Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by delmamerchant, Apr 23, 2017.
These are not really comparable! Let's be serious now.
The burqa is Islamic not restricted to any particular culture.
It is common place in parts of inner London
The context was entirely different as well you know.
How on Earth can you be surprised with the recent political issues arising out of the awful terrorist attacks of late. Can I come and join u in your Haven of solitude and serinity?
I wished they had banned the ugly men in speedos
It is not racist as Islam is not designated to one race. It is at most islamaphobic.
Yes, the FGM checks lead to much merth making comedy scrips. Wonder whom will commit first?
I am saying that we have been complacent in the recent past re topics such as ukip.
Yes, that would be a more sensible argument.
Ummmm! They have a glass visor!
It is said that the beauty of a women's hair and face is such that it should be preserved for her husband...The covering could become perceived in modern day as an item designed because men could not controll themselves. It is not religious attire as it is not written in the Qur'an.
Why do you assume that non of the responses are from Muslims? Not all Muslim women cover up, or have I misunderstood you?
I understand what you mean re saying they rather than Muslims. Posters, where are your manners?
Women in Iran are not, as far as I know, required to cover their faces. Even in the times immediately after the overthrowing of the shah, it was the hair that had to be covered.
I remember seeing a very small number of Bangladeshi women wearing burkas round London's East End back in the early seventies, and I've not seen any since. The niqab, on the other hand, is gaining ground in places (whether, for example. Britain or Sri Lanka or Malaysia) in which it is not the cultural or religious norm. I found the burka shocking. It's a horrible thing that denies any individual identity to its wearer. The adoption of the niqab by the girls, now adults, I used to teach, is depressing. For me, it's not so much the lack of face as the lack of colour that saddens me.
The burkini has come under fire, but I can't understand why.
In his book Reasoning With God: Reclaiming Shari'ah in the Modern Age, Khaled Abou El Fadl (a Professor of Islamic Law and committed Muslim) writes about the testimony he gave as an expert witness in a Florida court case in 2003. A wife had recently converted to Islam, donned niqab, applied for a driver's license, and insisted that the state issue her that license either without a photograph or with a picture of her wearing a full face veil on the understanding that Islamic law required her to cover her face regardless of any social or security consequences.
El Fadl's account is fascinating and can be read in full by typing 'niqab' into the relevant volume on Google books. He testified against her. El Fadl's credentials are impeccable.
Here's a snippet from it:
'The most puzzling part of all this was that the wife's interpretation of Shari'ah was not supported by the legal tradition itself. First, the hijab or niqab ....are not unconditional religious duties. Even assuming that either the hijab or niqab is a religious duty, this duty is not among the pillars of the faith, and it would not be allowed to trump all other competing or countervailing considerations. Islamic legal practice was well acquainted with the need to balance between competing interests, and it did not admit this type of dogmatic and uncompromising application.
In fact, this is exactly the reason that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, in all Muslim countries that I have studied, women who obtained driver's licenses were required to take photographs clearly showing the face. Even Saudi Arabia, when it came to the issuance of passports, required women wearing the niqab to take a photograph showing their face.
Second, whether Muslims lived in a Muslim or non-Muslim society, they were required to carefully consider the interests of society at large. It was simply not true that that Islamic law, as the woman claimed, was not concerned with the well-being of society and the public interest.
Third, in deciding on the proper course of conduct, Shari'ah mandated that the image of Islam should be taken into account and given serious weight. If a particular behaviour would alienate or threaten the non-Muslim neighbours of a Muslim, and as a result damage the image of Islam, Muslims were required to take this factor into serious consideration and carefully weigh it as an important moral demand.....
Fourth, whether the niqab is an Islamic practice at all is hotly debated in the juristic tradition of Islam, and the proponents of this practice are but a small minority in the Islamic legal tradition. Because this practice is the subject of intense disagreement and debate, it does not enjoy the type of sanctity and significance that might exist regarding issues that most Muslims agree on.'
The woman lost the case.
Just thought that I would put this out there as it seems to address the concerns of some contributors to this thread.
I would happily ban the burka but I would, in spite of El Fadl's comments, be concerned about banning niqab. This is to do with something I read in a book written by an expert on counter-terrorism. I'm very busy right now but I'll try and summarise the guy's views when I get the chance.
Yes, you have misread me. Probably my fault, sorry.
I have not said the word "muslim", nor have I stated any assumptions relating to practice of any Muslim
I meant specifically somebody who wears a Burqa, or perhaps more specifically a Niqab.
Because that is what this thread is about. Not Muslims.
I insist on being specific here, because I think being non specific would only mean generalising, which is not that far short from having a prejudice. Us and them. The semantics is emotive.
Thank you very much for clarifying my earlier post-my memory of the one I referred to was not really very precise!
I think UKIP have decided that the burka issue will get them alot of press coverage. They don't seem to have any other distinct policies. They risk extinction if they get no MPs.
Motorcycle helmets have to, by law, meet certain standards.
One of those standards is that the field of vision must not be restricted below 105° from the central point .
Ithought the hijab and other forms were discouraged but actually under the Shah islamic dress, including the hijab or headscarf were banned and were forcibly removed if worn in public. The Shah and his government wanted to Westernise Iran and they believed that was part of the process.
I suspect that like many things present driving law covers it, but it doesn't get enforced.
I have ridden a motorcycle helmet in garages, couldn't see a reason for doing so in a bank.
It isn't against the law, however. I don't think you would be arrested for entering a garage wearing a helmet. U
I do think that is a fair point, actually.
Religious freedom is far from perfect yet the moment restrictions are placed you only have privileges, not universal freedoms.
It isn't for the state to say what women should wear, including face coverings.
I think you mean could be unsafe.
One incident isn't a justification for universal bans.
Car fumes are toxic yet we are allowed to drive.
Open faced helmets are legal but ludicrously unsafe.
Trust me, I know.