to dictate what someone can wear (unless it opposes public decency)?
Since, like, all the time? For the same reason the government can force you to wear a helmet when you drive a bike or wear a safteybelt when driving a car. There are a lot of laws in place which affect everyone's life and "freedom".