Behind the burka
Chrystelle Khedrouche is 36 and lives in a suburb just outside Paris. She has been wearing a burka in public for around 12 years. She is French-born, has five children, and is married to an Algerian. She is a convert to Islam.
These are her views about the proposed ban on wearing the burka and niqab in public places:
"I'm really very sad about this, but I'm not so surprised because it is part of the French mentality, but it makes me sad and it's hard that this is the stage we have got to. It's been several years that we live like this and we have been perfectly fine, but then I'm not so surprised because the French like the idea of everyone being of the same mould and that mould must be ideal. Everything that is not part of their ideal model doesn't suit them."
Polls suggest that a sizeable majority of French people support a ban.
"This is a political strategy. It is always easier to knock the Muslims because all French people are in agreement about it."
Isn't it through the face that human beings relate to each other? It is the most basic way of communicating?
"Do you think we do not have contact with people? No, I don't agree with that at all. Throughout this debate we have heard lots of excuses. I disagree. I did my studies in communication. I know that if I smile on the telephone a smile is heard. For me, we can have human contact and a piece of cloth will not stop this contact. I don't agree that human contact is established through the face. I still have human contact, it doesn't change anything."
Many Muslims say that nothing in Islam requires women to wear the full-face veil.
"It saddens me a lot because our community is not united enough. For me there is no difference between myself and other Muslim women who show their veil, their hair or show their full head; there is no difference between us. But to say that it is not part of our religion I find very difficult, because we know that the wives of the prophet were dressed like this, they were fully covered.
"When God ordered that women be veiled we know that they were already veiled. Look at the mother of Jesus, Mary, she wore a veil and I have never seen an image of her where she is not veiled. So we know that women were veiled at that time and if God ordered that women be veiled it was to add something more to what there was already."
What would you do if the ban becomes part of French law?
"Am I ready to break the law? It's been 12 years that I have been like this. Yes, I am ready. In fact I can't accept the fact that the French fight for the freedom of women. I believe a woman should be able to dress as she likes, so I do not understand why they want to stop me from dressing as I want. I have made a choice to dress like this and I have made the choice not to be unveiled, so to force me to unveil - that's not freedom."
What happens if you are fined for breaking the law?
"If we are stopped we do not have any intention of paying fines - that is sure. I personally will not pay a fine and I think there are lots of women who will not pay. I find it terrible to stop someone for the way they dress and it is against European laws. First they say they will introduce a law, now it is a decree, a resolution...
"They know that it will go against the European constitution. I don't know where this will lead, but they cannot arrest us in front of our children, we have done nothing wrong."
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I admire her tenacity but she must know that someone in Europe who constantly covers their face is going to be tagged as a shifty type.
Complain about this comment
As much as I personally disagree with the restrictions all Abrahamic religions put on their own followers, it is obvious that this woman has made a conscious decision to cover herself, just as many women make a conscious decision to expose themselves and as such in a democracy we must defend her rights. The proviso being that when it is necessary to prove her identity - ie airports, law courts she does so.
Complain about this comment
"I don't know where this will lead, but they cannot arrest us in front of our children, we have done nothing wrong."
*cough*
Impressive faith in the government too....almost as strong as her faith in her particular brand of sky fairy. I have a feeling the former faith will be shattered however.
Complain about this comment
What European Constitution is she talking about?
Complain about this comment
So a smile is "heard" over the phone. Great, so whenever she wants to smile at someone she is gonna tell the person her phone number so they can "smile" at each other. However, I'm thinking about patenting the "burqphone", which disguises female voices and makes them sound like ugly men.
Complain about this comment
If someone decides to wear micro skirt nobody would object to that! So why against burka? What happened to civil liberty?
French authority should also understand NOT all women hate burka, some women actually feel comfortable wearing one.
BUT
On the other hand, if a woman goes to Saudi Arabia or Iran they are FORCED to wear head scarf otherwise she will not be allowed to stay or even enter the country. So if a Muslim country can force other people to follow what they want, France can "force" the same dictatorship to people of other religion, simple.
Finally, I would like to challange Chrystelle Khedrouche to give evidence from Quran and sahi Hadith, where it says Muslim women should wear a burka and a full Niqab (and kindly do not give any example out of context or something that is not in QUran or sahi Hadith)
Complain about this comment
Gheryando (4): probably the European Convention on Human Rights, which is (i) a good thing and (ii) nothing to do with the EU.
When your constitution is a plaything of the politicians (as it is in France), and whatever 'rights' within it can be abolished by those politicians any time they want to, the only remaining functioning check on their power is international law. The ECHR is one of few examples of useful international law. It may be undemocratic, but the things it protects us from cannot be made legitimate by a majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Complain about this comment
A woman covering herself completely is hiding herself from the gaze of men.
Why?
Because she thinks that if she were to be seen uncovered in public, any man that she may meet might lust after her losing his sexual self control.
If a man were to parade around displaying such rank insults to every woman that he met, I am sure the he would soon find himself in serious trouble.
Complain about this comment
It seems a bit silly to me to ban conservative styles of clothing when the polar opposite is so prevalent and unregulated: so many western women dress like hookers. If people are allowed to strip down why on earth can't they cover up?
Sensible measures, like removing facial covering when going through security check-points or when having a driving license photo taken should be required under the law.
If France is so concerned over women's rights then surely they can further that noble aim without policing dress codes.
I could see the French taking a page from the Turkish playbook (or, former playbook - not sure if Erdogan reversed that policy) and banning headcovering in state buildings/institutions rather than it being 'prohibited on the territory of the Republic'
Keep Dancin' whether you wear head gear, flowing robes or not!
Complain about this comment
@8 Tomas ORiada
"If a man were to parade around displaying such rank insults to every woman that he met, I am sure the he would soon find himself in serious trouble."
What rank insults? Do you mean displaying his face, hair to the woman?
Not sure I understand what you mean.
On the topic at hand though I think a little common sense would go a long way. i.e. If your behaviour\dresscode is unacceptable for the country you have chosen to live in then you must adapt to that situation or risk upsetting the local populace.
Complain about this comment
There are two extremes - bikini or a full burkha. We do not wear bikinis to public places like buses, schools, parliaments, libraries do we? Same way we should not see full burkhas in those places. There is a place for everything. Bikinis can be worn on the beach, pool or private parties and full burkas can be worn at mosques.
The problem with defending the right of a woman to cover her face is that in many cases (I personally know a few), the burkha is enforced on the women by the males in the families. In other cases she is simply brainwashed (like the woman interviewed here) into thinking it is as an edict from God. (Has she pondered why God did not create a woman with a veil if that had been his/her will)? So much for a woman's "choice".
Why not muslims first work in muslim countries like Saudi to protect the right of women not to wear the veil if they so choose?
Complain about this comment
I would like to understand how this woman believes that european law states she can wear what she wants. Surely there has to be some level of common sense and respect for western ideals. I mean, I would not expect to go to a country where sharia law is implememnted and walk around with a derogatory slogan regarding allah. It is ridiculous that something that has been proven not to be a religious requirement (as agreed by the vast majority of muslims) can still be contested in law, if they introduce a law banning the burka, then she has a civil duty to abide by the law.
Complain about this comment
Yeah she's made the choice herself, consciously. So have 15-year old kids who attempt suicide and can't be taken seriously when they claim that "life sucks". So should we let them do it?
She's chosen to lead a life of slavery and humiliation (no matter what she tells you, that's exactly what it is). How nice is that.
I support the ban. Whatever is done to spread the malignant virus of religion should be welcome.
Complain about this comment
“Look at the mother of Jesus, Mary, she wore a veil and I have never seen an image of her where she is not veiled.”
Oh, I didn’t realise there was a full photographic record of Mary’s life, showing her veiled at all times. Where’s the evidence?
I pity Chrystelle – and everyone else following a load of stupid orders from their ‘god’.
Complain about this comment
Past rulings of the ECHR do not give much hope that they will strike-down any French ban on the wearing of the burqa...
-------------
"Prohibitions on the wearing of religious symbols have given rise to complaints addressed to the Strasbourg Court under Article 9 (ECHR). These cases can require careful assessment. It appears from the jurisprudence that it is normally accepted that such a prohibition involves an interference with the right of individuals to manifest their religion, and assessment has turned upon the reasons advanced for the ban. In this area, however, the Strasbourg Court is likely to recognise a certain "margin of appreciation" on the part of state authorities...
Thus in Dahlab v. Turkey, the refusal to allow a teacher of a class of small children to wear the Islamic headscarf was deemed justified in view of the 'powerful external symbol' which her wearing a headscarf represented...
The matter was considered further by the Grand Chamber in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey. In this case, the applicant complained that a prohibition on her wearing the Islamic headscarf at university ... The Strasbourg Court proceeded on the basis that there had been an interference with her right to manifest her religion ... Accordingly, the crucial question was whether the interference had been "necessary in a democratic society". By a majority, the Court ruled that the interference in issue had been both justified in principle and proportionate to the aims pursued, taking into account the State's 'margin of appreciation'." (J. Murdoch 'Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A guide to the implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights')
Complain about this comment
The decision made by the french gouvernment does not voilate any civil right guaranteed by the french constitution, the declaration of human and citizen's rights and other fundamental principals recognized by republican laws of previous french republics.
Muslims are not prohibited from manifesting thier religious symbols; it's rather similar to a security mesure for protecting public order, which constitutes "la securite, la salubrite et la tranquilite publique". A person wearing a Burka can not be identified, for every single bit of his face and body is covered. Theives and other criminals could sneak into banks and other high security institutions with thier favourite arms in tranquility.
If the measure was to ban any type of head covering, then surely that would constitute a violation of civil rights, which is clearly not the case; only this particular type of Hijab has been banned.
Complain about this comment
@Mirza: "If someone decides to wear micro skirt nobody would object to that! So why against burka? What happened to civil liberty?"
Have you ever heard of Civil Liberty being abused?
Her demand to have the right to cover herself however she pleases amounts to nothing different from someone who wishes to entertain himself with firearms in public (or even in private).
Complain about this comment
I support anyone's choice of clothing, even if they choose not to wear clothing. However, there are security issues to do with withholding one's identity and this is the essential problem which needs to be resolved. As #2 written, if wearers of the burka/veil will agree to showing their faces when security needs require, then by all means let them wear that garment.
However, I disagree profoundly with the burka's underlying 'justification', which is to penalize women for the misbehaviour of men. I say this because wearing the garment is, at best, inconvenient, and, at worst, a hazard: it seriously obstructs its wearer's sight, and its length makes it easy to trip on - particularly on stairs. Also, as #8 has written, it's justification is an insult to all responsibly behaved men, and serves to justify sexual assaults against women who do not wear the Burka, as they are, by the Muslim way of thinking, 'asking for it'.
Complain about this comment
>Her demand to have the right to cover herself however she pleases amounts >to >nothing different from someone who wishes to entertain himself with >firearms >in public (or even in private).
Really? can you explain further? what similarity is there between a piece of clothing and a weapon capable of killing someone?
>Theives and other criminals could sneak into banks and other high security >institutions with thier favourite arms in tranquility.
why would that be different from someone wearing sunglasses a Hat,a false beard and a Kaftan!
Your irrational and unfounded fears are not shared by the french, Recent attempts have shown that murderous killers use underpants as their preferred method of delivery, do u suggest the french ban them?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can it be that "behind the burka", one can find a very sincere person, yet with a number of misconceptions about (Islamic) faith, (limitations of) freedom, and living (face to face) in an open, democratic society?
Complain about this comment
These blind converts are so gullible, they will fall for anything.
Complain about this comment
@ Sanjar
I think now you're taking things too far. People should be allowed to wear whatever they like UNLESS it becomes offensive*. I don't believe in extreme views and so I am simply against full burka+neqab. But there shouldn't be a law banning burka and neqab or anyother cloting. But comparing burka with firearms in public display is such an extreme view that people like Osama Bin Laden & co. will reward you for helping to spread hatred and extremism.
Also, even if someone wears a burka+neqab should NOT be allowed to keep it in places like airport, sea-port, exam centres etc. as Janaki wrote, there is place for everything.
And finally, there are grown up adults, educated, smart and intelligent who wear burka because they want to, I know some women and nobody in their entire family wears a burka except them. It should be treated as a freedom of choice.
@ Janaki: Do you think those extremist people are interested about Islam and shariya? If those so ‘called Muslims’ are really interested about Shariya law why they don’t want to implement in their most holy land Saudi Arabia? Monarchy is strictly prohibited in Islam. Why Saudi Royal family members never have to face Alcohol test? (If a Muslim drinks in Saudi Arabia surely his head will be chopped off)
*Few years ago I saw a tourist wearing a t-shirt which said: “..... **** you Mum” I censored the word here but on the t-shirt it wasn’t censored. There is no law to ban this clearly offensive slogans.....so y point is ‘ban’ is not the solution
Complain about this comment
It's making their lives hell.
Complain about this comment
There is so much to be said about her.
I understand that it is her choice and admire her faith. I also sympathised with her idea that French society creates a single ideal mould which is suffocating sometimes but there are many upsides as well. It isn't all gloom. I know what I am talking about I am French.
On the other hand to make society work people need to have a something in common. Her behaviour doesn't match this culture. It isn't a question of names, colour of skin but only a question of attitude.
Nudism in streets in not allowed in France. So why should the other extrem be accepted? As an example someone walking bare chest in a French city can be fined.
Are women equal in right to men? Yes or no? If she considered that men and women are equal, why should women be full faced covered and not men?
She seems to have partly lost her reason. She said:
"When God ordered that women be veiled we know that they were already veiled. Look at the mother of Jesus, Mary, she wore a veil and I have never seen an image of her where she is not veiled. So we know that women were veiled at that time and if God ordered that women be veiled it was to add something more to what there was already."
She said that the Virgin Mary was always veiled. It is impossible to know there was no photography at the period. We can assume it was the case because it was the custom. Was it for religious reason? Well I can't answer the question I am not an expert. But her conclusion is radical and totally novice even regarding her own faith. There is apparently no backing from the Koran about what she said.
I don't want her to be demonized but I would like her to be more adult and stop begin fussy about precepts which are not koranic and give a negative image of Islam in Europe. I could argue that if God gave women a face (as men) it is to be identified and be someone in society. For me her way of life is just pure egoism and angst toward people around her. I would like imams in Europe to be responsible and guide properly their sheep who are lost in the meadows. I am tired to argue and hear about religious subjects such as: What is the best length of the beard? How many times shall I pray? Should my cross be visible outside my shirt? I am tired of all of that. I see nothing of spiritual in that. Religious groups want to be visible but at the end it doesn't mean that their quest is spiritual.
If you want to be in contact with God you don't need any of subterfuge. All is in your head.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I wonder how many of the women who wear the niqab are French converts married to men from Muslim-dominated countries. Of the niqabis I've met/known, donning the niqab alway struck me as a 'going native' act accompained by a martyr complex.
Complain about this comment
I recently watched some news footage of large mixed public gatherings in Egypt, around the time of Nasser and the Suez crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people were gathered and hardly any of the women wore a headscarf, let alone burkhas or niqabs. It seems to me that the Egyptian women of half a century ago were considerably less constrained by their religion than they are now.
This insidious tide of oppression and subjugation is a relatively recent phenomonon propagated in large part by mostly young muslim women searching mistakenly for a separate, but ultimately spurious social identity.
Complain about this comment
There should not be any need for the French or anyone else to pass laws for such ridiculous issues. But we are where we are because of a small minority that can't think of move towards the 21st century. There is not citizenship right or civil right to defend ridiculous clothing. Most countries have laws to protect common decency, what that lady dresses in in neither common nor decent. Anyone that think the French over-react, need to think again. I don't care how Saudis or the Iranians or Amazon tribes dress, here in Europe people dress is a particular way. Any dress code outside that particular way offends common decency and if the people wearing that particular dress code don't have the common decency to stop wearing on their own accord, then someone should tell them to stop it. Regarding people wearing ultra-short skirts in public, if it is not against what the majority regards as common decency, then go ahead and wear it. I don't think here in Europe, it would acceptable for Amazon tribes people to wear nothing, of having them claim their personal freedoms were abused if they were told they had to wear some clothing. As for the religious aspect, in the past in America & Australia were case of Christian sects that brainwashed their followers to do whatever their leaders asked of them, even prostitution, the governments there stopped that practice. No one thought that freedom of religion was abused, government have an obligation to look after people and to protect people even if the people themselves due to brainwashing don't realise they need help. So, viva la France or however that is said :))
Complain about this comment
Why do I read so many "I admire her faith"'s? What's there to admire about such faith, or in any faith in general?
Complain about this comment
@20 Abdulhafid
Firstly welcome to the comments board.
Your post seems a little bit hypocritical. You state:-
"We, the European Muslims, are citizens of Europe and will insist on our legal rights. These are our countries as much as they are yours. Deal with it."
Surely if it does become illegal to wear niqab you will obey the law in that respect?
When you state "Those people supporting it are simple xenophobic conformists who yearn for years past when white culture ruled."
Do you accept that at least for security purposes niqab should be removed? And that perhaps not everyone in France who is concerned by the niqab is not a xenophobic conformists (or even white).
And finally if, for example, there were a referendom on the issue and the vote was put to the people (fat chance I know), would except that the people of the country in which you live have spoken?
Complain about this comment
"I'm really very sad about this, but I'm not so surprised because it is part of the French mentality, but it makes me sad and it's hard that this is the stage we have got to. It's been several years that we live like this and we have been perfectly fine, but then I'm not so surprised because the French like the idea of everyone being of the same mould and that mould must be ideal. Everything that is not part of their ideal model doesn't suit them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this comment by the lady in question all very sad. Their, doesn't, suit them. Sounds like she is talking about a completely seperate group of people. Where is the intergration, she doesn't seem to speak about being French and comes across as very isolationist.
Complain about this comment
14. Lime Candy
"...I pity Chrystelle – and everyone else following a load of stupid orders from their ‘god’..."
What's the problem, provided there isn't a conflict with "stupid orders" masquerading as laws?
Each to their own. If France (or anywhere else) doesn't want Muslims living amongst them, then they should come out and say this.
Otherwise respect their traditions as if it were those of the beret wearing onion seller of yesteryear.
Complain about this comment
Here's a proposal. Let the French government issue burkhas to women who want them at the woman's cost. Each woman would have their own distinctive pattern and clearly labeled license numbers visible in every direction so that they could be identified. Wearing someone else's burkha in public would be a felony punishable by imprisonment, presumed to evade being identified in the possible commission of a crime. So the women would have their coverup and society would be able to identify who is in them by numbers and patterns on them. The widespread use of cell phones with cameras makes it possible to photograph them for later identification. Each woman would be responsible for the security of their burkhas. If they failed to report theft or loss of them immediately to the police, their right to wear one would be rescinded. Kind of like gun licenses or registration of a car.
Complain about this comment
30. ChrisArta
"...we are where we are because of a small minority that can't think of move towards the 21st century..."
So now we are going to dictate to people how they should live. And if they don't conform to our vision we'll insult them.
Complain about this comment
35. MarcusAureliusII
"...Let the French government issue burkhas to women who want them..."
Why not implant everyone with an RFID tag and be done with it?
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many nuns in France wear a habit that includes covering their face. I have never seen one. Never even seen a picture of one. In the US I think most nuns have discarded the habit altogether.
Complain about this comment
Long before the rise of radical Islam, we had laws about adults going masked in the United States, and perhaps elsewhere too. How is this different? No freedom is absolute. This woman is gaining a lot of attention for her advocacy, and no doubt enjoying it. But it is also well documented that radicals in the Muslim community of France have harassed many women simply for taking jobs and adopting Western dress, some to the point of compulsion, the motive being to engender further isolation, tension and dependency. These are hardly democratic values, and it is no defense of democracy to pretend they do not exist.
Complain about this comment
Chrystelle is missing the point. She has every right to live as she wants, even if I think it's crazy.
But other women also have that right. The only way to provide cover for all those thousands and millions who do NOT want to live in a black sack is to make it illegal.
Once the insane men have realized they can survive the sight of women, then it's possible to go to a system of real choice.
Why did the BBC not interview a typical burqa-wearing woman? Perhaps because those have no voice?
Complain about this comment
These women wearing bhurkas are part of a heirarchy that is warring with british and american troops in others parts of the world. Their civil disobedience is aimed at disrupting civil society while their militants plant IED's. Think the idea is to make peace with them well peace and respect and tolerance is desireable but in some cases simply not possible.
Everything about religion IS in the public domain but it is ignored or interpreted for political ends. Everyone has obsessions and objects of art that they are devoted to often to the chagrin of others.
we are told to believe in ourselves we can do anything not according to the apostle of christanity who said 'of my own self I can do nothing' so why do we think one man is responsible for all the disruption of many?
'Phi 4:13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me'
In accord with the words of Jesus.
Joh 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
We know that christianity is earlier than islam and judaism is earler than that but they all assert to have faith in the same God. How can so many interpretations come about because leaders seek their own ambitions Jesus sought the will of God. The difference makes the difference.
Complain about this comment
I really do have to question the intelligence of people who come out with these sort of remarks. Set aside the human rights issues issues about being told what you can and cannot wear.
When I was a student, we has a pirate society. They all dressed like Long John Silver and strutted around the student union. Non-one discussed their right to do this, we just thought that they were silly.
Likewise, I have to say, anyone who would dress like this, dress in bishops clothes or even dog collars are a bit silly, especially if they think some god wants them to dress this way.
If the world of Islam wants influence me, I suggest the stop dressing like a bunch of loonies first!
Complain about this comment
I have considerable experience with Muslims, although I am myself a Christian. I have travelled to countries where I was required to cover my hair, and I absolutely hated it. I personally view it as insulting to both women and men, this idea that men are so weak they cannot control themselves at the sight of a woman's hair. I think wearing the veil makes a woman more separated and more conscious of her status as a lesser being. I could go on for quite a while longer with my opinions about the cover, even just of the hair.
However, all that is my personal opinion, which I have a right to. If I demand my rights to my opinion, I must also respect others' rights to their opinions. To legislate how a woman dresses is wrong and a violation of her personal freedom, whether the legislation specifies that one should or should not wear the cover. Women are not children to be told how to behave and dress, and one expects that a country claiming to be modern and forward thinking would uphold this concept. I am disappointed that France is showing itself to be no better than the most backward of countries by even considering this measure. No French person supporting this can ever again look askance at a husband or brother who forces the women in his family to cover up, because they themselves are no better. What a fallacy is the thought that they'll redress the wrongs visited upon women by their male family members by, guess what, doing exactly the same thing to them!
Complain about this comment
Response to #27 -
The topic here is about the burkha. Obviously you are unable to stick to the topic without resorting to tu quoque kind of logical fallacy.
But to answer your off topic charges - women in India are not "forced" to travel in women's compartments. It is completely their choice to do so or not. Nobody beats them with a stick for traveling in a coed compartment (like the Taliban did the women whose ankles were exposed) Does that sound like "brainwash" to you?
Regarding the other off topic charge, for your information (since you seem to be behind by a couple of centuries) sati has been banned, made criminal in India. I support that fully. Similarly I support the ban of full burkha in public buildings, buses, trains, airports etc.
While a burkha may define your "roots", a sari does not define me or other Indian women. We have a lot more going for us. I am sorry that you feel you are so limited. (I would remind you that before the burkha your ancestors had roots and shoots)
Complain about this comment
I'm from the US, and such a ban would NEVER fly here, but I think it's appropriate. I'm sure there are more than a few females in the world who agree to genital mutilation because of religious beliefs. Doesn't make it right. I think it's dangerous for any government to legislate morality, but some things are just clear cut. It's WRONG for anybody to coerce, via blunt force or subtle deception (such as is the case here) a woman into covering themselves like that. It's wrong. The government of any nation is responsible for allowing all females to grow up in an environment in which they aren't treated or regarded differently because of their sex(with obvious biologically-derived exceptions). They ought to guard against the bodily objectification like we have in the states, just as much as the other extreme like in Riyadh. It's a tricky thing to do in either case, but banning the burkah is a good place to start. Some women may choose the burkah, just as some may choose genital mutilation, but the fact of the matter is that the burkah is conducive to a culture of oppression. Period.
Complain about this comment
At 4:25pm on 22 Jan 2010, Abdulhafid wrote:
No government has the right to tell me, my wife or my daughter how to dress. Period. This is not the issue of security or offence. Those people supporting it are simple xenophobic conformists who yearn for years past when white culture ruled.
My dear Adbulhadif
I think you are wrong. A government has the right to define what people must, can or can not wear. If someone goes walking naked in the street in France, he/she will be fined or jailed. So you can recognise, there are limits to any liberty. In France the idea of liberty must coexist with equality and fraternity in the public space. In this case the notion of liberty to wear a niqab is in opposition with the equality between men and women.
Nature or God or Allah gave a face to both men and women. The question you must answer to yourself is the following one: Do you consider men and women equal? If yes, why should a woman be fully veiled and not a man?
I understand that in some countries like Iraq, Muslim women must wear the hidjab. At the same time I have observed that traditional Muslim men are also veiled. So from this perspective, everything is alright. Equality is respected.
You said some people are xenophobic conformists.
Who is conformist? Non-burka wearers or burka-wearer?
Please have a look at the video about the Black Iraqi.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201011153951276431.html
Europeans have not the exclusivity about xenophoby.
Complain about this comment
I could understand it if the French were concerned for security reasons about people walking around with faces hidden but this seesm to be driven by a desire to enforce conformity to "French" culture and standards of dress. If this is intended to aid the assimilation of immigrants it's likely to backfire. It comes across as discriminatory based on religion and ethnic background. It also lends itself to the impression that it is being used by politicians as ploy to win votes from French people who feel threatened by immigrantion from Muslim countries.
Who knew the French sense of cultural identity was so fragile that it could be threatened by a conservative style of dress?
Complain about this comment
@36
rg, I don't care how people live, where did you see that in the part of the text you copied? if you mean how people dress then yes, society dictactes to people how to dress and how to conform. It is very common through out the world. People dress and behave as society expects them to, if you like it or not is not relevant it is something you have to deal with it is a fact.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The idea that one religion may impose its own idiosyncratic rules in the society we all share, would result in chaos, anarchy and the breakdown of the social agreement to respect the rights and safety of each member, particularly those, as children or women, who cannot protect themselves. Thus polygamy, child marriage, family enslavement, genital mutilation, unwanted religious strictures, cannibalism and even retaliatory murder to uphold these idiosyncratic moral values, would be legal. We all must make trade-offs to live in organized society if we seek its advantages: Chrystelle wants the advantages the society provides her, but insists she is allowed to be an exception to the rules, that make the society work for her own needs.
This hypocrisy, this solipsistic stance, this insistence that she has the right to be treated differently than the rest of us, and demand we must allow her to live by her own rules which endanger the society at large,has little to do with her faith. This emotional immaturity, this childish demand that her irrational tantrum must be respected as reasonable, is in reality her lack of social skills to integrate, pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
I respect peoples freedom to dress how they desire. But my question is, why don't they respect that in islamic countries? Why impose a religious custom on a country that is not native from the majority of that country... I see this not only in France but its spreading from country to country. If you live in a western country you have to respect its culture and laws also, just like people respect islamic laws in "islamic countries".
Does any islamic follower critique laws enforced in Iran, UEA, Libya, etc???
Complain about this comment
So a single woman sits down with a reporter and explains her personal choice to wear a garment that covers her features and face from men strange men, and leave it to all the enlightened men to tear her down. She never once suggests that anyone but herself should wear said article of clothing, but you all hop about like she is advocating that all women should dress as such. Homosexuality is a physical anomaly, but it's explained away with love, why then can't a women profess love for her husband and family by covering herself in public?
As for attacking Abrahamic religions and fairy God(s), what is it exactly that atheists would have people believe??
Why believe in society if the ultimate result is pointless?
Why make laws if anarchy is no more evil than civility?
Why do they care if women cover their faces? Can you deny God but still believe in the Boogie man and that he might be hiding under a Burka in France?
I'm baffled that so many atheists speak as though from a high place and that the teeming masses of 'Abrahamic' people are so much ignorant chattel.
In fact, people will probably never see the outer edges of the universe and yet they will readily shout that there is no God. From which well do they draw their great knowledge and explain how something comes from nothing.
So we should all believe that there is no God and we ultimately have to fend for ourselves, what a happy pill that is to swallow! I find a great deal of the Old traditions troubling and some are downright ignorant, but just because I know the Earth goes around the sun and the sun goes round the milky way doesn't mean I have the slightest Idea who put them there. I'm just one man among billions on the surface of a rock hanging around in space, I NEED God.'
Topless beaches in France are okay, but women covering up is not, too funny, and then they say it has nothing to do with racism!
Atheist says;
'My daughter is a successful doctor and she drives very nice cars and lives in a large manor where she must constantly dear with people begging fro food or money on her doorstep, the poor girl! Her husband left her for someone younger and blonde, but he's nice enough to take the kids every other weekend. She fills the emotional gap with a new guy every other weekend, too. She calls herself 'a little bit of a slut', and we all have a laugh at that over glasses of wine and bottles of booze. she dresses fairly conservatively, just a little cleavage and skirts no higher than her mid-thigh. She's a real looker, if a little tired. The poor girl has to work with a nurse at the hospital that wears a Burka, I tell you that Burka girl is such a downer!!'
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
she should have the right to wear the burka,what gives other people the right to tell her she cannot wear it,she has committed no offence,is it because she is a a muslim they object?
Complain about this comment
1.where do atheists believe they go when they die?
2.What do atheists believe in?
3.Who do they draw their knowledge from?
1.Nowhere
2.Nothing
3.Nobody
What draws me to atheists is their complete toolbox of answers when I question my own spirituality!
Complain about this comment
To #20 Abdulhafid.
Your post worried me slightly when you said, "No government has the right to tell me, my wife or my daughter how to dress" "We,the European muslims, are citizens of Europe and will insist on our legal right"
The issue is that the majority of citizens of Europe in the current climate do not feel comfortable with people walking around in public with their faces covered up. Recently in the UK wearing hoodies in public shopping centres was banned. Likewise walking into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on is illegal. It has nothing to do with religion and frustrates me when any issue like this comes up all muslims seem to use the 'religion card'. When you live in a country you have to respect local cultures and traditions even if it is white culture. The muslim world has promoted the niqab for generations so obviously you are used to it now and cannot expect Europeans in less than one generation to be so acceptable to it. Your unelected religion leaders tell you how to dress so why does the people backed government of the country you live in have no right to tell you how to dress?
Complain about this comment
It has taken years of Europe to be shaped and modernised, we were once religious to the core, but we changed, modernised and brought together a stronger sense of indentity that we are proud of.
The difference between this situation and our own history is the fact we, the people, are forcing 'others' to live by the system we created over generations.
There are still old fashioned opinions held in Islamic countries and many continue to hold highly Conservatives views concerning the society but it will take years of encouragement and modernisation before we can live together as one society.
Complain about this comment
#20 misrepresents Jeddah. Yes, it is uniquely liberal by Saudi standards but only for the reason that it is the port of entry for millions of moderate Muslims on Haj every year who know perfectly well that the wearing of the burka/veil is a Bedouin tradition which has little to do with Islam. Moreover, Jeddah is hundreds of miles from the Bedouin heartlands and the people there disassociate themselves from Bedouins, whom Jeddahites consider to be backward. Finally, as an historic port, Jeddah, is like many historic ports - outward-looking in its nature and multicultural in its makeup.
Complain about this comment
Nick #52
Actually, Nick, she is advocating the burkha with her comments about how God ordained it and all that.
#54
Sure we do not say she has no right to wear the full burkha, simply not in public places like airports, parliaments, libraries etc.. We don't enter buses topless now, do we?
Complain about this comment
"...we know the wives of the prophet were dressed like this.."
Says it all really!
1,300+ years later this female has not moved on one iota.
Mr Hewitt, I suppose there is no chance you asked the lady about the 9 year old child bride of the Prophet Muhammad?
No, I thought not: I mean let's not get into the idea of a Journalist asking the questions that actually matter!
Why does it matter (9yr old bride, after all this time)?
Well, if You, Mr Hewitt were to have asked the lady did she agree with 9 year old girls being married off to old men and she had replied, 'Yes', then she would have been consistent in her 'Faith'.
However, if as any sensible person might suspect, the lady said, 'No' to child brides then of course the rest of her argument for the full face-veil just falls into the category of cant, doesn't it!?
Still, I never expected a man from the BBC to try the really tough Q&A! That would be about as likely as the BBC reflecting British Citizens views on the European Union. I.e. an absolute non-starter!
Complain about this comment
while I don't think the burka should be banned, I'd like to point out that I even hate talking to people who have nothing more on their face than sun glasses. unless the circumstances really require wearing sun glasses, I always ask my friends to take them off when talking to me. the face is an essential part of human communication for most people, however much she wants to convince herself of the opposite. so yeah, I bet she does loose a lot socially. I certainly never smile at a woman in a burka. what's the point if she can't smile back at you? sure, eyes smile by themselves, but it's about more than that.
Complain about this comment
Imran Khan
Re #49
"...this the reason God placed.."
That is Your 'God' mate: Not the beginning, the middle or the end of the world - - merely Your view of what life is about.
Meanwhile, those of us with any degree of self-respect will continue to pint out that Your 'God' and Your 'Faith' have no business trying to instruct any of the rest of us. Whereas, we 'Humans' in a democratic nation have every right to consider the social impact of particular clothing or lack of, and make Law accordingly.
Complain about this comment
I see many are playing the religious card today. However considering that many cultures worship many 'God(s)' in many different ways, which one is the correct 'God(s)' and which method is the correct method for worship?
This is not about religion, or atheists but culture, rights and freedoms and the type of society we want to create.
Complain about this comment
I'm just a bit curious - how many Muslim men wear the same outfit as Mohamed did?
Complain about this comment
If a non-muslim goes to Saudi Arabia don't they have to abide by the law and wear a veil?
If a law is passed in Europe or France then it should be abided.
Complain about this comment
As an adult working and living in an organized society, I can't imagine my clothing choices being legally scrutinized. Religion is personal, as is clothing choice. I think the current wars, fear, and global impacts of the middle east are excusing bigotry. I am hopeful that our societies will maintain a democracy and respect that is necessary for us to evolve individually and collectively.
Scrutinizing and penalizing individual ACTIONS that fall outside agreed social constructs are necessary to maintain a society, but I strongly disagree that dress - regardless of its motivations (KKK sheets, Nazi uniforms, butt-less pants, etc.) are part of this thinking. Regardless of what others think of women or their religion in terms of clothing, as a free society, we must protect her and our rights and freedoms of self expression.
Beware the behavior of making a scape goat of a specialized group of people as an answer to a social condition.
Complain about this comment
nick
Re #55 and 'atheists' toolbox of answers.
Do tell us all again:
1) Where is it You are going when You die?
2) What is it You believe in?
3) From where do You get knowledge?
1)Divine intervention
2)Divine intervention
3)Divine intervention
I must look this 'divine intervention' up sometime and campare notes on the little things:
1) Chicken or egg, first?
2) ..well, actually, that'll do...
Complain about this comment
There is a great deal of discussion over whether Europeans are "comfortable" talking with someone whose face is covered. It's not about comfort or making a woman conform to a society's view of what she should do. It's about upholding personal rights and freedoms, even if others don't agree with them. Some have said that genital mutilation, child marriage, etc., are not legal, either. The difference is that those are wrongs forced upon someone else. Wearing the burqa or veil is often, believe it or not, the choice of the woman who wears it. She should have that right just as we Westerners believe a woman should have the right not to wear it if she chooses not to.
If anyone is worried that she is being forced into it, then the law should be against forcing a woman to wear it. A woman who is being forced to wear it will only be forced to stay indoors if you make wearing it illegal. Make it illegal to force a woman, and that is a morally just law. Protect women's rights, don't trample on them.
Complain about this comment
On a personal level, I find the idea of women wearing Burkhas strange. I feel the same way about the majority of things I see in religion, even in my own Catholic church. That being said, I am morally repulsed by the idea that a government would 'strip' a woman in public and force her to wear more revealing attire than she would prefer. There are women forced to wear burkhas against their will, and I would even allow that there are a significant proportion of woman forced to wear burkhas against their will. However, taking away a persons right to religious freedom is not the way to combat this problem. Any argument pertaining to protecting women, the need for identification, etc., is asinine and poorly constructed.
Complain about this comment
No. 30, ChrisArta: It is only a "ridiculous issue" if you are a man, and have never had the experience of having to prove yourself over and over to men in positions or authority -- or worse, been subjected to demands for sexual favours you are disinclined to trade for professional advancement -- as altogether far too many women have been, for decades and decades of their lives.
Myself included.
You just don't know how dreadful it is to have your scholarship questioned, your qualifications dismissed, your contributions passed over for the simple reason that, being female, you "simply cannot be taken seriously."
And every time anyone, male or female, Muslim or Christian or Darwinist, comes along saying a female's pre-determined fundamental purpose is to service the physiological impulses of dominant males, it wastes one more talented woman's life, time & energy.
Including mine.
The days recede into the distance, one after the other, and here we are, still trying to prove we deserve to be paid for our efforts at a level commensurate to their value, and no, we should not have to participate in sexual romps either to gain or to retain access to gainful employment.
No, I am not kidding you, ChrisArta: it is very much not "a ridiculous issue." It is about the rights of all women to be seen, heard, recognised & acknowledged for who they actually are and for what they know, what they accomplish Out In the World -- and not for "who owns them."
Just as boys and men are of the world, and belong to the world, and shape that world, so to should girls and women be finally accepted as part of The World: Active in it, Engaged, Sovereign, not hidden away and bossed around and fearful of being noticed.
That ridiculous black sack, worn so proudly by women like the widow of the Jordanian terrorist who just blithely ruined the lives of seven American and one Jordanian family -- as well as his own -- what that black sack most emphatically proclaims is: 'I support Al-Qaeda; I support the destruction of infidel civilisation; I pray for the destruction of 'Crusader culture' everywhere on earth."
That kind of statement is unambiguously hate speech. If it was written in letters on a T-shirt, or as graffiti on a wall in Europe, the person making the statement would be arrested: for a very good reason.
Complain about this comment
I have a simple question for Ms. Chrystelle. If she believes in freedom for women to dress the way they want, why don't Muslim countries allow women to dress the way they want. I have seen very few places in the Islamic worls where women are allowed to wear skirts on the street or swim-suits on the beach/pool. Seems like DOUBLE STANDARDS if you ask me. I am Muslim, and there is NOTHING IN THE QURAN that asks women to wear this burqa nonsense. Purely Wahabi/fundamentalist innovation. FYI - my wife and I love the beach and I enjoy her wearing swimsuits (and I also pray twice a day, not 5 as prescribed... but no one's perfect!)
Complain about this comment
Re my #60
Apparently we mustn't suggest the BBC asked the wrong questions!
I'm sorry BBC, I'm really sorry Mr Hewitt!
I never meant to suggest you should have asked a question about the Prophet Muhammad and a 9 year old girl.
I never meant that you should have compared the answer about the need to wear a 'veil' and 'child brides'.
I most certainly was not suggesting you ask about a ruling on clothing 1,300 years ago be compared to 1,300 years ago marriage customs.
No, no, You got me all wrong (in #60) if you were thinking I had in mind that stating wearing a Burka was a requirement because people did it 1,300 years ago was a glib trick of words if it was now agreed things like child brides were not a requirement.
Honest, you misunderstood me.
Complain about this comment
X-box #46
"No government has the right to tell me, my wife or my daughter how to dress. Period."
I also think that as a private citizen, I have the right to deny services to anyone in a public accomodation I own or run who does not conform to my dress code. For example, in some restaurants in France, they will deny you admission or service if you are a man and do not wear a necktie and sports jacket or suit. You can't enter or be served in many places where they serve food in the US without wearing shoes. I think merchants and others should have the right to deny service to anyone who will not uncover their heads. I also think that in a nation which has free speech as a matter of law, the right to ridicule those who will not uncover their heads should be protected and the mainstream society should be encouraged to ridicule women who choose to wear burkhas. You cannot force someone to join the mainstream of society and conform to its social norms but you can ostracize them if they won't. I think that is legal. If women choose to, they should be allowed to marginalize themselves since that it is what they would be doing. I doubt anyone could get a drivers license or drive legally if they disguise their identity and I think the law banning headscarfs in France already excludes women from entering public buildings dressed in Burkhas. If it is impossible to function in a society where you refuse to comply with its norms, that is the woman's problem, not society's.
Complain about this comment
#71, Muhammad, Pakistan--France claims to be of a higher order than the Muslim countries. It isn't right for the Muslim countries to force women to dress according to their view of the way they should, and it wouldn't be right for France either. Because wrong is perpetuated in one place doesn't make it right somewhere else. Your wife has the freedom to wear a swimsuit if she wishes. Don't deny another woman the same freedom to choose.
#70, Maria Ashot, saying that wearing the burqa means one supports al-Quaeda is completely false logic. There is no connection. I agree that women are frequently put down, discriminated against, etc. Don't perpetuate the idea that women aren't capable of choosing for themselves, making their own decisions, whatever. Empower them instead, even to make choices you wouldn't. True freedom is the freedom to make mistakes and be responsible for them yourself. True responsibility is the responsibility to do things differently than the mainstream if that is what you believe. I am Woman and I have a brain, I have rights, I have choices. I don't need a man or a government making choices for me or trying to "protect" me.
Complain about this comment
Well , there is really no obligation in Islam for women to wear the burqa or the Niqab , or the full-face-veil , but France is liberal and democratic , and wearing the Niqab is good for Muslim women to protect them from stealing eyes and greedy eyes of those bad-mannered men. Its good for women , in general , whatever their religion and culture might be.
We can consider it personal freedom , which never harms the society , and once the Police suspects any woman wearing it , then he can see her identity card and talk to her to make sure that she is a woman , and that she's the right holder of the identity card she gave to him to see.
Complain about this comment
Its the correct and praise worthy decision by French Govt.It should be followed by our Govt. too here in South Asia which is currently getting under the grips of Islamic fundamentalist.
I feel threatened by seeing a burqa clad individual that any one could be suicide bomber. Its the duty of my govt. to keep us safe from them by making laws and monitoring them.Rather than giving in to pressure to get petty benefits like votes during elections.Such a shameful politics over here.I congratulate French govt. at least they showed they will stand up against it despite the pressures.
Complain about this comment
#68
Agreed that genital mutilation and child marriages are wrongs forced on someone else. But if I have to deal with a someone whose face I cannot see, it is also a wrong enforced upon me because human beings are wired to be cautious, even fearful of the unknown. It is part of survival instinct. Why should such negative emotions that could psychologically damage me be a part of my life in the public arena. If the woman is so adamant about remaining in that bag, why does she not exercise her free choice to avoid places that require her to identify herself?
Complain about this comment
I have put this on the other thread.
Muhammad Pakistan. Thanks for your post, excellent.
I'll try again.
Yes there should be freedoms of what you can wear, I don't have a problem with that. However like all freedoms there does have to be limits. I can not get up in the morning and decide that today I will wear nothing and go and do my shopping in Waitrose naked. The reason is obvious as it would offend some people and is against the cultural norms of the country. The same goes for the burka, whether muslims like it or not it is seen as offensive by some, and is against the cultural norms of the country.
As a slight side issue last year in Vietnam I brought a T shirt which was red with the gold star on it, the national flag of Vietnam. I didn't take it on holiday to France as it could have upset some due to the history of the 2 countries. That is the difference between me and many Muslims on this blog. I am willing to consider other peoples feelings and dress accordingly which still gives me huge leeway in what I choose to wear.
YOU DO HAVE A FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF WHAT TO WEAR.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO DELIBERATLY OFFEND THE CULTURE YOU ARE IN.
I have yet to hear why any Muslim thinks that their right to wear the burka trumps other peoples right not to be offended. What is coming across is alot of ME ME ME I I I I have the right to wear what I like and couldn't give two hoots what other people think.
So for the last time can you justify why you think you have the right to be provocative and offend some against their mores and culture of a western secular modern country.
Complain about this comment
Reply to #75. MOSTAFA
Well , there is really no obligation in Islam for men to wear the burqa or the Niqab , or the full-face-veil , but France is liberal and democratic , and wearing the Niqab is good for Muslim men to protect them from stealing eyes and greedy eyes of those bad-mannered women. Its good for men , in general , whatever their religion and culture might be.
We can consider it personal freedom , which never harms the society , and once the Police suspects any man wearing it , then he can see his identity card and talk to him to make sure that he is a man , and that he's the right holder of the identity card he gave to them to see.
Complain about this comment
#72
Why don't you muslim men wear blinders instead. That way you can actually practice self control instead of expecting the environment to be modified towards your weakness.
Also, are you okay with women of greedy eyes looking at you? Should you not be covered as well to avoid this? Try it. It may be good for you.
Complain about this comment
GOD is something spiritual. A person should pray to GOD by heart. He can get blessing of GOD by doing work not just by praying to GOD. So dress has nothing to do with GOD. One should always follow a social norm for dress to maintain a quality of the society.
Complain about this comment
MOSTAFA,
Your comment, #75. is offensive to the thousands of males, who are quite capable of behaving in a civilised and respectful manner, despite the amount of clothing a woman might be wearing... or the lack of it.
Europe, although not perfect, tends to allow woman rights and are protected by men who feel they have a right to do as they please to woman.
I will also point out a woman would have to show her face if asked for ID... if they don't.. the police may have well allowed another woman to use some other ID...
In fact, I know in Great Britain, several terrorists have escaped the country because they dressed in traditional Islamic clothing and were not properly checked at the airport.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As far as I understand Germany does not allow Nazi symbolism in public and this does not appear to be opposed by any aspect of European or International law. The Nazis disappeared 65 years ago.
Today our soldiers are fighting the fiercest warfare since WW2 - against those who are symbolised more by the Burqua than anything else. The wearing of the Burqua in European public is no less of a deliberate provocation than the wearing of a Nazi uniform would be in Germany.
There is no freedom in Musilm countries (Turkey aside). Freedom is not "free" - it is bought with great sacrifice and it is an insult to all those who have fought and died for our freedom - and to separate religion from the state - to permit symbols of oppression and subjugation to become accepted within our society. Anyone who looks at a Burqua and does not see subjugation is either a fool or a liar. It is a horrific symbol and shocking to see.
I worked in industry for about 5 years in Islamic countries and observed that men generally have a diminished sense of responsibility. They have made a serious art form out of "sloping shoulders". Covering up women to avoid taking responsibility for their own sexual drives and impulses is just one typical aspect of this cultural defect. It is an utterly unacceptable activity that no Western country should tolerate. Freedom means "responsibility" before anything else - it is a matter of priorities - which means that "freedom" to wear the Burqua even by choice is low enough on that list to be placed aside when all the implications are considered.
Complain about this comment
Religious freedom in the public arena cannot be viewed merely as a private matter. Could any ethical implications be found in the simple, but rather profound saying, “Your freedom stops where mine begins”? What values will define our relationship with the world around us? How we choose to deal with our fellow beings is also seen in how we conduct ourselves in public. By reducing visual contact to a strict minimum, is Niqab possibly a cultural import that imposes (even if chosen freely by the niqab wearer) an anonymous rapport to the other?
Complain about this comment
Converts are always more extreme in their views because they have to prove something.
Complain about this comment
It is said in the Quran that Muslim women should protect themselves in public by maintaining decorum and dignity. However, the outer garment or veil is not necessary or critical to maintaining one’s dignity.
In regards to her comment on the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H.) wives being fully covered, I disagree. This rule was only specific to his wives and was promulgated because of various unpleasant incidents (involving mostly political intrigue and thus making the Prophet’s life rather difficult, and also an instance or two of disrespect towards his wives). As a Muslim woman, I have educated myself on this subject and perhaps this lady should too.
But the comment earlier saying “she's chosen to lead a life of slavery and humiliation” is ridiculous! We mustn’t judge others and assume things which is exactly what the comment is... an assumption! If this lady chooses the veil, let her be. Live and let live people. Your paranoia and ‘security issue’ is turning you into ignorant and selfish human beings.
Complain about this comment
I am outraged when she compares herself to Mary, even if Mary was veiled she did not cover all her face. She is the perfect example of a delusional woman who can not make her own decisions but accepted a faith that has rituals from how she dress, who she can talk to, and how she can wash herself. Where is the women empowerment?
Europeans must understand one thing, a true religion is a religion within. Just like Jesus said don't pray with shouting, but pray hidden in your room. What burqhas respresent is not the choice of religion but a fascist display for political gains.
Complain about this comment
From the blog site politicsdaily;
"nash502
2:15PM Jan 21st 2010
Burqas are used for more then just oppressing women. I turned around to see 5 burqa clad "women" making off with pieces of luggage of 2 hotel guests that were checking into a brand name hotel in Salzburg. It was obvious that some of these "women" were actually men. The front door was close to the desk. Just a few steps to be outside and then they split and went in several different directions. Two of the "women" turned and knocked the bell clerk, chasing them, to the ground.
Hotel personnel told me this was going on in Salzburg as well as other towns in Austria and Germany.
The burqa as a burglar's mask is really a great idea. Great, for concealing weapons too.
Delia, sweety, Have fun in your little braindead utopia!!!!"
Complain about this comment
Well, my ladies, sorry to say this, different customs you know, but dressed like that you simply become ‘scare-child’! Let me explain: my children, here in France, say when seeing these women: ‘oh no, that bad witch again!’ I can’t blame them and we cross to the other side of the street…
Complain about this comment
"Europeans must understand one thing, a true religion is a religion within. Just like Jesus said don't pray with shouting, but pray hidden in your room. What burqhas respresent is not the choice of religion but a fascist display for political gains."
well said
Complain about this comment
X-box #46
"No government has the right to tell me, my wife or my daughter how to dress. Period."
That of course is not true. In Moslem countries they do that all the time or have you forgotten what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot?
But even in the US there are laws. You cannot parade around naked in public. In most places it is illegal for women to breast feed infants in public because of exposure of their breasts and nipples. If you serve and handle food you can be forced to wear gloves and a head covering. In many professions wearing safety equipment and other clothing is manditory. In private places like synagogues you can be required to wear a covering on your head. So the right to dress as you please is not absolute.
This issue has not come up in the US yet probably because there aren't that many Moslem women wearing them in public but it is sure to come up at one point sooner or later. When it does, I expect it to reach the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how the arguments are laid out and how they rule defining where the balance is between two competing rights, religious freedom of expression on one hand and the public interest on the other. I predict a law banning them in public would be upheld as a matter of public safety.
Complain about this comment
Any Country has a right to defend its standards. Who so ever comes to immigrate, should fully respect the hard earned values and standard of France. Simply pack it up and go live in one of your Muslim countries, where you will feel at home. France fought hard for freedom, and that includes Womens equality, as was fought hard for and earned in most other western nations. Westerners are treated harshly often in far away eastern nation, who have no tolerance, and often barbaric treatment for them.
Complain about this comment
Ruling on Hijab as prescribed by Islam
Q 1: What is the ruling on a woman covering her face and of her hands, especially if she is very attractive?
A: Muslim women are commanded to cover their entire bodies in the presence of Ajanib (men lawful for the woman to marry). This includes covering the face and the hands. This ruling is based on textual evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet).
As for the textual evidence found in the Qur'an, Allah (may He be Exalted) states: and to draw their veils all over Juyûbihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) This Ayah (Qur'anic verse) indicates that since a woman is commanded to drape the Khimar (veil) down from her head and to her bosom, she is by inference required to cover the area of her body between the head and the bosom, which includes the face and neck. This is clearly statedin the Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari in his Sahih (authentic book of Hadith)on the authority of `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: “May Allah bestow His Mercy on the early emigrant women. When the Ayah: and to draw their veils all over Juyûbihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) was revealed, they rent apart their Izar (garment worn below the waist) to cover their faces therewith Khimar refers to all such pieces of cloth which a woman uses to cover her head. The word Jayb refers to a frontal cut in the garment. Second: Allah (may He be Exalted) states: And as for women past child-bearing who do not expect wed-lock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower. Al-Raghib mentioned in his book Mu`jam Mufradat Alfaz Al-Qur'an Al-Karim (Dictionary of Qur'an Terminology) and Ibn Faris in his Mu`jam Maqayis Al-Lughah (Dictionary of Standard Language):
"The word Al-Qa`idah refers to older menopausal women who are sought for marriage." Al-Baghawi stated in his book of Tafsir (exegesis of the meanings of the Qur'an): " Rabi`ah Al-Ra'y said: " The word refers to elderly women whom men would not want to marry. As for aged women who still remain relatively attractive and may be a source of temptation for men, they are not meant here in this Ayah."End of Al-Baghawi's quote. Tabarruj refers to a woman's display of her adornments and charms in front of men who are outside the degree of Mahram relationships. This is stated by the author of Al-Lisan and the author of Al-Qamus and others. The text of the above Ayah denotes that Allah (may He be Exalted) grants a concession to older women who are not desirous of marriage to expose their faces because their older appearance is not a source of temptation for men, unlike younger women. However, it is best if she continues to cover her face like young women are obliged to. Al-Baghawi stated:" 'wa an yasta`fifna' means that it is better for older women to preserve their honor by wearing Hijab ." Abu Hayyan stated:" 'wa an yasta`fifna' means that it better for them not to uncover their faces as it is for young women." End of Abu Hayyan's quote. It is understood from this Ayah that a woman who
still enjoys some allure of beauty and is expected to marry does not fall under the category of Al-Qa`idah. She is not permitted to uncover any part of her body in the presence of non-Mahram (not a spouse or an unmarriageable relative) since the potential result of Fitnah (temptation) is feared. Third: Allah (may He be Exalted) states: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allâh is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. The meaning of this Ayah is further explained in the Hadith narrated by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abu Hatim and Ibn Mardawayh in their books of Tafsir on the authority of Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and `Ubaydah Al-Salamani (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: "Allah ordered Muslim women who go out in public to fulfill their needs to wear a full veil that covers the entire head and face except for one eye." In his Lisan Al-`Arab (Arabic Tongue), Ibn Manzhur quotes Ibn Al-Sikkit as saying: "Al-`Amiriyyah (an Arab tribe) uses the word Jilbab (long and loose-fit coat or garment worn by Muslim women) to refer to Khimar (veil)." Ibn Al-`Araby said: "Jilbab means Izar (garment worn below the waist)."
Al-Azhari said: "Ibn Al-`Arabi's explaining of Jilbab as meaning Izar does not refer to the garment which a woman wears below her waist. Rather, it refers to that sort of garments which cover the woman's entire body." In the Sahih (authentic book of Hadith) of Muslim on the authority of Um `Atiyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) who said: O Messenger of Allah, a woman of us may not have an outer garment (to cover her body). He said: Let her sister lend her an outer garment to wear. Abu Hayyan said in his Tafsir: "Both free and bonds women of the pre-Islamic era used to go out in public with their faces uncovered. Bondswomen were often violated by assailants in palm groves when they went out at night to fulfill their needs. The same would happen to free women and these adulterers would claim that they thought they had merely ravished a bondswomen." It is for this reason that free women were ordered to wear clothes not traditionally worn by bondswomen and to cover their heads and faces so that no man would ever think of harassing them."The above-mentioned evidence from the Qur'an is sufficient. As for evidence from the Sunnah. First: Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated thatshe was sitting with the Messenger of Allah at the house of his wife Maymunah. While they were sitting, there entered upon them Ibn Umm Maktum.
This happened after the divine command to observe Hijab was revealed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Conceal yourselves with Hijab from him. Umm Salamah asked: "O Messenger of Allah! Is he not blind? He can neither see nor recognize us." Whereupon the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Are you both blind? Do you not see him?" Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi and others.Al-Tirmidhi classified it as Hassan (a Hadith whose chain of narration contains a narrator with weak exactitude, but is free from eccentricity or blemish) and Sahih (a Hadith that has been transmitted by people known for their uprightness and exactitude; free from eccentricity and blemish). Ibn Hajar classified its Isnad (chain of narrators) as being strong. Second: Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: O Allah’s Messenger! Good and bad persons visit your wives , would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils. So Ayah Al- Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) was revealed. Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Third: `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: Riders would pass us when we accompanied the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) while we were in the state of Ihram. When they came by us, one of us would let down her outer garment from her head over her face, and when they had passed on, we would uncover our faces. Narrated by Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and others.Fourth: `Uqbah Ibn `Amir (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: That he consulted the Prophet (peace be upon him) about his sister who took a vow to perform Hajj barefooted and bareheaded. So he said: Command her to cover her head and to ride, and to fast three days... In this Hadith the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered `Uqba's sister to cover her body with a veil.
This vow she made was not valid as it was based on an act of disobedience. Furthermore, women are required to conceal themselves with veils. We will mention the exact words of the exhaustive comment made by Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah be merciful with him) on this issue. He (may Allah be merciful with him) said: "Scholars from among the Salaf (righteous predecessors) have held two divergent opinions regarding the meaning of "apparent Zinah (adornment)": Ibn Mas`ud and others who adopted the same view said that it refers to clothing. Ibn `Abbas and others who held the same view state that "apparent Zinah" refers to eyeliner and rings. The fact of the matter is that there are two types of Zinah (adornment): apparent Zinah and hidden Zinah. Allah allowed the woman to display her apparent Zinah in front of other than her husband and men in the Mahram degree. However, she is only permitted to show off her hidden Zinah in the presence of her husband and men in the Mahram degree. Before the Ayah on Hijab was revealed, women used to go out with their faces and hands uncovered. At that time, women were allowed to show their faces and hands and men were permitted to look at them. When Allah (may He be Glorified and Exalted) revealed the Ayah on Hijab which reads: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). women began to cover themselves with Hijab in the presence of men. This occurred when the Prophet (peace be upon him) got married to Zaynab Bint Jahsh and drew
the curtain and forbade women from looking. Later when the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Safiyyah Bint Huyay during the year of the Battle of Khaybar, the Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) said: "If he (i.e. the Prophet) orders her to veil herself, she will be one of the Mothers of the Believers; but if he does not order her to veil herself, she will be a bondswoman." The Prophet ordered her to veil herself. Allah then ordered that when the Sahabah wished to ask the Prophet's wives anything, it was to be done from behind a veil. Allah also ordered the wives and daughters of the Prophet and the believing women to drape over themselves part of their Jilbab which Ibn Mas`ud and others refer to as Rida' (outer garment). People call it Izar which covers a woman's head and her entire body. Explaining the proper method of wearing Hijab ,`Ubaydah and others said that women should drape it over the entire body leaving nothing to be seen except the eyes. Hijab is synonymous with Niqab (face veil) which women used to wear. In the Sahih (authentic book of Hadith) a woman who is in the state of Ihram (ceremonial state for Hajj and `Umrah) is forbidden to wear Niqab or gloves. Since women are ordered to observe Jilbab so that they may not be identified, this would mean that both the face and hands are part of the Zinah which are forbidden to display in the presence of Ajanib (men lawful for the woman to marry). Only outer garments are allowed to be seen by Ajanib. Ibn Mas`ud mentioned the last of the two commands while Ibn `Abbas mentioned two commands.End of Ibn Taymiyyah's quote.
To explain it further: The evidence that speaks of the permissibility of uncovering the face and hands was in practice before the revelation of the Ayah on observance of Hijab and the Prophet's commanding women to observe it. It should be made clear that textual proofs that denote the obligation to cover the face and the hands abrogate other proofs which permit uncovering them. However, a woman is permitted to expose her face and hands only if necessary, such as the necessity to uncover her face or hands for the sake of treatment or in case she is only able to bear witness with her face uncovered. May Allah grant us success! May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and Companions!
Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta'
The Chairman Ibrahim ibn Muhammad Al Al-Shaykh
Member `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan
Deputy Chairman `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify
Complain about this comment
chrystelle has been wearing the burka for the last 12 yrs and is happy and content about it,why should she be stopped from wearing it,she has committed no offence to anybody,live and let live.ken[dublin ireland]
Complain about this comment
People really have to ask themselves whether they truly subscribe to the idea of secular democracy or whether this is just a convenient phrase to bash foreign countries with in an attempt to patronise them; whether every citizen is equal in rights or whether such equality is only allowed when the majority is happy with it; whether my right to wear a beard is equal to your right not to do so. For if we are to subscribe to those values which we claim for our countries, we cannot do so selectively since that is utter hypocrisy.
@32 Bobhead:
Pleased to be here, thank you.
"Surely if it does become illegal to wear niqab you will obey the law in that respect?"
No, I will challenge the law since it infringes on my rights as stated in ECHR and since European Law is supreme, only if ECJ will rule against my position will I have to abide by it.
"Do you accept that at least for security purposes niqab should be removed?"
By all means. This is done in every Muslim country in every airport and many banks. So I see no problem or issue with this at all. After all, this is not what we are discussing here.
"...if there were a referendum..."
The quality of a democracy is characterised by the strength of the protection of the minority from the prejudices of the majority. If there was a successful referendum to ban all red-haired people from positions of authority, such a ban would not be the right thing and should be challenged and resisted. Majority support does not make something right.
@46 Xavier Berothy:
The government has no right to prohibit my manner of clothing for no other reason than the majority do not like it, considering it to be "against their culture" or "representing a political message".
"Do you consider men and women equal?"
Yes, in that each have rights and obligations. I do not think that they have identical rights and obligations. Can a man bear kids? No. So can he argue in favour of his right to have an abortion? Well, obviously not, since he cannot bear children. Get my point?
"Who is a conformist?"
In this context, it means whoever desires others to conform to their idea of how people should look.
@56 William:
As a citizen, I swore allegiance to the political state, its laws and democratic values. Not to culture or the prejudices of the pseudo-monocultural masses. If my sister in religion chooses to interpret our religion in a way that commands her to wear niqab, it is her right to do so - no one is harmed by this. Its her choice - respect the choice if not the nature of it. I am not asking for acceptance. I am merely insisting that you apply the values of secular democracy consistently. The fact that this is not from you culture is neither here nor there. Punks or buddists are not from your traditional culture either but I doubt you personally ever considered banning their dress/haircut/paraphenalia.
Whether wearing niqab is found offensive or not depends on the interpretation those who are offended put on the niqab. Those people who see in the niqab the mythical oppression of women, are indeed offended, but in reality they are offended by the ghost of their incorrect and biased interpretation. I doubt any of you are offended by those of orthodox Jewish faith who wear wigs and shave themselves bold - for the majority of you, you have no idea that the Jewish orthodox women actually do it, even less why they do it. You take your interpretation from malevolent spin doctors such as Robert Spencer and then rail about Sharia courts, at the same time forgetting that Beth Din existed in Europe for over 300 years and is given accommodation in English family law. Consistency in application is paramount in secular democracy.
Nobody in their right mind is supporting the wearing of the niqab when it is forced upon the women. Surely, I do not. But when she chooses to do so, to hell with the fact that you are offended - it is her right, and, in a secular democracy, it is obligatory on you to acknowledge her choice and respect that choice, even if you do not agree with it.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
I have a daughter who decided in her adolescence to attempt to be Islamic in her behavior and dress. She covered her hair at all times, even around family, and behaved in other ways which we could have interpreted as her feeling superior to the rest of us. We felt this was a phase which she would eventually go through, as she did. After a couple of years I handed her several of my books on Islam, and advised her that if she was going to be Islamic, perhaps she had better be good at it. She quit the outward show.
So that you do not misinterpret this, there are many fine Islamic cultures which do not see fit to adapt this recent and ill conceived total covering. Even Saudi Arabia did not do so until recently. The excuses used for it are demeaning to men and women. I am for women wearing what they wish in public, but not for men using it as an excuse to humiliate other women, and hurt them. What you wear is a blatant statement which says to the world that if men see a woman not wearing this, that they have the right to treat her with disrespect.
All women have the right to be treated with respect at all times, no matter what they are wearing or what they look like. The burka wearing states otherwise and gives 2 conflicting possible statements about the woman wearing it: either you are trying to show how superior you are, or you are property. Otherwise you would not wear it where it offends others. If you are told to wear it, then all comments and legal repercussions should be directed towards your male keeper. If you believe in your superiority, please stay at home and do not insult the rest of the women in the country where you are living. What you wear in your own home is your own business, but what you wear in public is a matter for everyone's concern, and a threatening behavior, after 911.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
British born Turk here. I myself am an Atheist and I think the burka is disgusting. However I must point out that even when I was a Muslim I was against the burka and any sort of headcovering. Plus the Islamic beard that some Muslims have is ugly as well, an opinion I also had when I was a Muslim. I must make it clear that this is the opinion of the majority of Turkish Muslims, the mainstream Turkish society is anti-burka, anti-headscarf and anti-disgusting beard. It isn't an elite or anything as some people wrongly assume, the majority of Turkish females have their hair open like non-Muslim girls.
I am very proud to be from Turkey. We are the only Muslim country where you will see the majority of women wearing their hair free. I love going to Turkey and seeing the Turkish people who seem perfectly comfortable in being Muslims and living in the modern age as well. It is great to go somewhere where Muslims do not have a negative image.
I must note that the burka wasn't too common in Turkey before Ataturk's reforms. The traditional Turkish village clothing includes headscarf for women (just like traditional European clothes) however this doesn't have an Islamic flavour and was evident even before we adopted Islam. There is a big difference between the Islamist headscarfs and the traditional Turkish headscarfs you see in the villages. If you see the burka or Islamist headscarf styles in Turkey then they are of outside influence and they have nothing to do with Turkish culture.
It is nice to read comments from fellow Turks as well (they were in the previous article). We need to get our voices heard a bit more. I find it astonishing how people think Turkey is underdeveloped and Islamist leaning due to the current government. Turkey is modern, modern, modern. The majority of Turks are unreligious. Also many Turks are lighter skinned and some even European looking compared to the stereotypical Muslim of the West. Again something that makes Turks unique in the West VS Islam debate.
Anyway I didn't mean to go too crazy with the Turkish pride, but I feel that the unique position of the Turkish people in the West VS Islam debate needed to be heard. The conclusion is that Turkish people are more Western leaning, but still proud to be Muslim!
Complain about this comment
I live in Leicester a proudly multi-cultural city. In fact I've just been to my local supermarket. There are lots of burkas, in fact so many different types of dress that it looks like a nativity play.
So many ladies dressed in black that images of Monty Python's "Like of Brian" spring to mind. At any moment I expect one to say "he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy".
This is all fine, slightly comical, but live and let live.
Just one observation, when I look at the faces of those me accompanying the ladies with the burkas, I never see a smile. What a miserable religion this is.
Complain about this comment
@96
Who says that people can't wear what they like? It is only just when people goes over the limit of the acceptable norm that society reacts and your can't go around screaming its a secular democracy accept it. Just a couple of years ago I remember in the USA a city banned people wearing in public places trousers that hang too low down their buttocks, I did't hear too many people scream it is a secular democracy the rest of the people had to accept it. For your information democracy means that the majority of the citizens rule the minority, as for been secular all it means is that all the citizens have got rights to believe whatever they feel like. Secular democracy doesn't mean the minority brainwashed fanatics can make their own fancy dress rules and expect the majority to accept it. I hope that French lady realised how pathetic and sad her argument is for dressing like a clown and then expect to be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
janaki, @80 :o)))))
Here is the award for you. Dear moderators, it's an extract from an old Sov. film of 1963. Just several minutes, to illustrate the point. :o)))))
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
I had an occasion to borrow a few bucks from a guy working at a convenience store because I left my wallet at home. The owner is an Arab/American as are many, many convenience stores in our area. The object of my affection was a six pack of beer. I guess it's ok to sell it to the infidels.
When I saw the guy later I offered an extra 5 bucks as interest for his kindness. He informed me that his faith would not allow him to take interest. Neat huh. (Are you listening bankers?) I then asked him if his religion would allow him to take a tip. He said it would and I gave him the 5 dollars.
Now you might be asking what has this got to do with the price of eggs in China? Well....just that where there's a will there's a way.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps after Reading Muslim Comment #94 and a few of the other devout Islam followers contributions on here there may just be a wake-up call to the 'liberal', 'live-and-let-live', 'do-gooder' and generally wholly naive among the modern, sophisticated 'west' contributors.
There is no accomodation with Islam.
Islam proscribes any way of life except Islam.
Those misguided, misled, misinformed and beguiled who have promoted 'multiculturalism' in the genuine hope of finding common ground with followers of Islam must think again!
The great majority of Judao-Christian-Humanist 'west' is not bigoted or rascist as some would always charge any who question the various European National policies of 'integration': It is that there is literally a fundamental divide between the genuine followers of Islam and the rest of Human society.
Most indigenous Europeans have come to realise over many years of experience that it is not they who are making misjudgements and being prejudiced against people of a particular 'Faith'.
Islam does not integrate, it does not compromise and it most certainly will not bend to ideas of liberalisation.
I do not have a solution as to how the differing societies can get along together: I only know that followers of Islam only see weakness in the west's Human Rights values because Islam does not share those values and the God of Islam has ordered it to be so - - therefore, how to settle a society so divided among itself is something most have not as yet confronted - - the west's 'leadership' have for several decades pushed for multi-cultural initiatives, but they were mistaken as they did not really understand the purpose or goal of Islam.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Mirza. In the Quran it says both men and women should guard their eyes, and yet why is it women that just have to veil? Both sexes should dress modestly. And yes, the Prophet's wives were veiled, but everything I have read indicates this was to be applied only to his wives, not women in general. The veil is a Persian tribal tradition, adopted when Islam moved into Persia- it is not an Islamic requirement or one of the five "pillars" of the faith. By all means wear what you wish, but please remember you live in Christian, Western country and not Saudi Arabia or Iran. Behave accordingly, as non-Muslims would do in either of the same.
Complain about this comment
Funny, having teeth does not make you a dentist, having a bank account does not make you an accountant but having language suddenly makes everyone a linguist. Chrystelle, what you're saying about communication is nonsense, worse, scientifically proven nonsense. I suggest a semester in linguistics.
So, I'm not sure nudity/bikinis/burqas can be equated. Of course, both represent extreme forms of (un)dress but the problem with extreme forms of dress (rather than undress) is that the more someone hides their body, including their face, the less we are able to read their body language.
Which, I think, brings us to the actual underlying problem. As primates, body language is hugely important to us, especially when you take into consideration that more than 70% of human communication is NOT based on spoken speech but "paralinguistic communication" i.e. things communicated through body language, appearance etc. If you fully undress, we can fully interpret the body language of the other person. If you talk to someone sitting under a burqa, you have almost nothing to go by in terms of body language and that, I believe, makes us inherently quesy. We cannot read (as easily) if this person is benevolent, indifferent or a threat. We can't tell if their hands are holding a handbag or a weapon. We don't know if they are male or female. We don't know if they are healthy, sick or potentially infectious. So we do what humans do, we err on the side of caution and treat it as a potential threat.
On that basis, I don't think we can compare the bikini and the burqa that easily. And on the same basis, I'm sorry to say that fully veiled people, be they people in burqas or masked anarchists, make me feel uneasy.
Complain about this comment
muslim wrote ""The word Al-Qa`idah refers to older menopausal women who are sought for marriage."
Lol, are you joking? Al-Qaida means menopausal women who are sought for marriage?
Someone needs to tell Osama he needs a namechange
Complain about this comment
Akerbeltz, the point about nonverbal communication is very true.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John; "When your constitution is a plaything of the politicians (as it is in France), and whatever 'rights' within it can be abolished by those politicians any time they want to"
You are obviously quite ignorant about France and its constitution, because as Sarkozy has recently (re)discovered, the french constitutional council has blocked quite a few of the law he and his majority were trying to implement, like the carbon tax for example, so in France, politicians have to take the constitution into consideration, had you done your researche properly, you would know, but then again why would you? Like Marcus Aurelius, your not interested in the truth, you're all about prejudice and stereotypes.
Complain about this comment
Abdulhafid at #96
"The quality of a democracy is characterised by the strength of the protection of the minority from the prejudices of the majority. If there was a successful referendum to ban all red-haired people from positions of authority, such a ban would not be the right thing and should be challenged and resisted. Majority support does not make something right."
In a democracy the people decide what is right for the society and if banning the full burkha is considered beneficial to the society, it would be right. Your analogy here is incorrect. A red haired man is not a security risk by virtue of his hair color and no society would ask for a red haired man to be banned. On the other hands masked men have been known to be a security risk, so banning a masked man or woman is perfectly all right
"Yes, in that each have rights and obligations. I do not think that they have identical rights and obligations. Can a man bear kids? No. So can he argue in favour of his right to have an abortion? Well, obviously not, since he cannot bear children. Get my point?"
That is a rubbish analogy. You mix up rights and one's abilities and nature. There are differences among all human beings not merely men and women in abilities. For example I cannot play piano like Mozart. That does not mean that Mozart's right to life and liberty should somehow be different from mine. The fact that your wife gives birth instead of you does not give either of you extra rights over the other.
"If my sister in religion chooses to interpret our religion in a way that commands her to wear niqab, it is her right to do so - no one is harmed by this. Its her choice - respect the choice if not the nature of it. I am not asking for acceptance. I am merely insisting that you apply the values of secular democracy consistently. "
But then your religion also allows child marriage, genital mutilation etc. What if your sister in religion choses to marry off her 3 year old daughter or to circumcise because that is how she interprets the religion? Are you suggesting that we should accept that also? What about quranic edicts against non believers? Should we accept your brother who murders the infidel because of his interpretation of religion?
It is not just islam. Should we accept the cannibalism of the tribal religion? If jews were to suddenly start stoning adulterers or Hindu women jumping into the fire should we accept that under the title of "religious freedom"? I think not. We have the right to decide what parts of any religion are accptable for our societies.
Complain about this comment
@111 janaki:
"In a democracy the people decide what is right for the society and if banning the full burkha is considered beneficial to the society, it would be right."
Nuremberg laws had a silent support of the majority of Germans, being seen as "beneficial" to society. Just because the majority thinks something is right does not make it so, this was my point which you evidently missed.
"The fact that your wife gives birth instead of you does not give either of you extra rights over the other."
But it does entitle her to a right to my support, financial and otherwise, and gives rise to my consequent obligation to provide such support. This is exactly my point.
"But then your religion also allows child marriage, genital mutilation etc. What if your sister in religion choses to marry off her 3 year old daughter or to circumcise because that is how she interprets the religion? Are you suggesting that we should accept that also? What about quranic edicts against non believers? Should we accept your brother who murders the infidel because of his interpretation of religion?"
You evidently miss the part where I stated that her choice harmed no-one. In all of the issues you cite someone is harmed, be it the child, the female or victims of the murderer. The two issues are not comparable - I do not support child marriage, FGM or terrorism. I do support the right of the people to make choices as to how they dress themselves, as long as other people are not harmed. And in this case, when the choice of the woman is based on her own free will, no one is harmed, save someone's biased perception of what niqab represents.
Complain about this comment
@94 ‘muslim’ :
Dear Time Traveler look at the ‘Time’ dial of your Time Machine and subtract some 1500-2000 years to correct the error. As for the ‘Location’ dial, turn it and look for the inscription ‘Arabian desert’. It can happen to anybody to get Lost (see you maybe in Season 7…)
Complain about this comment
Crackpot, I don't pretend to know anything about the French constitution. All I know is that all of a sudden without warning the train comes to a stop, sits without moving for two hours, and then just as mysteriously starts again. No announcements from the conductor or anything else. When I asked the other passengers what's going on they all said it's a strike.
The truth about France I know is what I saw when I lived there. It was the truth, it may not be the whole truth, but it was often nothing but an ugly truth. I've also watched how France conducts itself in international and its own national affairs. The conclusion I've drawn is that the French are basically stupid. They finally managed to alienate nearly the entire population of the United States of America IMO and for no good reason than to stroke their own egos. When France inevitably needs help from America again, for once we won't be there. Nobody here cares about what happens to France anymore. Count on it because that's also the truth.
Complain about this comment
@112
What is right to some, maybe not be for the other. A statement like "because the majority is right does not make it so" begs the question "According To Who?" It is right for the majority, hence democratic principles "Majority rules, minority rights"
Majority rules that burqhas are discriminatory to women, endanger society's order since we don't know who is behind the veil, and singles out the women for potential danger be it anti-muslims or the uncontrollable man who apparently will stop raping a woman if she is covered. Flawed logic, just accept it !!!
""But it does entitle her to a right to my support, financial and otherwise, and gives rise to my consequent obligation to provide such support. This is exactly my point."""
Are there no women here, outraged by these rationale? What do you europeans learn in school? A woman is very capable to support herself financially, her children and her husband, just look at American women. Maybe if you stop condoscending women so much, you'll realize sometimes they are far more intelligent and able than you. My God, this rationale at this day age, where have we sunk so much?
""And in this case, when the choice of the woman is based on her own free will, no one is harmed, save someone's biased perception of what niqab represents.""
In my college we had a Persian speaking so proudly that in Iran women choose on their own free will to wear the veil. So my question is : Do women in Iran have a choice not to wear it??? If Islam says women should wear the niqab then the woman has to choose between being "Made To Wear as god commended", or choose to be seen as UnIslamic and take heat from her husband. IT is her free will but she has no other choice, just look at the choices. If Islam is about free will and tolerance then don't impose women the dress and don't impose the wife to their husbands. Then we'll see what will be the Woman's Free Will!!!
Complain about this comment
111. At 01:33am on 23 Jan 2010, janaki wrote:
'Abdulhafid at #96
" ... If there was a successful referendum to ban all red-haired people from positions of authority ..."
EUprisoner: I am told that in a certain village in South Germany, in the middle ages, all red-haired people were burnt as witches.
Complain about this comment
janaki, sorry, moderation.
dial in you tube briliant ruka / brilliant hand, as the Russian who placed it in you tube wrote it in English :o)
exactly like that, "briliant", in small letters, two words, and it will pop up first.
That's been already to the "moderation", dear moderators o:)
It's the most daring scene of seduction, LOL :o))) for several decades of Soviet cinema, the absolute allowed maximum that censors could stand :o))))) And they have cut it by 70 % :o)))))) anyway. A famous scene here, symbolising for Russian men for 20 years from 1963 on, all that was prohibited :o))))))
Complain about this comment
I have no doubt that she has done nothing wrong, but that’s not the argument. This woman lives in a country where women have never worn veils, and obviously it is not a part of French culture or tradition. She has been led to believe that this is a normal thing but I personally see it as subjugation to a patriarchal society. If I accept the full burka as norm then why not arranged marriage, female castration, stoning and honour killings, all perfectly acceptable under sharia law. In a free society as a Muslim she has the right to go to a mosque, as others do to a synagogue, temple or church to fulfill her religious obligations but on the side streets of town she is a French citizen and like the French in Algeria she must accept local ways
Complain about this comment
Bravo France.
Thank you to the intelligence of President Sarkozy to put his country first and ban this demoralizing dress code.
It is indeed disappointing to hear some comments from women saying they enjoy wearing it however I would like to ask them the question "Is it they who want to disguise themselves or is it the wish of their husbands?"
I only hope Australia follows suit, and as they say,
"When in Rome............."
Complain about this comment
@112
Dear Abdulhafid,
There is a huge difference between the "Nuremberg laws" and Germany at that time and France today and the law to not allow people to walk around in a sack. Only a blind person cann't see the difference. Also you can't use as an argument that because something doesn't hurt anyone else then it is right, how ridiculous can one get? Here in the UK we don't allow euthanasia, in Switzerland they do. In Ireland they don't allow abortion here we do. Different societies decide what is right or wrong for them. The French decided that people in their streets are not allowed to walk around in sacks. It is as simple as that, that is what the society wants, as it is what the society wants here in the UK or in Ireland.
Complain about this comment
I did work often in muslim countries and know very well how any non muslim woman is obliged to follow the muslim dressing rules so, I should say the same should be applied in Europe, too, for muslims to follow the european dressing rules. But, I think there are two different categories of women wearing burqa like clothes in Europe: the "authentic" ones, means muslim women from Arab and other muslim nations and the "procelytised" ones (Europeans that married muslims and became muslims themselves). Many of the "authentic" ones would rather like to get rid of their burqas, having the singlest of the choice and not risking being beaten by the male members of their families (fathers, brothers, husbabds,etc.). What I do not understand much is the "procelytised" ones. Is it worthy, just because you were in love with a muslim, to get rid of your tolerant, liberal cultural background and adopt life practices that many "authentic" muslim women would rather abandoning having half a choice?
Complain about this comment
Burka is a piece of a cloth, a relict of tradition elevated to a status of somewhat sacret object. It is only tradition, and they change. She says that Virign Mary wore a scarf too, and she did, but 2000 years ago! Should we dress like in the Iron Age?
I also think that this 'covering from men' arguments are very to all men. It means that they have no brains at all and all they want is to rape evey woman they see.
Finally, who created women according to Islam? I'm not an expert here, but if they are God's creations, then they look exactly how they are supposed to. Why hide them? Why deprive them of they feminity? And if they are not God's creatures... well... I have nothing to say to such religion.
Complain about this comment
I have a few questions here,first of all if muslims claim that their beliefs,laws and way of living is the most blessed and succsessfull,why do they have to come to countries based on other believes,i certainly belive that emmigration means blending of cultures.
Second do they encourage other religions or faiths in muslim countries???
and finnaly i belive that any any immigrant after spending five or six years in any country is given citizenship why doesnt this happen to any Islamic republics
Complain about this comment
Akerbeltz (107): if you think the burka should be banned for not communicating 'body language' do you also think the telephone should be banned? What about email? Or comments on Internet blogs?
John Stevens (118) said "in a free society ... she must accept local ways"
Liberty is the invidual being free to do what they want so long as it harms noone else. You redefine it as the individual only being allowed to do what the majority in society allows, and do so with the precise intent of restricting the liberty of someone else to do something (wear a burka) which really causes you (nor anyone else) real harm or serious offense.
The suppression of liberty by pseudo-democratic means unfortunately has a long and unpleasent history in France, e.g. the Jacobins. It's a path Sarkozy should be avoiding.
Complain about this comment
I listened Paris is nude city. But when I went to that city in 1999 I see it is not true. Some people wear Hijab and they are comfort in that place and society. But someone trying to make discomfort it.
Europians are always raise for human right, but at this time what happen for there human right.
Complain about this comment
(100) El-Turco
you mentioned that you are an atheist and was a muslim before. SHAME on you!!! how could you do such a thing when there is no doubt that Islam is the true religion and that you were on the right path?!
I advise you that you should atleast reconsider your choice of turning to a baseless thinking that there is no GOD and that the complex world has come into existence by chance!!
Also if you do not turn back to Islam in the Life after Death there is eternal PUNISHMENT in the hellfire.
So i ask you atleast reconsider your choice.
Complain about this comment
Total freedom to wear (or not) whatever you want,
but
Your face must be uncovered for identification reasons,
so
No to burkas in the public domain, it is just about common sense!
Complain about this comment
@124,
FBJ, your idea of liberty and democracy are really weird!
Even if your don't like and you don't believe in it, there is a thing called society! Although you may not have reached the required level of understanding to realise that, you are also part of a society, for any society to function there are rules, people within that society have to fillow those rules. The burka, the KKK suits, the Nazi suits, the Soviet hammer & sickle symbols in some societies are unacceptable. Someone wearing a hammer and sickle does not harm anyone else either, someone wearing a KKK suit does not harm anyone else. However society doesn't accept that as the norm, the same goes for the burka. It does not restrict anyones freedom it just ensures freedom for the majority that do not want to look at something like this. You see the majority in a society has freedoms also!
Complain about this comment
(118) john stevenson
you said that 'honour killings' are allowed under the 'sharia law', as a Muslim and a student of the Sharia Law i would like to point out to you that honour killings is non-existent in the sharia not only that but it despises such acts. I understand where you are coming from that it happens in muslim families but they do it out of 'honour' of their family not for ISLAM
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn John
You're missing the point. We're talking face to face in the street, the office etc. Reading someone's email, as we all know, we haven't the slightest idea if you were wearing a burqa or posing nude at the time... so in all those forms of distanced communication you cite the body language thing is of course not relevant. But people wearing the burqa or facemasks and combat gear don't only don that to write emails. Get it?
Complain about this comment
(127) betuli
i will tell you what commen sense is:
ever thought of the reason why women have been ordered to veil themselves in public. It is so that by hiding the beauty of their faces and the shape of their bodies, men dont have lustful and immoral thoughts regarding that woman. This prevents the man feeling the urge of commiting adultery and act condemned by Islam, Christianity AND Judaism.
Unfortunalely living in society we do where adultery is promoted and accepted as the 'norm' you may regard that reason as pointless but it also reduces RAPE-an act regarded to be evil and wrong STILL in today's society..
Complain about this comment
ibnMuslim,
I mentionned the need to go in public with your face uncovered, only your face! With the rest of the body, do whatever you want. But the face is our main feature of identification.
I remember few years ago in UK there was a teacher that wanted to work with her face covered, come on! In a sample of common sense, the judges rejected her pretension: poor children, do not forget that it is quite scary not to see your interlocutor's face!
Complain about this comment
IbnMuslim
Re #131
"..reason why women have been ordered to veil themselves in public.."
Well, all credit to you for being 1 of very few followers of Islam to come out and admit it, "...***women***...***ordered***..".
Ever thought of the reason why ***men*** should consider that they have the right to ***order*** women on the grounds of, "..the man feeling the urge of committing adultery... rape..", is that You as a Male think somehow You have a special place above the level of Females in society?
Ever thought that You have no such right whatsoever to ***order*** anything of the sort just because You can hit harder if She wont obey!?
Complain about this comment
(100) El-Turco
you mentioned that you are an atheist and was a muslim before. SHAME on you!!! how could you do such a thing when there is no doubt that Islam is the true religion and that you were on the right path?!
I advise you that you should atleast reconsider your choice of turning to a baseless thinking that there is no GOD and that the complex world has come into existence by chance!!
Also if you do not turn back to Islam in the Life after Death there is eternal PUNISHMENT in the hellfire.
So i ask you atleast reconsider your choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hotel California religion that is Islam.
I'm afraid that is just the kind of attitude that gets many peoples backs up in the West. Much of this debate has been about freedom of choice against offending the wider society in relation to wearing the burka.
Your statement above is a different kettle of fish all together. It has taken hundreds of years for the West to throw the priests of our backs, no longer are we ruled by the church. Through hard fought for freedoms the West has got to the point that each has the democratic right to either choose to worship any God, or to choose not to worship at all. This is a private matter for the individual, but very much part of our fundermental collective human rights.
The attitude that you show in your post above is one of the reasons why many in the West feel that Islam is not compatible with life in a free thinking, live and let live, modern western country.
Complain about this comment
LOL, a piece of cloth is protection against men bent on rape? ...seriously. That's about as useful as the Ghost Shirts were against bullets.
And of course, as we all know, in Taliban Afghanistan where all women were fully ironclad with burqas, there was no rape, no adultery.
Complain about this comment
I had a quick re-read of Volume 3 of Joel Feinburg's "Moral Limits to the criminal law" which looks at a wide range of behaviour (from playing the radio loud on a bus, to mutilating bodies in public) that cause no harm to anyone, but which may cause offence worth considering for prohibition.
The book does not include wearing a burka in a public place, but there were a few cases where the arguments are similar to what we see here.
First off i should say that almost everything causes offense to somebody. Some people are offended there are adverts on TV; others that they have to pay a TV license. So if everything that caused offence to somebody was banned then almost nothing would be allowed at all.
Feinberg argues that the case for prohibiting an offensive behaviour depends of four factors; (i) the magnitude of the offence (ii) if it can be easily avoided (iii) if it is voluntarily occurred and (iv) if the person complaining about the offense is abnormally sensitive. The magnitude of the offence depends on (a) the intensity it is felt by those who experience it (b) the duration they experience it for and (c) the extent of the population who are so offended. The more people offended, the more deeply they are offended, and the more they are involuntarily trapped in a location (e.g. bus, rather than a sex shop) etc. where they cannot avoid the offense, then the stronger the case for criminalising it.
Maria-Ashot makes some good points about the burka degrading womankind, and really being a symbol of male domination over the women who wear it. Her argument is quite similar to a feminist argument for criminalising a certain class of violent pornography (as distinct from mere erotica, which stills causes offense to the prudish) on the grounds it is demeaning and lowers the esteem that men have for woman. This argument it seems was rejected (in the USA at least) on the grounds that what looks like (sexual) subservience to some looks like liberation to others and it would be hard for a court to provide any workable test as to what damages male esteem towards women. Would the same not apply with the burka, which to some looks like 'a prison' and to others who wear it seems to liberate them from male judgements about the way they look and the possible consequences?
(P.S. Pornography can, it seems, be banned in the US if it breaches the "Miller Test" which allows for local definition of what constitutes obscene material likely to offend. i.e. what is deemed obscene in Oklahoma might not be in California, etc. However this has nothing to do with the feminist argument about lowering men's esteem for woman, etc. invoked by Maria-ashot against the burka).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
Another argument made here is that the burka creates fear in people, reminding them of 9/11 etc. This argument is somewhat similar to another example in Feinberg's book of a march by the American Nazi party in full dress uniform in the town of Skokie, Illinois which was predominantly Jewish and home to 5000-7000 holocaust survivors at the time. The US Supreme Court upheld the right of the American Nazi party to do this. Feinberg does thinks the argument for banning this march would have been stronger if it had been a regular occurrence and not a one-off event that people could avoid by being out of town when it was held. I think the level of offence caused to Skokie residents must have been vastly greatly than any felt by someone in France seeing a woman in a burka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
The most similar example i could find to the burka case was of mixed-race couples holding hands as they walked around towns in the deep south of the USA, which apparently caused widespread offense at one time to people who might run into such couples on the street. It is the 'shock of the new'.
Another point from Feinberg is that what initially causes offence loses the power to do so over time as people get used to it. His example is of the display of a Viet Cong flag at an anti-war demonstration in 1965 which apparently caused widespread offence in the USA at the time with calls for its criminalisation, but which had become passé by 1970.
Maria-ashot’s arguments would i think be a winning one if the women wearing the burka were not doing so out of their own choice, i.e. if there is some 'hidden coercion' such that they feel they have to say they want to wear it, even though they secretly do not. I can't say if this is the case or not, but it would be interesting to hear from any burka-wearing woman who would prefer not to be wearing it.
Complain about this comment
WA;
The Soviet censors allowed what BBC censors won't. If that doesn't prove that Britain is a tyrannical dictatorship today just as it was in 1776 I don't know what does. BBC is an organ of the British government, its propaganda machine which is the biggest loudest mouth in the English speaking world. Of course we in America are all but deaf to it even though left wing PBS and NPR beam it into our homes over the airwaves and on cable at taxpayer expense every day and night. Why do I watch and listen to it? I always think it is a good idea to know what the enemy is up to. It seems to me from the number of them here on these shores, they are plannig an invasion to retake the American colonies. The one thing they can't disguise from Americans is their accents. I can spot that awful sound a mile away. Good advice to Americans was and remains "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."
Complain about this comment
I think the question about the burqa boils down to two scenarios only.
First- the woman who wears it has been forced to do it. This being unacceptable in modern democratic societies is a clear reason for the wearing of the garment to be discouraged/ restricted.
Second (and more important) is the case where the burqa is worn from ‘personal choice’. Quite apart from the fact that you do not really have a ‘personal choice’, when from childhood you have been bombarded with the nonsense attached to an uncompromising religion, this ‘personal choice’ is in fact a clear and obvious statement of the willingness of the wearer to set themselves apart from the values of the country where they have chosen to live, and to demonstrate their preference for the most dogmatic practices of islam. It is this ‘in your face’ demonstration of preference for religious practices, which were thought by some old man in a dusty cave thousands of years ago, which is the second reason why wearing of burqa cannot be allowed. A veiled woman on the streets of Europe is a walking statement, that the men around her are all rapists, incapable of controlling themselves at the sight of a woman’s face and unable to distinguish right from wrong, thus they should be kept apart from anything which might push them towards committing an act of violence . A veiled woman is a clear and an unambiguous proof that the person underneath the veil will never accept the values of the society in which she has chosen to live, and is determined to set herself apart, whatever the cost. It is not true that the veiling is meant to ensure that person is not judged by her looks but by her qualities and intellect. There is no way you can get to know a veiled woman’s qualities and intellect, when a piece of cloth is shouting in your face: ‘I do not want to have anything to do with you! You are potential assailant and will show your base instincts the moment you see a fraction of my face!’
There have been a lot of muslim posters, giving examples of their educated female relatives, wearing the burqa because they have ‘chosen’ to do so. As misguided acts go, these must be the most prominent. On one hand the women in question have benefitted from the opportunities and career choices a non-islamic society offers them, and on the other they have chosen to blatantly display the very symbol of the most backward islamic practices, aimed specifically at ensuring that women are kept in a subservient and unequal position. It is particularly revealing that it is the male relatives in these cases, who have come forward to defend the ‘right’ of their wives, sisters or daughter to wear the veil, and not the women themselves. That alone is sufficient to demonstrate how willing (or able?) the veiled women are to engage in activities, which require even a cursory contact with people from different cultures and faiths. Go and check for yourself again- of the hundred and so posts on this blog, the only muslim proponents of the veil are men, no women whatsoever! And more importantly, not a single woman wearing the veil herself!
As a symbol of religious practices, which endorse the stoning to death of apostates, allow the rape within marriage and advocate the killing of non-believers, the veil does not have a place in democratic countries! It does not matter whether veiling is mentioned or not in the Koran. What matters is the fact that in Europe at least, ethos and rules of behaviour are not set by what a man somewhere has thought it was said in a dusty old book. Let us be clear- the wearing of burqa is unacceptable not because it is a security threat or offensive. It is not a security threat or offensive in itself. Threatening and offensive is what the veil symbolyses!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I can think of at least two ways to improve the burka. First make it so that you can't hear them as well as can't see them. Second, it should only be waist long. I think it would also help if a likeness of the flag of the nation they are citizens of were emblazoned on the outside.
You know one of your problems BBC...you Brits have no sense of humor. No not a dry one, a non existant one.
Complain about this comment
And talking of it being a woman's choice - A few years ago there was a fire at a Saudi girls school. In the panic the girls had rushed out. The religious police would not let them come out because they were not veiled. Some of the girls in fact were forced back to the building by the virtue police. From what I remember quite a few of them died. So much for it being their "choice".
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
Your post #35 really made me laugh!
So, you can have sense of humor, when you decide, then?
:-)
Complain about this comment
Crime Statistics > Rapes (per capita) by country:
9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people
65 Saudi Arabia: 0.00329321 per 1,000 people
Crime Statistics > Rapes (most recent) by country
1 United States: 95,136 rapes
7 United Kingdom: 13,395 rapes
71 Saudi Arabia: 59 rapes
Notice any difference!!US and UK must be really civilized societies, they apparently proclaim woman rights!!
Complain about this comment
Source for comment 143:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
Complain about this comment
nick wrote:
"1.where do atheists believe they go when they die?
2.What do atheists believe in?
3.Who do they draw their knowledge from?
1.Nowhere
2.Nothing
3.Nobody
What draws me to atheists is their complete toolbox of answers when I question my own spirituality!"
Nick, you can spell the word "spirituality", so I am not inclined to think you suffer from profound mental retardation.
Consequently, I conclude that you employ your reason for the sake of stirring controversy, rather than because you have a honest opinion on any given matter. We can both call that "spirituality", if you wish. It seems to me a useful and consistent definition.
Your claim that atheists believe nothing and draw their knowledge from nowhere is remarkably obtuse.
Atheists believe in something extraordinary and wonderful, something precious, tangible and valuable.
It is called "evidence". The source of evidence is skeptical enquiry.
Religious faith, by stark contrast, does not require evidence. People of faith believe hearsay, at best. Often they invent stories. Rather than using skeptical enquiry as a source of information, faith requires the human being to stop asking questions, and to stop thinking.
This deliberate demand to halt the human activity of thinking and enquiring is the most distressing characteristic of the clergy in all religions. It is non physical murder, insofar as it seeks to destroy the core of other human beings.
Priests farm other human beings for profit, and they do so by lobotomizing children with faith and threats of eternal terror.
When organized religion is finally outlawed on the basis that priests conduct deliberate and sustained abuses of human rights for profit, THEN humanity will have arrived at a point where evidence and skeptical enquiry have eclipsed mere animal emotions.
Until then, those human beings who look to evidence, and who wish to know what is true and what is not, will just have to tolerate the noise and the violence sustained by organized religion.
Complain about this comment
muslim #143
You left a few important crime statistics out;
Giving away a nation's sovereignty to a suprnational organization by executive fiat by one person in one political party;
US 0
UK 1
And then there are these;
Denying the right of a woman to drive a car in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the UN Charter;
US 0 per woman
Saudi Arabia 1 per woman
Denying women the right to run for and hold public office in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the UN Charter;
US 0 per woman
Saudi Arabia 1 per woman
Denying the right of Moslems to convert to another religion in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the UN Charter;
US 0 per person
Saudi Arabia 1 per person
And for Moslem countries in general;
Convicting women who have been raped of adultery and stoning them to death;
US 0 per woman rape victim
Moslem Countries greater than 0 per woman rape victim
I'm sure there are many other differences I could site for you to notice. These just came to mind first.
Complain about this comment
The burka could be further improved by giving women additional head room for warm air to rise above their heads so that they remain cooler in hot weather. This would be done best by extending the top upwards and squaring it off...like an inverted paper shopping bag. Perhaps a hole in the top could let hot air escape. It seems to me a lot of women who have argued in favor of burkas could use that last feature to great benefit.
Complain about this comment
HI there. I just sent a comment before but I cannot resist commenting on the comments of some other friends:
dear Isenhorn: congratulations! Somebody has to say what are you saying without being offensive.
dear ibn Muslim: I found your statement that veil will protect women from the greedy eyes of men as quite hilarious. Indeed, it "protects" women but leads many muslim men to practice homosexuality as an alternative (which I find interesting as an homosexual myself).
dear muslim: very interesting your comparison on rape cases between USA, UK and Saudi Arabia. But, did you include in the Saudi stats all these women raped within marriage? Or, maybe all these foreign domestic female workers being gang raped by all males of some saudi families?
Cheers
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I should open a shop in London to sell Burkas. I think I'll call it "Burka King." Or should that be "Burka Queen?"
Are Moslem transvestites and transsexuals required to wear burkas too? I've always wondered about that.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta @128
Hammer and sickle LOL are very popular with tourists at flea souvenir markets; they buy all that fake memorabilia with un-understandable for locals passion :o))))), various badges with "baby Lenin" (made originally for children, where Lenin is a curly 5-year old chap photo, looking like a plumpy girl in a dress.
No, in fact, more fond of red army gear, those Red Army civil war times hats, 1918, like a helmet, made of thick cloth, pointed up like a witch hat with sides descending down on the shouldres, type of wide ears. And a ruby star shining right in the middle of the forehead.
In fact, I also love those hats! If only there were any real ones left in the market.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn (138): You are right to distinguish between the two cases of those who wear burquas because they are forced to, and those who choose to. But then you go to say that the second group really are forced anyway in order to support their banning. I see no evidence here that is true. There have been numerous comments from burka-wearing women who say they want to wear them, and none so far from who has been forced to wear it against her will.
If you go into certain parts of West London you will see large number of people wearing colourful Indian clothing. Are they also to be banned, or just Islamic clothing? Or are they next?
Blue jeans were an American product almost completely unknown outside the USA until the 1950s. Were the first people to choose to wear jeans in your own country making "a clear and obvious statement of the willingness of the wearer to set themselves apart from the values of the country where they have chosen to live"?
If you go to Scotland you will hardly see anyone wearing a kilt. Should the kilt be banned in Scotland because only a small minority wear it? (They too are quite unsuited to the climate, and many people have long speculated as to what terror lies beneath. ;-)
During the cultural revolution in China the whole population wore the same Mao suit. Isn't that the type of society where your logic leads? The whole of mankind in a grey suit, white shirt and black tie, glad that the Supreme Intelligence in Brussels is making the right decisions on his behalf.
Complain about this comment
@143 muslim
Those statistics are rubbish because unlike the US and the UK the crime statistics in the Saudi is unreliable. Crime cases especially of a sexual nature against women are notoriously under reported compared to UK and US. What do you expect when in many cases the victims are punished under the adultery laws?
Have you wondered why Saudi has the highest number of executions every year? Having strict laws does not by itself promote virtue.
Complain about this comment
Many Middle Eastern countries require women to wear head scarves by law.
So why can't France require that women not be able to wear the burka?
Basically, the Muslims who wear burkas have not integrated into French society. Instead, they set themselves apart purposefully, as they believe they are the only religious group that is right. They look down on the French for being "promiscuos." They act like they are better than everyone else in the world, especially the French.
It is actually pretty sad.
The burka is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of inequality for women.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Muslim, your statistics are wrong because those are only the reported cases. The majority of cases where women have been raped are unreported, because the woman is embarrassed and does not want to speak about it.
But also, in Muslim countries, women do not have the right to speak out. SO there is no possible way for this to be considered accurate, as the women's voices are not really theirs, but their men's instead.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ muslim (post 143)
You didn't pay much attention in maths, did you? You have to read statistics very carefully indeed. I agree, on the face of it, the US and UK have higher rape rates. But let's ask ourselves what that actually means. Ok, for a rape to be in the statistics, it has to get reported, right? Ok, who reports rapes to the police? Well, rape victims. Ok, so far so good. Now, we all know that more rapes are committed than are actually reported. Why? Well, sometimes the victims are ashamed, frightened, especially if the rapist is in the family... etc etc. Both apply in the US and and given muslim country.
There is, however, a crucial difference. To prove rape under UK/US laws, evidence of rape is needed - but that can be any number of things. Semen, evidence of a violence, a witness and so on. If it is proven, the rapist goes to prison. If not, they both stay out of jail. Unfortunately, under Sharia, a woman needs what, 4 male witnesses to prove she was raped. And if rape cannot be proven, she can then get done for adultery because she doesn't happen to have a bunch of guys who watched the rape and are willing to testify but didn't prevent the rape. Now, you put yourself in the shoes of a raped woman in such a country and tell me honestly if you'd EVER report a rape.
Remember this case http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/7021676.stm or this case? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2002/islamic_world/2173818.stm
Now look at your rape stats again and ask yourself if they represent the truth.
Complain about this comment
How do Moslems reconcile the burka with the acceptance of belly dancing in some Islami countries which seems to have had its origins or at least early history in the middle east even after the introduction of Islam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belly_dance#Origins_and_Early_History
Clearly when performed by women for the entertainment of men, the sexually provocative intent of it is unmistakable which is probably why it is popular. The skimpy often sheer material used in the costumes only enhances sexual arousal.
Complain about this comment
Mrs. Khedrouche is either misinformed or does not understand the conditions under which the Prophet Mohammed's wives were secluded; nor does she undertand why. The seclusion was enjoined not against his wives but to keep the men who entered the Prophet Mohammed's dwelling from intruding into their privacy and to preclude them from annoying his wives. He ordered that a barrier ('hidjab') be erected so that the women could enjoy their privacy and the men who came to the house would have access to the Prophet without disrupting his household. The 'hidjab'(which is a piece of material to shield another much like a door would shield against intrusion) was for his wives only, not the rest of the community.
Although we of the 21st century cannot be certain how this barrier was errected or what material may have been used as the barracade, we can be certain that the reason for it was to reduce and prevent the annoyance of his wives from intrusion into their private space by the men, and that its use was specifically ordered for the wives of the Prophet. (Please note that this order came musch after the death of his first wife, Khadidja, with whom he enjoyed a mongomous relationship.)
For the rest of the neonate community of muslims, modesty was enjoined upon both genders. Women and men were ordered to keep genitalia and breasts/chests covered so as not to entice one another. There is no reference to covering of one's head in the Qurán-neither for women or men. Modesty was more than how one covered one's body; it was (and is) how one comported oneself and how one communicated and thought.
The Qur'an also does not advocate segregation of males and females except in matters pertaining to sexual relationships and marriage. Men and women attended the communal paryers together side-by-side, worked together, and fought in battle together. Khadidja, the Prophet's first- and most beloved of all wives, was a business women who was, in effect, a CEO who employed men (and presumably women) to run her business. One of her employees was the Prophet himself, a man whom she trusted above all others to handle her business affairs. Because of this business relationship, she learned to love him and it was she who approached him, who was younger than she, with a proposal of marriage-a marriage which lasted over 20 years and afforded Khadija the honor to become the first muslim after the Prophet himself. Nothing in the Qur'an or even historically suggests that Kahdija gave up her merchant orperations after she and Mohammed were married.
In the Qur'an, the care of the face is given special precautions because it, next to the heart and the soul, is the epitome of our humaness. The face is never to be battered or abused, and even in death it is never to be molested or removed from the body. It is by the face that we know one another. To cover it, therefore, is an insult to our Creator and an anathema to Islam.
Women like Mrs. Khedrouche and men like her husband who voice ideas not compatible with what the Qur'an actually says should be encouraged to read its words, and not follow traditions of those who continue to corrupt Islam. Both they and others need to be reminded of what the Prophet Mohammed told his community in Medina shortly before his death: Even now Islam is being corrupted. (And while the Khedrouches read the Qur'an they need to understand the conditions under which its words were recited, the reasons for them and the century in which Islam was born.)
Complain about this comment
As long as the burka is around, Muslim women will never integrate into the Western world.
But maybe that is their purpose: they want to live in the West, but not integrate into our societies or have anything to do with us. They only want our resources/land and do not want to be friends or family.
Complain about this comment
148. Spiros
u being a homosexual proves your point of view. coz u aint got any sexual feelings for a woman you wouldnt feel attracted to a woman who scantily dressed, showing her flesh and beauty and therefore not be able to comprehend the fact that it can lead to an increase in rape..
also there is no proof for it to lead homosexuality..USA as far as i know has the most homosexuals in the world, a country which promotes the exposure of feminine beauty and therefore your idea of it leading to gays ain't very acceptable
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
159. gazelledz
you said..'There is no reference to covering of one's head in the Qurán'
open the Quran on Chapter 24 Verse 31 and you will find that women ARE required to cover their heads..
I advise you next time not come up with like that nxt time
Complain about this comment
158. MarcusAureliusII
You said belly dancing happens in some 'Islamic countries'..
understand one thing that a country run by 'muslims' cant necessarily be called an 'Islamic' country. An islamic country is where the country is run according to the 'sharia law' a clear example was the Taliban rule over Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
#159
"The 'hidjab'(which is a piece of material to shield another much like a door would shield against intrusion) was for his wives only, not the rest of the community."
You are wrong according to muslim @94 where he says
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way)."
Anyway, it does not matter what religions say or do not say. Societies must make its own laws based on current times needs without any reference to laws made by primitive people for primitive societies . If God really gave those laws let him/her come in person and defend it.
Complain about this comment
Sharia Law punishes woman for adultery?!!
who the hell told you that!
Thats what happens when you take your very limited knowledge from the BBC.
Let us note, it is your law that lets rapists out of jail after a few years to offend again after an offence. In Sharia Law anyone guilty of such an act is executed and deserving so.
Complain about this comment
How heart warming it is for a European Muslim to read the comments on this thread! First, you will force our women to undress against their will, then you will "emblazon" our clothing with flags indicating our countries of origin (and if we are from the countries we live in, then what?), then you will seek to proscribe our religion and our activities, because you cannot build a church in some far away land or run around naked calling to your God in the middle of Ryadh. Yep, very heart warming.
I always knew that the nazi-cum-chauvinistic streak run deep in the character of continental Europeans. And some, albeit far more limited, sections of anglo-speakers. But I can see now that the Europeans seem to be rather comfortable compromising their principles when it comes to criminalising the minority within their societies. How can those of us, European Muslims, who are well integrated within these societies, having done so without abandoning our religion or compromising it, now stand up to loud mouths like Osama or Anjem, when, if your words are ever carried into actions, will prove every word they ever said?
And I repeat once again: How can any of those who immigrated here be expected to treasure the concept of citizenship and values, when our own societies do not understand or want to accept the nature of democracy and citizenship. Saudi or any other Muslim country, does not determine what rights I have as a citizen of Europe. For all those people screaming about "In a Muslim country...", what you are telling us is that our citizenship is not the same or equal to yours because we are Muslim and thus our rights depend on what other Muslims do in other countries. Somehow, when a Muslim citizen wants a place of worship in a style that is pleasing to her, you argue that she should not have one since you cannot build churches in Saudi. When a Muslim citizen wants to dress is a way that is pleasing to her, you argue that because in Saudi you to dress according to the whims of bigots, she has to dress according to your bigoted whims in Europe. Since when are foreign countries a standard and a measure for our rights as citizens in Europe?
I often wondered why the Jewish population, having lived in Europe for centuries, suffers to this day, why the French can't accept the non-whites as real French, why the Roma are persecuted all over, why the Jews and Muslims choose to change the names to better fit in. This thread is, in a way, an answer to this question - the dynamics of the Holocaust are very much alive in Europe. For all your words and claims to equal rights, mutual respect, democracy, in reality the whole lot of it quickly goes up in flames in the face of your bigoted prejudices. I only hope that the majority view is not represented in this discussion, since otherwise the gas chambers are not that far off.
Complain about this comment
IbnMuslim,
I disagree with your comment #161. I believe 'opposites attract', what male would not enjoy the mysteriousness that hiding yourself brings? You can't generalise the entire situation and say all men love woman who show their skin etc that trivilises your entire debate.
I will also ask, when did rape become the problem for woman? Woman are the victims and men are the problem! If a man cannot have self-control then that man does not deserve the privilage of living amougst us, end of. It should not mean that woman have to dress up to simply get on with their lives.
Complain about this comment
Dear Ibn Muslim
Apparently, you did not get me. No, you are wrong. Who told you that USA has the bigger number of homosexuals? Do not full yourselves that homosexuals are more in western countries. In such countries they are more visible but not at all as numerous as they look like. To the contrary, in conservative islamic countries that keep women out of site, you can practically have sex with every second person in the street! No need of gay bars or Internet. Trust me, I was leaving and working in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, etc. Believe me, open a bit your eyes, you will be surprised!
Complain about this comment
In a program about the most offensive recent television commercials, I saw one ad which ran in Germany where an attractive woman dons very skimpy sexually suggestive underwear which is what was being advertised and then at the end a full Moslem female coverup atire, veil and all, nothing more. Does this still run on German TV? Does anyone who's seen it think it was meant to be deliberately offensive or was it just culturally insensitive? Did it violate any EU rules?
Complain about this comment
Muslim,
#166.
I will actually defend you and say that Sharia Law does not punish woman for being rape victims.
However... the problem arises when different societies have different versions of Sharia Law, some of those versions can punish woman for having sexual intercourse outside of marraige.
You might interpret Sharia in a moderate manner but I don't think everyone agrees with you.
Complain about this comment
U B a Muslim;
I don't understand;
"a country run by 'muslims' cant necessarily be called an 'Islamic' country."
Are you saying those royal Saudi princes don't entertain themselves and their friends by watching belly dancers in the privacy of their homes or out of public view? Do you expect me to believe that? Are you saying Saudi Arabia is NOT an Islamic country?
I understand that in Iran, in the privacy of their own homes and elsewhere out of public view, many Iranian men and women dress, act, behave just the way people in Western non Islamic nations do. Perhaps they have the Shah to thank for that. And wow do some of us ever miss him. He was a very good Shah.
Complain about this comment
Sorry MISTAKE @comment 160 (my previous comment)
Sharia Law punishes woman for being RAPED (not adultery)?!!
who the hell told you that!
Thats what happens when you take your very limited knowledge from the BBC.
Let us note, it is your law that lets rapists out of jail after a few years to offend again after an offence. In Sharia Law anyone guilty of such an act is executed and deserving so.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that religions which are supposedly there to tell their story about god, they certainly seem preoccupied with sex. In fact that's mostly what they seem to focus on lately, just sex, sex, sex. Is that all religious people can think about these days?
Complain about this comment
"When God ordered that women be veiled we know that they were already veiled. Look at the mother of Jesus, Mary, she wore a veil and I have never seen an image of her where she is not veiled. So we know that women were veiled at that time and if God ordered that women be veiled it was to add something more to what there was already."
So it's not possible "God" ordered the women who were already veiled (and in their case one might wonder whether that was just to protect them against the sun as males in those societies also covered their faces) to stay veiled and ordering the women who were not veiled (most women in the middle east and Europe in the 6/7th century) to get veiled? Besides, the word "veil" is actually not used at all, it's more like covering up zones that men lust for, it's not stated that this should include the face).
"If someone decides to wear micro skirt nobody would object to that! So why against burka? What happened to civil liberty?"
No, but I'm pretty sure that if I go running around naked, or with a ski-mask, in public I'm gonna get fined, so there are already limits to "freedom of clothing".
Complain about this comment
Abdulhafid:
#167.
"I only hope that the majority view is not represented in this discussion, since otherwise the gas chambers are not that far off."
Godwin's Law!
How dare you even reffer to the horrors of world war two. WW2 was not about dress sense!
Complain about this comment
Abdul;
One thing you will have to get used to if you want to live in European society is that to a degree, not the equal of the US mind you but at least to some degree they allow freedom of speech. And what that means is the right to be offensive. That may not be allowed on BBC blogs but in society at large the protection of free speech is only tested and proven when speech which is offensive is protected. Inoffensive talk doesn't need protecting. If you can't accept that, you will never be fully integrated. If that throws you into the arms of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorists who declared war on Western civilization, so be it. Freedom of speech will not surrender without a fight to the death. It took a thousand centuries to win it, it will not be given up.
Complain about this comment
muslim;
"In Sharia Law anyone guilty of such an act [adultery] is executed and deserving so."
Does that go for men also?
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @151,
The difference between colourful Indian clothing, blue jeans, Scottish kilts and burqas is that only the latter is a symbol of an ideology, completely inconsistent with human rights and values. If you need a comparison, a more suitable one will be to compare the burqa to a Nazi SS uniform, completed with all the discredited paraphernalia- swastikas, black caps with skull on the forepeak, Nazi salutes, Horst Wessel anthem, etc. In itself both are clearly inoffensive- after all they are just clothing. However, what those two items of clothing symbolise is what makes them different from the blue jeans, for example. Nazi uniforms and swastikas are rightfully banned from being worn publically due to the negative images they recall- concentration camps, extermination of minorities, blatant racism and intolerance. The things associated with the part of islam which promotes the wearing of burqa are hardly better- executions of homosexuals, rape within marriage, beheading of non-believers. On the other hand, the only image the blue jeans bring to my mind is the image of a few hippies having a good time at the Woodstock festival and protesting against an unjust war.
Let me state this more clearly- my problem with the burqa is that it is so closely linked with the unacceptable part of islam. You do not need a burqa to be a good muslim woman, observing the provisions about helping the poor, being respectful of your parents and not imposing your views on others. On the other hand, however, you definitely need a burqa if you believe islam should take over the world and sharia the only way forward.
P.S. On this blog I have not seen any burqa-wearing women, defending their ‘decision’. All I have seen is muslim men going on about how good that is for everybody. I do not doubt that there have been veiled women on other occasions who have clearly stated their 'choice' to wear the veil. What I find particularly uncomfortable is the fact that never have I seen a veiled woman stating openly that she does not want to wear it. Especially when there are men from her family around.
Complain about this comment
Bonjour to everybody!
You will notice here in Paris some people dressed in a way, which is intended to draw your attention:
- people with shaved heads but with a purple, blue or green crest at the top
- women wearing burkhas or headscarves
- bearded men dressed in something resembling to bedclothes or women’s dresses, with white skullcaps, barefooted or in beach thongs (even in winter time)
- people wearing clown’s disguise
- people dressed in pitch-black from head to toe (every single day), the so called ‘man - and women - in black’
These ‘dress-codes’ try desperately to show you that they are psychologically in a desperate situation, dropouts and un-adapted of the society, losers. Many of them are regularly seeing their psychiatrists or psychotherapists and even shamans, voodoo-witches and so on. According to statistics, in Paris, about 40% of people are depressed and either they are trying to hide it, or they are showing it to everyone, and in the latter case they are depressing the others as well.
If you don’t believe it, see it for yourself !
Complain about this comment
168. Tom
you said:
I disagree with your comment #161. I believe 'opposites attract', what male would not enjoy the mysteriousness that hiding yourself brings?
HAHA you tellin me you girl puts u ON if she were to put on a 'burka'.
Complain about this comment
174. MarcusAureliusII
thats probly because thes comments are about women hiding their beauty which is sex-related
Complain about this comment
178. MarcusAureliusII
Yes it does
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII,comment 178:
YES! It goes to men also...many think it does not apply to men, but it does...so to all the people who are reading this, who have many many misconceptions about islam, they need to Learn about Islam before they even thing about typing.
www.islaam.ca is a good start (even though its not working at the moment,but should be back online soon)
Complain about this comment
169. Spiros
You talking nonsense mate..Islam despises homosexuality MORE than adultery
Complain about this comment
163. At 4:20pm on 23 Jan 2010, ibnMuslim wrote:
159. gazelledz
you said..'There is no reference to covering of one's head in the Qurán'
open the Quran on Chapter 24 Verse 31 and you will find that women ARE required to cover their heads..
I advise you next time not come up with like that nxt time
***************************************************
You clearly still do not get it! We do not care what it says in the koran! Allowed, disallowed- it does not matter. Wearing burqas is sexist, patronising, meant to keep women subjugated and subservient. It is a symbol of an intolerant and oppressive system of beliefs. What it says in the koran will not make it any different.
Complain about this comment
@176 Tom wrote:
"How dare you even reffer to the horrors of world war two. WW2 was not about dress sense!"
But Holocaust was, in a way. Holocaust, in a part, was about exterminating those who were different, perceived to be inferior, non-conforming, the "other". In fact a lot of rhetoric directed against Muslims today is similar in nature to the rhetoric directed at the Jews at the time.
WW2 was never about the Holocaust. Please learn your history - the Allies did not enter the war to save the Jews.
As to "How dare you..." line. What's there to dare? The fear that the Muslims will become the new "Jews of Europe" has been on the rise among my community for a while now - at least 10 years. It is openly talked about and discussed among all of us, at least those with knowledge enough to see the parallels. The Europeans have the potential, as their history proves over and over again, and the fact that right wing media feeds people's fears to sell itself is fanning the fires like never before.
Complain about this comment
186. Isenhorn
i said that because gazelledz thinks it isnt in the quran so i just wanted to clarify..
wearing burqa isnt sexist. It helps to protects their honour by preventing them being seen as sex symbols and targets for rapists on the streets. So now you tell me is this more beneficial to a woman or man
Complain about this comment
It is curious that all the debate about Sharia law and "the free west" has no political context.
I have not read a single post that even hints at the massive changes in political and scientific thought that underpin the legal systems.
Specifically, the Muslims seem utterly ignorant of the way in which theocratic law has been discredited in the west, and at the same time the non muslims seem utterly ignorant of the theocratic history of their own legal and political systems.
The issue of whether theocracy is intellectually viable for modern people is not helped by the feminists who claim Islam is anti-women. It is a fact that Islam has always allowed women to own property, both married and single, and furthermore it is a fact that when the British Empire imposed the common law onto millions of Muslim subjects in the 19th century, it stripped the muslim women of their property rights and enriched their lawful husbands with their property.
And yet despite that fact, folks like Ashot come here and dare to point the feminist finger at Islam. The over riding tone is self righteousness backed up with appalling ignorance.
Islamic law may be theocracy, but to suggest that it is men dominating women is fanciful in the extreme. It is simply theocracy. Gender has very little to do with it. It is a system of law founded not upon the human rights of the individual, but rather upon a select group of people's fantasy about what the divine being might have said. That select group are not men, but rather the ruling class of families who control the economic power in their lands according to the abrahamic traditions of succession and private property. Wealth muslim women exploit poor muslim women more than wealth muslim men exploit poor muslim women. Anybody who is serious about learning something about Islamic society discovers this fact very swiftly.
Hence I take a very dim view of Ashot's wild claims. I feel she is simply provoking religious intolerance with her ill conceived feminist truisms.
If we want to talk about what is wrong with Islam, in terms of human rights abuses, we need to talk about what is wrong with theocracy of any kind. That means taking a long hard look at our own society, because it remains a bald fact that theocratic law is alive and well in the west.
The UK still has a head of state who claims to represent a divine power on earth, and organized religions across the EU has special privileges which stem from the same absurd and outdated concept of divine law.
As we can see from the massive and sustained human rights abuses against muslim women by the common law in the 19th century, the development of the human rights of the individual are a very recent and fragile thing.
Thus it is an bitter irony and a shame that France has decided to pass laws that prevent individuals wearing what they please. The french state has stepped in to tell people what is french and what is acceptable, and the rights of the individual have been cut back. And this is a result of the way French society has matured in recent decades. It has become dominated by the corporate elite. In technical terms, it has become fascist.
The debate should be about the rights of the individual to be free of coercion from the state or the church, but instead it has descended into a spiteful contest between theocratic elitism and corporate elitism.
One of the reasons the communist revolution took hold so swiftly in Russia but not in the UK is that Russia was full of people who were long accustomed to being dictated to by an elite of self appointed wise folks who made the law for everyone else. Thus it was a very simple transition from theocratic rule to communist party rule.
We should be careful how we criticize Islam, because our own corporate church is rapidly becoming no better than a theocracy, in terms of how far it protects the rights of the individual.
Complain about this comment
@177 MarcusAureliusII:
I am not sure you understood me as I intended. I am all up for freedom of speech - I enjoyed protesting against the cartoons as much, if not more, than the artists who drew them. As long as he has the right to draw and I have the right to come out on the street to protest against what he drew, we are all good. It is when some people here are telling me that (analogically) he has the right to draw but I have no right to protest since they could not do that in Saudi, that is when this becomes a problem.
Complain about this comment
IbnMuslim:
#181.
"HAHA you tellin me you girl puts u ON if she were to put on a 'burka'."
I can't explain it any simpler. However some individuals are attracted to others mainly because of the difference of culture the other person brings.
It does not have to be the 'burka' per say but the culture that the 'burka' represents.
How primative are you to think that beauty can only lead to attractiveness...
Complain about this comment
To Abdulhafid (167):
You said: "you will force our women to undress against their will"
This little snippet of text underlines what the problem is, you call other woman of Muslim faith / women belonging to the same group as you, as "our women". However the thing is that there is no "our women", there is no "your women", there is no "my woman". Women are not some things that can be possessed, they are independent individuals with mind of their own.
Now, I myself am against these kinds of bans on cloathing, if a woman wants to dress into something, then she has the right to do it, but she has also right to not to dress into it. Niqabs, burhas, veils can stay, but what can't stay is the patriarchal culture that many fairly recent immigrants have brought with them. When we can get rid of the patriarchal culture, then there are much less worries about on how people dress.
Complain about this comment
U B a muslim;
As a privately practiced religion between an individual and his concept of his god where the legal and human rights of others including spouses and children are not violated Islam will be tolerated in Western societies, even as the practice of other religions is not tolerated in many Moslem societies. As a political movement it is not acceptable and will be fought with whatever force is necessary to defeat it from being imposed. As a political doctrine it is entirely antithetical to every concept of democracy we cherish and will not relinquish. Tyranny under sharia law is just as unacceptable as tyranny under communism or fascism. The staunchest opponent of it like the others, the one which will fight the hardest no matter what the cost is the United States. That is why it is the number one target of militant Islam whether Sunni or Shia or any other variant. That resolve will not weaken and further attacks on America will only strengthen it even as Europe flags.
Complain about this comment
@189 democracythreat:
Cool, interesting, educational and a different perspective :) Enjoyed reading that.
Complain about this comment
Abdulhafid,
#187.
I understand my history, very well actually. One horror of World War Two was the Holocaust. I didn't state once that the allies fought WW2 because of the Holocaust, so stop putting words in my mouth.
However I still find it disgusting that you'd bring one of Europes most shameful moments into this debate. Your talking about terminating everything that does not represent the West. I have seen nothing that can even come close to that.
Your community shouldn't be paranoid. If you honestly felt that Europe would turn against muslims for the sake of being muslims then I would reccomend leaving while you still can.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, @158
Re why belly-dancing is alright, and seeing the face is not.
I don't know how it is now, think nobody would do it these days, but as min a hundred years ago it was not un-common, how to say, that a poor Muslim girl when by mistake seen by a stranger, her face, would immediately hop up the whole burka, to close the face, and, well, leaving other parts of the body, pantaloons and other bits and pieces of clothing :o)))) visible
You don't get the angle. The face has to be covered first and foremost.
The rest of the body, seemingly, was less important, as min long time ago.
Complain about this comment
Abdulhafid - you're only then integrated in modern European society when you're an agnostic humanist.
Complain about this comment
Just because some muslims expose there bodies by belly dancing or just by simply removing the hijab, does not now mean it is allowed in Islam or was ever allowed, it just means there are disobeying there Lord.
so this belly dancing analogy is rubbish!
even is all the muslims removed the hijab and did not wear it, it does not mean their are exempt from it.
Complain about this comment
"Quran[24:31] And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, EXCEPT THAT WHICH IS NECESSARY. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed."
Sounds rather vague to me and if in contemporary European society it is necessary to show your face then not even the Quran objects to it. Not that it matters what the Quran says, only the law counts and the law already has provisions regarding clothing, such as a person not being allowed to walk into a store with a ski-mask (or a burqa). It's as simple as that.
Complain about this comment
# 187, Abdulhafid.
I think it's rather ironic that you would make that comment, seeing as nearly every time I read about a Jewish kid/man/women getting molested on the street in an anti-semitic incident in Antwerp/Brussels or Paris ... it turns out that the perpetrators are from your 'community'.
It's an irrational fear that perfectly mirrors the fear that exists on the far-right side of the spectrum that 'Islam is going to try and conquor Europe'. The discourse against Jews running up to the shoah was a bit more aggressive then the general tone of discourse discussion Islam.
Also, Islam has the added bonus of being an ideology. It's thus changeable in a way that Jewish ethnicity isn't. You can't 'stop' being a Jew, you can definitely stop being a Muslim.
Hell, if I had to cry 'persecution' every time somebody bad mouths my ideological beliefs ...
Complain about this comment
@195 Tom wrote:
"If you honestly felt that Europe would turn against muslims for the sake of being muslims then I would reccomend leaving while you still can."
There you go again. The "leave our country" line again, in a different shading. This is my country, where exactly am I supposed to go? Additionally, I would rather stay and fight against the coming tide of anti-Muslim fascism.
Complain about this comment
@197 heryando wrote:
"Abdulhafid - you're only then integrated in modern European society when you're an agnostic humanist."
I thought it was an atheist bisexual. Thank you for correcting me.
Complain about this comment
I guess, secular humanist would do as well.
Complain about this comment
modernJan @comment 199:
refer to comment 94 if you want to know what the Hijab consists of.
Islam is Quran and the Sunnah (Prophetic way, saying and actions and approvals of the Prophet Muhammed), NOT just the Quran.
Complain about this comment
Abdulhafid:
#201.
"There you go again. The "leave our country" line again, in a different shading. This is my country, where exactly am I supposed to go? Additionally, I would rather stay and fight against the coming tide of anti-Muslim fascism."
Yes, I said it. However do I mean it, or even expect you to leave? No, because I was mocking your paranoid attitude, especially since Jews all over Europe was not popular for simply being Jews but only Germany decided to take action. Therefore your comparison is laughable since I doubt Germany, or anyone else for that matter will decide to take action against muslims for being muslims.
You aren't doing yourself any favours. Fight against whom? Is this the only solution Islam has to offer the West?
Complain about this comment
you're welcome
Complain about this comment
Dear Ibn Muslim,
I'm afraid you are sleeping a deep sleep dear. First of all, its offensive and undemocratic to call somebody's ideas as "nonsense". But of course, somebody who admires the Taliban regime does not know much about democracy and tolerance, does he? In any case, I do not care much about if Islam despised homosexuality or not but, beleive me, I do know very well what muslims are doing in the street and how do they behave in their personal life. Unfortunately, privacy laws and logic prevent me from showing some nice photos I have with muslim friends from various countries!
Cheers and sleep well!
Complain about this comment
""How dare you even reffer to the horrors of world war two. WW2 was not about dress sense!"
But Holocaust was, in a way. Holocaust, in a part, was about exterminating those who were different, perceived to be inferior, non-conforming, the "other". In fact a lot of rhetoric directed against Muslims today is similar in nature to the rhetoric directed at the Jews at the time."
Bullshit, it was something a lot closer to home. The world had just gone through a depression worse than that of today. Germany had been heavily hit by the crisis and the only ones who seemed to profit from it all were the same people who caused the crisis, bankers. The public hated them as much as they do now. The fact that the bankers were mainly Jewish caused people to believe "the Jews" had too much power and effectively controlled the world (the kind of conspiracy theory that today you'll get force-fed on primary schools in Muslim countries). Sure, it helped that Jews had been a scapegoat for the Catholics for ages, but it was the Jews' wealth during a time when the rest of Europe was poor that fueled the Holocaust.
The Muslims in Europe today are quite the opposite of the Jews in the 1930's. They are poor compared to other Europeans and try to impose their values (however slight) upon Europe, Islam is as much politics as it is a religion. That is the reason Europeans today are scared of Islam and not of Jews, Chinese or non-Muslim black immigrants. You see, Jews never went to court over clothing rights, organised rallies to celebrate the deaths of their host country's soldiers, carried out bomb attacks in their host country's or had groups advocating to impose Judaism on Europe. That's why you can't compare today's fear of Muslims with the past fear of Jews.
Complain about this comment
gazelledz @159 has a point, when he interprets necessity for women to be coverd up by cloth as simply necessity to be screened, be separated by a cloth screen, from men visiting the house (who are not part of the family or small children).
I am sorry I am very un-learned in these subjects, but as a Russian in Russia which always had a high proportion of Muslims living here we got used to, how to say, have ground wisdoms about it, because you interact with another culture constantly and invariably figure out for yourself what is "yes" what is "no" in another culture.
In Russian it is simply called "to be behind the curtain".
"Curtain", mind it, not "burka".
Thus, when I read muslim's post 94 (the long one, giving the details) (may Allah be pleased with him) (may Allah be pleased with her) (may Allahh be pleased with them both) :o)))))))))))),
I immediately summarised it for myself, out of a custom, "so, what you are really saying here, in short - get yourself behind the curtain!" :o)))))
"Behind the curtain" for Russians sums up it all. That you will wear burka outside and that inside the house you will live behind the curtain, separating female part of the house from the open part of the house, where strangers can come visit.
This is a scare for Russian Russian girls, like, "just marry a Muslim who lives by the book - in 5 minutes you will find yourslef "behind the curtain".
)
Complain about this comment
@ Muslim 204
As I understand it the Quran is the supreme source on anything Islamic as it was handed down by Mohammed himself. The Hadith is just a bunch of stories, written by other people, that does not hold as much value, so when the Hadith and the Quran disagree it's the Quran that wins. The Hadith is a secondary source that only has value if it covers a subject that the Quran has not covered already.
It's shameful that when a Muslim disagrees with something in the Quran he starts looking in the Hadith to find something that even remotely agrees with his view.
BTW: the French woman on the photo is wearing a burqa, not a hijab.
Complain about this comment
WW2 was never about the Holocaust. Please learn your history - the Allies did not enter the war to save the Jews.
As to "How dare you..." line. What's there to dare? The fear that the Muslims will become the new "Jews of Europe" has been on the rise among my community for a while now - at least 10 years. It is openly talked about and discussed among all of us, at least those with knowledge enough to see the parallels. The Europeans have the potential, as their history proves over and over again, and the fact that right wing media feeds people's fears to sell itself is fanning the fires like never before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is you who needs to learn your history. Firstly nobody has stated that the allied forces went to war to save the Jews. Secondly the mass killings of the jews didn't start until war had begun.
The biggest difference is in attitude. What the looney Nazis believed in was pure blood, they didn't like the mixing of religions and races. One of the things that Hitler hated was the mixing of blood. Stat, in 1930s Berlin just under 50% of Jewish marriages were outside of their religion (source Naill Ferguson). It was the integration that the Nazis hated. Yet from your posts you seem to want to keep that seperation. Straight forward question: Do you have any problems with either a man or women marrying outside of Islam where their new Husband/wife does not convert away from their own religion.
As for the bit about Islam hates homosexuals, that is just another way to rub up us free thinkers in the west who believe in personal choice and right to life.
Nobody wants anyone to be the 'New Jews of Europe', but if Muslims carry on being beligerant and confrontational all you are doing is giving the Far Right in Europe an open goal, stop volunteering.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My, my...isn't it interesting to read the convenient 'quotes' from the Qur'an as a refutation of what soemone else doesn't like...and in English with no credit to the translaslator, not to mention out of context with the times of the 7th century or with reference to when the ayat appeared-or the reasons for it.
I am amused, although I should not be....especially when the out-of-context quotes come from those who misuse the quotes supposedly in the name of Islam-those with the 'muslim' names. whether those with the 'muslim' names quote out of context-and in what is probably a poor translation of the original classic Arabic0-or those who are non-muslim use quotes in ignorance, it is all a corruption of the message intended to be given...and of the history of the 7th century century Arabian peninsula.
By the way, the ayats concerning "covered hair" was specific to the new muslim women who needed to travel amongst the djahillia who made up the vast majority of the population of tha peninsula. The edict was given so that the women could be recognized in a crowd of those who were not muslim should they need protection or intervention by other muslims if hostility broke out.(Djahillia refers to the polytheists of that time and of that area.) The covering also served as protection against possible assault of these women by the polytheists.
So, let me amend what I said earlier about hair and its covering-In limited conditions it was useful or even may have been a propriaty to cover it, but only with the faculty of reason firmly in place.
The Qur'an also suggests that when doing soemthing will or may put one in difficulty or danger, one should do what will keep one out of harm's way. It also suggests that doing what attracts attention to oneself is to be avoided, particularl;y when that attraction could put one in harm's way.
That being said, some need to be reminded of the strongest edict of all within the ayats of the Qur'an: There shall be NO COERCION in matters of religion!
Complain about this comment
It's interesting that a muslim would actually fight against what democracy brings. I don't agree with everything but whatever Parliament passes I have to accept the outcome or campaign against it.
The moment a muslim chooses to fight against what they believe anti-muslim laws, the moment you loose. The public will only see a muslim fighting and that perception alone will do more damage to the muslim faith then terrorists all over the world combined can only dream of doing.
Complain about this comment
@211. Devon wrote:
"Do you have any problems with either a man or women marrying outside of Islam where their new Husband/wife does not convert away from their own religion."
I do not approve of it, but it is between these people and God - who am I to have a problem with it. People do as they please - this is the nature of this country. I am not the one to pass judgement.
@212. Gheryando wrote:
"How will you fight? c4 belt?"
@214. Tom wrote:
"It's interesting that a muslim would actually fight against what democracy brings...
The moment a muslim chooses to fight against what they believe anti-muslim laws, the moment you loose..."
I do appreciate that the actions and words of some of my co-religionists would lead to you a conclusion that when I say "fight" it necessarily implies violent or illegal activity. I, however, mean nothing of the sort. I do mean political activism, campaigning and lobbying.
Complain about this comment
"That being said, some need to be reminded of the strongest edict of all within the ayats of the Qur'an: There shall be NO COERCION in matters of religion! "
A difficult law to enforce, i would have thought.
Complain about this comment
Got a question.
It is my understanding that many of those men that blow up their brothers and sisters have been promised X number of vestal virgins in the afterlife. What do the Muslim women get in the after life for blowing up their brothers and sisters?
Complain about this comment
Gheryando wrote:
""Additionally, I would rather stay and fight against the coming tide of anti-Muslim fascism."
How will you fight? c4 belt?"
That is a low blow.
I just do not understand the popular revulsion towards suicide bombers. After all, we westerners like nothing more than to see one of our own giving up his life to save others. We give medals to our soldiers who give up their lives to save others, and I recall a huge amount of positive emotion at the end of the movie "Titanic".
But when our enemies do the same thing, we always act as though they are insane and revolting. Our enemies go to war to kill, whereas we save lives by going to war.
On CNN at the moment there is the most incredibly vacuous piece of journalism I think I've ever seen. A british reporter interviews the wife of the suicide bomber who assassinated/murdered/liberated a bunch of CIA folks in afghanistan recently.
This reporter, without the slightest hint of irony, asked the wife of the jihadist whether she thought it was fair that one of the CIA agents was a mother of three.
The context was that this "mother of three" was a government agent being paid to take part in an invasion, and was in another country getting folks to spy on the locals. She was in the CIA. But the CNN reporter saw nothing odd about asking if it wasn't barbaric of the evil muslim jihadist to have killed her.
Of course, the wife of the bomber just said that perhaps the woman shouldn't have been there, invading other folks countries and so on. So she wasn't sorry. And, of course, all the comments from americans reading the "journalism" called the woman EVIL and the spawn of the devil and so on and so forth.
It is really well worth a look, if you are curious to see just how bad western journalism can get. It is also instructive with regards to just how insensitive westerners are to Muslim people suffering. We are absolutely becoming desensitized to the suffering of Muslim people. They have been rendered subhuman in our media and thus in our society.
If you doubt that, take a look at the language used to describe attacks on Muslims in pakistan by drones. The people being killed are always "militants". They are never "soldiers", or "locals". We are always told that they are "militant", which is rather surreal given the militant nature of drone attack.
Just recently a drone attack on a house was claimed to have hit its intended targets, a bunch of militants.
How would we know that? The local police reports said it was civilians killed, and after all the missile attack was on A HOUSE. Were there children in that house?
The answer is that we don't care. If there were children, they were MILITANTS. What we really mean is that they were MUSLIMS. And thus, subhuman.
The muslims on this thread who quote allah and the qu'ran and the adventures of bob the builder may be ignorant and misguided about a lot of things, including basic physics and chemistry, but they are dead right about one thing.
The west is beginning to treat them as subhuman, and their lives are worth less and less as the days go by.
Nobody could imagine the french government passing a law forbidding the jews wearing skullcaps, and yet the news that muslims are to be singled out for special treatment by the police is greeted with largely joyous acclaim.
The muslims are also right to call the western shift in sensibilities "fascism". The west is fascist. That word means government controlled by corporations, and I don't know a single person who would claim that western governments are not controlled by large corporations. there are differing views on whether this is a good thing or not, but nobody doubts that corporations sponsor major political parties to the extent where those parties are beholden to the corporate sponsors. And that is corporate control of government, and that is fascism. Technically speaking.
So i have some sympathy for the muslims who believe they are being targeted by corporate fascism. For sure. You are. There is good money to be made by having an enemy to protect the people from, and governments in fascist cultures love a distraction from the sham "democracy" they peddle.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib wrote:
"Got a question.
It is my understanding that many of those men that blow up their brothers and sisters have been promised X number of vestal virgins in the afterlife. What do the Muslim women get in the after life for blowing up their brothers and sisters?"
Don't be obtuse. Anger and hate are the motives for suicide bombers. And even if they are stupid and believe hocus pocus stories, so what? Does that negate the validity of their hate?
I think if my family were blown to pieces by a drone just so Obama could act the big man on CNN, and I had no chance of ay sort of decent life because foreign troops were occupying my lands and targeting people like me just because of the way I was raised.... I dunno.
Call me violent. I can imagine that level of hate. I can see the attraction of strapping on the C4 belt and taking a few of the fat, self righteous swine with me.
And if that level of hate was driving my actions, I guess it wouldn't matter much to me whether others doubted Allah. Maybe I would doubt Allah too, but I would hesitate to give the enemy the satisfaction of knowing I doubted before I died.
People who do not understand suicide bombers have no imagination, and no guts.
Complain about this comment
but what about the vestal virgins? and tell me again whose getting killed.
Complain about this comment
I wish that the British Government would take similar action in the U.K. and ban the shirt and tie!!
Complain about this comment
We should all have the same rights. It shouldn't matter whether the Koran says she ought to wear the burka or not. Either it's alright for people to cover their face in public or it isn't, but it shouldn't matter whether a prophet asked you to or you just feel like it.
All this stuff about a person not being able to communicate and be part of society with their face covered seems like a sorry excuse. I doubt many of the people making these claims have ever actually tried to communicate with someone wearing a burka.
Complain about this comment
Having read the Quor'an from cover to cover I have to say while meaning no disrespect, that anybody who commits their life to it's teachings (?) etc. etc. must be short of a life. The constant repetition ( Allah is wise, all knowing etc.) in fact tedious repetition drowns out any real meaning, which I failed to find. How anybody believes in this non event enough to commit suicide beggars belief. Similarly why any woman would want to wear such restrictive clothing has a meaning above reality.
Complain about this comment
For democracythreat- there are no vestal virgins. Get a grip.The Qur'an does not by the way mention a splendid afterlife for women so why they feel the need to sacrifice at a minimum, comfort; what is this obsession all about then? Anyway, when in Rome..............
Complain about this comment
I think the question is not how this woman feels, it's how the French feel. Wearing a burqa is akin to the Hitler Youth wearing uniforms. Silly people might say "Wear what you want" but wearing political uniforms is banned in most European countries.
What I think should be required is for ordinary citizens to be allowed by law to remove burkas from other people. That would reduce admin and court time and costs
Complain about this comment
democracythreat
"I just do not understand the popular revulsion towards suicide bombers. After all, we westerners like nothing more than to see one of our own giving up his life to save others. We give medals to our soldiers who give up their lives to save others, and I recall a huge amount of positive emotion at the end of the movie "Titanic"."
Our soldiers don't purposely kill civs. Our enemies do. That's the difference.
Or were u being sarcastic?
Complain about this comment
WebAlice,
I drank the grapefruit juice, thank you. Very good and watching travels in Greece (on TV), now.
:)
Complain about this comment
I think the European Convention for Human Rights was enacted to flood Europe with Muslims from outside Europe which Europeans do not need or want.
Islam is incompatible with Western civilisation
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat #218
"I just do not understand the popular revulsion towards suicide bombers. After all, we westerners like nothing more than to see one of our own giving up his life to save others. We give medals to our soldiers who give up their lives to save others, and I recall a huge amount of positive emotion at the end of the movie "Titanic"."
Well, Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't brainwashed/forced to go through a suicide-training for weeks, knowing there was no way out and that he would die. He also didn't take the lives of civilians on purpose (let's face it, most suicide bombings kill more civilians than soldiers, many are even deliberately targeted against civilians, most civilian deaths in the Middle East are due to their own fighters, not foreign troops who avoid civilian casualties). Finally he wasn't a 15 year old boy, or a handicapped person (yes, that happens, a lot of the bomber are by no means responsible adults who have a choice) who did not realize what was going on.
So you see, Muslim suicide bombers are very different from a Japanese Kamikaze or a Western soldier sacrificing himself to save his unit.
Complain about this comment
This is crazy. Looking through that dark fabric will ruin her eye sight by the time she is 40.
Not to mention how unattractive it makes her look.
How could a woman choose to run around looking like this if nobody forces her to?
Complain about this comment
Not to mention the poor children.
I remember I would have died of embarrassment had my mother taken me to school dressed like this.....
Complain about this comment
@137 MarcusAurelius
“The Soviet censors allowed what BBC censors won't…”
Hi old friend. Alice should kiss you on both sides after reading your genius assessment…
@150AliceInWonderLand
Dearest Alice, the ‘Boudyonovka’ (the Red Army cap of the civil war times) has nothing to do with the burka, except maybe for the fact that both of these funny accessories inspired, though at different times, fear and horror among us, decent, humble and peaceful folks inhabiting Europe and North America...
Generalissimo Franco (I am back especially for both of you two, no matter how different you are)
Complain about this comment
"Islam is incompatible with Western civilisation"
I'd say not Islam but its contemporary interpretation of the majority of its followers.
Complain about this comment
@ modernJan, comment 204
you are very wrong, Muslims are have to follow the QURAN and the SUNNAH, not just the Quran. The Hadith are not just a bunch of stories rather it too is revelation as the Prophet would never tell anyone to do something except that he got it from God.
God says in the Quran:
Allah says (interpretation of meaning), "And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad [sal-Allýhu 'alayhi wa sallam]) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers' way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell ý what an evil destination!" (Surah Nisa 4:115)
notice God mentions "whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger..."
Allah Azza wa jal also says (interpretation of meaning),
"Obey Allaah and His Messenger and those in authority over you"
Whatever the Prophet has prohibited is equal to whatever Allah has prohibited. All decrees of the Messenger, which cannot be found in the Quran, are considered as if they were in the Quran.
The Messenger said, what translated means:
Verily! I was given the Quran and its equal with it [Abu Dawood, At-Tirmithi, Al-Hakim & Ahmad].
Also
Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said, what translated means:
All of my Ummah (nation) will enter Paradise, except whoever refuses (to enter Paradise). They said: And who will refuse? He said: Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me will have refused.
[Al-Bukhari].
Also
Jabir ibn Abdillah said: Angles came to Prophet while he was sleeping. Some of them said: He is asleep. Others said: The eye is asleep, but the heart is awake. They said: There is an example to this friend of yours, therefore say your example. Some of them said: He is asleep. And others said: The eye is asleep, but the heart is awake. They said: His example is like the example of a man who built a house, threw a feast and sent a caller (inviting to the feast). Whoever accepts the invitation, will enter the house and will eat from the feast whoever does not accept the invitation, will enter the house and will not eat from the feast They said: Clarify it (this example) so that he understands it Some of them said: He is asleep. And other said: The eye is asleep but the heart is awake. They said: The house is Paradise and the caller is Mohammad, Whoever obeys Mohammad, obeys Allah. Whoever disobey Mohammad, disobeys Allah. Mohammad divides between people (between those who believe and obey him and those who disbelieve and disobey him). [Al-Bukhari].
Abu Mossa Narrated that the Prophet said, what translated means: The example of me and what Allah has sent me with, is like the example of a man who came to a people, saying: O my people! I saw the army (of the enemy) with my own eyes. I am the naked Warner (the habit of Arabs before Islam was that when one wanted to warn his people of an invading army, he does so while naked to be more dramatic). Therefore, escape escape. Some of his people obeyed him and left at night, traveling at ease, and they were safe. Others disbelieved and in the morning they were still in their places. The army attacked them in the morning, destroyed and overwhelmed them. This is the example of whoever obeys me and follows what I was sent with, and the example of whoever disobeys me and disbelieves in what I was sent with of truth [Al-Bukhari & Muslim].
Abu Rafi said the Messenger of Allah said, what translated means: Let me not find any of you, and while resting on his couch, that if an order of mine is mentioned in front of him, either a command of mine or a prohibition, he says: I do not know! Whatever we find in the Book of Allah (the Quran) we follow (otherwise we do not!). [Ahmad, Abu Dawood, At-Tirmithi, ibn Majah, At-Tahawi & others].
If the Muslims just followed the Quran and not the Sunnah, then they would not know how to pray,or pray funeral prayer and they wont know many other issues as the Sunnah has detail. All the Muslims are in agreement with this and anyone who says you can only follow the Quran alone without the Sunnah is not even a Muslim.
Some more evidence from the Quran:
Say (O Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to mankind): "If you (really) love Allâh then follow me (i.e. accept Islâmic Monotheism, follow the Qur'ân and the Sunnah), Allâh will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.
Say (O Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to mankind): "If you (really) love Allâh then follow me (i.e. accept Islâmic Monotheism, follow the Qur'ân and the Sunnah), Allâh will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Say: "Obey Allâh and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (Messenger Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allâh's Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way (i.e. to preach in a plain way)."
He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)), has indeed obeyed Allâh, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you (O Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)) as a watcher over them.
It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.
The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allâh (His Words, the Qur'ân) and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , to judge between them, is that they say: "We hear and we obey." And such are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise).
And the saying of the Messenger (‘alayhis-Salaatu was-Salaam): “Whover obeys me has indeed obeyed Allaah and whoever disobeys me has indeed disobeyed Allaah.” [al-Bukhaaree(2957) and Muslim (1835) and others from Aboo Hurairah. See Saheeh al-Jaami’ (6044) and al-Irwaa’ (394)]
and there are many more evidences in the quran; www.thenoblequran.com for more...
Complain about this comment
Coming to think of it.....
If she REALLY wanted no attention she would dress like everybody else.
Maybe this is the way for her to be different? She is nothing but Lady Gaga in reverse - without the talent. LOL
Still, I think it is a sacrilege to look like this in France, the home of fashion and chic. All that beauty wasted on her!
Complain about this comment
By the way, anyone read this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476238.stm
UK terrorist threat level raised to 'severe'
Complain about this comment
Anybody heard of Islams War on Terrorism?
Listen to this:
A Clarification To The Media - Islaam's War On Terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quJVs_YyR_0&feature=related
(listen to all 10 parts of the lecture, and then you will come to know Islam is against Terrorism)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Muslim,
We do not care what the Quran says. The problem is that many people did care what the Quran says, and that messed up their countries. Now they are fleeing their dire, poor, wrathful lands in droves and coming to Europe where they are neither needed nor wanted. To add insult to injury they bring their Islamic desert culture with them.
Complain about this comment
@Muslim #234
You're making this more difficult than it really is.
Quran says: women should cover themselves, except bodyparts for which it is necessary to be left uncovered (such as the face in 21st century France).
Hadith says: Mohammed, at one time, ordered his women to cover their faces, not stating that they should do so anywhere and at anytime. He may have implied that but we'll never know, all we know is that the Quran says not all bodyparts have to be covered at all time.
Even the strictest interpretations of Islam agree that women should be able to unveil in front of their family because it is required to keep normal relations with her family. It could be just as easily argued that in order to live a normal live in 21st century France a women must unveil herself in public. Especially since the chances of being abducted or raped in 21st century France are (except when you go out at night in dangerous neighborhoods) much smaller than in 6/7th century Arabia.
I think a (secular) judge would rule from this that women in France do not need to wear veils.
Complain about this comment
muslim said:
"All of my Ummah (nation) will enter Paradise, except whoever refuses (to enter Paradise). They said: And who will refuse? He said: Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me will have refused.
[Al-Bukhari]."
There we have it, plain and clear. No desire to integrate or adapt. Reminds me of Star Trek and the Borg. (Hint: "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated")
Complain about this comment
muslim wrote:
"(listen to all 10 parts of the lecture, and then you will come to know Islam is against Terrorism)"
All I know is that most terrorist attacks against my (Western) civilization don't come from Buddhists, Jews or Hindus... Facts speak stronger than words.
Complain about this comment
Muslim #234
I got this little problem and I've had it for a long time. Everybody says they believe what they believe because the word of God has confirmed it. There are up teen versions of Christianity and everybody says they believe what they do based on the Bible. My dad believed what he believed because the Bible said so. There was no need for interpretation because it said what it said. I asked him why other people believed differently from him and said their beliefs were based on the Bible. Further I said somebody has got to be stupid or lying.
I don't know for sure what the number is but I think there are at least a half dozen chosen people based on what they believe. Now as I told my daddy, somebody is either stupid or lying. I, unlike many of my more educated Americans and Europeans do believe in a Supreme Creator. Who are his chosen people? Those that seek his face. You can't be born into it, you can't be pressured into it, you cannot be intimidated into it, you can't buy into it and you can't earn you way into it.
Complain about this comment
Geez, you would think we are so advanced that we are going to colonize the Moon or Mars, and then realize the majority of people are worried about what somebody said some 500 years ago to someone else about a piece of clothing.
This is nothing but a fight for territories, similar to the dogs that pee on everything that belongs to them (in this case their women) and try to conquer more and more ground.
Are we really this boring and dumb in the 21st century Europe?
Complain about this comment
God says in the Quran:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh deary me.
I was going to give a lengthy explanation of why that is so flawed, but it really isn't worth while. You won't change me, and I'll not change you.
It is obviously important to you but I really don't care what your imaginary freind says, or some old dusty book of fairy tales.
It has absolutely nothing to do with living in the secular West. So here is the deal, anyone of any religion can live in the west if they are willing to put their religion into context of living in the West and respect or heritage, culture and traditions. Those whose religion is of such importance that they are unable to do that should reside in a country which is more in line with their way of thinking.
Is it a deal?
Complain about this comment
@Muslim #237
I do not believe for one second that Islam is against terrorism (violence against the state or the people in order to scare them into complying with your demands, note that this is different from normal warfare). It is how Islam started (attacks on civilian caravans of Meccans and other non-Muslims), and I'm pretty sure most Muslims today support terrorism against Israel (although I guess you call it a fight for liberation).
Complain about this comment
It all started with the death threat against Salmon Rushdie. That was the time when the Western World should have stood up for him, but they got cold feet, talked about religious freedom and let him fend for himself.
Ever since it has only gotten worse and it is going to get a lot worse. I am not sure if it is possible at all to stop. The disease that could have been stopped by a simple immunizing shot, now we will need drastic surgery to get rid of it, if at all.
Complain about this comment
geomim98
Re #235
"...still I think it is a sacriliege to look like this in France the home of fashion and chic.."
I'm assuming you are referring to 'Lady GaGa' - - a justifiable reason for a burka face-cover, if ever there was one!?
Complain about this comment
WA;
We here in America have made belly dancing obsolete. We invented "lap dancing. Ooooh la la! Have you got that in Russia :-0
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat, your post 145 made me want to applaud, beautiful, concise and so true!
Complain about this comment
@geonim98 #247
It will stop: eventually their oil will run out, they'll become a second Africa and their obsolete ideology will get crushed between the modern giants of China, India, Russia and the United States. The only question is if Europe (or part of it) will go down with the radical Muslims or if it will be among the modern giants.
So don't worry, they'll never conquer the world (though they may "conquer" parts of Europe).
Complain about this comment
geomim98
ur last two comments are very true.
Complain about this comment
gertrudethebrave
Re #221
"...UK Gov... ban the shirt and tie.."
Very sexist.
Now, 'ban the blouse' and you get my vote!
Complain about this comment
Quite apart from the burqa we really cannot have people overwhelmingly immigrants and children of immigrants from outside Europe (allowed into Europe by politicians against the people's wishes or needs) to create alien Islamic townlets in the slummy areas of our cities. And we cannot have politicians (eg in Britain the Lib-Lab-Con coalition) to pamper them with all sorts of gifts and exemptions including local shariah courts
Complain about this comment
Some people who consider themselves to be peace-loving and democratic tell me that with regard to veiled women we should have respect - for other cultures, for customs different from ours, for a vision of the world, family and religion which is different from ours (and by 'ours' I mean of European origin).
Respect? It's a fine word, it's what lies, perhaps more than anything, at the heart of civilised life. But respect has to be earned.
They ask me to have respect for a culture that forsees, for those who are born female, an existence circumscribed by the absolute authority of fathers, husbands, brothers who can tell you (if you have had the audacity not to be born male) what you must do, what you must wear, if and when you can go out, who you can see, when and if you may drag yourself out of the darkness of illiteracy and then, should you have had the good fortune to acquire an education (possibly abroad among the 'infidels' if your parents are wealthy enough) when and if you may express an opinion (it was a government minister who not long ago in Afghanistan invited his colleague to "keep your wife quiet!" rather than engage in serious debate with (horrors) a woman.
Respect? For a culture in which it is considered better to leave five young Turkish women to drown rather than see them touched by strange men; for a culture in which an imam in the heart of Europe may publicly recommend his worshippers to inflict educational beatings on their women (perhaps in cases of lack of respect for the gentlemanly husband?); for a culture in which an Egyptian husband, discovering to his amazement in a European city that beating up your wife is a crime, can calmly explain that "back home that's what we do" ? (All real news stories of recent years).
In any culture worthy of the name girls are educated which means learning to think, which in turn means, besides fully living their personal life, contributing fully to the society they live in as women; in such cultures women are listened to and their rights as adult capable citizens are respected.
When I see, as happened the other day near my home, a couple leaving the house, the woman mummified in black with a slit for the eyes to avoid falling over (please, let's stop pretending this is a real choice, nobody in their right mind would choose to hinder their own movements in this way), the husband-master barking his orders and walking five paces in front of her, well, my blood pressure rises. I think right away of all those women in Europe that for two hundred years struggled to obtain for us all those rights that are now so taken for granted that we don't even think about them any more - the right to be educated, to earn from our own work, to spend our earnings as we wish, to love who we wish, to have a child or two or three or none, to choose who governs our countries, to BE who governs our countries, to come and go as we choose, in short, to have the dignity of a fully adult female person.
It was not always so. All these things did not arise automatically, they were not conceded as gifts from men in power to women; they were fought for and there were women - let it not be forgotten - that were subjected to torture and all kinds of offences in that struggle, who were impeded and humiliated and sometimes even died, so that women of today may exercise those rights that now seem to us so obvious, almost banal and - so we believe - untouchable.
Well - when I see these medieval scenes in European streets I get angry, I really do, for the offence to the memory of all those women that is represented by veiled muslim women in the streets of Europe.
Complain about this comment
I invite Muslims to come to America ..if you can get in. :)
We ...try... to be nice, as they do in the UK. They had a Haiti telethon last night and I learned zakat = charity :)
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat "And this is a result of the way French society has matured in recent decades. It has become dominated by the corporate elite. In technical terms, it has become fascist."
Oh no, here he goes...check yourself Demo, you're losing it again, France a fascist state...right, and Bush was an intellectual, and Blair was a wise war prime minister, and I'm Napoleon Bonaparte!
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo Franco, @132 :o) - welcome back!
democracythreat, congratulations with silver at European ice-skating. :o)
I am (not) sorry I know you wanted gold :o))))) But our Yevgeny made a come back as well as your boy.
So I see the European men trio (Russia-Switzerland-France) is settled for Olympics.
Jukks, similar congratulations with your ice-skating girl. Italy-Finland-Georgia girls' trio is also settled.
I see we are all set
Complain about this comment
Cracklite,
I did also learn to properly say Haiti in French. French culture is beautiful, and I know already that it has given the UK and America much culturally....
WA,
Are Soviet encyclopedia sets worth much money? I think I know where to get a set. But, also it would make a good souvenir.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
254. giltedged wrote:
"to pamper them with all sorts of gifts and exemptions including local shariah courts"
The local Beth Din, ie Jewish Halacha court, and its legal recognition in English Family Law of course does not bother you, nor the fact that it has been around for about 300 years.
Blatantly discriminatory, innit. Oh I forgot, FoxNews or whatever right wing mouthpiece you prefer forgot to educate you on that one.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (258):
We are almost settled my dear Alice. You see my favorite ice-skater Kiira Korpi, the blond ice goddess, didn't win but became fourth! Oh the humanity! However, all is not lost, because with this placement she earned her place at the Olympics. She by the way is not my favorite because she is pretty and blond, but because she is also an economics student in University of Tampere.
To David (256):
I'm not sure that even I would dare to travel to America. You see I for some coincident of history, I have an Indian/Pakistani surname. While Wikipedia article spells the name with two L's, I have noted that many people from India and Pakistan, or originating from there have the surname Rohila with one L.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohilla
With my luck there is probably some Rohila that is a Mujahideen, wanted by the USA. Now knowing the incompetency of the Department of Homeland Security and US intelligence agencies the probability of them thinking that I'm Mujahideen with a mission of terror against the US is quite high. So I'm not prepared to face a situation like...
Agent: This is bigger than I thought, socialists and Al-Queda working together
Actually these two guys made an documentary about the subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_NOc6yH5JY
Complain about this comment
Dave, "souvenir" :o)))) you are joking, it's 30 volumes. Well, you can press sour cabbage in a barrel with it, I guess :o))) Or throw down on heads of un-welcome guests, from the balcony, in case you are besieged. A good weapon.
Checked up internet 9600 roubles 320 dollars in full. I guess one can buy cheaper in second hand book shops if some volumes are missing. Never saw all together.
MacMillan has it translated into English somewhere, they began translating ab a year later and followed, bought the rights, and went on with some delay don't know when MacMillan ended we finished up in 1978. There were 2 editions earlier, of 1925-1947 (65 volumes, the best I think) and of 1958, in 51 volumes.
The 2nd edition was undertaken beacause 90% of those who wrote the first were packed to Gulag, so it was decided it cannot be a good Soveit edition if all the authors, from all areas of human interest - chemisists and biologists and physics and ? well, astronoms anyone - are convicts. :o)))))
So they issued the 2nd, written up by politically correct people, but then those politically correct ended up writing about achievenments of the politically incorrect ones :o)))) (because there were no other achievements), so Stalin like gave up on putting together simultaneously a politically correct and a ? how to say? having something to do with reality encyclopaedia. And died :o))))
Then we set up composing the 3rd one, most decent and neutral, keeping in mind the prev. mistakes, that by the time you finish up the last volume all politics changed upside down again, so more or less left politics aside :o))) That's the one MacMillan liked.
But I'd think the 1st one is most fun.
It's normally called "Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopedia"/The Big Sov.
Good luck. :o))))
Complain about this comment
"to pamper them with all sorts of gifts and exemptions including local shariah courts"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the UK they are giving £140 Million pounds a year into anti radicalisation projects to try and stop young muslims becoming radicalised. Some would say that is a gift
No other community is receiving this sort of money, there again no other community is such a direct threat to our security.
By the way this thread started out talking about the burka. No other community is allowed to cover their heads in public in public places. Some would say that is an exemption.
Complain about this comment
I think that The Jewish Family Court should not be be allowed in recognised in Britain but the despicable Shariah Law has no place AT ALL in Europe. It is alien and primitive and transfers its barbaric treatment of women from the Saudi desert to Britain.
Complain about this comment
cracklite, I was using the term "fascist" according to its strict definition.
Most folks think fascism means "something evil germans did 60 years ago". That is the american understanding of the term, generally speaking.
If you "check yourself" the definition of the word, you will find that it means the control of government by corporations.
It is generally associated with an authoritarian and highly nationalistic one party state, but the economic basis for a fascist society is corporate control of the economy.
Now we are discussing ultra nationalistic authoritarian policy on this thread. We see party politicians defining what being french means, and they are passing a law which can only be described as highly authoritarian.
Now it is my view that since the end of the cold war the west has shifted towards fascism, and continues to shift in that direction. It is nearly impossible to tell the difference between the two parties on offer in any western country you choose to analyze. As the distinction between left and right disappears, we end up with a one party system that has two departments to choose from for representation.
Furthermore, it is no secret at all that corporations sponsor both parties in the two party system equally. Again, this is across the board in western nations. The trend is obvious to anybody who wishes to look. So, again, i would say our western political model of representation is tending towards a one party state sponsored by fascism. the rise of nationalism confirms this trend.
It may interest you to know that the supreme court in the USA is deliberating on a case which will grant corporations the right to sponsor political parties openly. The argument the court looks likely to accept is that corporations should have the same rights as real people, and so they must be allowed to directly sponsor whomsoever they like, and not channel money to their representatives indirectly.
So when I say france has turned fascist with this law, and that the west generally is becoming highly fascist, I have "checked myself". I understand what the words mean.
Now any student of history will know that fascism is generally extremely popular, as it appeals to nationalistic pride. However, history also shows us that fascism begets rampant corruption in the economy, and it feed internal hatreds between minorities as the single party politicians deflect attention away from the stringent class based society they have created. Most of all, fascist nations have gone to war as a means of perpetuating themselves. They use the consumption of human lives and materials as the means to drive their economic stability.
If you look at the west right now, and here I mean the UK, France and the USA, you will see a steadily rising tide of poor, angry patriots. People are being fed policy that takes advantage of their anger at declining living standards. Patriotism and intolerance are growing forces in the west.
And in the USA, the fringe whackos on the far right are now saying that Obama is a communist and that the homosexuals and the commies are to blame for the USA's current economic crisis. They want to tighten criminal laws even further, segregate their society, expel or incarcerate immigrants and cut themselves off from the international world.
These folks are crazy and it is easy to laugh at them. But the point is, it is THIS group of whackos who are growing in number and anger. These are the groups who are getting bigger, who are soaking up the masses of young unemployed folks.
It doesn't take a genius to correlate the rise of the Palin wahcko fringe and the rise of ultra weird nationalism in fascist Germany in the 1930's.
Look, if you ask the person in the street who their enemy is, they are likely to tell you it is some muslim who lives on 2 dollars day on the other side of the world. They will FEAR such people.
But is it really muslims who are to blame for the rising levels of anger and intolerance in western society?
Are muslims the reason young people in the west can't get jobs? It is absurd, but this is how we are. People fear muslims and the are getting angry at the economic malaise. meanwhile, corporations pay for and own the representative process that makes a bitter mockery of the concept of democracy.
For sure, I can see muslims being the new jews of Europe. And America, too. It is already happening.
Complain about this comment
Muslim fundamentalists want women to be docile.
Look at what happened to Benazir Bhutto.
I knew Benazir as a young woman. We were at Harvard during the same time.
Ending her life did not derail her mission. Even though I am a Christian myself, I do not doubt that Benazir is in Heaven because her courageous work was one of compassion for those who suffered and were trapped in a vicious cycle of hardship -- especially the women and girls.
Silencing someone like Benazir will never accomplish anything except the exact opposite of what was sought.
You cannot stop change. You cannot stop women from reclaiming their rights from the religious fanatics who came up with the bogus doctrine of our inferiority. For how could an 'inferior' being -- the mother -- give birth to a 'superior' being -- her son?
At the root of it, the idea that women are helpless, dangerous, endangered, devoid of authority and incapable of self-determination and self-governance is simply the manifestation of an obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with controlling the lives of others, perhaps as a way of escaping from one's own profound sense of powerlessness.
Because so much of authority in Islamic society ultimately is vested in only a tiny elite group of men, one can see how the compulsion of a man with multiple wives and many daughters would be a strong temptation.
But in the 21st century, one need only consider to example of Iran, right there in front of us, to see that concentrating authority over many millions of lives in the hands of just a few old men, and imposing severe controls over the actions, demeanor and thoughts of others, is a doomed strategy.
Give it up. Women should be free to wear comfortable contemporary clothes that serve the purpose of looking presentable without concealing their essential humanity -- and to go out into the street, and see anyone they choose to as adults, without condemnation. Anything short of that is abusive.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, well. Well it says there is "Western Rohill-land" and "Eastern Rohil-land" in Pakistan, and when you are in the NY airport you simply update them that you are from Northern "Rohil-land" :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Gheryando wrote:
"democracythreat
"I just do not understand the popular revulsion towards suicide bombers. After all, we westerners like nothing more than to see one of our own giving up his life to save others. We give medals to our soldiers who give up their lives to save others, and I recall a huge amount of positive emotion at the end of the movie "Titanic"."
Our soldiers don't purposely kill civs. Our enemies do. That's the difference.
Or were u being sarcastic?"
Hardly sarcasm. Look, when a drone sends a missile onto a house and a whole bunch of civilians get killed, I would say that is purposefully killing civilians.
Sure, you can ague that these people are "militants", but on what basis?
Military intelligence? A fair trial? Some grainy footage and the hearsay of traitorous people being paid to supply actionable information?
I think you would want a fair trial, nuh? Well, right now our military forces are butchering muslims on the basis of hearsay and highly, highly spurious "intelligence".
Then there was Fallujah. I don't know how much you know about that turkey shoot, but it was just one example of what the army do when they are told to clear and hold urban areas with heavy weapons.
And do you really imagine that our military policy is to spare civilians in serious combat situations? Is that really what you believe, or is that just something you wish to believe?
Tell me, what do you think nuclear weapons are for?
Do you suppose that when Hiroshima and Dresden were bombed, not to mention Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam, do you really think "our soldiers" and airmen were under instructions to refrain from hitting civilians?
The fact is that warfare between states is understood to be total warfare: it is the conflict between societies economic power, and all who contribute to the economic power of the state are combatants. Soldiers just operate the front line weapons systems.
This is what allows Osama bin laden and his bunch of merry hooligans to justify the killing of western "civilians". He reasons, correctly, that the west has voters who could do something about their leaders making money from occupying muslim lands. He reasons, correctly, that the west fights wars as a unified economy and not as a loose alliance of tribal forces. Therefore he holds the demos responsible for the actions of the government.
We kill civilians, ghery old son. My word we do. We kill 'em by the ditch full. Why, if you were to seriously consider the number of little children butchered by our military forces in Iraq alone, it is well possible you'd not sleep at night.
We kill civilians with bombs and we kill them with drones, and in Israel they kill them with white phosphorus.
And we like nothing more than a person who dies for us, to redeem our sins and so on and so forth.
I mean, have you ever considered how ridiculous it is that Christians get all upset by suicide bombers? they have a cry and a moan about someone taking revenge in the defense of THEIR LANDS, and then they go drink the blood of christ, and rapture themselves that he went willingly to a horrible death in order to deliver them to an eternal paradise.
Sure, the muslim suicide folk are crazy, and they do bad stuff.
But nothing like what our christian soldiers do. No way. When it comes to killing civilians and praying to be delivered up into the clouds on the death of a holy man, nobody comes close to our christian society.
Look, we can be empirical about this if you like.
How many christian civilians have been killed by muslim bombs in the last 20 years?
Now, how many muslim civilians have been killed by christian bombs over the same period?
I'm telling you, nobody butchers children like we do. We are the best in the world at that. We really have our technique down, if you dig it.
Just count the graves.
Complain about this comment
Jukka - sorry she didnt make it. However our very own Carolina Kostner did it again :)))
Complain about this comment
Jukka, thank you for taking on excess in patriarchal traditions.
However, a burka is a mental health hazard.
And it is a hazard to the mental health of the little boy being brought up by the mother in the black sack, as well.
Mental health is not a trivial concern.
There is a great deal of mental illness that is completely treatable & could be readily overcome, all over the world, if we were only a little more committed to the principle of mental wellness.
Consider the obvious UK example of those two horrid child-criminals just tried & convicted in the UK. There is a mental health crisis in a household that was visited time after time -- again, as in so many other cases -- and no one intervened in any kind of timely fashion.
And there are masses of criminally mentally ill people all over the US. You find out how dangerous they are only after it is too late.
Similarly, those who view the burqa or Muslim veil as some kind of "viable option" -- as you suggest -- are actually implying that until an actual honour killing takes place, we should avert our eyes from how a house full of Muslim males is treating the Muslim girls and women they dominate.
But why? That contravenes the laws & practices in place in our Western societies, that these Muslim males chose to settle in of their own free will.
We need more vigorous mental health campaigns targeting Muslim men and women to convey to them that it is excessive, unhealthy, counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating to be so completely obsessed with such trivial matters as what a woman wears on the street.
If the women & girls of other cultures, and even the disabled, can go out & get things done & hold jobs, without being enveloped from head to toe in pointless garments, why can't Muslims?
Complain about this comment
So the skater is Kiira, and I wondered why Russian name "Kira". :o)))
I watched her skating yes very good I thought you'd fan for her but didn't know she is from your university.
Surely I watched, ice-skating in St.Petersburg is viewed as seriously as ? songs. Well, not in the songs' status, less critical skills in life, but, how to say, important aspect of life. 1/2 of Rus. skaters are are St. Petersburgers. And we got our 100th medal I think this time, hundred golds at European ice-skating championships. Plushenko brought the 99th, and the Japanese-Russian pair the 100th I think.
(all St. Petersburgers. the Japanese girl changed citizenship 4 years ago I think when they first got Olympics ambitions and eats borsch exclusively for years already).
We worried for Pluschenko. Leg operated -re-operated (thank you, Germany, a good new leg :o)))), all on pain-killers, and hasn't been on ice for 3 years. But he was busy, all St. Petersburg attended his wedding, then all wanted to see his son, then she threw him away and grabatised the child, Yevgeny lost weight and became quite worn out by home problems. He quit sport entirely but them must have decided it is safer on slippery ice and with traumatised legs then at home with women :o))))) so returned back to safer, quiet, peaceful sport quarters.
:o)))))
Complain about this comment
maria wrote:
"Because so much of authority in Islamic society ultimately is vested in only a tiny elite group of men, one can see how the compulsion of a man with multiple wives and many daughters would be a strong temptation."
Please! Do not write things that are so clearly untrue. Especially when they are so blatantly sexist and insulting.
Islam has always allowed muslim women to own property, both before, during and after marriage. THEREFORE.... given the biological fact that women live longer than men..... it is perfectly obvious that the vast amjority of economic and thus political power in Islamic society is held by women. RICH, ELDERLY WOMEN.
Ashot, you might have been to Harvard but I'm not sure what you studied. Do you know anything at all about sharia law? Here is a hint: Noah Feldman.
A male, sure, but also a Harvard professor who has written exceedingly interesting books on sharia law. And the place of women under sharia law.
A lot of folks don't think very deeply about how the economics of sharia and polygamy work. Maria would have us believe that women under sharia have fewer rights than women living under catholic rule. Clearly, this is ridiculous.
Not only can women own property under sharia, they have exclusive rights of access to areas of the family home. Furthermore, the hierarchy of power in the harem does not give men power over women. It gives WOMEN power over women.
For example, the number one wife has the authority to gives orders to the number 2 wife, and this authority is enforced by punishments handed out by enforcers. Sometimes these are male enforcers, but most often the punishments given to women come from women higher in the food chain.
Now this has interesting consequences. In most muslim towns, wealthy families are careful to ensure that the wealthiest female children are paired up with suitable males. A suitable male is one who is schooled in sharia law, and who can provide for a lot of wives. AND THE WIVES CHILDREN.
the reason wealthy grandmothers seek a large compound full of extra wives and their children is because their daughter will have exclusive access to large parts of the compound, and she will use her staff of subordinate relatives to WORK FOR HER.
I do not mean the number one wife will have these people clean the floors and wash the dishes. I mean WORK. Make stuff. Sew garments. Process dates. Milk goats and make cheese. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY. WHICH THEY OWN.
This is why I take such extreme exception to Ashot and her simplistic (and highly sexist and insulting) feminist theory. Ashot is incapable of understanding that women from wealthy families profit hugely from the system of sharia law, and indeed it is precisely the women in muslim societies who demand that the practice be continued.
Ashot is dreadfully ignorant of basic facts, and is determined to insult men with highly charged sexist diatribes. But notice one thing about her reasoning that betrays a devastating irony:
Ashot is ignorant of the facts of sharia law, and presumes that women living under sharia have the same property rights as women living under Catholic religious law. She presumes that muslim women defer their property to their husbands.
Because Ashot is a CATHOLIC FEMINIST.
She believes in a catholic god, and in harvard, but at the end of the day she is simply projecting her cultural hatred and sexism against the whole world, and seeing nothing of what is sitting before her eyes.
Complain about this comment
WA;
One strange souvenir that has had some interest in the US in recent years are big stupid clunky Soviet Army wristwatches. Bigger, stupider and clunkier than even Swiss Army watches and Rolexes. (Rolex may have lots of gold, even diamonds, keep excellent time but that doesn't change the fact that it is a big clunky thing to hang on your wrist. Over time it will make your left arm longer than your right arm if you let it) ;-0
Complain about this comment
25 xavier I am just tired of religion period. Religion is a tool used by the elite to control the masses. They cause nothing but division and discord between the human race. Contrary to popular thought, all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are basd on violent, destructive, intolerent and misogynistic tennants. This is evidenced by the fact that the stronger a person holds to their religion, the more intolerent they are of any other religions, opinions and justify the use of violence against non compliance with thier beliefs.
All religions are false, the only thing that is real is our shared humanity. Until the majority cast of their outdated religious straight jackets and embrace this real truth then religion will continue to cause untold missery and harm to the human race. Unfortunately I don't see enlightenment winning out over superstitious nonsense any time soon, if ever.
Complain about this comment
apologies that should be tenets not tennants...
“Ignorance and illiteracy are obviously not synonymous; even illiterate masses can cast their ballots with intelligence, once they are informed.
William Orville Douglas
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat #269
"Sure, the muslim suicide folk are crazy, and they do bad stuff.
But nothing like what our christian soldiers do. No way. When it comes to killing civilians and praying to be delivered up into the clouds on the death of a holy man, nobody comes close to our christian society."
Which "Christian soldiers" do you mean? I know of only one two states in the world that are "Christian": Uganda and Vatican City, I believe neither of them are involved in any wars in the Middle East.
Or did you mean the secular countries in the West? If you were talking about them you must know that they do not kill that many civilians at all (relative to troopsize). The UN's latest report indicated that last year the 10.000 or so lightly armed Taliban in Afghanistan killed twice as many civilians as the 190.000 or so Afghan and international troops with all their heavy weaponry. The same thing holds true in Iraq were insurgents killed tens of thousands of civilians, much more than the foreign troops who had greater numbers and used heavier weaponry. In both of these cases you also have to consider the fact that the foreign troops do not use civilians as human shields while their enemies do, this being the difference: Western troops don't target civilians deliberately.
For more instances of recent Muslim-on-Muslim action (with civilian casualties running into the thousands) google "Iran-Iraq war", "Operation Anfal", "Black September", "Hama massacre", "Algerian civil war" to see that "they" kill a lot more of their own people than the West ever has.
"Hardly sarcasm. Look, when a drone sends a missile onto a house and a whole bunch of civilians get killed, I would say that is purposefully killing civilians.
Sure, you can ague that these people are "militants", but on what basis?
Military intelligence? A fair trial? Some grainy footage and the hearsay of traitorous people being paid to supply actionable information?
I think you would want a fair trial, nuh? Well, right now our military forces are butchering muslims on the basis of hearsay and highly, highly spurious "intelligence"."
How about Delta Force teams who've been watching the house for days from under some foliage cover, or spy drones (who reveal much more than grainy footage to the trained eye? Since when do you have to have a trial before you shoot an enemy in a war?
"Islam has always allowed muslim women to own property, both before, during and after marriage. THEREFORE.... given the biological fact that women live longer than men..... it is perfectly obvious that the vast amjority of economic and thus political power in Islamic society is held by women. RICH, ELDERLY WOMEN."
Right yeah, they can enjoy their money for about 1,5 years, when they're in their late seventies (any younger and she'll be married off to her brother in law), but wait, it all goes to their sons, so there's nothing for the women..
Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with someone who believes sharia is actually good for women. It isn't, how could it be when it was developed by a medieval tribal society that sold women for camels...
Complain about this comment
There's nothing wrong with Islam.
It's the fanatics that we all have to worry about.
Complain about this comment
Cheryando, Karolina Kostner on ice has all at her, how to say, all becoming and required of a champion. In her own rights absolutely. Though the prokat/the skate? performance doen on ice? was not ideal, you know, to say the min. But she is sure of herself and it is felt.
I think nowhere the value of brand is felt as strongly as in ice-skating. All established get higher marks than new. The difference is clear very visibly, in simple numbers. That's what power of brand means :o))) in precise mathematical, visible for all display.
(about our Evgeny as well :o) (he danced very nervously) (and his music was very nervous) (well, they fitted each other :o)
Congratulations, we don't have strong girls, only under-age ones and the Georgian talent trained in Moscow (jumps real well). For Finland it's a break through though, new area of expertise, 2 girls in the top from one Finland, this is clearly a break-through.
We didn't hope for gold in girls, so no back feelings, sincere congratulations and credit where it's due.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius @274, that is because "Red Army" is also a brand.
Complain about this comment
David 278 .... there is everything wrong with all religions.
Complain about this comment
I feel sad when people flee from freedom--as this woman has. While it is not possible to completely stop people from doing this I believe we should try. This is why I support the ban. When people flee freedom the result is usually bad--look what happened when the Germans fled freedom and elected Adolf Hitler, when the Russians fled freedom, turned their collective back on the February revolution and supported the Bolsheviks.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, you were so reasonable and up to point, seriously, until again clashed with Maria Ashot. :o))))
I absolutely agree with the point you've brought up that it is fair to first look at what non-Muslims do, for starters - to stop killing Muslims and their civillians - and then worry about "burka".
But you know Maria can't be "a Catholic feminist" by definition.
Well, a feminist one is allowed to be. :o))))))
I even agree that the women in Islam hold power - with the correction - small amount of RICH women in Islam. Who can afford a harem these days come on :o))))) Or several wives.
In poor Islam quarters women are oh, - lesser than men in rights.
I think you are right about women, old women power in Islamic cultures looking again at our this millionnaire quarrel example, that Russian pair "Chechen - Lithuanian" marriage, who quarrel over the child after divorce.
Come to think ab it - who quarrel? Alla Pugachyova - one grandma - Russian - applying to Putin for justice, and the Chechen rich grandma - mother of that Chechen rich guy, the husband. She brought the matter to court, not her son. It was her appeal - give the child back and we want him to be a Chechen and raised up in Chechnya. She applied to Ramzan Kadyrov for justice.
So what we've got in fact is two grand dams, one besieging the Checehn president, one - the Russian PM.
Now Putin and Kadyrov can't quarrel, but can't satisfy both grand dams simultaneously :o))))
A real knot in int'l and poiltical relations, our "peace" with Chechnya put under question courtesy of two grandmothers. :o))))
So yep, grandmothers have power.
But rich, millionnaire grandmothers.
Who would stand up for a child grabatised in the same manner from an ordinary Russian mum in moscow and whisked to Chechnya? Nobody.
Whole Russian internet is now full of personal stories how Muslim husbands took away mixed marriage kids, boys, when they turn 11, because "time to be brought up by father, in muslim traditions".
It is basically a practice, and all say "Girls! Beware! When you marry a Muslim find out in advance about what his idea about children-boys are, and then marry, if you are ready to separate with the child at the later stage. Even if you were never married - the man is still the father - and will come and take away the kid, be prepared, and nobody will protect you."
Complain about this comment
Strange thing to notice, I admit--
But, there are 2 "David"s here. Right, other "David?"
Someone at BBC was nice to change me from stellarBeloved to "David (ty, blush...not stellarbeloved)) so now there are 2 "David"s. (mistake made at BBC??)
#278 wasn't me, not that it matters but,
:)
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8477346.stm
Complain about this comment
Another view on someone who voluntarily wears a niqab can be found here.
Another view on the necessity of the hijab in general can be found here. I also found the comments there to be interesting.
Gavin: Congratulations on presenting a topic that has left us hardly mentioning the EU, pro or con.
Wildfawn: Your post 68 pretty much coïncides with my view.
Devon: Regarding post 78, on the contrary, numerous comics earn their living by exercising their freedom of choice to deliberately offend the culture that they’re in.
Gheryando: In post 108, I think that the Arabic word for an older woman has an extra “waw” letter [و] in it.
Spiros: For post 121, under which category would you put a European-born-and-raised Muslim woman who voluntarily wore a burqa?
ashish george: On post 123, which countries grant citizenship to resident foreigners, with duration of residency being the only prerequisite?
MarcusAureliusII: I disagree with post 137: Bob Hoskins had an absolutely flawless American accent in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
muslim: For post 166, adultery by both men and women could be punishable by 100 lashes [Qu'ran 24:2] and death by stoning [Sahih Muslim, book 17, chapter 3].
For post 173, a sample BBC report can be read here, where in Saudi Arabia a victim of gang-rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being in the car of an unrelated man — double the Qu'ranic punishment of an adulteress. The rapists received sentences of between two and ten years in prison, rather than the death penalty.
democracythreat: On post 266, the Court ruled on that case this past Thursday, 5:4 in favour of the legal persons (corporations, unions, organisations of all stripes). “Elections! Brought to you by Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe.”
Complain about this comment
If men truly respected women nobody ever would have thought of the burka or niqab in the first place, because women wouldn't have been brainwashed into thinking their sexuality was somehow shameful and that they were to blame for male weakness.
Last summer at the beach I saw a Muslim couple sitting in deck chairs the surf. She was wearing a black shroud with only her face showing and her husband was wearing board shorts with his legs wide open. I felt like going up to him and telling him to cover up because he was enticing women to have impure thoughts. The burka is not about respect; it's about oppression and taking away a woman's identity and individuality.
Complain about this comment
WA;
"So what we've got in fact is two grand dams, one besieging the Checehn president, one - the Russian PM.
Now Putin and Kadyrov can't quarrel, but can't satisfy both grand dams simultaneously"
This problem seems to have come up famously in history at least once before. The judge's decision...cut the child in half.
Complain about this comment
David, I noticed there are two of you :o))))
Don't worry, we, Nicolas the II, by God's will emperor of Russia :o))) always know which is which. (I think Maria mentioned smth recently ab importancce of mental health :o)))))
So, here for you and MA and most importantly MaudDib - MaudDib, I don't know with what to answer to your RiverDance link. We aren't skilled in Irish dances :o(, neither belly-dance - NOR lap-dance, Mavrelius! mind it. (the very idea! )
No idea I mean :o))) that is, what it is (don't even hope! :o)))))))
So, how about Deanna Durbin?
Dear moderators, we are alright with Deanna Durbin, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zhmyl1Wk7Y&feature=related
Well then - you first listen to "two guitars behind the wall took to whining-moaning, motive known from childhood - sweet-heart - that must be you! :o) surely " and then hop over to the right side of the page, the things that the same man has placed - and the top one there is "Serbianka" - watch that.
Now, it is no nothing "Serbianka", but gypsy step-dance which I think shares some steps with RiverDance or may be RiverDance originates from it, I don't know whose step-dance is earlier in origin. But looks suspiciously the same idea. ?
That'll be "Gypsy Vengerka" (Gypsy Hungarian) properly, or simply "The Gypsy" in Russia. The most adored, favourite and recognised tune by all Russians. We cheer up genetically from it. Automatic response. :o))))
When I think of "dancing something" rest assured that's the first steps and moves that come to my mind.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how what that woman thinks about Wet Burka Contests?
[if they're ever allowed by her religion]
Complain about this comment
To ban the burkas would be wrong and unjust. By taking away the right to wear them and cover themselves with them would be saying that their opinion and ideas are higher and more "socially correct" than another's. If someone chooses that way of living than that is a personal choice and freedom which that individual reserves. Morals are something that vary and change with each individual belief and value. For someone to say that the way a person dresses is "limiting" to the community is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. By that statement alone, they are suggesting that their beliefs are right above another's and are more "correct", when, in reality, the other may have the opposite beliefs. I mean, Hello world! Have we not established support for another's beliefs yet? Have there not been enough wars for you to learn to let others be others, let other beliefs be supported? Have we not learned that if one wishes to make a change, one must first change the way in which one looks upon a situation... wow, we have issues.
Complain about this comment
It is only when the burqa is in the minority that women have any rights at all. Basically they exploit the gains made by other women to hold their backwards lifestyle choices and views in relative safety free from oppression. This only works when they are just the fringe. Like how a society only remains free when only a few dare to wear an armband bearing a swastika. When the majority do, then the game changes, and it goes from outcast, to intimidating on its face. Like it or not the burka is a symbol of a certain backwards ideology. It divides people in public into the damned and the saved, the whores and the pure. It divides the genders, it divides everyone. It is the worst form of wearing your religion on your sleeve. It is unearned symbolic moral self righteousness through cloth thrown in the face of everyone you meet, and a barrier to all interaction when the first thing you see if a barrier of ideology.
Never mind the fact that not in a single society where there are burkas are women free, or do the men wear similarly restrictive gear. Apologists for this oppressive instrument of control have no case at all to fall back on. The record speaks for itself.
Complain about this comment
@286Jan_Keeskop
A remarkable cross-section of what is going on in this blog. However, I can not quite understand where does finish the cultural tradition of wearing a burka and where does begin the real threat to what we generally mean as being a democratic society by all western standards?
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
@288 MA
“This problem seems to have come up famously in history at least once before. The judge's decision...cut the child in half.”
If you mean Europe in the aftermath of WW2, you are quite right. However I can’t see any link with the discussed topic. Your everlasting discussion with Alice seems useless. It refers to another historic time…
Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
@291 Anastasia Tatarsky
“I mean, Hello world! Have we not established support for another's beliefs yet? Have there not been enough wars for you to learn to let others be others, let other beliefs be supported”
Dearest Anastasia, you meet all existing standards for being a private secretary of Mr.Osama Bin Laden. Just fill in an application form. I will help you if necessary…Congratulations!
Dear Mr.Hewitt, I guess you have come to the core of the problem by launching the funny (at first sight) discussion about the burka veil. Congratulations! (What a pity indeed that the war THEY wage has no front and rear. Poor old, humble Europe! Poor naïve, sleepy America!).
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #273
This defence of and claim that Females under Sharia Law are the equal of females in Catholicism and of men in general and have as many rights as women in non-Muslim marriages is very unrealistic.
What may have been written in documents long ago or pronounced by learned people in the past and present day does not mean it is the common or indeed uncommon practise in Islam today.
Within Islam as in Christianity the 'female' is put in their 2nd rank place from the off:
'..Oh Mankind, keep your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created ***its mate (of same kind)*** and from them twain has spread a multitude of men and women..' (Qur'an 4:1)
The "..***from it***.." refers to the kind, i.e. 'from the same kind, or of like nature, God created ***its mate***.'
I.e. the presumption, assumption that this supposed divine being always created the 'Male' of the species first!
There is a 'male' lack of adherence to the Law and 'male' interpretation of Sharia to invoke all sorts of qualification to deny 'Female' Muslims an equal place. Muslim Females are not allowed as much right as Catholic or any other 'Christian' women (and that includes Mormon) in the real World. Islamic marriage practises I would say, often border on 'morganatic' in their outcome (though inheritance occurs - - obviously with exceptions most valuable things going down the 'male' lineage - - Women according to Sharia are entitled to one-half of a Male's inheritance). This may have been justified 1,000 years ago when the Man did indeed usually act as provider, protector etc. but, it surely has not been a decisive factor for at least the last Century, however, no change in Islam.
The Qur'an certainly makes clear any female entering marriage has a full right to her 'Mahr' (marriage gift from her husband), but again, in practise this is usually at the lowest end of the scale of things included in the nuptial contract - - Sharia states ownership of the 'Mahr' cannot be transferred to Father or Husband - - often, it is something no male wants (unlike the house, bank accounts, businesses etc.). Again, the 'Mahr' is claimed not to be a symbolic 'price' for the bride, and is to show love and affection between the male & female entering marriage, but in practise the prospective Husband's family will negotiate hard and even refuse marriage if the bride's 'Mahr' isn't in their judgement significant enough - - so much for the 'female' being in control and the affection in which her new family hold her!
It is very much the case within Islamic society the rights, responsibilities and possessions of Females as interpreted by Male dominated Sharia provide for the Husband and Male Heirs to take control. Time and again the Qur'an and Sharia Law imply Women are the 'weaker sex': Sharia Judges - - almost exclusively 'male' - - almost always interpret the Woman's right to decide on any issue, e.g. rearing children, divorce, type of work etc. as being partly determined by the supposed/alleged 'more emotional nature of women' compared to men!. Therefore, these scholars of Islam argue, Females must be 'protected' by the stronger, dominant Males - - not so different from early Christian views, however, its scripture interpretation has evolved over centuries and now recognises women as equal (female priests; though not in Catholicism) - - and in contrast what was stated by the Prophet Muhammad 1,300 years ago is still the norm for most Muslims.
There is no doubt in my mind Islamic Law does not justify the mistreatment of Women by any decree; neither does Islam actually commend 2nd class status of Females.
However, as we look around present day societies there is only one Faith regularly and across a range of Nations, Cultures and Issues allows the frequent exploitation and to some extent degradation of the Female to go unchecked, and in recent decades for such practises to increase: Islam.
Complain about this comment
@219 DT,
"...People who do not understand suicide bombers have no imagination, and no guts."
After they blow up suicide bombers have no guts either :))))
Complain about this comment
Much of what I have read, (or skimmed over) in this thread only serves as confirmation of the fact that many are deeply prejudiced and completely ignorant of the true status and position of women in Islam.
So much hatred for Islam, thinly disguised as concern and pity for Muslim women. Practising Muslim women like me actually know better about our 'condition' than the self proclaimed 'experts' holding Harvard degrees. What is astounding about many of the comments here, is this self righteous attitude held by many that it will in some way be of 'benefit' to Muslim women to criminalise us for wearing the 'burka'! Why not admit that you simply detest seeing Muslim women cover in such a manner, nothing more nothing less. The arguments expressed in favour of a ban are clearly subjective based upon the anti-Islamic hysteria and paranoia that is currently spreading through much of Europe.
I am a Muslim woman, a convert to Islam who chooses to wear the 'burka'. I was born, raised and educated in the West. What many commentators here have failed to acknowledge is that increasing numbers of educated women in the West are choosing Islam and choosing the 'burka'. Many of us are all too privy to the so called 'elevated' status of the 'liberated' Western woman. Many of us have experienced that life and know (all too well) the realities of it. We are not fazed by the arguments that claim that all Muslim women are 'subjugated' and 'oppressed', we know the reality of our high status and position in Islam as we are living it. So, while this discussion rages on, ultimately the actual decision on whether or not to wear the 'burka' lies with Muslim women. Some may be forced but the overwhelming majority, particularly in the West are not.
I have been wearing the 'burka' for about 16 years with pride and I will continue to do so. My body is my own personal space, not for public viewing, this is obviously an affront to some that clearly believe that a woman's body should be public property, and therefore public viewing, however that issue is theirs and not mine, I remove my outer garments and wear whatever fashion I choose in the company of my family and friends, that's the way it is and that's the way it will always be!
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn (171): The wearing of Nazi costumes is not illegal in this country. Anyone who does so (e.g. Prince Harry) is likely to cause some offence of course and be criticised for doing so, but it is not prohibited.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4170083.stm
Jan Keeskop said (286) "Gavin: Congratulations on presenting a topic that has left us hardly mentioning the EU, pro or con."
It's striking though, that (with the exception of Jukka) all the usual pro-EU crowd are in favour of banning the burqua... but then this might be expected of the "nationalists in seach of a bigger country" mindset and Jukka's ire is more unidirectionally targetted at the USA than most.
Complain about this comment
True believer,
I have to ask what do you expect. I have no wish to see anti-Islamic sentiments growing in Europe, but your stance is just encouraging that. Very telling that you show no sign of compromise and a resolute stance that you will always continue to wear it. Just hope you don't live in France as you may be dissapointed.
Any minority which goes against the cultural norms of the host country is bound to get the backs up of the locals. Frankly you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you give some nod to integration and moderate your behaviour, or you take an isolationist non compromising stance and won't be liked for it.
It is your choice, but don't bleat about it when others take you to task.
Complain about this comment
Well Democracythreat, now that you've explained yourself, I find it all much more palatable (in general, not about France's legitimate preoccupations with integration), although if the lack of true differences between parties, the increasing influence of corporations and the tendencies to go to war for all the wrong reasons, equals rising fascism, and it might very well be true, then I hope you realise that the logical conclusion is that there are no real democracies left in the world! And that point of view seems slightly extreme to me, so maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I absolutely see France, the UK and the USA, to name a few, as democracies, imperfect yes, with short comings definitely, but democracies none the less, especially if you compare these with the ocean of autocracies surrounding them.
PS: as you might have guessed, I'm a staunch advocate of laïcité, one of France's best features, so I'm kind of sad you don't appreciate it's merits.
Complain about this comment
TrueBeliever
Re #298
"...thread only serves as confirmation of the fact that many are deeply prejudiced and completely ignorant.." and "..so much hatred for Islam thinly disguised as concern and pity for Muslim women..".
I must acknowledge your right to be concerned about the opinions and perspectives of Islam that Mr Hewitt's 2 Articles have generated.
However, I really cannot agree with your opening statements.
It seems to me there has been a good deal of well-informed and thoughtful Comment by those You may consider opposed to the wearing of a Burka and in favour of the Law presently being discussed in France. Some of the aspects have been debated at length and in detail.
Whilst You may find the views expressed unsettling (even threatening) I do believe it is Your responsibility to consider from whence these attitudes have arisen on such a personal matter as 'headwear'.
No doubt as a 'convert' to Islam You feel Your commitment and interest in Islam very deeply indeed: All credit to you for holding to Your adopted Faith. It seems You feel Your 'faith' is being unreasonably challenged on this issue.
Nevertheless, there are also deeply held beliefs and commitments among those of us who do not agree with Female heads being covered up. Our concerns largely emerge from the 'western' attitude and consideration of Human Rights and what is felt to be normal codes of conduct and dress in 'western' society.
I am afraid it really is not so simple as 'prejudice' or 'ignorance': I believe for the most part it is clear the debate on here has not been the raving and bigotry of 1920-30s style Nazis etc. There has been a good deal of reasoned debate among people with the 'pros & cons' of Religious Freedom/Toleration, Equality of Sexes, Liberalism v Traditionalism and a range of standpoints in between all those.
Having read this debate in full it would seem to me a very unwise attitude to take that it is generated entirely by antipathy to Islam.
To put it bluntly: You and Your Faith are not going anywhere, are you? You are rightly staying put defending, promoting Your stance on how People should conduct their lives in a spiritual and material sense. That is, Your 'God' given right (though I would argue 'Human' origin) and may You feel always protected by the 'western' standards of Law and Order in a civilised society. Those standards where any group or minority should be (though as history shows, regrettably is not always) made to feel welcome and at liberty to carry out their lives within the the precepts of that modern constituted society built around agreed and documented principles of conduct (the Law).
Everyone is therefore subject to Law: Clothing has been as much a part of such social consideration as any other area of the 'west'. The Burka is still a very unusual sight in most of the 'west': That does not make it a problem in itself, however, it is as likely as anything else to attract interest and a part of that interest will be whether a Burka and the Female wearing it is appropriate to the society they inhabit?
There is no escaping these constraints upon modern lifestyles in the secular Governed 'west': Irrespective of the 'Faith' that generates a belief/custom, so, the secular society will have the right to debate and judge if it conforms to the prescribed custom and practise of a Nation.
In an earlier comment I mentioned that Females could not drive vehicles in Saudi Arabia: It was a comment aimed at showing my contention that Islam is illiberal towards Women as interpreted even in the nation at the core of Islam. Plainly you would not agree with my view. However, I do not agree with and did not use it like those who have written on here that because one cannot do this, that or the other in certain Islamic nations it is reason enough to apply Law on the Burka in the 'west'. The Law should be enacted/applied if, after due consideration, it is seen as condusive to the general good order of society. That 'proof' has yet to be provided. Nonetheless, a debate is underway and for Muslims to categorize it as 'prejudice' and 'ignorance' is to entirely miss the point.
"..My body is my own personal space, not for public viewing..". Truly an interesting and remarkable statement for these modern times. Where and when in 'western' society prior to Your convertion did You ever be given to understand it was anything else? How does a Burka make a difference? Pre-Burka were You regularly accosted by Males/Females intent on invading Your person for their own ends? Did You not "..remove my outer garments and wear whatever fashion.." with Your family/friends before You converted: How is it changed?
I assure you I am not being facetious or deliberately provocative: I genuinely ask, what possible advantage can the Burka have brought You other than some pyschological 'support-mechanism' for Your personality?
Complain about this comment
273. democracythreat
Your post is unbelievably stupid. You have just reinforced the idea that women in islam are slaves with that rubbish of power of women over women
291. Anastasia Tatarsky
Beliefs that are in the personal realm are okay. But when they enter the public realm and threaten society they must be prevented. That is why we do not allow retrograde religious practices like female circumcision, child marriages etc. Full burkha falls in the same category.
298. TrueBeliever
Your body is your own. But if you want to enter public places we need to know who you are, your face is not your own. You need to show it. If you are so particular about not showing your face, stay at home. I believe your adopted religion promotes that. Talking about public property, tell us, when men show their faces in public are they now suddenly "public property"?
Complain about this comment
@299 Freeborn John
“It's striking though, that (with the exception of Jukka) all the usual pro-EU crowd are in favour of banning the burqua...”
This fact is undeniable. This is how the crushing majority of us European folks (at least those who are Christians by birth) consider the use of burqua and of other accessories which make part of the Muslim cultural traditions. (By the way, France is not at all the only country within the EU which has recently decreed administrative restrictions for the use of the said veil).
But it is also an undeniable fact that old Europe is much more tolerable to all existing ethnic groups than, say, the discriminative hiring practices to non Muslim locals the Public Authorities still apply in most countries of the Middle East and of north Africa. To that matter, it would be useful to remind the lovely audience of the BBC that no existent religion is preaching openly violence or discrimination. The cultural compatibility between Christians and Muslims depends largely on the degree of education, living standards and democratic traditions. The more wealthy, educated and democratic the society is, the less the cultural incompatibility between all ethnic groups will be….. And then, it will be quite a normal thing to see the Perish priest having his coffee in the company of the local Imam…
Complain about this comment
I do not know why #139 was removed. I am reposting with minor changes
@112 Abdulhafid
"Nuremberg laws had a silent support of the majority of Germans, being seen as "beneficial" to society. Just because the majority thinks something is right does not make it so, this was my point which you evidently missed."
As far as I know, nuremberg laws were unanimously adopted by the reichstag. It was never voted upon by the German society based upon what was good or bad for the society at large.
"But it does entitle her to a right to my support, financial and otherwise, and gives rise to my consequent obligation to provide such support. This is exactly my point."
Don't mix up rights and duties . Here let me try again - your wife as much right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc. as you do. In other words, she has as much right to support you financially as you do to support her financially. She has as much right to develop the talents that help her be financially independent as you do. She has as much right to provide for your children financially as you do.
"You evidently miss the part where I stated that her choice harmed no-one. In all of the issues you cite someone is harmed, be it the child, the female or victims of the murderer. The two issues are not comparable - I do not support child marriage, FGM or terrorism."
And I opine that her choice does harm the society at large. Making half the population invisible has a number of repurcussions not to mention the security threat that veiled people posed. What is the difficulty in unveiling in public places?
@131 ibnMuslim
Why should the women have to punish themselves because men do not have self control? That is like stoning your neighbors dog because your dog barked at it? And talking about rape, the full burkha does not prevent rapes as evidenced by rape cases in muslim countries when the women are wearing a full burkha. Adultery happens in muslim countries too. Recently there was a case of a Saudi man who went on TV and showed his techniques of seducing women. (He was later arrested and punished but if he had not gone on a TV show who would have known?). His case demonstrates that adultery happens even in Saudi the heartland of Islam.
Complain about this comment
I am a person who was raised to think logically and rationally.
Regarding the issue of the "Niqab", I think it is quite logical to assume that in a land where freedom is claimed to be held to the highest standard, women should be able to wear whatever they want to wear, whether it is a mini skirt and a tight top, or a Niqab. As long as my freedom does not intrude on someone else's freedom, then I should be able to exercise it in any way, shape, or form.
In a time of heightened security, it is perhaps considered a valid point that concealing the face could become problematic. However I am quite sure that a middle ground could be established on this issue.
However, The veil (which is covering the hair, but not the entire face) should be completely allowed in any free country since it does not conceal one's identity. If nuns are allowed to wear their outfit in public as they go about their business, then veiled Muslim women should be able to do the same.
Freedom should be allowed to move in two directions, not just one. Like I said, if my freedom does not intrude on someone else's freedom, then I should be allowed to exercise it.
Complain about this comment
TrueBeliever
#298.
How many woman is a man allowed to marry in Islam compared to how many men a woman can marry?
Your allowed one husband while they're allowed four...
Complain about this comment
306. Basel Abu Alrub
Bikinis are not allowed in public libraries. So we do not have complete freedom, do we? Just as bikini, nudity is not allowed in public places, so also should full burkha not be allowed. Veiling hair alone is not a problem (although private companies and organizations should have the right to ban that if they so wish), but the face must always be seen.
Complain about this comment
In a time of heightened security, it is perhaps considered a valid point that concealing the face could become problematic. However I am quite sure that a middle ground could be established on this issue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Security. If you are taliking about terrorism, I don't think wearing the burka or not makes the slightest difference. If you are talking about run of the mill, everyday security to stop crime then I agree with you. CCTV, shop/bank employess and so on should be able to see peoples faces, so it should not be worn in shopping areas, on the streets and so forth.
As for the middle ground, couldn't agree more. No problem with Islamic dress as long as the full face is open to view, isn't that a reasonable compromise?
Complain about this comment
Truebeliever wrote:
"Why not admit that you simply detest seeing Muslim women cover in such a manner, nothing more nothing less."
Very correct and I don't make a secret out of it. I detest seeing people who can see me but who don't allow me to see themselves. In principle, I don't care if they are muslim or not.
"I am a Muslim woman, a convert to Islam who chooses to wear the 'burka'.
As I said before, converts always feel the need to behave in an extreme way to prove to the "natives" that they are part of it.
"I was born, raised and educated in the West."
Not very well, apparently.
"What many commentators here have failed to acknowledge is that increasing numbers of educated women in the West are choosing Islam and choosing the 'burka'."
Ridiculous. Only someone with a feeble state of mental health would wear this thing voluntarily.
Complain about this comment
@289 WA
Alice, you were still a little, nice princess (walking freely under the table) when I first shared with my future wife the pleasure of listening (for the first time) such old romances like ‘Dark eyes’, ‘Two guitars’, and others, performed by Nikolay Slitchenko on the Mariinsky theatre stage (I mean the former Kirov Hall). Gypsy or not, all of those old songs make an integral part of the pure Russian traditions, no matter where your folks live on this globe. .. (You do not integrate that easily like other people do; you are aware, I guess, of this undeniable feature that distinguishes you (bloody Russian folks) from the other nations, inhabiting old Europe…)
Though your post has little to do with the burkha case, I thank you for your kind intervention. It reminds me of my youth, of my first love in St.Petersburg, it reminds me of all those highly educated, decent people I met in your immortal, magnificent city on the Neva… I mean on the Nevsky prospect, on the Vassilevskij ostrov, etc… Thank you Alice!
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
Alice wrote:
" I even agree that the women in Islam hold power - with the correction - small amount of RICH women in Islam. Who can afford a harem these days come on :o))))) Or several wives.
In poor Islam quarters women are oh, - lesser than men in rights. "
Hey, that is not a "small correction". In never said poor women under Sharia had any power at all. In fact, I said the opposite. Poor women under sharia are the slaves of wealthy men and women.
That was sort of my point. The reason i took exception to Ashot was because her militant and highly sexist feminism obscured the reality of rich women exploiting poor women, and thus her views confuse the issue.
Ashot and other feminists want a gender war, and they refuse to look at the political economy of the legal system they are discussing. That gives the wealthy women a pass. So, in effect, Ashot perpetuates the suffering of poor muslim women because she gives the wealthy women a pass. And she does that because she wants to insult and beat up on men. Because she enjoys the gender war.
Now, it is an interesting question whether poor women under sharia have better or worse lives than poor women under the common law or civil law.
There is not much to be said for being a poor woman anywhere on earth. They seem to bear the brunt of suffering. Poor males also suffer horribly, but the hierarchy of female politics (the way females treat females) is generally more cruel. That is what i have seen at girls schools and within families. So, in general terms, I think poor females suffer more than poor males.
But I would also note that many poor women claim sharia offers them protection. Rape of women is virtually unknown in Iran, for example. In the west, we do not speak of how prostitutes live, or whether they suffer rape frequently. From my work with the prisoners legal service however, and dealing with female prisoners in the west, I would offer the observation the poor women in western culture are invisible. There is nothing quite as "disgusting" as to be born into a very low income family as a female in the west. Both men and women find such people repulsive.
But this debate is not about men against women, nor women against men. It is about how a legal system treats the human beings at the lower ends of the social pecking order. To me, this is a matter of human rights and property law. Not gender.
And that is why I find folks like Ashot to be annoying and counter productive. She just wants to fight, possibly to get attention. She is absolutely uninterested in the issues of social class and wealth distribution within extended families.
Now that doesn't surprise me. She went to harvard, after all, and that isn't cheap.
Complain about this comment
janaki wrote:
"273. democracythreat
Your post is unbelievably stupid."
No, that's me. The post is merely words on a page. Any stupidity is mine alone.
The reason I comment on the power of women over women is because I deal with highly intelligent women trying to coerce their highly intelligent daughters into sensible business investment decisions.
Now I am both poor and male, so it all seems incredibly impressive to me.
And when I consider the differences between wealthy islamic women and wealthy christian women, I am afraid i just don't see any significant differences, in terms of intellectual firepower.
Muslim women tend to have exceptionally refined manners, and western women tend to have more exposure to liberal arts and science, but those are very small differences compared to the similarities.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work wrote:
"DemocThreat
Re #273
This defence of and claim that Females under Sharia Law are the equal of females in Catholicism and of men in general and have as many rights as women in non-Muslim marriages is very unrealistic."
True, but then I never said anything like that.
My aim to get beyond the false dichotomy of males and females, and to move the analysis of law and society more towards an understanding of the shared political economy of both sexes. The fundamental unit of social organization is the family, not some grouping of either males or females.
Therefore it seems both pointless and faintly absurd to be talking about how "males" treat "females".
My considered view is that feminism arose at the same time as MacCarthyism. In other words, when class based social analyses was removed from US universities, and anyone who spoke of class was branded a commie and a marxist and lost their jobs (ah, the free west!), then we saw the simultaneous rise of militant feminism.
Instead of arguing for poor women to have more human rights, it became acceptable to make the argument that ALL women were in the same boat. And all men, too.
What resulted was that women from middle class families at university started to compare themselves to males from upper class families, and then used the medium of militant feminism to articulate their displeasure at being denied opportunities in the wider society.
One could not argue against such views without pointing out some inherent realities about class and society, and to do so was to open oneself up to accusations of being a dirty commie and marxists revolutionary or whatever. And so, the militant feminists were allowed to carry on with some of the most vacuous and ridiculous analyses of society that has ever been called higher education.
I find it distressing, as the gender war has now infected generations of folks who would otherwise be happy enough moving around within their social class. There has been a great deal of unpleasantness and bitter acrimony within families, and all for absolutely no good purpose at all.
But such are the consequences of prohibiting rational discussions of class and social law.
Complain about this comment
oh jeeze, there's one in every crowd.
Bozo;
I was referring to WA's assertion that Tsar Nicolas II was a latter day Solomon.
Complain about this comment
Cracklite wrote:
"Well Democracythreat, now that you've explained yourself, I find it all much more palatable (in general, not about France's legitimate preoccupations with integration), although if the lack of true differences between parties, the increasing influence of corporations and the tendencies to go to war for all the wrong reasons, equals rising fascism, and it might very well be true, then I hope you realise that the logical conclusion is that there are no real democracies left in the world! And that point of view seems slightly extreme to me, so maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I absolutely see France, the UK and the USA, to name a few, as democracies, imperfect yes, with short comings definitely, but democracies none the less, especially if you compare these with the ocean of autocracies surrounding them. "
Firstly, Switzerland is a real democracy. I live here, and it works fine. The system is one of direct democracy, and so the people are sovereign. They have the right to veto laws made by party politicians who are sponsored by corporations.
This is an excellent solution to the problem of corporate power evolving into one party fascism, because it allows the society to have all the legitimate benefits of private corporations and yet still retain a mechanism for preventing these fake entities displacing the overall population as the sovereign power in the land.
So my view is that representative democracy evolves, and it seems to be evolving towards fascism.
Interestingly, Weimar germany was widely considered to be the perfect democratic society in the 20's and early 30's. It had a constitution set up by all the very best academic experts on representation as a legitimate form of government, and many saw the new german state as the perfect embodiment of the democratic ideal.
Of course, now we know how easily it all went wrong, and that would be exactly my concern with modern systems of representation. I see a lot of intolerance and hatred growing within the UK, especially. A lot of folks, especially young folks, have good reasons to be angry. They can't pay their bills. The state polices every action and moralizes at them every time they enjoy themselves. There are no jobs for their children. If a corporation loses money, it goes to government for help. If a corporation makes profits, it takes them overseas to avoid taxes. The social infrastructure decays.
But the tide of anger and discontent arising from the corporate exploitation of society is likely not going to be directed at corporate rule. Instead, just as in Weimar germany, it will likely be directed at a cultural minority, and the hatred will be fanned by existing religious diatribes.
Anyway, this isn't my own grand theory. A few folks are discussing the matter in quite some detail. Chomsky speaks very well on the subject.
Complain about this comment
Bozhinoff - I can only imagine the shadow of these feelings but they must be deep. The stuff life is made of.
Complain about this comment
• 20. At 4:25pm on 22 Jan 2010, Abdulhafid wrote:
“Loads of comments here and for the previous post regarding Saudi Arabia and how evil Arabs require all non-Muslims who come there to cover up their heads.”
Your viewpoint is both offensive and short sighted to all, including us Muslims of Europe. It speaks volumes about your ignorance. Since the moderators have refused to delete your comment for the racism I have replied to your comment.
Throughout the gulf you have to dress modestly, exceptions are given for private areas, so much like the person in the article she can dress how she wants in private.
I know this because I currently live in the gulf and are well aware of the modesty laws ( note not rules but LAWS). You missed the point about the places like Saudi and that it is of double standards. We expect to live to the cultural expectations and most of us have no issue with it. We are told to “go home” if we don’t like it. By the way, Christians cannot have a church in KSA (Saudi ) or show Christian symbols.
Likewise for France and UK( where I’m from ) if you want to wear the burka or niqab – go home, it’s not welcome here. It is a cultural item NOT an Islamic symbol, so don’t try to dress it up as a religious aspect. Try looking elsewhere at the rest of Muslim world and see if they wear this item throughout .. They don’t
“It clearly shows that people fail to understand the concept of citizenship - we have certain rights and they are ours not because you can do the same thing in Saudi”
Secondly and as you said most importantly you argue about right of Muslims in Europe, you have full rights. In fact far more that in other parts of the world (guess where?) where you cannot criticise the state or challenge any part of religion. This clothing is not about rights to wear what you want in public, but your general behaviour in society by refusing to accept the cultural expectations.
I would suggest you do not value or understand citizenship since it doesn’t just come with rights, but responsibilities which include such things as not demeaning women in this way and integrating with the culture of society, most Muslim immigrants do so, look around at the older generations and how they have become an important part of our society. It seems to be a new generation and perhaps some of the recent immigrants who seem to want the benefits of our society but under their own rules and ignorance. That is why unfortunately we have the rise of home grown extremists (the misguided, the misled, the ignorant, the uneducated and the brain washed).
Please do not bring the Jewish holocaust in this argument because that is just as offensive to even begin comparing to this situation. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a xenophobic conformist is calling us white racists, plain and simple. That is very short sighted. I could give many examples of racism practiced by Muslims in the gulf.
No one said they had the right to tell you; your wife or daughter how to dress, but rather that you cannot wear this particular garb in public. Your wife and daughter have far more rights here than elsewhere the niqab and burka are enforced.. Period. You noticed no one has said you cannot wear headscarf or anything that covers the hair, body leaving the face exposed? So how can refusal to accept the burka / niqab be a religious or rights issue.
I find it offensive that this dress is considered “Islamic” it is demeaning to use Islam as a reason to wear it.
Security is just simply one of the many reasons cited because we cannot see your face. Newsflash for you Abdul – we have a terrorist security issue in Europe. There was a gang of women here in the middle east who used to steal purses from shoppers in the supermarket and they wore abayas ( similar to niqab ) to hide, and that is just for theft. As regards for Islam it has never said in the Quran you must hide your face behind a veil... Period. it states you must dress modestly. But since you feel that it’s ok for your wife and daughter to wear one then maybe you should as well?
Kindly don’t make out that this issue is so sacrosanct that its presence cannot be challenged
“We, the European Muslims, are citizens of Europe and will insist on our legal rights. These are our countries as much as they are yours. Deal with it.”
I, a European and a British (white) Muslim am a citizen of Europe and insist on my legal rights and those of my family not to be subjected to such blind ignorant use of Islam. You cannot call yourself a European citizen or even truly a Muslim to support such ignorant behaviour. If you are not happy with this, then I suggest you find a more suitable country for your ignorance where you will be most welcome including the lack of right to complain. We the citizens of Europe don’t want or support such behaviour, either accept or leave.. Deal with it.
Complain about this comment
How does it feel to wear the burka anywhere, ask I...and how is it supposed to feel? I don't know...How does it feel having your or your daughter's genitals amputated as so often happens to Muslim women in France, like in so many other places? How much pride does a Muslim mother take in her veiled daughter as her husband arranges her daughter's nuptials when she's still 14? What does it take for a woman who's been oppressed throughout her life to make out in her mind what is her true will and what has been shoved down her throat? I wonder if victimization is something one can always be aware of, or if sometimes it takes some help to open one's eyes...
Complain about this comment
@315 MA
Marcus, this time, I reluctantly agree with you. The last Russian Emperor was a very poor, stupid and selfish administrator. He had nothing in common with his grandfather, Alexander II (liberator of Bulgaria, courageous warrior and intelligent ruler who abolished slavery, and, at the end of his days prepared the ground for a transition from absolute to constitutional monarchy. Unfortunately for him and for Russia, he was assassinated by the anarchists). To compare Nikolay II with King Salomon is at least a strange, if not a ridiculous attempt to present in pink colours the hypocritical atmosphere which prevailed in the Winter Palace during WW1, when Gregory Rasputin was the unofficial prime minister of Russia. .. I am really sorry for Alice…
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
#180 Jean leBon
Good post, mon ami!
To other posters on this blog: please remember that France is a secular society; the principle of laicité was well-established long before there was any potential problem with the wearing of the burqa in public. This particular issue is only one aspect of the current and on-going debate about what it means to be 'French'.
Complain about this comment
WA #289;
We have a saying in my country; "don't knock it 'till you've tried it." And I've heard women say; "a hard man is good to find"....or something like that. And; "a gal's gotta do what a gal's gotta do"...whatever that means???
Complain about this comment
317. At 2:23pm on 24 Jan 2010, Gheryando wrote:
"Bozhinoff - I can only imagine the shadow of these feelings but they must be deep. The stuff life is made of."
EUpris: Gheryamdo!! How about you and people like you starting to imagine how Brits like me feel who have had a lousy dictatorship imposed upon them. This is something that you and people like you seem to refuse to do.
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
#314
I understand that you may think it "..feintly absurd" to discuss how the 'male' treats the 'female', but I think you will find a good many of the non-male gender will disagree especially as yopu characterise 'feminism' as post-McCarthy! Thus dismissing many hundred years of emergence of Females of whom the label 'militant' and the 'socio-economic' discrepancies with the male of the species is but one aspect.
Complain about this comment
@ Basel Abu Alrub #306
France only wants to ban the burqa and niqab, which cover the face, the same way wearing a ski-mask in public (or public nudity) is forbidden. So be careful what you wish for: if anyone was allowed to wear anything they like then it would also be allowed for nudists to parade in front of a burqa-clad woman (ah, the irony)!
Complain about this comment
Charentais;
"This particular issue is only one aspect of the current and on-going debate about what it means to be 'French'."
Having been an outsider able to observe the French up close in their native habitat for nearly two years, I'll tell you what it means to be French, all you had to do was ask. Being French means having enough quotes by mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers to pick one out that will rationalize saying or doing anything no matter how crazy it is.
Je bois du vin, donc je suis!
Complain about this comment
Democracytheat "Firstly, Switzerland is a real democracy. I live here, and it works fine."
I don't recall having said otherwise, since i said that France, the UK and the US were merely examples of democracy, not the sole democracies, obviously (although Marcus Aurelius probably wouldn't agree!). But now that you've mentioned that you're Swiss, do you really approve of a country who's made it's money with the undeclared revenues of it's neighbours (sounds like a cliché, I know, but facts are tough to ignore)? And about the minaret affair, don't you think that it highlights the limits of direct democracy? Cause it certainly feels that way from abroad.
Complain about this comment
Charentais (321) said "France is a secular society; the principle of laicité ..."
The criminalsation of the clothing of minority religious groups is a strange way to demonstrate the seperation of church and state...
Complain about this comment
@Freeborn John #328
"The criminalsation of the clothing of minority religious groups is a strange way to demonstrate the seperation of church and state..."
So tell me, where you live do the minorities of nudists and armed-robbers have the right to run around naked in public or go into a store with a ski-mask on? Yeah, that's right, the ski-mask is forbidden in public in most countries because of security concerns, the same could be said of burqa's and niqabs. And tell me, where you live would you get fined if you pulled your handcuffed wife along a leash or locked her up in your house (perfectly good analogies to the burqa/niqab)?
Complain about this comment
@323EUPRISONER209456731
Am I in the way? I am really sorry if my post 311 was the initial reason for hurting someone’s feelings.
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
@323EUPRISONER209456731
Am I in the way? I am really sorry if my post 311 was the initial reason for hurting someone’s feelings.
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
Crackpot;
"since i said that France, the UK and the US were merely examples of democracy, not the sole democracies, obviously (although Marcus Aurelius probably wouldn't agree!)."
Since democracy by definition is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, by what stretch of lunacy could France or the UK be construed as democracies when their governments denied their citizens the right to veto their inane plans to cede their national sovereignty to an outside agency they don't fully control themselves by denying them a national debate and vote on the EU Constitution in the case of the UK and on Lisbon in the case of both of them? By what right can a government of the people surrender their sovereignty over themselves without their explicit consent? No these are in fact tyrannical dictatorships just as they have been for their entire history. Some of the superficial trappings of a real democracy doesn't make up for their true nature or substance. You were right for once, I don't agree with you about that. In fact this is the first time I may have agreed with you about anything ever.
To the degree that the US has entered into treaties which compel its citizens to obey laws beyond their internal control, it is not fully democratic either. When the consequences of these agreements begin to take an obvious and undeniable toll on the welfare of the American people, there will be an outcry to renounce and escape them. Some of these treaty obligations are outrageous. Any commitment to restrictions on America's self interest in its economy related to the nonsense about global warming would be a good example which is why it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress and never did.
Complain about this comment
Have you ever put the Burka on? I did and it was the worst experience of my life. You feel disoriented, powerless - because you can not see what is happening around you, scared, cut off of the rest of the world, worthless - because you have to hide... I do not believe that any woman, even animal would want to wear this.
Power to the French government! I wish in America we could do the same so that we do not have to walk on egg shells being afraid of insulting Islam if we are not supporting the brainwashing of women hidden behind the religion. If we can not help the women in those countries where they force them to wear Burkas, at least we can help them in other countries where the civilization did not stop two thousand years ago.
If hiding behind the veil is all about not provoking the man sexuality, why do not they put veils on men, so that they are not tempted to look at a woman with lust!
Complain about this comment
Free Born John, on the greater scale Jukks is right, who cares what who wears - is the correct liberal attitude to one's attire, be it plastic bags or mini-bikini, burka the Muslim style or burka what the word means in Russian.
(long men's coat made of baby sheep skin, "karakul", that skin-coat in small baby sheep tight short curl). It's only in the BBC blog that I understand what is burka in everyone else's understanding, for Russian Muslims, for Uzbekistan, for Chechnya, for everyone near-about here in the South "a burka" is exclusively men's attire. Very heavy cloak. Typical cossack's attire. You need strong shoulders and strong horse not to flop down by the weight of good solid burka. Expensive as well. Can be stretched on the ground and used as a bed in an expedition. Can be used as a tent against rain for both the horseman and his horse. An awful useful thing.)
Anyway, on the greater scale of events, skipping burka's symbolism, history of the continent, all it meant or could mean - surely it's one's personal business what fabric in what style to wear.
And Jukks can well be the closest to the USA in his understamding of freedom and all.
However keep in mind that from Jukks' snows to nearest Muslims has always been the distance as up to the Moon. I mean, there always lied Russia-block in between. So Jukks is able to look at the matter with an un-hindered by historical troubles' eye, free of prejudices, scares, etc.
How to say, he feels protected, by own state and by the convenience of awful normally Russia geogrpahy :o) , that comes in handy in this particular respect, double insurance.
Now just you wait what Jukks will tell you about the danger of pan-slavism spread! There he is full of prejudices, scares (etc. :o) like there is no tomorrow and will hedgehog out in eagles like a hedgehog at the slightest hint of it. In that respect he sniffs immediately the meaning of symbols. (aaah those slavs always with an eye how to intervene with their wrong culture into precious Finnish cultural ways and habits) (though I hope he has relaxed substantially over the last year, as minimum, in the respect of my personal intentions to assimilate him! :o))))))
So all is relative.
___________________
Mavrelius and Generalissimus, I am sorry I seem to have confused you both with "we, Nicolas the II, by God's will emperor of (follows the list of empire belongins). It's just a figure of speech, an introductory phrase, a warning, that "Now I am going to joke, pretend I am an omnipotent emperor who has all in his power, and say something which clearly lies beyond my scope of abilities and understanding".
Can't explain simply forget about it.
Still, MA, yes, reference to tsar Solomon solution is correct in this child division case; who is real mum - the Chechen guy LOL or the Lithuanian daughter of Alla Pygachyova?
Well that's why she gave up, because she is the real mum.
The boy is dragged around from one media event to another, shown on central TV channel, mad press-conferences, dear daddy is eager to prove that the child is happy with him, and media happily tears him apart, such a tasty scandal, with political second layer, and from life of Russian celebrities, and all prominent figures take sides and are interviewed, and overall the very photos of a straw-haired blond boy (very cute and good-looking, a picture) in Chechen national costume, trotting side by side to Mosque with Ramzan Kadyrov make front-pages easy.
The boy has already said to the media enough to regret the rest of his life when he grows up, and rightly his mum decided to cut short the show and this vakhanalia by giving up, on the condition that daddy keeps him but keeps him privately, out of the cameras.
The man though says he violated nil laws, as by Russian law a child on reaching the age of 12 has a say when his parents quarrel over him, and his opinion is by law counted by the court and by the judge.
Still, one thing is a court room, another - national media rooms.
Also, by Russian law, parents are free to steal children from each other 10 times a day without warning the other side. The one who grabs quicker and better - is right. :o)))) That is, they are not "free", this is bad but not to be punished a deed. Parent from parent child' take over is not a criminal offence in Russia. (that is why foreign dads also freely grabatise recently their children off away from Russian mums and whisk them away abroad, because by Russian law they aren't criminals, this is "parent stealing from parent" , "family business" case.)
Anyway imagine we go with that to the EU court of Human Rights, how to split that particular child. By money parents are equal, no one has an upper hand is their millionnaire ability LOL to bring up the kid in more comfort. That Lithuanian mum doesn't want the kid to be brought up a Chechen is hardly a convincing case for the European court, who said being a Lithuanian is better than being a Chechen?
The only thing in "our" favour is this harem environment :o))) that both the European court and the Russian on the ground find a poor atmosphere for the boys' eh, how to say, formation and future developement, but that's about it - and any further investigation in that line will only bring forward more questioning of the boy re how exactly he likes it in his daddy's harem street. More dirty linen to be washed up and all.
So for the time being, the Russian-Lithuanian mum gave up, to quiet the things down.
Complain about this comment
France is a secular society (the principle of laicité)…
This was won in the hard way: during the Revolution many of the priests left the guillotines in Place Bastille (these were working around the clock, day and night) without their heads, and their churches have been converted into theatres and restaurants.
Religion is tolerated at home but not in public places…
Religious zealots who came here are kindly asked to abide to these principles. If they are not capable to do so, they should rather go back to their countries and not wait for another Revolution…
Complain about this comment
The main thing, since Chechen court ruled - the boy lives with father, and a Moscow court can't "over-rule" another Russian local court decision - the case can be heard again only in the pan-Russia, upper chamber, court. Granted it will rule "out of harem environemnt - either daddy gives up on his other 4-5-6 how many wives or returns the child back to mum."
I am not sure it is specified particularly, but I strongly suspect "a harem" is against the Russian Constitution :o))))
Then the fun of it is who will execute the upper chamber's Federal court decision. To practically go to Chechnya and snap the boy off Ramzan Kadyrov hands? :o))))))
For he holds at him tight, his recent banner and acquisition, as Chechens continue to flee Chechnya as it became way too how to say religious lately, and Ramzan drives a campaign "all native born Chechens - home".
Smells the 3rd Russian-Chechen war :o)))), such an attempt.
I think Putin and Kadyrov will solve it between themselves to mutual satisfaction of grand mere-s, say half a year here half a year there or something.
Complain about this comment
Someone has asked what it is like to wear a burka. As a western man I have never tried, the nearest I have been is wearing a crash helmet for a motor bike, a balaclava in extreme cold conditions when working outside, and wearing fancy dress. In all cases I couldn't wait to take the things off. All of them to a certain degree are claustophobic and impair all round awarness. I can not for the life of me think why anyone would volunteer to wear something which entirely covers the head without good reason.
Complain about this comment
261. At 11:04pm on 23 Jan 2010, Abdulhafid wrote:
"to pamper them with all sorts of gifts and exemptions including local shariah courts"
The local Beth Din, ie Jewish Halacha court, and its legal recognition in English Family Law of course does not bother you, nor the fact that it has been around for about 300 years.
Abdul... do your homework first before spouting
beth din is a binding civil arbitration system and it is only recognised if both parties are jewish, agree to the ruling of the beth din , and it does NOT ontradict english civil law. It is there to help jews resolve their personal religous matter when a civil court is not likely to understand the matter fully.
it has no jurisdiction, as f, such as divorce,religous litigation and kosher certification. Sharia court it would only be usueful for things such as halal certification.
Note : marriages under UK law cannot be dissolved under Sharia law,hence a reason why before you get married in a mosque, you must have a civil marriage ( thats what I had to do ).
as for the beth din being around for 300 years ... so what! Jews have been around the UK for a long time, written records of jewish settlement goes as far back as the norman conquest ( 11th century ).
as for the fox mouth piece comment, seems like you have been doing that yourself. Sharia courts are known for being predomintly in favour of men intepreting their version of Sharia Law.. and by the way that is the experience of many muslim lawyers ( my wife is one ) and women rights groups ( muslim and non muslim ). Sharia courts will be unaccountable and run by unelected men, so you can't ensure fairness or recourse to unfair judgement other than by invoking english civil law which then means.. whats the point ? Beside most muslim women in the UK wouldn't use sharia courts because the fundamental standards of fairness, of human rights which underpin our laws cannot be abrogated.
Complain about this comment
330. At 5:15pm on 24 Jan 2010, ironfranco wrote:
"@323EUPRISONER209456731
Am I in the way? I am really sorry if my post 311 was the initial reason for hurting someone’s feelings.
Generalissimo Franco"
EUpris: It didn't hurt my feelings. I didn't read it. The "EU" hurts my feelings and my pocket.
Complain about this comment
@334 WA
You are welcome. I just made some comments of what MA wrote in his post @315. Now I understand that the confusion was general and I am sorry for that. I wouldn’t allow myself to discuss what you have just posted here about the pan-Slavism issue or about Alla Pugatchova’ Lithuanian daughter case. I guess nobody among the fellow bloggers here will be interested in the impact the pan-Slavism had over the cultural heritage of a wide range of nations and ethnical groups in Central & South Eastern Europe, in Russia and elsewhere on the globe where some people still consider themselves as being members of the Slavic family. As to Alla Pugatchova, I hardly believe that except for you and me (and Jukka maybe), anybody else has ever seen or heard her name in the medias. … (Alla came to Bulgaria for the first time in June 1975(!) and she won the prize ‘Golden Orpheus’ with her song ‘Harlequin’.)
Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
Gavin!
My unhumble suggestion for something worth investigating: The different way Germans and the Brits care for their inner cities.
It seems to me that the centres of German cities are much nicer places at night. In the UK there are people sleeping rough. I have never seen that in Germany or Switzerland. My guess is that they simply do not allow it. From a documentary I saw in the UK it seems to me that there are people sleeping rough in the UK who do not need to. So why do we allow it? They have to urinate in public, because there are not toilets open.
The home for tramps etc of which I am aware in the UK is in the centre of a town. The one I slightly got to know in Germany was deep in the countryside. In the British town there ia a drug rehabilitation centre and a job centre in the town centre. Both of these bring problem people into the town centre causing serious problems for others. How do the Germans deal with this?
In the British town , a lot of money has been invested in some very nice new buildings (£800 million plus). A lot of that will be wasted if the reputation it has acquired for violence at night stops people from going to the nice restaurants and from living there.
Bus Driver (BD) on phone to police:
BD: Somebody has stolen my BMW!
Policeman: Is it a green one, Sir?
BD: Yes! How do you know?
Policeman: We're chasing it down the motorway now, Sir.
Complain about this comment
"we know that the wives of the prophet were dressed like this, they were fully covered"
Did she mean that when the 52-year old prophet married the 6-year old Aisha, she was also "fully covered" ?
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo, since you are back and mentioned Slichenko, - here is his nephew for you. MA and MaudDib, in case you watched the prev. entry. - this is class and style, if we are going professional :o)
Private video, blurred view and badly recorded sound, recorded at a cafe of the Gypsy Theatre. but that is the essence. As the commentary says "he said it all". School, un-interrupted traditions, for way too many made it a mass-market show, money earning business. ugh. this chap isn't after money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESErGV4LeQ4
Complain about this comment
@335 JeanLepire
I didn't know that Opera Garnier was a cathedral before it became a public place. (The good news however is that a good many of the Paris churches & basilicas offer classic concerts at summer time much to the disappointment of the parishioners). No need to wait for another Bastille day. The priests became salesmen of tickets whereas the archbishop has assumed the job of coproducer. Now it is the turn of the mosques and the burkha case will be closed for ever...
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
In France it is mandatory for car drivers to wear a seat belt. Official reason: consequences of accidents are lessened that way, and thus it saves money for the health insurance.
For the same reason, motorcyclists must wear a helmet.
And for the same reason, people should not be allowed to cover up entirely. Vitamin D is manufactured by the skin from the sun. Without vitamin D calcium is not metabolized properly. Calcium is necessary for strong bones of course, and also for proper ion transfers through the cells walls. With insufficient calcium the immune system, among other things is weaker. So people who do not get enough sun are likely to develop all kinds of health problems at any age, and osteoporosis as they get older.
Not only are those women costing me money (I pay for the health insurance), but they are also bad mothers. How can an unborn child develop well from an unhealthy mother? Don't they care?
I remember reading that all kinds of scientific developments have come from the Arabs in the old days, but not anymore. Maybe that's why.
Complain about this comment
338 kuching66 says
"as for the beth din being around for 300 years ... so what! Jews have been around the UK for a long time, written records of jewish settlement goes as far back as the norman conquest ( 11th century)"
You must be aware that this is only part of the story. The Jews were expelled from England by Edward l in 1290 and banned from the country for nearly 400 years on pain of death. England was also the first country in Europe to make them wear a yellow marker badge in 1218. There was therefore no trace of Jews in England until the act was repealed in 1655. Although Charles II had some in his retinue when he returned from exile and a few came over with William and Mary, they only came back in any real numbers with George I from Hanover in 1714.
Complain about this comment
What she and others don't understand is that yes, Mohammad's wives were veiled, but it wasn't to set an example for the rest of the women. It was to distinguish his wives from other women, to set them apart. Nowhere in the Quran does it say that all women are on equal levels as Mohammad's wives, or they should be treated as such.
Complain about this comment
@343 WA
Dearest Alice, thanks again for the Hungarian gypsy performance. In the old days, my Russian colleagues did teach me the ‘step’ dance while being on fatigue duty at the naval academy on the Vassilievsky Island. Later, I used to improve my dance techniques at the Sevastopol’s nr.13 repair yard, where our sub used to call once a year for docking & repairing. Oh youth, the strength of it, and,…the madness of it… Thanks again Alice, you have a golden heart…
Complain about this comment
http://www.artypolitics.com/2010/01/burkas-youre-worth-it.html
Complain about this comment
Alice (334): On this issue i am in agreement with Jukka, for example where he says (192) "I myself am against these kinds of bans on clothing, if a woman wants to dress into something, then she has the right to do it, but she has also right to not to dress into it." I share many of the concerns about the burka raised by Maria Ashot and you in 209. But like wildfawn (43, 68) I don't think my opinion, or that of anyone other than the wearer, justifies a legal ban when the woman herself wants to wear the burka.
I share your belief (from post 298 of the previous thread) that women have progressed in the West not by accident but because they fought for their rights, and I hope and trust women will fight and win similar progress in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The empowerment of these women might have the consequence of them discarding the burka, but the latter can never be the cause of the former. Freedom cannot be gifted to women (or anyone else) by a presidential decree from the Élysée Palace, especially in the form of a law ordering them to change their clothing against their will. People cannot be forced to be free. Women have to want it themselves, and strongly enough that no man – including the president of France – can order them how to dress.
BTW – I liked the clip from "The Hand"! (And MA2's quip "The Soviet censors allowed what BBC censors won't" ;-). I had not heard of Jiri Trnka before.
Complain about this comment
346. At 8:34pm on 24 Jan 2010, margaret howard wrote:
338 kuching66 says
margret ..
thank you for adding to the story even though you took it out of context.
there was in fact a jewish prescence since the norman conquest even when they were expelled, there were still some here in england
They were accepted in england under cromwell even if they were not readmitted offically ( cromwell used them for finanace ).
However the point of my comment was to point out that the jews had been around england for quite some time even if the beth din wasn't. To point out to adbul who made an issue that the jews and the beth din had been in england for 300 years. To also point out that it makes no contribution to the arguement for shari court
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Reading some of the comments here I wonder if I read the same article above. Where did anyone saw that the government will order women what to wear? Where is all this paranoia coming from? All that the French government is trying to do is save some women from wearing something ridiculus, and if it stops a few women that realy want to wear that sack from wearing it, it saves the rest of us seeing such a pathetic showing. Frankly I don't care much about what the prophet (fat chance he was one), Chist, budha or other lunatic or conman said some thousand years ago, but I care about seeing some people walking around in sacks. As I would care about seeing people walking around in with stockings covering their face, balaklavas or KKK hats. It may not suit someone ultra-libral or ultra-personal freedom believer but people living in a society have obligation to behave in a fashion acceptable to that society and not go about traing to convince everyone around them that what some lunatic said some thousand years ago is more important in their lives than their fellow citizens. If they still hold that view then the freedoms and the rights they enjoy in that society can be taken for granted without accepting their obligations. I would love, someone to show me where a person's own rights are great that to the sum of the people around him/her.
Complain about this comment
WA,
I have this computer game called Dream Chronicles -- made in France...all of adventure puzzle games are made there in France...
But it has fairies (lol sorry) all thru out. Do all French fairy tales come from Russia? I love French computer games--they are a big player in this catagory...yes I'm 51 years of age.
But, ultimately culture transcends initial hostilities and I advise all women in burkas to play French computer games (maybe carrying Nintendo DSis around)...to be integrated ...ie, get out and about.
:)
Complain about this comment
OH NOW I MUST WATCH LORD OF THE RINGS AGAIN....&*^%$ HELL
Complain about this comment
ironfranco, this moderators will never let through, it's 2007 patented :o)) Fresh, I mean.
So, dial in you tube search line SevaXXL
There will open a list of what that SevaXXL :o))) had placed.
The second one from top "Sebastopol shall stay Russian".
It's not ab current things, but Ukrainians are hysterical anyway :o)))
It's about 2 sieges of Sebastopol, the Crimean war and the 2ndWW.
Now we are besieged for the third time :o))))
Complain about this comment
WaA;
"The boy is dragged around from one media event to another, shown on central TV channel, mad press-conferences, dear daddy is eager to prove that the child is happy with him, and media happily tears him apart, such a tasty scandal, with political second layer, and from life of Russian celebrities, and all prominent figures take sides and are interviewed, and overall the very photos of a straw-haired blond boy (very cute and good-looking, a picture) in Chechen national costume, trotting side by side to Mosque with Ramzan Kadyrov make front-pages easy."
Don't knock it WebAlice. It's more entertaining than the five year plan for heavy machinery production you used to get instead. Fifty million pairs of shoes produced in the last five year plan, mission accomplished. So what if at the end we realized they were all made for left feet? In the next five years we'll make them all for right feet :-0 Model A Ford, any color you wanted...as long as it was black. Soviet suits, any color you wanted...as long as it was gray.
I understand this one ad that was so funny got the Soviet government to beg that it be taken off American television. They just couldn't take it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFaIcx0WkOY
Complain about this comment
EUpris: Gheryamdo!! How about you and people like you starting to imagine how Brits like me feel who have had a lousy dictatorship imposed upon them. This is something that you and people like you seem to refuse to do.
lol
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius! :o)))) "Ver-r-y nice"
btw that man, in "Hand" :o) ("briliant ruka") - he came to that girl exactly to buy a gown, for his wife, she promised him, in the shop, to fetch him somehow a foreign that bath robe approx. or something. That's why if you saw the clip, he feels the cloth of her gown, she says "after all, why wait? my gown is exactly of the same quality I can sell this very one to you." :o))))
Reality! On the ground! Everything was "obtained", via acquaintance, nothing bought straightforward in a shop. Because idiotic central planning of "State Plan" I don't know who sat there planning all for all on top, they could never plan for matching colours in one city, or for socks your size, or exactly as you said - all left boots sent to Sebastopol by trains, all the right ones :o))) to Vladivostok. In summer you got winter things in the shops, then umbrellas in January, Uzbekistan was excellently supplied with books (which they never read), far north permafrost with spades, so all all did was re-sending things to each other all Soviet Union around like mad. And the most precious acquaintance was a sailor who brought home by tons things bought in foreign ports.
Complain about this comment
Central planning from one centre always results in clinical idiocy. Don't know why.
And whole planning purchasing institutes worked on that! And whole distribution institutes! One would think that with an army of men working on it for a salary, as min. - the things made in the USSR could be delivered to right places in right q-ties at the right time. No way.
Sun-tanning lotion exclusively in Chukotka.
Complain about this comment
Anyway back on topic.
If I were a sultan I would have 3 wives
And then by triple beauty - I shall be terrorised! sorry. surroun-ded.
But, on the other hand, at such a lay-out
- So many troubles and expenses - ah, save me, Allah!
It's quite not silly - to have whole 3 wives
It is far better, on another side.
So, how should we, sultans, go about it?
How many wives is the norm, after all - three or only one?
To the question like that - there is an answer simple:
If I really were a sultan - I'd stay a bachelor!
:o)))
Dear moderators, may I remind you you let this link through a year ago. And nothing bad happened :o)
It's an old film, and exactly on the subject of the thread: a gang steals a girl for a local richie man, on his order, to become his wife.
Only she doesn't want to, but it's Caucasus, no choice.
Place - USSR 1970.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Central planning from one centre always results in clinical idiocy. Don't know why."
The answer is simple. As an organization, any organization whether it is a governmnt for a population, a business, anything gets larger, the number of variables, their complexity, their specificity to their particular situation increases also. It quickly gets to a point where it is impossible for any group of individuals at the center to understand and successfully address all of them. The natural tendency to find a one size fits all solution fails increasingly with size of what is to be controlled. (Some organizations are successful when they are small but become failures when they grow because they don't replace management systems that become counterproductive to the larger organization, they are too centralized, too authoritarian.) It doesn't matter whether it is the EU, the USSR, the US government, or General Motors. The principle is always the same. Those whose culture or personal psychology predispose them to want to exercize centralized control become despots who act like a bull in a China shop shouting orders and demanding strict compliance. They look for scapegoats when those under them inevitably fail and they do not recognize that the failure was built into the structure, an inherent flaw whose consequence was guaranteed from the start. Any succes in the organization is achieved in spite of them, not because of them. But when those who are weak and indecisive are put in such positions they become overwhelmed and anarchy and chaos ensues because nobody knows what they are supposed to do, the organization lacks direction.
My first job after school was as a management trainee at Bethlehem Steel, at the time the second largest steel company in the US and the 26th largest corporation in the US. The basic principle underlying their management philosophy and presumably that of all other large successful American corporations is decentralization of power. They could not stress that enough in the training program. That is the center pushes power away from itself as far as it can to the greatest degree possible. It pushes both authority and responsibility for exercising it to where it is closest to the task at hand. Those who are most successful are promoted. The center gives those on the periphery whatever tools it can in the form of management training, money, and mechanisms are created to share experiece across the organization of what works and what doesn't. The communications networks are both horizontal and vertical. And the vertical communications are upward as well as downward. Whatever standards are established are constantly reviewed and subject to revision to correct for failures and incorporate ideas for improvement. American govenment works much the same way. These are the secrets of their success. It is usually when they forget this that they get into trouble. They don't do this because of some high minded philosophical principles, they do it because it works, the model of centralized authority doesn't. At the center, the corporate structure only consumed 1% of the entire corporation's revenues. The rest went to the operating units. They submitted their budgets, their business plans, and were accountable for meeting them. When they didn't meet them, there were no recriminations, just analysis of "lessons learned" to improve future performance. If the cause was for example "market conditions" it was simply accepted and they moved on. If it was due to human error, it was analyzed and processes were put in place to prevent it from happening again.
BTW, many years later.....the company went bankrupt :-)
Complain about this comment
Abdulhafid writes: "As for niqab. No government has the right to tell me, my wife or my daughter how to dress. Period. This is not the issue of security or offence. Those people supporting it are simple xenophobic conformists who yearn for years past when white culture ruled."
Really? What if the government (rightly or wrongly) passes a law to that affect? Will it not then have a right to tell you, your wife, or your daughter "how to dress"? I believe they would and if you don't like it, you have the right not live under those unpleasant conditions.
Regarding your vigorous defense of Saudi Arabian 'tolerance' of foreign dress code in that country, pray how many non-moslems are allowed to become citizens there? I believe the answer is a big goose egg. The 'tolerance' you speak of towards Chinese and Korean women working at the docks is due to economic dependence and not because of any egalitarian acceptance. Saudis, unfortunately, continue to be the most backward in the world on that count. For instance, don't the Saudis have a law there that holds a foreigner responsible if he / she is in a wreck with a Saudi citizen -- regardless who hit whom? The logic being if the foreigner wouldn't have been in the country, the wreck wouldn't have happened! Non Saudis (like myself) who don't like that refuse to go there instead of fighting their ridiculous (and mostly medieval) laws (like amputating limbs and beheading, etc.).
I understand the Koran does not mandate Moslem women to wear a Burkha. This is a creation of their over-zealous men. I believe for every one of the lady profiled in this piece, there would be ten moslem women in Europe who are forced to wear this garb by their men folk. I personally know of many such cases from the boasts of Moslem friends of mine.
Hopefully, laws like the French are contemplating will force such men to accept the 21st century. At least, we can hope so!
Complain about this comment
David "Do all French fairy tales come from Russia?"
They actually came from Charles Perrault's book « les contes de ma mère l’Oye » in 1697 (a century later the Brothers Grimm retold some of those stories), it was the very first fairy tale book, although the tales were not specifically french, they were just very old oral tales her mother knew and witch were simply put on paper for the first time by Perrault. Historical masterpiece none the less, I highly recommend it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Crackpot;
My favorite French fairy tale is the one where the entire world will recognize that France is the superior model of civilization for all others to follow. That reading french literature and french history, listening to french music, speaking the french language, drinking french wine, eating french food, and trying to be as much like france and the french as possible will bring the Garden of Eden back to mankind on earth. I've heard the french tell that fairy tale all of my life...although somehow lately not so convincingly as they used to. That's what happens when you grow up, you stop believing in fairy tales.
Complain about this comment
I know Charles Perrault fairy-tales, have a thick book since childhood, all Russian children know them by heart. Only I didn't know how he is spelled, the Russian book is titled "Skazki Shahrlya Perro"/ Sharl Perro's fairy-tales. Exists in million various editions with different illustrations. Absolutely lovely.
David :o( all have own fairy-tales; how could you ? :o)))))
______________
I am very very un-happy that my post above was referred to. I will wait until the reason arrives to the e-mail. I hope it is someone of the bloggers and not BBC own initiative.
Because, Mavrelius, if it is BBC - it's worse than ? "Ideology department of the Komsomol party".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#344 ironfranco Generalissimo
Dear Generalissimo
Opera Garnier was built in 1875, much later than the French Revolution (1789). Garnier designed the new opera in a style he thought would symbolize the Second Empire. However, empress Eugénia qualified the thing as « What an awful duckling, it has no style at all, it’s not Greek nor Roman ». At the opening, Garnier was forced to pay his ticket…
However, Opera Garnier was built amidst the next Revolution, the “Commune de Paris”…
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Because, Mavrelius, if it is BBC - it's worse than ? "Ideology department of the Komsomol party".'
WA, I told you that already. Why the surprise. If BBC had made the first 25 million shoes all left feet, they'd make the next 25 million all left also and then try to convince its audience that people only have left feet. That's how they work, that's how they report the news too. Tass, Izvestia, the Soviet propaganda ministry were bumbling amateurs compared to BBC when it came to telling lies and censorship. Of course they do study the best there is....ours. We go even BBC one better. We have at MIT....Noam Chomsky, a "linguist" who is an expert at twisting language to tell lies and he does it so expertly that few people see through them. Even the great American attorney Alan Dirschowitz has struggled with him during their debates. Quite clever techniques too...like redefining the meaning of words, using them pejoratively, and then only later under severe cross examination admitting that he'd done exactly that.
I think your previous posting was referred by BBC's screener, it never appeared to where someone viewing it could complain about it. BTW, they never tell you why or how it broke the rules. Those rules seem to be interpreted differently by different moderators. You will need to invent subtle tricks to say what you want cleverly without breaking them. But I thought after all the experience with Soviet censors, Russians would be expert at that. BBC censors are admittedly tougher and more restrictive as I demonstrated to you previously.
Complain about this comment
I feel inclined to agree with her that people should be allowed to dress as they please in a free society. However, what sort of God would want women to cover up so much? It defies logic since, after all, we were all born naked...
Complain about this comment
Yes, I think by BBC. One loses inspiration to write. So dull.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
S6rry, Cracklite,
I knew better. I just remember a great fairy tale book from childhood that I can't get my hands on for transferring down (to generations)
And I'm bitter :O)))))))
Complain about this comment
After the film "Avatar" James Cameron started to film "Moderator" and "Moderator - The Judgement Day".
Complain about this comment
WA;
If Hollywood depended on me to earn a living, a trip to MacDonalds would be a big night out for them. The last time I paid money to see a movie, someone had dragged me kicking and screaming forcing me to see Jurassic Park. Naturally I was rooting for the dinosaurs to eat the children. Usually when these movies are on TV or I have tapes of them or they are in the library for borrowing, I don't even watch them for free. If I want to see something gruesome, violent, maniacal, irrational, immoral, exasperating, infuriating, and unpalatable...I'll watch the news.
Complain about this comment
WA #289
I'll see your Deanna Durbin and raise you a Lauren Bacall. Though I admit high notes are not her thing. Similar scene though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFfuUu5xmMA
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"If I want to see something gruesome, violent, maniacal, irrational, immoral, exasperating, infuriating, and unpalatable..."1
I go to my job:)))
1. Marcus A. II, Jan. 2010
Complain about this comment
marcus wrote:
"We have at MIT....Noam Chomsky, a "linguist" who is an expert at twisting language to tell lies and he does it so expertly that few people see through them. Even the great American attorney Alan Dirschowitz has struggled with him during their debates. Quite clever techniques too...like redefining the meaning of words, using them pejoratively, and then only later under severe cross examination admitting that he'd done exactly that."
Marcus, maybe you can cite the case of chomsky admitting these things under severe cross examination for me. I'd be very pleased to see it.
I have my own criticisms of chomsky, but I wouldn't call him a liar.
Tell me, have you read "Manufacturing Consent"?
You strike me as a man who could think for minutes on end about the political economy of the mass media.
Incidentally, I have been highly critical of Hewitts' journalism lately, so I should throw him a big thumbs up for this latest series of blog entries. Great stuff, really good journalism.
Never doubted the man.
Complain about this comment
Gee, Jan Keeskop has been modded!
Seems everyone is getting a taste of the lash these days.
Complain about this comment
Tanigia, No. 333: Thank You!
The full-body veil is advocated by the people who blew up a girls' school in Pakistan the other day.
It is advocated by people who sentence old women and young girls alike to punishment by lashes -- and not just a few lashes: 40, 50, 90... Enough to kill & cripple for ever. And for what?
(No, of course that statement does not mean every person writing here who likes the veil is actually capable or interested in blowing up girls, or schools, or in using lashes as punishment. But it is a fact on the ground, so to speak, that there is a strong correlation between the belief that girls & women must submit to a different & stringent code of rules, including veiling in public, and a willingness to apply violence -- even extreme violence -- to enforce that code.)
Here we are, being warned now (in today's Telegraph) to brace ourselves for terrorist attacks by suicidal women "who will not look like they come from Arab communities" and others who are "not men" (i.e., possibly young children or teenagers) -- and we are still debating this subject?
Let's say there are one billion adult Muslims in the world. One thousand million. One-tenth of one percent would be one million. One tenth of that would be one hundred thousand. Suppose there were "just" one hundred thousand Muslims -- one one-hundredth of one percent -- who actually sympathised with violent attacks on civilians for rejecting the ideology of a Khomeini, a Khamenei, an al-Sadr, or a Bin Laden. Shouldn't that be in and of itself be a compelling enough reason to feel nervous around those Muslims who choose to make a public statement about their allegiance to these narrowest of interpretations of mediaeval doctrines, by insisting on wearing black sacks on the street?
It might be easy enough for someone to conceal their true feelings behind outwardly unexceptional dress. But isn't the whole point of wearing a burka or niqab to emphasise one's degree of commitment to the most rigid, most traditional form of Islam -- the one that required men to go forth and conquer, and did so ruthlessly & successfully for well over a thousand years?
When Bin Laden and his followers or associates go about recruiting in London, in Sweden, in the Americas, in Australia, in Russia, in Africa -- having made an explicit "declaration of war" (however absurd) -- and when soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, in Pakistan and India, across the ME, in the Caucasus -- when civilians are being targeted with increasing intensity -- isn't it time to say: "At least until the cessation of hostilities, if your outward appearance is intended to communicate belonging to groups at war with our forces, we reserve the right to intervene?"
Complain about this comment
No. 311, bozhinoff: Why "bloody Russian folks"?
And on what basis do you allege we "do not integrate that easily"?
I beg to differ. Seems a bit ad hominem of you.
From as far back as Anna Yaroslavna, and as recently as Turgenev & Bunin & Rakhmaninov & Nabokov: how dare you suggest we "do not integrate that easily"?
Complain about this comment
Your comments, Maria Ashot, are pure, perspicuous, and to the point. Excellent.
Complain about this comment
No. 334, Alice:
No, actually it is the same "burka." What you call "traditional Cossack attire" was actually borrowed from the native peoples of the Caucasus mountains when the Cossacks were sent there (along with regular troops) to help put an end to the slave trade. Because a great deal of all that effort to secure the southern borders of Russia had to do specifically with ending the scourge of slavery: for century after century, Russians (as well as other nationalities) and especially young women, children and lads, were systematically abducted by Muslim raiders for resale (primarily in Istanbul).
The burka of the horseman was the ideal poncho for the mountain passes & variable climate. But it was also the exact same garment as the one worn by the woman, only in the woman's case her face would also be veiled and her head fully covered. And no, not by delicate silk cloths: by the same exact type of heavy impermeable cloak, that go over an under-cloak, that would go over a lighter long coat, that would go over the usual dress, that would go over the basic undergarment (one or even two thin floor-length shifts).
All this was described in great detail by Pushkin, Lermontov, Dumas and Tolstoy, amongst others (including many English and Scottish travelers in the region).
The burka of women in Afghanistan today is only blue, of one piece and somewhat thinner than the original burka of the mountain communities because of the difference in weather (in the cities of the Afghan plain, which is where the media cameras photograph) & also the decisions made by merchants as to what is cheapest to produce while still substantial enough to fetch the best price. It is still an uncomfortable, imprisoning uniform imposed on women.
The black sack you see on the streets of fashionable Muslim ladies in most of the European capitals (but almost never in Russia) is the garment of choice from the considerably hotter Arab Peninsula.
The reason there is a controversy is that it is not legitimately any "free choice" about wearing such garments. The garments are imposed from above by a hierarchy of old clergymen, and girls are trained from babyhood to embrace those strange robes as their "destiny" if they wish to be on good terms with the clergy.
We are trying to convey to those Muslim elders who are still lucid & pragmatic that it is really not necessary to keep insisting that girls and women cover up in black, from head to toe, when outside the confines of their home. The world has changed in the 1400 years since the Qu'ran appeared. Even if an imam wishes to wear long robes and a turban, he is not walled off from the world by his clerical robes. And he enjoys many more freedoms than most girls & women do, anyway, regardless of how they dress.
As for the case of the custody battle you describe, these kinds of battles are taking place all over the world, amongst all kinds of couples, across all cultures and ethnic groups. There is nothing the least unusual about them, as sad as they may be. The women of the former USSR, as a result of the 85 or so years of isolation from the rest of the world, remain tragically naive about the vast range of character types that exists out there. They are unusually susceptible to forming unfortunate alliances and then paying a heavy price as they attempt to extricate themselves -- often after there are already young children involved.
And there is also quite a share of conniving, unstable, predatory women from the ex-USSR. High numbers of them make their way out to the States, for example -- the migration of choice -- and we have all run into significant numbers of them... The stories are often indescribably sad.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If a Moderator is bias, will this then be a fair showing of our freedom of speech,?
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John, No. 350: There was a time when people everywhere objected to their children being required to attend school. First, some objected that their boys were being made to attend compulsory education programmes. Then, the girls' turn came: more objections.
Just as the state has the power and authority to require children to be educated, girls as well as boys, it has the right to require the parents -- by law -- to refrain from abusive practices, to safeguard the mental health of the young, to care for them and so forth.
Passing an explicit ban on the wearing of burkas in public places in France, and on the wearing of niqabs to schools or workplaces (for example) is a mental health issue. It is also an abuse prevention issue.
Believe me, as a woman, once a girl: no girl who is mentally well will Of Her Own Free Will cover herself up, her hair, her face, her entire body (head to toe) just to step outside the door. This kind of "choice" is actually the result of prolonged indoctrination by dominant authority figures who browbeat, shame, compel, deceive -- and even physically beat -- the young child into thinking there is something wrong or dishonourable about showing her face or her hair to the world.
After a while, the child gives up fighting and arguing. It is really not very hard to break the spirit of most children, as we know from studying so many cases of severely abused children. After enough abuse they themselves are at greater risk of becoming sociopaths, as we have just seen from that awful case in the UK.
How does FGM, for example, get perpetuated? How on earth would a mother who remembered this kind of atrocity being committed on her own body then turn around and do it to her own daughter?
Why did Chinese families for millenia smash & bind the tender tiny feet of their very young, precious little daughters?
Tribalism creates powerful compulsions to perpetuate even ridiculous and blatantly evil practices.
Forcing all the girls and women in a society to spend most of their lifetime in this kind of compulsory "gift-wrapping" denies them their essential human dignity. It convinces them that they are lesser, different, apart -- and, crucially -- that the world is somehow "the enemy."
In Russia, whence 'Alice' writes, there has been a revival of monasticism. Accordingly, you might see nuns or monks in full-length black robes, as well as priests in traditional cassocks. But these people take vows; they choose a life path & a spiritual discipline that culminates in their putting on these clothes, as adults, just as Buddhist monks or other monastics might in other parts of the world.
Imagine if the Patriarch of Russia or Constantinople, or the new Patriarch of Serbia, issued an edict requiring all girls and women to dress as nuns when out on the street. The whole world would be up in arms. They would be calling the Russians, the Greeks, the Serbs "backward, tyrannical, despotic, oppressors of women." And they would be right to.
But no one in the West, up until now, seems to have the strength to say "Boo!" to the Burka Brigade.
Could... Oil... have something to do with it?
Wouldn't that be hypocritical of us?
Complain about this comment
As usual your network is protecting Islam, because you don't want your readers to know the truth about this violent vicious so called Religion. Sad,You are betraying the American People by hiding the facts on this Radical Religion,we have a right to be informed on our Enemies, especially since 9-11, who's side are you on anyway? Semper Fi. Decorated Vietnam Vet.
Complain about this comment
IT'S OK, THERE ARE OTHER SITES THAT ARE NOT AFRAID TO PRINT AND SHOW THE TRUTH. TANK YOU ANYWAY.
Complain about this comment
Uff, the moderators are giving me a hard time with their ruthless approach to removing my comments that say negative things about religion now, before it was negative comments about the Chinese government :))
OK, I try again
The French government is right to write laws to stop women wearing the burga, for many reasons that range from protecting the women themselves to protecting the other citizens of the state. A state not making laws prohibiting the use of clothing that masks faces should be accussed of derelection of duty.
1)The women that wear it, contrary to what their supporter claim either on religious grounds or free will grounds. Do not wear the burga out of free will. They didn't wake up on morning and though today looks like a good day to put on a burga. That would be free will. They wear it for one of two reasons, either because it is expected of them by their relatives (hardly free will) or because the fantacy they believe demands it of them (hardly free will)
2)Some people in previous posts claimed that farmers were intelectualy dumb, I would use the same argument here and say women that wear the burga for religious reason are more than intelectualy dumb on top of it are delusional as well and they more than farmers need state help, as when someone reaches that state of intelect does need help.
3)The argument that the state has no write to tell people what NOT to wear (not what to wear as some people twist the point) is wrong the French state as most other states that are free and democratic have a right to make laws that can state that certain appearance is not acceptable. That could range from wearing a burga to wearing a KKK hood.
4)The argument that the state should not interfier as long as a person does not harm anyone else, again that is not logical either, people that commit suicide do not hurt anyone else either but the state considers that illegal and if there are any symptoms that indicate someone may commit suicide the state will interfier to stop it.
5)The argument that it is writen in a religious script a woman should dress in a particular way does not hold water either, what someone wrote thousands of year ago, is not relevant in today's France. What is relevant in France today is social harmony for all its people and for the state not to pander to the tandrums of a small immature group of people, that believe that they only have rights in a society but no obligations.
6)The paranoid argument that France and Europeans are anti-islam, is a ridiculous counterargument to divert attention from the issue at hand, that is why should a woman in today's France wear a burga! The short answer is that there is no reason at all. It has nothing with been anti-islam, it is pro-human!
I hope the moderators don't find anything wrong with this :)))
Complain about this comment
wolfster has a point... let's not kid ourselves: we all need more insight into what others are thinking.
Each and every Al-Qaeda video gets all kinds of air time, translation, transcription. No one censors this content because it might be offensive to the sensibilities of the families it suggests ought to be slain by terrorists for failing to "comply with guidance" (Obama's latest catch phrase, according to CNN or BBC or both).
But those of us who speak out against Al-Qaeda and its ideologues are being subjected to a harsh scrutiny that seems to imply hostile intent.
All we are doing here is debating. The House Rules are clear. I, for one, follow them. I cannot help but get the impression that there is some bias on the other end of the filtering system. Or maybe you are just so overwhelmed with content -- and the pro-Muslim factions give you no peace -- that you give up?
We are not hurting anyone by pointing out the inconsistencies about living in the EU in the 21st century according to 7th century rules formulated for the Arab peninsula.
Complain about this comment
@395
Phew good to see that other people are suffering from overkeen moderators here also.
(Sorry Maria Ashot, for finding you suffering good) :))
I had to read someone's comments about how great "The prophet" is, but when I commented that to me he is just another guy, not that great and not so much of a prophet and I fail to see why clothing attire designed 1500 years ago is suitable to today's France needs, it got removed??? Why?
Complain about this comment
I belive we have the right to make evry christian country's safe if u don't feal good i chrstianity's land go back wher u came or move wher they belive in your faith we had a off of self bomers that they dress like you, we have had a off of this we love to live on peace and in awer land of fredom. This is so true, if a woman goes to Saudi Arabia or Iran they are FORCED to wear head scarf otherwise she will not be allowed to stay or even enter the country. So if a Muslim country can force other people to follow what they want, France can "force" the same dictatorship to people of other religion, simple.
Finally, I would like to challange Chrystelle Khedrouche to give evidence from Quran and sahi Hadith, where it says Muslim women should wear a burka and a full Niqab (and kindly do not give any example out of context or something that is not in QUran or sahi Hadith)
Complain about this comment
this is stupidity to represent in europe and when you were here you should respect the law and the culture of this country if you dont you have to go back where you come from why we suffer and our little chidren ask quection? so it should be ban in every single country of the world to preach such a thing to boost your self but where ever you are you have to respec the country religion,laws,culture,society value and be a part of it not to permote your values.
Complain about this comment
"Yes" for burka's ban. We cannot let muslims rule European land. Don't forget you're only guests here. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.. If the majority of French people said in polls that they want burka to be banned it should happen. They live in a democratic country, don't they? They have the right to decide.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius "My favorite French fairy tale is the one where the entire world will recognize that France is the superior model of civilization for all others to follow."
You're right, some French, not to humble, have dreamt that insane dream, but like the beautiful DeGaulle dream, that the resistance and the french free force liberated France almost all by themselves, it's long gone, a huge majority have woke up to reality at least half a century ago, trust me.
No, what I find most amusing, is that the insane dream of absolute superiority of the french is still alive and kicking in the USA, and to a lesser degree (but not all that much) in England, two countries that I love and respect by the way, and this in spite of you Marcus or FreebornJohn, and that tour de force, frankly, should owe me a medal!
Complain about this comment
@356 WA
Alice, of course, I shall open the dialogue window concerning the Sevastopol saga, though I know all that history from the local people. In the mere centre of Sofia there is a very big emergency Clinique called “Pirogoff”, several hundreds of feet to the east is situated a luxury restaurant named “Crimea”, etc. Our history is somehow involved within the history of three giant empires: the Russian, the Austrian-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires. All over the country there are several hundreds of monuments, churches and sanctuaries (all of them being orthodox of course), which are named after such or such Russian general, after such or such Russian town or district, after such or such Russian (not Soviet!) writer, artist, emperor, priest, nurse (who sacrificed her life for our freedom), etc. etc….
Russia is still in our hearts, no need to question us over that issue….
Now, sweetheart, I also shall recommend you to switch on ‘youtube.com’ ; next to go to file, called “classical music” and type “Chostakovitch nr.2 walse”…. Just listen and relax….
Your faithfull friend & sincere fan, Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
@371 JeanLeMeilleur
Dearest friend, I was lately permanently drunken, and consequently I mixed up everything, i.e. history, fine arts, literature, poetry, architecture, etc., etc. For instance, I clean forgot that Mark Chagall covered (say, in 1876, may the Lord forgive me if I am still mistaken over the right century) the ceiling of the Opera Garnier with some magnificent paintings. I am always mistaken over who was our foe and who was our ally during, say WW1, etc., etc….
Thank Lord you are there to lecture & enlighten me… Now I go back to my ‘Pernod’ and to my ‘Pastice’. There was, once upon a time, a man named Georges Brassens, who wrote a verse that sounded like this: “the wine and the ‘Pastice’ above all”…
Thanks again, truly yours, Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot @ 388
“trying to convey to those Muslim elders who are still lucid & pragmatic that it is really not necessary to keep insisting that girls and women cover up in black”
Come on you had your chance and you Westerners did not do anything about it. Who ruled the Muslim Magrib? The French did not do any evangelising. So did the catholic Italians and Spanish. What about Egypt and the Sudan? The British also did not ‘debate’ with the Muslims. Who ruled the Muslim Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq after kicking out the Turks? We have same old same old: French and English, again, who did not do anything about Islamic practices. Who took over from the Muslim Moguls of India? The British and again did not anything about Muslims and for that matter the Hindus, Buddhists, Jain, etc. Who ruled the mostly Muslim Indonesia? The Dutch and also did not do anything about Islam. Who ruled the Muslim Malays in the Malay Peninsula? The British and did not do anything except exploited the land and bring in cheap labour from China and India. There was no need to employ and enrich the local Muslim Malays or else they would have bought guns and revolted. The US Americans did not do achieved anything with Muslim Moros in The Philippines. Their greatest achievement: awarding their own soldiers Asian campaign medals.
You could not do anything then because Islam had potential power and strength that you Westerners dare not provoked. It was expeditious to just rule and do business. Today you get overexcited about the burqa. Back then you could manage well with the gun, but, you could never do the same today. So you take the “cheap-shot” and went against the modest Muslim women. It seems you can only tolerate the burqa when you rule over Muslims.
Complain about this comment
@371 JeanLeBon (sous reserve)
P.S. In addition to my last post, I shall be very obliged if you would sacrifice a little bit of your precious time for switching on the private web page of Mrs. Sylvie Wartan. I can not remember exactly where she was born, maybe in French Polynesia or something…
Regards, Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
Sylvie Vartan, not Wartan, very pretty girl when she was young, but already France's wort female singer, a real joke!
Complain about this comment
If terrorism hadn't become so closely identified with Islam we would have looked with amusement at burkha clad women on the streets. The problem is, facial identity has become a security issue, and no amount of justification (including directions in spiritual texts) is going to convince governments of the need to be able to see their citizens' faces.
Complain about this comment
MA, Izvestia site has no moderation. I am not to remind you what is Izvestia. It still is what it was, how to say, the key country's printed and then also internet media, controled by Gazprom and Kremlin. "The voice of power in the country".
Well, it has moderation, but seemingly for psychiatric ward inhabitants only, for who doctors must have LOL prescribed "to try to communicate more, and get out more often"
Komsomolskaya Pravda site has no moderation - No 2.
"Echo of Moscow" site has no moderation even for psychiatric ward inhabitants :o)))))), likewise Anna Politkovskaya's newspaper site - on principle, which seems to be "if this country has psychiatric ward condition :o)))) people - they are also people - and without their opinions - even when expressed in un-printable expressions - the picture of what this country thinks and is up to - is not complete.
Ah, what to say. My new computer came with installed programs and installed lay-out of the front page, of Microsoft's opinion and google - it is presumed a new PC Russian buyer will use google as a front page, well there is "weather" and currencies' exchange of the day, all normal Russians want to see daily in the corner off their front page - and the upper pop up is the site jokes of the (Rus) Federation of the day.
The site is topped by "A warning: This site has no moderation. Jokes can be ...whatever. If you prefer a moderated site - leave this space."
BBC would come to a stand-still moderating the first 3 lines; on the fourth - one would expect heartbreaks and ambulances called to the offices to the PC staff, on the fifth - I think computer wires will start smoking."
Yes, I know we are supposed to be skilled to put our opinion through in spite of censorship, after all the experience of the USSR. We are skilled. 60 years of samizdat is something.
But it is so boring. All over again? We have defeated it. How many times do you need to kill the dragon? It is like coming from a free world to ?
a burka world. Open up the face, BBC!
Complain about this comment
"As usual your network is protecting Islam, because you don't want your readers to know the truth about this violent vicious so called Religion. Sad,You are betraying the American People by hiding the facts on this Radical Religion,we have a right to be informed on our Enemies, especially since 9-11, who's side are you on anyway? Semper Fi. Decorated Vietnam Vet."
Err..this is a British institution. Please refer to Cnn.com or foxnews.com if you are looking for US news.
Complain about this comment
dt #383;
"Marcus, maybe you can cite the case of chomsky admitting these things under severe cross examination for me. I'd be very pleased to see it."
Happy to. In Chomsky's interview with BBC about 7 years or so ago (should be in the archives) he tells the interviewer (I think Owen Bennet-Jones) that the US is "a rogue state." That's the pejorative. Later we learn when Chomsky is pushed that he defines a rogue state as a nation which acts solely in its own self interest. And obviously that more or less defines every other nation in the world as well (the part he conveniently left out so that he could rationalize merely misleading his audience instead of just telling an out and out lie.) Only when you put the pieces together is it obviously a lie, a fabrication invented for the purpose of pursuing a political agenda. By the time you do, he's already planted the idea in his audience's mind with the expectation that it won't go away. He's so good at it, he's obviously very well practiced. I have to wonder if he even knows half the time he's doing it. And how strange that of all the nations of the world, unless you are a confirmed America hating cynic, it's actually the last country in the world it could be said of. Of course I'm sure Hugo Chavez would agree with him. I think Chavez or one of his ilk recently said the US went to Haiti after the earthquake to conquer it or some such inane thing as though Haiti isn't in fact an unwelcome diversion to the American government's real and pressing concerns just now. An obligation that just has to be seen to. Of what possible value could Haiti be to the US except as one more opportunity for America bashing by the likes of Chavez and Chomsky?
Complain about this comment
@407,
well said WA
"...It is like coming from a free world to ?
a burka world. Open up the face, BBC!"
first step is as you said above the next step is to take their fez off & "fess up" they've been ruthless with moderation!
Complain about this comment
#404 ironfranco Generalissimo:
Dear Generalissimo,
I see from above that you are an expert in Russian affairs.
Maybe we could have your opinion on this, and we ask it nicely:
It is well known that in Soviet times they had means to handle people with appearances against common sense. Besides the windowless vans that collected political enemies from their home (usually at 4-5 in the morning, and those guys disappeared for good), there were windowless vans that cruised the streets and collected people with non-authorized appearances. They collected young people in blue jeans (symbol of American imperialism), bearded people or young people with long hair (symbols of decadence), drunken people, etc.
The men with beards or long hair were shaved by the police barber, given a lecture, kicked in the ass, made to pay and released, the drunken people were kept for a day or two in special guarded hotels and made to pay 2 months of salary, and so on.
What did they do to a woman in burka – if there was any to dare to ware it?
I will be very obliged if you could enlighten us in seeing our future, because the extreme-left promises victory in elections (and if not, a street Revolution) and a new Anti-Capitalist Republic!
As for Mme Vartanian and M Aznavurian some other time…
Complain about this comment
I actually think those who wear the full thing are rebels. They are trying to provoke and they are succeeding. After all they go to great lengths to say they are NOT compelled to wear it.
Personally I find them intimidating and scary and my husband is outraged that they are apparently so dressed because they think he as a man would be leering at them if they were not. He does not find them attractive with or without their costume so it is arrogant of them to think he might.
Complain about this comment
Wolfster9
Re #392
BBC most certainly has not been 'protecting' Islam on this topic.
How could it have got started without a BBC Journalist raising the topic in 2 articles in a row?
BBC is definitely nowhere near as valuable a News-Journalism institution as it was in its 1939 to 1979 heydays (in the UK we have called the declining standard as "dumbing-down")Nevertheless, compared to much of the celebrity trivia on other UK stations, and the biased-prejudicial dross served up by several USA and other World Media it, as in this instance on an Islamic topic, still just about holds it own.
"Decorated Vietnam Veteran", or just hogwashing your way makes no difference: You have a right and privilege to write Your idea/views about this topic, but have to stay relatively civil and accuracy on 'factual' aspects is essential.
September 11th 2001 was a seminal point in post-Cold War USA and World history, but if You are the 'veteran' (Marine?) then you would surely know from experience that even an event that important has many different aspects (e.g. 'Tet Offensive', DMZ carpet-bombing etc.)? Whilst you may believe it is a "with Us or against Us" Dubya Bush scenario, the World is 9 years down the historic path, and a whole lot has happened which has meant the USA needs to reappraise its position and not just label an entire 'Faith' as "radical" and full of "enemies".
The whole point of Mr Hewitt's articles is that the Female clad in a Burka is very probably not radical or an enemy of any sort: Whether she should wear such traditional costume in the 'west' given the last 9 years of history is the issue at hand.
Not Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Hezbollah etc.
As an ex-para all I can say to your 'semper fi' is what we always said,
'cheers mate, I'll have a beer!'
Complain about this comment
The Burka may prove a valuable garment yet. I now recall in a recent report, creation of new man made materials that have never existed before may make it possible (I'm not making this up) to create clothing that will be invisible. Amazingly it is hypothesized that this material will have the property of bending light that strikes it around itself re-emitting it elsewhere. A garment made of this material that covers an entire body like a burka could render the wearer invisible just like the invisibility cloak in the Harry Potter story. Who knows, one day we may all be wearing them. What would that do to change the world?
You can google "invisibility cloak possible" and you will get over 100,000 hits many from respected scientific journals such as National Geographic.
Complain about this comment
Burka and niqab is good these days to prevent flu from spreading, not anything else.
Islam prophet ordered his legal and illeagal wives to wear it and not all women. Personal freedom is being abused and misinterpreted intentionally by Muslims in Europe and North America to suit their desert needs and once you say no to them, they will try to kill you (another desert culture).
At t=0 when God created human kind, he created them man and woman and he said lets make woman (an equal human to man who was taken from his ribs, a part close to his heart, not from his head nor from feet) which shows equality.
If Islam claims equality, then men have to wear burka as well, if they don't agree, then Islam's values (and forgive me to call them values) wouldn't fit modern societies and better go back to where men inherit twice as much as women do.
Complain about this comment
@414
MarvelousApriliusII, you are very right on that point :)) the problem then will be if that type of burka is halal or not? :)) (or whatever the equivalent of halal for burkas is)
also on the question about what can possible the USA get from Haiti other than critisism?? For an answer try: Natural gas & oil :)
Complain about this comment
JeanLeBon, @411 :o))))))))
Generalissimo is indeed experienced in Russian affairs as visited a lot and studied for a while and imported himself a wife out of the USSR :o)
So he'll tell you of his USSR troubles observations' himself.
However I think your view ab blue jeans, beards and long hair danger in a Soviet street is a bit inflated; I wore blue jeans uninterrupted LOL from 1975 on and nobody grabatised me. And all around did, seemingly (those who were lucky to get hold of them or obtain via acquaintance. Awful deficit).
A long beard I had not so can not extrapolate, but a beard in Russia was always a respected local angle culture thing, all the priests and Rasputin and absolutely all peasants and Leo Tosltoy, a symbol of "Russian-ness", and then it was enhanced by Hemingway as absolutely all wanted a Hemingway beard, so I think it came in contradiction with Sov. principles only at work and if you are to pursue a communist party career, or planning a careeer climb-up, to be a boss of whatever institution or in upper management line. Then of course nothing but clean shaved was expected of you.
In two Soveut areas of life, though, a beard was a prerequisite and nearly a must - what a professor you are if you don't have a beard; with all respect - how do you plan to teach university students if you are un-bearded?
And no 2 - all geologists, expeditions' folk looking for treasures natural resources in the ground. How can you search for oil and gas if you don't have a beard? Simply, a silly idea. A brandmark of the Sov. first Gazprom.
Their current head, Miller - violates all sacred institution's traditions. :o))))) But then he is "Miller", must be of russifed Volga Germans times Catherine the II.
As to the drunk folk collected by cars - very true - you are absolutely correct. And yes, forcefully, and yes, delivered to the police, and made to pay a fine (not 2 months' salary, pure nothing, puerely symbolically) - but waht was dangerous abouut it - is immediately a paper was sent to one's place of employment, to the work - "has been picked up drunk - folks! bosses! do something about the chap - he is completely falling out of life". And then there will be hell of a lot of meetings at work, blaming the man in all sins possible, and all collectively reprimanding him (nobody really wanted to, but it was expected that "the collective body of workers of the company reacts "properly". All the brain-washing, as we called it. And surely he'll be skipped in promotion the next time as a bad morals guy. And deprived of yearly bonus, the so called "13th salary" (salary was paid monthly) Lots of troubles and nasty reporting on the man.
These days these "vytrezvitel'" - sober-up -izer, how to say - still exist. But in tiny quantities and all complain that the state gave up on sponsoring them. They don't report on your anymore. But collect drunkards in the street still, and make them stay a night in those specialised sobering-up institutions, until one sobers up and can walk himself. Fine them mercilessly these days, not a "symbolical" amount anymore. Charge as if for a five-star hotel night, though all the poor folks get there is a doctor's look at them - in case so drunk that is going to die of it, and dead bodies in the record nobody wants, a shower and a clean bed very poor the very minimum, hard bed, but yes, clean sheets, bed-linen. That's all, until the next morning, when you are kicked off away and written a reciet for a fine to be paid later for the "compulsory services" :o)))) of the cold shower! onto a drunk man!
A medical nurse watches them all night, but no help, only to watch for heart failures and other emergencies.
Mind it - drunken folks were collected only if they couldn't walk so drunk. But if still can walk himself - it is not drunk in Russia.
In winter makes sense because otherwise people freeze up lying un-concious in the street. In summer - all Russia was and is against the police practice.
But still you can see scenes in the subway - police grabs a drunk man - he kicks off away shouting - look! I can still walk! And if he indeed demosnstrates he can walk even if , eh, with a wide how to say, from left side of the platform to the right side, but still manages not to fall under the trains - he'd be let free. It is also importnat that he can demonstrate he can stand on the escalator/elevator, taking him up out of subway.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #407
I would go along with most of Your condemnation of the BBC 'moderation' process.
When I've had my Comments 'removed' (i.e. Censorship) most of the 'moderation' appears at odds with its BBC House Rules: E.g my 6 Comments removed from the 'minarets' debate were I presumed because of the discussion of a certain (bilious rival of BBC) Rupert Murdoch and his influence/non-influence, but, 2 of my 6 did not directly refer to the 'man' at all, so I'm left floundering as to what else could be of concern.
Yes, Mr Murdoch may be of a litigious nature and the BBC may well be wary of being expensively distracted by fishing-trip legal expeditions through the Courts, however, by acknowledging it is afraid the BBC does the job for the opposition 'News' (I use the word advisedly) sites.
All that said, I really think BBC does have a responsibility not to Publish wildly extremist views that support rascism, gay-bashing, bigotry etc. It needs also to adhere to the idea of not just maintaining a reasonable level, but hopefully raising the standard/quality of debate contributions.
Then again, on BBC UK Blog before Christmas, it permitted in one debate-topic no less than 35 contributions from 1 person 'denying the holocaust' and/or supporting 'racial superiority' genetics: Now, I took exception and complained on the Blog and to the BBC. I did not even receive an acknowledgement from the BBC. On reflection, were the BBC intentionally exposing this contributor's unpleasantness because certainly he got a huge response from those opposing his views (unfortunately, though not surprisingly, a few dullards in support too)?
Is the BBC 'Moderation' that sharp?
I have my doubts: For me 'Moderation' always comes across on these Articles and the HYS as a very blunt and often times biased tool.
I have written before and do again that IMO BBC does appear to allow an inordinate number of anti-Israeli/Jewish comments to be Published on occasions (and also 'anti-USA') to which it seems not to allow an equal right(write) of reply.
I would like to be wrong, but sometimes I get a very uncomfortable feeling about the exact nature of the 'moderation' process - - basically, the old question - - who is checking (moderating) the checkers (moderators)?
Especially, when one hears that the special internal report ordered into the BBC 'reporting' etc. of Israeli-Jewish matters is being withheld from the Public.
The BBC still has much to commend it, however, the minus column is growing all the time and as it is entirely reliant on the compulsory License Fee, one is surely entitled to ask since when has anything pertaining to the 21st Century BBC been outside the Public's attention? The days of Lord Reith are very long gone, the days of BBC 1 v ITV have also faded into broadcasting history - - it is a Worldwide Media organisation because of British Tax-Payers 'Funding' - - they are the literal SHAREHOLDERS to whom the BBC Governors are responsible.
It is in areas like 'moderation' of Comments that the Public meet up with the brick-wall of 'divine' (I was wondering how to get the Burka-Faith issue in!) BBC omnipotence - - it chooses the topic, e.g. Burka attire, invites the contributions and then picks & chooses the measure for publishing - - all well and provided it explains itself and its decisions, but it quite high-handedly does not do so: Yes, the BBC must abide by Broadcasting Standards Authority rules & regs, the BBC Charter, its Public Service remit and always pressuring Govenments (whatever Party) as well as the lobbying of special interests. No, it has no right to use that as an excuse to fail to represent the opinions, views, ideas, interests of millions of Britons: As 1 of those using this form of communication, I mean rejecting my Comments with a catch-all 'infringed House Rules', simply will NOT do in this day and age, and I am equally sure the frustration is there among many, many others.
Complain about this comment
But I must admit I never saw a single "burka" in the USSR. I guess you are right - nobody dared. The girls in the Southern republics wore long pantaloons, how to say, clasped with a kind of? a rubber-band? at the ankle, and, like, long gowns, long coats? open in front, but that's more in the line of national costumes, stripy shiny silks, bright, beautiful.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta, @ 394
:o)
" - What's that?
- What do you mean? Russian balalaika, of course.
- No, turn it over.
- Ah. "Made in China".
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote:
"In Chomsky's interview with BBC about 7 years or so ago (should be in the archives) he tells the interviewer (I think Owen Bennet-Jones) that the US is "a rogue state." That's the pejorative. Later we learn when Chomsky is pushed that he defines a rogue state as a nation which acts solely in its own self interest. And obviously that more or less defines every other nation in the world as well (the part he conveniently left out so that he could rationalize merely misleading his audience instead of just telling an out and out lie.) Only when you put the pieces together is it obviously a lie, a fabrication invented for the purpose of pursuing a political agenda."
Marcus, Chomsky wrote a book called "Rogue States: The Rule of force in World Affairs"
If you read that book, you may find that his definition of a rogue state is rather more complex than "a nation which acts solely in its own interests".
However, even if we accept this sound bite as his firm position, it is not difficult to understand the problem he is citing.
A nation which acts solely in its own interests has no regard for international law, nor for the human rights of people from other nations. I believe this was the intended point, and it is a good one.
Now you claim that all nations are this way inclined, and I accept that this is a legitimate world view. I understand the militaristic worldview which says that all humans are inherently sinners who will exploit one another at any given opportunity, and that the use of force is justified because everybody does it.
Regrettably, this worldview is no more complex than that of the schoolyard bully who justifies his violence on the basis that somebody else did something wrong first. However it is very, very common. Particularly in militaristic, violent societies lead by war criminals.
The logical problem with adopting this "reason" is that it cannot explain decent human behaviour. If we accept that all humans are evil sinners (not an original idea, by the way: the catholics got there a long time ago), then it becomes very difficult to explain why some, if not most, human beings are capable of mercy, charity, compassion and empathy.
Now the catholic church said that miserable sinners were capable of these attributes because of the glory of god. The inference is that without god, human beings would be evil and destructive at all times.
In my own view, this is a very poor explanation for why human beings are capable of virtuous behaviour. I prefer an explanation which is more in keeping with evolutionary psychology. That is to say, I prefer to think that human beings evolved as social animals and that we are inherently sociable and kind to one another, unless we are competing for sexual selection or for resources.
If one accepts that sexual selection and the competition for resources are the primary sources of conflict between human beings, then it follows that we need to look very carefully at who benefits when states make war. It may be that states go to war for the benefit of their constituent citizens, in order to give these citizens better access to sexual partners and natural resources. Beyond the tribal level of organization, however, I don't think that is an easy argument to make.
So, for example, if we take the "Rape of the Sabine Women" as an historically accurate description of tribal warfare for the sake of sexual selection, it does not follow that the later roman empire went to war for the same reasons, even if the soldiers of rome were promised unlimited sexual access to conquered peoples as a motivation for fighting. When warfare become a matter of the state, and when the economy of warfare enriches parties to the political process of the state in economic terms, then I think we need to look beyond the mere human impulses and towards the economic factors which drive the behaviour of the state.
So, for example, the competing ruling families in the roman empire may have gone to war in order to win prestige for themselves and thus increase their chances of sexual selection within the aristocracy of the roman empire. In this sense, competition for sexual selection may still drive warfare, but only indirectly. In this scenario, warfare and the use of force against neighbours is merely the means to economic ends, and it is the economic ends which satisfy the desire to compete for sexual selection.
We see similar problems when trying to reconcile the warfare of states to the professed need for natural resources for the states citizens. Many folks believe the USA invaded Iraq in order to obtain access to oil, for the good of all americans, however there are significant problems with this analyses. One is that if oil were object of the exercise, Venezuela would be an easier target.
It is far more likely that the USA invaded iraq in order to stimulate the economic benefits to the ruling elite within the conservative party, via pentagon contracts. The oil was a side issue, a fringe benefit to the real reasons for the conflict.
Now if we accept that the internal economic benefits for elites are the real reasons states like the USA or Russia go to war, it becomes apparent that economic greed creates the wholesale destruction of human lives in war, and that the inherent evil of human nature has nothing to do with the matter.
It becomes possible to dream of a new system of human government, one where the masses of human beings are not farmed and butchered for profit by an oligarchy ideologically sponsored by a priesthood.
Such a new system of human government would require a real dedication to the concepts of human rights and international law that have evolved in the public consciousness over the past 400 hundred years.
And it is because of the damage done to this fragile conception of a better world that I am saddened by the reaction to this law to ban the burka. People are not justifying their wish to ban the burka for good reasons, but rather out of fear and hatred.
Perhaps there is a valid argument that the burka is a symbol of religious oppression and social backwardness. I accept that. What I do not accept is the proposed method of dealing with such a problem.
Instead of redoubling our efforts to explain and to educate the ignorant in the world, the west is again reacting with state force against the individual and with a relish for violent confrontation. The tools we are using in the debate are self defeating, because we are using force and ignorance to combat force and ignorance.
Unless the women behind the veil choose not to follow religion because it makes sense to them not to do so, we have achieved nothing at all. If politicians use the force of the state to sow hatred along nationalistic lines within their own society, how are they any better than priests who use the force of the state to sow hatred along religious lines within their own society?
The muslim women, with respect, have very little to do with what is important in this debate. What is important is how we shape our own society in response to way we perceive our own world. This is why I caution the willingness to blame muslims for our own economic distress and anger. I feel we are being fed spurious fears as a means of diverting our attention away from a political system which has evolved into a largely one party authoritarian state, and that it is this one party corporate state which is creating declining living standards and massive income inequality in the west.
As we slide into fascism of our own making, we point the finger at Islam, and accuse foreign theology of controlling our destinies.
It isn't very dignified behaviour, for my taste, and does nothing to improve the outcomes for either social structure.
Complain about this comment
Although i also have reservations about the moderation process, it is good advice to ignore it entirely.
This is just a blog, and nobody here matters very much in the larger scheme of things.
However, we can take heart in the certainty that the moderators also matter very little in the larger scheme of things.
I am not a moderator, and am inclined to say "There but for the grace of god go I" when I think about folks who do the job. It can't be much fun.
Complain about this comment
I've only ready up to 266 and democracythreat but I thought i'd put this in because he/she seems confused about the origin of facism. Fascism comes from the Roman fasces which was a symbol of authority of a civic magistrate. If I remember rightly the symbol was a bundle of rods tied around an axe. Meaning the magistrate could either order a birching or a beheading. Mussolini nicked the symbol for his form of government to emphasise the order he was creating.
According to my lecturer (15 or so years ago now, but I was interested so I remember) the early facists killed less people than Al Capone. Apparantly one of their punishments was....... making people take cod liver oil!! Of course it got rather more serious than that later on.
Complain about this comment
sayasay, No. 403: You simplify History in a way that becomes deceptive.
History includes cultural, social as well as political, military and commercial components.
During the times you refer to, when the "Western powers" you list "ruled" (I would say "ruled" is an overstatement; power structures often exaggerate the degree to which they actually exert dominion over anyone) parts of the world with significant Muslim populations, the interests that drove the decisions did not include a consideration of the rights of women and children.
For example, if you wish to consider the period in the 20th century of the British and French Mandate in the broken up Ottoman Empire, as it became modern Turkey and yielded the bitter, complex harvest of modern ME politics, the chief concern of the powers-that-were was access to oil fields -- not actually helping the local people in any tangible way.
It was a difficult enough, and costly, enterprise. There was no broad goal to "enlighten" people or advance the development of local communities.
In his beautiful masterpiece, "Heart of Darkness," the great Anglo-Polish genius Joseph Conrad eloquently depicts the moral failure of the Western commercial interests to do anything for the Africans they exploited except extract their wealth. This magnificent novella, which unfortunately modern readers, especially in the United States, increasingly struggle to decipher, in its opening pages unambiguously emphasises what the "heart of darkness -- the 'Art' of Darkness" truly is: the banking & corporate world which chews up the lives of the men it recruits & harnesses, and mangles the lives of the women loved by them or even merely assigned to them ('the Intended' in the story) so that the all-important, almighty "Company" might amass vast wealth.
That was the 19th century understanding of the overriding purpose of colonialism, that cruel stepmother of today's Globalization...
What changed, most crucially in the second half of the 20th century, was the sudden dawning of a sharp awareness that the suffering of women trapped in cyclical poverty, ignorance and lack of self-determination doomed many, many, many millions of new lives -- both boys and girls, future men and women -- in vicious cycles of mental imbalance, impaired health, illiteracy or marginal literacy, unsuitability for employment in industries that now required greater skill and advanced education; and that it set in stone other pernicious deficiencies that could only be corrected if you began working on the consciousness and innate abilities of the very young child, almost literally from birth, and sometimes even from gestation.
As world population grew -- and as discoveries about the almost insurmountable impact of early childhood traumas, neglect, distance, malnutrition, abuse lined up against advances in psychiatry and psychology -- it suddenly became crystal clear that preventing future social catastrophes, changing the patterns of hostility that escalate into war or crime or anarchy, reducing stresses on a global system struggling mightily to keep now six-point-eight billion (and counting) human lives afloat & at least minimally hopeful -- would very much depend on taking the half of the population that gestates & nurtures young human life and empowering them, through education and improved earning opportunities, to do a better job, by being less constrained.
A fascinating influence on this growing awareness of the value of loosening age-old notions that relegated the "good" woman to her Kinder-Kueche-Kirche "destiny" was provided by some of the most tragic events ever to have unfolded on earth. The most devastating wars in history, as well as the dramatic industrialisation that followed in the wake of two mammoth revolutions -- one in Russia, one in China -- and one might also add the rise of modern India under Indira Gandhi -- exploded the myth that women were unsuitable for building a society upon the foundations the men of the power elites traditionally favoured most: big, complex, steely, urban, consuming, smoking, rich, rigid, militarised and awe-inspiring.
The Western world took notice of how much had been accomplished rapidly, under extremely difficult circumstances, in China, in Japan after the devastating losses of WW2, in the USSR even as dysfunctional as it was, in India (the land that teemed with busy, delicate-looking yet extremely hard-working women).
And so the vision of what best serves society and progress, insofar as harnessing the potential of women is concerned, shifted dramatically in the 20th century. Curiously, pretty quickly after this social process of including women more and more in public life and in political life began, it was "discovered" that there was no actual inconsistency between the teachings of the principal religions, and conferring more freedom on women.
Today most people on earth no longer view being born female to be some kind of tragedy. ('Alice' will be happy to regale you with a long litany of still-circulating jokes, most notably from Soviet Georgia, that remind us of how very recently being born a girl, or giving birth to a girl, was still being seen as a failure or misfortune in many 'enlightened' parts of the world.)
But in the ME, very likely because the cocooning effect of oil wealth allowed them to linger under the delusion that there is no need to apply the talents of women, or their energy, to pressing social needs, to public policy, to business, the idea that it is 'safe' to allow women to participate as fully as men do, in all aspects of existence -- even with the right to take time off to be good, attentive, involved parents (and the corresponding 'discovery' that young children thrive even more when Dad can also take some time off from his commitment to career and be available to be an active, present father) -- remains extremely novel to the old men (and I do emphasise their age for a reason; 90% of this resistance, I am convinced, is a generational trait) who run things.
So arguing, sayasay, that "you had your chance to help Muslim women gain freedom in the past and blew it," while it may appear to have some logical basis, actually overlooks the dramatic improvements in understanding that the Western world gained in just the past 75 years or so. (And a great deal of credit for that actually goes to the Developmental Psychologists, beginning with Jean Piaget.)
On the plus side, it is inevitable that the veiling of women is doomed to fade into oblivion. Even this discussion reflects that.
The young men of the Muslim world today, who are growing up watching YouTube, with Facebook, watching the global media-fests -- they are not going to insist, in another 30 years (assuming we are still all here), that their daughters wear black sacks to university lectures, or marry their cousin from the village.
They are going to want them to be happy, to dress stylishly, and to make money: lots of it. Enough to protect themselves from the tyranny of a backward or dysfunctional spouse inadvertently stumbled upon.
In a sense, the message to the Qu'ranists is: either you adapt to the inevitable, or you will find your most cherished beliefs abandoned, forgotten, meaningless to a generation that finds other sources of inspiration.
1400 years is a long time to wait before trying a different kind of look.
Complain about this comment
No. 420, Alice: Yes, while the Russians are working on new vodka recipes, and debating if it is even possible to limit the revenue stream of the vodka barons, the Chinese have become the world leaders in musical instruments.
Even balalaikas.
And you know what? They make excellent musical instruments, in China.
Complain about this comment
#417 WebAliceInWonderLand
Well, I saw it myself in Bucarest, when very young and visiting there. Local students explained me what streets to avoid (I had long hair at the time) and some of them took off woolen caps they were wearing in summer time to show me their shaved sculls. At the time it was the most horrible thing to have your head shaved: only people just released from prison had it so.
There was also a rumor about a diplomatic incident: the bearded French consul was dragged (by his beard) from his car by country police and shaved. When he was shouting things in French, he just got more kicks in the ass: it was a trick used by students to pretend not to understand and talk in foreign languages to the police (called "militziya")
And everybody said that all these bad things came from the Russians!
I think now that the streets the rulers of the country were using when driving off in their escorted cars had to be cleaned-up of long-haired, bearded or blue-jeans-wearing people!
Best regards!
Complain about this comment
Here’s a repeat of post 381, this time without the dreaded “words or phrases in a non-English language”:
bozhinoff: Welcome back, Generalissimo! On post 293, I suppose that that boundary depends upon the particular beholder. I’m not French, so I can’t speak to this topic from a French perspective, which is the one that counts — since this proposed law would be for France. From my own naïve, sleepy variant of Western perspective, I don’t perceive a threat to democratic society by allowing the non-Western cultural tradition of public wearing of burqas. My view could be coloured by the differences between French [censored French word for separation of church and state] and American [censored French word for separation of church and state], as well as the complete absence of public burqa wearers in my rural corner of North America; so perhaps those details make me less sensitive to some of the concerns that other posters have brought up. Personally, I prefer to treat others with a presumption of innocence — innocent unless proven guilty, even if I can’t see their faces — as I hope that they would treat me.
For post 340, I wouldn’t mind learning about that impact of pan-Slavism; just be sure to tie it in somehow to the topic of the day.
Freeborn John: With post 299, perhaps part of it is the search for a EU-wide demos, in which the rôle of “otherness” hasn’t yet been determined?
MarcusAureliusII: In post 326: [censored play of words on well-known Cartesian Latin quote]. For post 357, it was the Model T rather than the Model A that had the choice between one color.
WebAliceinwonderland: Your post 336 brought this thought to mind: when someone with multiple spouses visits a country where polygamy is illegal, how would that country’s laws impact the wedded trio/quartet/&c.? For example, over here, spouses have certain visitation rights in hospitals that other visitors don’t have. Would all of the spouses have such rights, or only the first spouse?
I presume that most, if not all, Western countries don’t allow polygamy; would Muslim posters here regard this as being an infringement upon freedom of religion?
Complain about this comment
I don't know why she brings the Virgin Mary into this - anyone who looks at a statue in a Catholic church can quite clearly see that she wears the equivalent of a hijab, not a burqa, as do nuns, who are also frequently and erroneously used as illustrations of how Christian women also cover up!
Complain about this comment
dt;
Rogue state;
"A nation which acts solely in its own interests has no regard for international law, nor for the human rights of people from other nations. I believe this was the intended point, and it is a good one."
Oh that really is the pot calling the kettle black. That describes Switzerland to a tee. How convenient every time individuals or even governments try to discover where money has been stolen has gone and by whom, not just from individuals but from entire populations, Switzerland hides behind its domestic banking privacy (secrecy) laws. That is why for keeping and laundering vast sums of money for the world's most heinous criminals, Switzerland is the criminal's bank of choice. Self serving hardly even begins to describe it. A rogue state if ever there was one. But take heart dt, none of the others are really any better when you get down to it...even though you'd prefer to believe they are. Want to talk about....China?
Complain about this comment
dt;
How much Nazi booty stolen in WWII do you think is still in Swiss banks? How much stolen from citizens of the former USSR by ex Communist Party bosses? Nobody except the Swiss knows and there is no way to find out. BTW, some of it belongs to WebAlice. How is she supposed to find out who stole her fair share and get it back? Perhaps the real reason communism fell is that those who ran the USSR realized they could profit themselves far more by stealing all of the nation's wealth under the transition to what was supposed to be capitalism than they ever could have by merely managing it to their own advantage under communism.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to add a few words of praise for the moderation here. I have participated in a couple of other online forums where EU issues are discussed and feel people here should be careful what they wish for when asking for less moderation. The EU's own "Debate Europe" forum went to the dogs when they effectively removed moderation (there was still a moderator from the EU Commission, but he only checked the filth being posted there once a week). I gave up on it once i started getting death threats.
During the build-up to the recent referendum in Ireland i participated in a couple of online forums; (politics.ie and boards.ie) that were debating the Lisbon treaty. The former site actually had a very nice light-touch moderation that worked quite well, but the debaters there were 'political aficionados'. Boards.ie had a wider readership but Stalin could not have designed the moderation any better. The main pro-EU debaters were also the moderators who you would be discussing the issues with. They would ban you (silently) if you made good arguments against them and Lisbon. Then having banned you they would reply to your comments as if the debate was still ongoing so that it looked to everyone else as if your lack of response was you conceding the argument! If you re-registered with a different name they would ban you again. And they have a rule that anyone who complains about the biased moderators will be banned!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055627762
The result was a kind of spider's web where the moderators would intercept any unsuspecting member of the public who came by looking for information to inform their vote, and demonstrate to them that all right thinking people were in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.
When posts are moderated before they appear (as here on the BBC site) it encourages people to think about what they say before they post it. If the moderation occurs after posts appear the quality goes downhill pretty quickly becoming a kind of thoughtless ping-pong . Without moderation it descends into the gutter. And if the discussion is moderated by those who participate in the debate you get an excellent demonstration of why the separation of powers and judicial restraint are necessary in the real political system.
Maria-Ashot (391): I am sure it is the case that some people have objected to their children being educated in the past and that you occasionally still get the father who does not want his daughter to go to school / University and become better educated than he ever had a chance to be. But in general i think the vast majority of parents want their children to get the best education possible. That is the original sense of the word 'paternalism' and it is necessary because children are obviously not equipped to organise their own education, so the adults who care about their future have to make sure it happens for them. But the state should not treat adults like that. We had some comments from burka-wearing women on this thread and the last who are doctors, lawyers and so on, and these woman are obviously in full control of their mental faculties. When the state says to these women that it knows better than they do what is good for them (i.e. to remove their burka) then it is beginning to treat them like children and that is truly to demean these women. That is the bad meaning of the word 'paternalism'.
Now it probably is the case that in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. there are some women who have been denied any half-decent education, and who wear the burka as a consequence of their stunted development as properly educated human-beings. Such stunted development is the lot of many hundreds of millions who grow up in the 3rd world. One would hope this does not apply to Muslim girls educated in the French education system, but it could have been the case for women who migrate to France. The best remedy is to improve the education of girls in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. and give them the full set of life skills that you really need to be a productive citizen in the West.
Perhaps the US, UK etc. can ensure this happens in Afghanistan where we currently have a big role in the running of the country. But in general it will only go hand in hand with economic development in the 3rd world, because good education costs money, and this is what they are short of.
Complain about this comment
B*Artiste;
"also on the question about what can possible the USA get from Haiti other than critisism?? For an answer try: Natural gas & oil :)"
You mean the way we did in Iraq? Doesn't that song get old for you after awhile. You Europeans give me so many really good reasons to hate Europe.
Yes we'll steal their oil and gas (even though we have 420 trillion cubic feet of proven off shore gas reserves ourselves already), that's it. But we will have to invent an invisibility cloak first so that we can steal the oil and gas in secret when they can't see us. A trillion dollars invested to develop invisibility cloaks to steal a few hunderd billion worth of oil. Now doesn't that sound like a great inVESTMENT?
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot #424
“You simplify History in a way that becomes deceptive” I thought the White Chiefs-in-Charge were very lucid “in not rocking the boat in the Muslim conquered countries”. Exploiting the indigenous people was a bad enough act, nobody wants to manage a jihad.
After 1400 years, you have not got a handle on Muslim men, is that why you are now harassing the Muslim women?
Complain about this comment
Even in this blog there are disagreements on whether in Islam women have to wear the Burka. Both sides come up with quotes and definitions which state catagorically two different things. They both can't be right. The poster "muslim" in #94 convinced me that Islam needs women to cover up. gazelledz on the other hand convinced me in post 159 that the burka was utterly against everything Islam stands for. I see the problem is that there is no established Islamic authority. Believe me i'm no Catholic and I think there are few institutions that have caused more harm than St Peter and his decendents. However at least they speak with one voice so the world knows where it stands with them.
Solution to all the problems!
There should be a huge conference, council and meeting where Imams from all branches of Islam should thrash out the tricky questions. Such as. "Should women have to be covered up."
The largest group of Imams who come to a concensus should then name themselves Real Muslims or Orthodox Muslims, or even Catholic Muslims ;-)
Then poor Miss Chrystelle Khedrouche would know if she was wrong or right according to the wisest people of her own faith.
Complain about this comment
Just found this, No. 273, from "democracythreat."
An ad hominem broadside challenging my credentials. Let me take it in reverse:
"Ashot is a CATHOLIC FEMINIST." [sic; caps per originating author.]
1. I am not Catholic. I like Catholics, have friends who are Catholic, respect Catholics and agree with much of their interpretation of Christianity. But not with all of it. Some of what I disagree with is central to modern Catholicism: the infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra; the celibate clergy; the ban on divorce; the blanket ban on all forms of pregnancy prevention.
At the same time, I am undeniably a Christian. To suggest that implies I close the doors to members of other faith communities out of hand -- or even to people who do not yet find it possible to believe in God's existence -- is putting words in my mouth.
I believe that the fact that there is so much variety of thought present on earth is proof that God likes variety, endorses the process of learning and even polemics. Even heated polemics, that do not however, deteriorate into violence, ad hominem attacks, intense rage & blind fury.
If someone is making a good point that you disagree with, come up with a better point. Don't just tear your hair out and spew diatribe and invective.
The only atheists I actually disapprove of are the ones that blow up houses of worship, murder clergy, rape their children, or call anyone else "stupid" for the offence (in their minds) of believing Some Great Intelligence much bigger than mankind and even more complex than the Universe and the Cosmos might actually exist beyond the limits of our knowledge -- and being Intelligent, might be fully capable of communicating with us, even if we struggle to communicate intelligibly with It.
All kinds of supremely intelligent men and women throughout history also believed in the existence of this Supreme Being. Believing in such a Being does not automatically make one primitive, or bound by the known public failures of some members of certain religious communities over the course of recent history.
Given all of the above, it would be a misrepresentation to call me "Catholic."
2. Also, "democracythreat," I am not a feminist. Most of the "canonical" feminists out there, some of whom I respect, would disagree with me on abortion, women in combat forces, the social construction of gender identity, the "history of male oppression of women," and the need for all girls to be as much like alpha boys as possible.
Most feminists today who are being published write that the problem with society is that not enough of the rights and privileges possessed by men are available to adult women.
My position is quite the opposite. I feel that it is only by embracing more of the experience that has been dumped in the laps of the female half of the human race as their collective dossier -- taking care of infants, for example, or the elderly & infirm; fetching water from the well (yes, fetching water from the well); nurturing a warm & healthy environment in the bedroom; caring for skin (you heard me); caring for household animals; horticulture; making meals -- and, crucially, cleaning up -- do men reconnect to a vital part that resides in every single human being, the part that understands the Natural Order of Things: how water, skin, plants and animals, babies and elderly, all ultimately weave together the fabric of our most intimate lives; how you have to tend to the needs of everyone to get them to be quiet enough to allow you to do the vital things that you need to have happen, for your own sanity & well-being.
Women who are stuck -- literally, stuck -- in traditional roles understand how society operates, and how business environments thrive -- better than women who have been 'liberated,' from Day One of their existence, from the need to roll up their sleeves and help make home Hum.
(At this moment, I would like to point out that Her Majesty the Queen has been very much a hands-on individual, compared to many of her forebears; she even serviced military vehicles during the war. And I think that experience has shaped her own success in inspiring others, and influenced her children's work, to a degree that cannot be overstated.)
What I see as a healthy distribution of Male/Female roles is not something out of a feminist textbook on "Herstory" (the mere term makes me wince), but what is already in practice in the Scandinavian monarchies. The Nordic powers have found a way to strike a balance between a very, very masculine male culture and a very, very healthy feminine female culture that does not trap, enslave, exploit or in any way diminish the dignity of a girl or woman.
And why on earth someone who lives in Sweden or Norway or Denmark -- or the Netherlands -- would wish to still cling to the black sack and the subjugation of the female half of the family is beyond me. Simply beyond me! When all around you, you are benefitting from all the incontrovertible evidence that the prevailing European approach works!
In short, "democracythreat," I cannot be called a feminist because I do not believe there is anything "not enough" about being a Mother -- JUST a Mother -- that makes a woman incomplete when compared to a man or a woman who also maintain a career in addition to being parents.
Being a good mother is more than sufficient meritorious service to society. If that is all a woman ever accomplishes -- if that is her entire c.v. -- that is already a great contribution. Unfortunately, the world still has not figured out how to make sure there is enough income available to the woman who "only mothers" to keep her and her children out of poverty.
At the same time, being a mother should not be the default life path for all women. Clearly. It should be a respected option, and a personal choice -- not a decision made for her by others.
3. You have no idea what I studied at Harvard, so don't even attempt to go there. I took a very serious, very rigorous and in-depth course about Islam, taught by world-renowned experts from Harvard and Princeton and Europe and the Levant (with stellar guest lecturers). Many of them were Muslims, though not all.
I know what I am talking about. You don't know what I am talking about. And really, I am not the subject of the discussion here, but if you are going to lash out against me, blindly, you are bound to get a response, and you are not likely to enjoy it.
I know the history of Islam, the social history, the cultural history, the texts, the Qu'ran. That's part of the problem. Those who want to lie to the non-Muslim world about Islam really can't stand running into people who actually know the history, and can cite it, chapter and verse.
Just consider the root of the division between Sunni and Shi'a. Just look at those core events, right there. Oh, what a bitter history! And how determined both sides still are, almost 1400 years later, to blame the other side for the legacy of fratricidal atrocities & betrayals! How telling it all is! When all it ever was was a simple power struggle -- a battle over existing assets and future assets! Disguised as doctrinal debate! And for this, 1400 years later, the more conservative Shi'ite women are still encased in their black sacks! Because one side left in a huff since two sets of relatives could not come to terms!
4. The argument about "we are actually a matriarchy and women -- old women -- hold all the power" has been made before. It has been made here as well, in fact. It is such a weak argument I actually let it slide, but then you chose to attack me in person.
Well. So the old woman holds some influence over her son after he defeats his 13 half-brothers and inherits the throne of the Caliph. Let's assume that case -- the most isolated case of all -- actually applies.
Are you telling me Khamenei did not personally steal the election in Iran and unleash a maelstrom of bloodshed and civil strife -- it was his mother?
You expect anyone to believe that?
Oh, to be sure, in the homes of the powerful old men, those ancient crones who are their mothers, who are still alive and capable of intelligent speech, do have some influence.
Sometimes, in some homes, in all kinds of cultures -- not just Muslim.
But do they make the business decisions? Do the chiefs of Aramco consult their mothers, or their many wives, before making decisions about petroleum? Do the great bankers check with Mother before they grant loans or sign contracts or merge or acquire or divest?
Come on! Who do you take us for? A bunch of 12-year-old girls from Afghanistan being consoled about their future by a teacher who is happy enough to teach them how to read, and hopes no one shows up to blow up the school?
The so-called "matriarchy" that some men claim exists in certain cultures, in the ME, or for that matter in Asia, is a highly overrated, overstated myth.
"Women have control over their property": i.e. they own their jewels (maybe) and their collection of belly-dancing costumes. In a divorce, the cast-off wife of the wealthy merchant will be granted shelter, vehicles, maybe even staff and an allowance. Do you consider that to be Power? Having property? Your own credit card? A house with a swimming pool?
Yes, Islam made sure that the submissive women who did what they were told, produced sons who could go on to engage in more conquest, and daughters who could be counted on to breed some more, would not normally go begging or starve, even if they were eventually dumped.
However, Islam also empowered the Muslim to feel completely comfortable stitching up an uncooperative kidnapped Christian teenager in a sack and throwing her off the cliff to drown, if she stupidly refused to make nice to the old geezer who was going to rape her.
Is that the part of Islamic culture and "the rights of women in the Muslim world" that you would like the rest of us to forget about?
For the record, so we never have to come back to this discussion again, "democracythreat," when I refer to Power, and to the Power Elites, who are predominantly male, and dominated by male elders, including by elders of religious schools of thought of various types, I mean the kind of Power that congregates at Davos.
I mean Real Power. The Power that shapes the world. The Power that can bankrupt or lift up at the stroke of a pen. The Power that decides, "Enough is enough; time to do something about pollution."
The Power that can also say, "Hm. Interesting. Maybe she's right..." -- about any woman, even about me.
The Power that does not lead the world by being tied to a Manual that is 1400 years old, or even 200 years old, or even 50 years old: because it knows it has Power, it is Power, and can do whatever it decides makes the most sense, right now.
It is the Power of a Bill Gates, or of Pope Benedict XVI, or of Steven Spielberg. That is True Power, "democracythreat" -- it exists, it resides in real people with real physical presences, and it is overwhelmingly Male. In real terms. Go to Davos and see for yourself.
This is not the Power of God. And it is usually a Power that requires consensus-building, meetings, discussions -- in a word, hard work -- to be effective. It can be stymied by ineffective, corrupt or alcoholic or mentally ill underlings (as Medvedev and Putin demonstrate, every day, struggling to make Russia work in spite of all of the above dragging forces).
Occasionally, it needs reinforcements, creative talent, new blood to get through to the billions of human beings whose cooperation this Power ultimately requires for its own survival. But mostly it likes to keep the doors to the board room shut -- for understandable reasons.
Yes: it exists. I am inclined to think that, at the heart of the matter, it remains fundamentally well-intentioned, even when it makes some serious mistakes.
It makes its worst mistakes when it lacks the necessary intelligence: when it lacks data inputs. Data inputs are brought by informed and intelligent people, by Human Resources.
In that context, I believe the efforts of an important member of that Power Elite, President Nicolas Sarkozy, to end the tyranny of the burka and the niqab -- that visual insult to all womankind -- is an extremely smart move, salutary, essential, positive.
It is a very important innovation to support. This is a direction of social policy that has a future: strengthening the rights of all women to self-determination as a way of building a more efficient, more effective and ultimately kinder, less fear-riddled society.
It sets the stage for many other positive changes that we will all welcome, even if we do not immediately grasp the connection between, for example, the wearing of black sacks by women and peace in the Middle East, or less water conflict, or more bees. All these elements are indeed connected, although it may not be instantly obvious how.
Women who fetch water from the well to care for their plants to save money on food to feed their children and keep grandpa at home so that his pension lasts long enough for their youngest to finish high school: women understand how everything is interrelated, sometimes better than the people with the shiny MBAs.
Complain about this comment
434 et al.
When you think about the topic of the string, please consider the enclosed images. Here is a real issue of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of belief.
The images are beautiful, some to the point of being elegiac. The artist must love the subject matter very deeply.
Yet the state is prosecuting her:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8473285.stm
Complain about this comment
@411 JeanLeRenard (the reference is pure coincidental)
Cher ami, you certainly overestimate a drunkard like me who can hardly remember what he had for breakfast… What I can however recollect about all those old days is that ‘les paniers a salade’ (fr.), i.e. the police vans were a common feature of the landscape here (I mean in Bulgaria). Same thing in Russia of course…
To that matter, it would be useless to consult an east-European old boy (like me) over the eventuality of a leftist putsch in a country which security forces have the reputation of being the best of the world (at least, since the Algerian war). And last but not least, if the burkha case risks becoming a touchstone for the democracy in France, it is better to abandon right now all those stupid, administrative restrictions and prohibitions (just like we did after 1989 for the longhaired youngsters in blue jeans)…
@414 MarcusAureliusII
“What would that do to change the world?” It is very simple to guess, man. Mr.Osama Bin Laden (whose mere existence is still a matter of scientific discussions) will pay an unauthorized friendly visit to president Obama in the Oval office, and meanwhile, all over the world, all available drunkards, dressed in the same stuff, will just penetrate into the local stores in order to refresh their stock of hard drinks, of logger, and of French champagne…
@417 WebAliceInWonderLand
“Generalissimo is indeed experienced in Russian affairs…”
He was so experienced that finally he was trapped by a blue-eyed blonde, at noon, on the Nevsky Prospekt…(in St.Petersburg)
@427 Jan_Keeskop
Your approach is right. Everybody is presumed to be innocent, even the humble Algerian beauties who are walking, at this very moment, down the Champs Elysees, veiled in olive green burkha… much to the disappointment of Sarko….
Friend, I feel a bit tired. May we postpone the discussion over the pan-Slavism for to-morrow?
Regards, Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
No. 433, sayasay: Wrong again: we do "have a handle on Muslim men": a gas pump handle.
And, in a broader sense, a much more serious and comprehensive handle than you realise...
You have no idea how much we know about you.
Hiding behind the screen of "the non-white people of the world" -- as if you can pretend there are no Saudi princes in the Carlyle Group -- as Saudi Arabia tries to stand in the same row with the island nations who are threatened by the emissions from the Saudi's sine qua non export resource, and demands that the rest of us, who have made you rich by buying your petrol, now pay for your "lost revenue" when we inevitably stop someday -- is really not going to take you very far.
As arguments go, it is pretty lame.
Wealthy Muslim men, especially the really old ones, are very much at the top of the Power heap. Don't think we don't know it. Don't think we don't understand what all that implies.
Just remember one thing: they were all spoiled rotten growing up. And if I have to choose a winner between the son of privileged excess, and the child of hardship, I will bet on the more resourceful kid who had to fight for survival, grew up without servants, and had nothing handed to him, or her.
That would not be the one whose last name is Bin Laden. It is much more likely to be an Obama, a Putin, a Hu... Go ahead, count us out. Stay blind. Bank on the illusion of your own superiority....
You actually think you can formulate a strategy that prevents a repeat of 1250? That eliminates the legitimate interests and resolute efforts of the five-point-five billion who are NOT Muslim? That lobotomises all the women in the world, and keeps everything nice and static for your convenience?
Just have a look at what is happening in Iran. Consider it a preview of coming attractions.
Complain about this comment
Alice, No. 407: Thank you very much. I will think about it. Give me a couple of more days to get my house in order, and maybe we reconvene in another idiom. I have published here and there from time to time, but you are right that it has been a while.
Complain about this comment
No. 419, Alice: The real reason you never saw burkas on women in Russia or formerly the USSR is not because no one dared, but because these are actually devices used by wealthy & powerful clans -- and also by poorer households who want to put on airs about how prosperous or established they are -- to keep their girls and women from having unfiltered, undiluted contact with others.
In societies where a woman had to make a contribution to the community in the form of work outside the home, or attended party meetings, or was employed to help build the society of tomorrow, the pretense about "we are so rich our women live wrapped up in silk like precious dolls and never lift a finger" pretty rapidly was abandoned in favour of survival and economic advancement.
The paradox is: now that the influence of Saudi Arabia in the world has been magnified many times over through the combined effects of oil revenue and polygamy (with its considerably greater numbers of sons born to a single man), the habits -- and I do mean the accoutrements as well as the preferences -- of the wealthy Wahabbists are viewed as the "norm" for so many Muslims who just decades ago, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Caucasus, in Lebanon, in Egypt or Syria or Turkey or Iran, would never have considered requiring their wives or daughters to don the mediaeval veil.
Think about it. As recently as 20 years ago, mainstream Islamic society in so much of the Muslim world was practically veil-free! And for a good reason!
Because the damned thing is a major nuisance!
Complain about this comment
JeanLeBon, at 426.
Yes, honestly, no idea what in Bucharest; contrary to common belief whole Eastern Europe was not free rambling area for the USSR people, only guided tours for tourists, USSR-ians were never allowed into down town alone, but as min in groups of 4 plus the guide "read - KGB informant", very minimalistic percentage of USSR-ians ever saw Eastern Europe.
It was total "abroad" to which you need an exit permit out of the USSR (KGB scrutiny), a visa of the country you wish to enter - absolutely no individual tours only group organised bus tours strictly supervised, in other words if Western Western countries were totally un-acessable, Eastern Europe was acessible but not encouraged, how to say. Snowball's chance in hell :o)))
And no one could simply buy even a bus tour.
One could only be awarded with it for good work, there were like 3 travel possibilities for a university or 4 per a huge industrial plant a year, and then trade union decided who is that absolute wonder who will go (normally the boss of the company and his friends :o)))
However, if that hair cutting plague you observed was during Khruschev and his Cuba crisis - it could be inspired by Russia (USSR) and our influence and fault. That was the only time when hair length counted something in Russia and clothes. (not beards)
Khruschev, among his many interesting campaigns :o) once ran an anti-jazz campaign. Declared jazz a strictly capitalistic art. And we already had heaps of bands and it was very popular in all restaurants and open theatre summer stages. The campaign read "today he is dancing jazz (don't know why "dancing") (may be he never figured out what it is :o)))) - and tomorrow will sell his motherland!"
Go figure :o))))
Anyway all jazz bands were told to get self-released "or else" or to immediately change repertoir (they began performing in homes, in flats and apartments instead), and clothes associated with jazz were prohibited. There was no formal law, but I heard from my father how he was grabbed at the street! for his exactly wrong hair and wrong clothes.
They didn't take his clothes or shaved him LOL, but like he got a warning that he better starts looking decent as of tomorrow if he wants to continue to be a student of his university.
Looking decent meant he had to
a./ replace his boots - that had very thick platform (no idea where he got them from and how)
b./ cut his ? don't know how to call that hair-style. Like a big bubble of hair in front of the forehead hanging down onto the eyes a little bit. Young father thought it's absolutely wonderful and in fashion.
c./ Put on normal width trousers, and he just took enormous trouble narrowing them in the bottom to the "pipe" condition.
d./ Put on another tie (his was called "fire in jungle") (popular name for very bright colours and parrot-jungle design or some naked girls, also good)
In other words dear dad just managed somehow to dress decently (in his understanding and grew up that swamp of hair above the forehead) - when he was "strongly recommended" to take boring ordinary looks if he fancies to continue studying at the Soveit university.
He could never forget the shock and disappointment of his life and eagerly complained about it for years ever after.
Oh, he was also told to take out padded puffy things out of the shoulders of his jacket, and wide padded shoulders were also in fashion.
But apart from that jazz campaign there seemed to be no exuberancies.
Men were shaved here were conscripted to the army, and yes, all hated to look exactly like prizoners.
Now they don't shave them but still grabatise to the army.
To me it seems not even so jazz but rather "twist" times. All studied "twist" to dance, back then. The standard approach was you throw down to the ground a cigarette bud, and "twist it" down by the toe of one foot, like trample it down by circular eh motion. :o))))
Then the same had to be done on the other side.
Then it all proceeded somehow further on :o)))) but even my father was very very young back then, and I don't know of anyone anymore to tell the whole "twist" lesson. :o)))))
Complain about this comment
No. 391, Freeborn John: OK, let's consider the argument of the "women who are lawyers & doctors & professors" and still feel they need to wear the burqa, the full body veil -- because they are, as you put it, "in full control of their mental faculties" but evidently want to wear their religion on their sleeve.
For what else can it be?
What other reason can there be, Freeborn John, for putting on a voluminous extra garment that hides all your face and head and body, even though you are an adult and educated woman with a professional life?
Your comment strikes at the very heart of the matter. Why is a burqa or niqab worn?
The answer is obvious: if not out because one is being forced, then as an expression of devotion.
Because it is certainly not being worn as any kind of fashion statement.
It is being worn to assert Muslim identity, devotion to the Qu'ran, and -- in more than a few cases -- solidarity with those who are waging war against what they themselves term "Crusader culture."
I remember when some of my friends in high school would wear keffiyehs to class, or out about town. They were not doing it because they liked the checkered pattern or the fringe: they were wearing it because they supported Arafat.
I don't remember ever once seeing a pro-Israeli, pro-Zionism kid in the US wearing a keffiyeh -- and I am referring to the years before there was any discussion of any peace process whatsoever. This was before Begin visited the White House and was awkwardly guided to shake Arafat's hand.
When I wear solid black on Good Friday -- as I sometimes do -- it is an expression of my awareness of it being Good Friday, a day sacred to Christians as the day Christ died. But if I worked in a shop where I had to wear a bright or even vulgar uniform, I would not refuse to wear that uniform on Good Friday. Because that is part of the job that feeds my children.
In the UK, jurists wear wigs and special robes. In France, they wear special collars. In Pakistan, lawyers are recognised by their trademark suits. And when the lawyers in Pakistan protested against the government, the sight of them all in their suits was extremely compelling.
Clothes do mean things. If an adult woman of Muslim faith is working in the EU, and is a medical doctor, she should be wearing what all doctors the world over wear: not, by the way, a black sack, or a blue sack, or even -- I would emphasise -- a niqab.
It is disrespectful to the society that employs you to insist on wearing devotional garb to work. Your faith has nothing to do with your work. The respect and tolerance we have for your religion has to be reciprocated with your own respect and tolerance for our culture -- which is the result of the efforts of our ancestors, not your ancestors.
If wearing the clothes your ancestors wore three hundred or a thousand years ago is so important to you that even practicing your profession as a medical doctor, or nurse, or lawyer, or engineer pales by comparison, you need to reorient your priorities. Find work for yourself that is closer to what matters most. Maybe open a shop that sells these kinds of items to others who share your view.
In California, there is a large, populous, prominent and very distinctive population of people from India and Pakistan. I have seen hundreds of shops selling saris (sarees). I never see a woman of Indian culture come to work as an engineer, doctor or lawyer in a sari.
As beautiful as a sari is, it belongs in her private life.
And a burqa, which is not beautiful at all, also belongs to the private life of those Muslim women who happen to be living in a non-Muslim society. That is common sense, it is common courtesy and it is only seemly. It is the only dignified, truly professional approach.
Complain about this comment
When in Rome do as the Romans do they say.
If you want to wear a burka go to a country where people are wearing burkas. You cannot expect to move to another country (in this case her husband did) and still follow the laws of urs. Either get used to the traditions of the place you moved to or... do not move!!! I never could understand the discussions of this kind.
Why do these people complain about the laws? Europe has never been wearing burkas. So why on Earth should we see people walking around in those? If I came from a country where nudity is the way should I go around nude because it's the way my country/religion tells me? I think I would be still put to jail even if I explained I follow Nudism. What's the difference?
And believe me, I have been to Soudi Arabia, you cannot even order a drink in a bar because you are a woman. Either come with a man or be ignored.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius II, No. 430: Bravissimo. All too true. Thank you...
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, No. 436: Thank you. Yes, more tragedy. Too many control freaks at the top, and if that is not topical what is?
We need to win over the ones that can still be reasoned with, to understand that they need to loosen up.
Complain about this comment
In Japan, by the way, the traditional kimono was even more significant, culturally, than any items worn in the Muslim world by anyone. Every detail of the kimono, whether worn by a man or woman, had profound symbolic and spiritual meaning...
Yet the people of Japan have chosen to wear conventional Western clothes for the routine business of their lives. The kimono still appears, on occasion -- and looks gorgeous when worn in an authentic, deliberate way.
Did the Japanese people pay a price of some kind for saying they would set aside the kimono in order to deal with the non-Japanese world on its own terms, in an effective way? Quite the opposite.
The people of China and Korea similarly set aside their traditional garments in exchange for functional, competitive Westernised looks. The traditional robes still exist, and re-appear at appropriate moments.
They do not define the society, however.
When Peter the Great wanted to save Russians from obscurity and obscurantism, he insisted they give up the traditional clothes. Some people still think it is a pity they no longer wear gold brocade dripping with furs and hand-stitched pearls, but no, it isn't at all.
Success in the modern world requires being able to make others comfortable as well as yourself.
The Muslim leaders -- again, overwhelmingly male! -- who exerted themselves in France, who recruited Catholic & Jewish conservatives to support their argument that, ostensibly, Muslim women need to be "free to wear ugly black sacks" in order to feel completely accepted (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) -- do not realise how much damage they have actually done to their community, themselves, of their own accord, by once again appearing as the controlling, deciding, overly-protective ultimate authority on what women and girls may do, even "want" to do.
Outdated attitudes cannot be revived, even if you try to keep them on life support for a long time.
What the people of Japan, China, Korea, Russia, India, Greece, Turkey, South America, sub-Saharan Africa all learned and embraced long ago -- conventional, traditional, European norms of dress are what works best for everyone, in the workaday world of school, errands, jobs, transactions, office functions and the broad interface of human civilisation -- the Muslims are determined to deny their girls and women. On principle.
Go ahead. Be backward. You will have further to go, to catch up, in the end. And the saddest thing of all is: most of your girls know this, better than you "prominent Muslim men" do.
In Saudi Arabia, women don't even drive, or vote. Yet that country determines how about six hundred million Muslim women are allowed to dress. Talk about the twilight zone!
Complain about this comment
174. At 4:44pm on 23 Jan 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
It seems to me that religions which are supposedly there to tell their story about god, they certainly seem preoccupied with sex. In fact that's mostly what they seem to focus on lately, just sex, sex, sex. Is that all religious people can think about these days?
________
It's because they aren't getting any.
Complain about this comment
Maria: I think the only difference between us is if we should believe those woman who say they want to wear the burka and respect their wish. Being a die-hard old-school liberal I defend your right to have a different opinion than mine (so long as you don't force it on anyone else ;-)
The best i can unearth here is a podcast from Professor Anne Philips of the LSE, who seems to have 'written the book' on multiculturism. In the podcast she considers the rights of 'minorities within minorities', e.g. Women, children etc. within Islamic communities in Britain, who may not really be represented by their minority group leaders. She touches upon the full veil niqab issue (at least in the classroom where she wonders if a teacher should be allowed to send a signal to schoolkids that men and women cannot have face-to-face communication), and multiculturism versus (French-style) monoculturism which she regards as coercive. She considers that a woman who chooses to stay in a community can still be oppressed if she does not have realistic alternatives open to her, but ultimately concludes that you have to listen and respect what these women say they want.
The harder case for Prof. Phillips is 12-18 year olds who lie between children who must be protected and adult women whose life choices must be respected, this being an age when British Asian families and communities might make decisions (e.g. arranged marriages etc.) for young women not truly old enough to make very major or irreversible choices for themselves. At least an adult burka-wearer can change her mind at a later date without any permanent harm done.
http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=231734
Complain about this comment
What about Lilluth. She didn't make it because she wanted to be on top. I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a burka (or whatever).
Complain about this comment
Dear Freeborn John, No. 447: Thank you for the link to Professor Anne Philips.
You know I love academia and academics. But there is one problem: when it becomes so important to have a pet theory win the day, and we begin to try to tailor reality in such a manner that it fits at all cost, so the theory can look tidy...
So with the multiculturalism/monoculturalism debate.
The world is multicultural. But large areas are dominated by certain cultures. I would not be trying to persuade people in Kuwait to give up the veil: what's the point? It may happen, should happen, but will take time.
On the other hand, when one comes of one's own free will to live in a society where the overwhelming majority has certain norms of attire, and yet you insist on wearing what has been worn in your ancestral village for the past 1400 years -- or, in the case illustrating this debate, what has been worn in your immigrant husband's ancestral village -- then, I am sorry, you should be ready to hear out the people who object.
Especially when your neighbours have lost loved ones to attackers who advocate this kind of garb, and naturally enough confuse your choice of robe to be a statement of solidarity with the people who have called for the destruction of their civilisation -- the one that shelters and nourishes you, and your children.
A question relevant to this debate, about the young woman depicted in Gavin Hewitt's illustration to this article: does her family receive social benefits from the French government in the form of financial support for the five children?
Because it is significant when a person expects the neighbours to help pay for the upkeep of the family, and yet feels as if her rights are being infringed upon if she is taken to task for choosing to dress according to the "guidance" of people like Bin Laden.
These are the little hypocrisies that the social theorists never reflect in their models, that deeply disturb me. To read the political & social textbooks, all human beings, in all cultures, are always Sincere, Consistent, Benevolent, Truthful, Non-Manipulative and incapable of an evil thought... Except that, of course, they still "systematically oppress women and children" -- except that is through ignorance, never through deliberate, narcissistic intent to dominate and exploit.
Freeborn John, I would never insist everyone agree with me or embrace my positions or be, in some sense, dismissed. But because I remember very vividly what it is like to be a girl, a child, the youngest daughter, in an immigrant family -- not once an immigrant, twice an immigrant -- and because I have moved freely in both immigrant and non-immigrant circles, in American and Western society as well as in Soviet Communist society (which was quite as strange as Alice often reminds us it was) and now in modern post-Soviet society in that part of the world, where there are also all kinds of issues around citizenship, belonging, and migration: for all of those reasons, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that every child that is first told to wear the veil because she is a girl, is doing so under duress and out of coercion.
Later, she may come up with her own explanations: the kind that allow her to live with her family, to keep peace in the home, to feel safe somehow in her own community.
But there is nothing natural or unforced about the fact that the burqa or veil, in any of its permutations, exists in any Muslim home today, in 2010.
It is, very much so, abuse. It is an overbearing extension of parental authority that cannot be justified on any grounds. It is about throwing up a cloth ghetto around a child, from an early age, and making sure she stays in it, never leaves it, marries within its confines, and remains bound by it to the grave.
Wearing a veil is not at all like wearing a cross or a Star of David or an identity bracelet of some kind. This is a cumbersome item of clothing that one puts on and takes off, adjusts constantly, launders, stores. And once you have it on, you do not forget about its presence, the way a soldier might forget about his tags or badges. It is in your way all the time: you can never forget it is on, limiting you -- and defining you, loudly, for all to see from a mile away.
Requiring it be worn -- defending its existence -- claiming it is a "fashion choice" as much as shoes, or coat, is a deliberate falsification of its only purpose: to mark and isolate girls and women; to hide them; to burden them; to diminish them.
The only just thing to do is to pass a law that bans it. It won't take more than 72 hours for 99.999% of people who have worn them before to adjust to the "novelty" of not having a black sack around them on the street.
The fact that governments and commissions can be intimidated and threatened by non-compliant migrants who claim their tribal customs are an essential crutch without which they cannot breathe French air is even more disturbing.
I think the Germans have the right idea with the concept of a contract for migrants. Let's make it explicit from the get-go: you are coming here, you are going to benefit financially & socially: here are the rules. Take it or leave it. End of story.
Complain about this comment
#441 WebAliceInWonderLand
My friend here, when she was in the high school, chose to study Russian. It was about the same time that I had my trip, in the late ‘70s. She got the language very well, and her parents paid her a trip to the USSR. She went with a group of young people for a month all around the country, lake Baikal included. She met many local young people and even now she praises their good nature and intelligence. If secret police watched, I don’t think they wanted to happen something bad to us, like shaved, attacked, etc.
But your father, and probably you, had your good time as well, despite everything. Funny the thing with the jazz and twist!
Anyway, it is proved that communist dictatorships had a quite strict view as of what people can wear. It was forbidden to imitate too much the capitalists (the enemies) and I can imagine that in the factories producing ready-made clothes, a superior political instance had to approve every design. I can mention – but I may be wrong – a single pure and original communist design: the Mao uniform!
Now about the burka, there is a good reason against it, neither political nor religious but pure business. Where you are in the middle of a tourist hotspot, you cannot afford to scare away your customers. The garb is ugly, disgusting, scares children (they see a bad witch), dogs (they bark like mad) and more importantly, tourists. Who needs a walking scarecrow, scare-child and scare-tourist in the town? In a cornfield or in a desert it would be different…
Complain about this comment
Freeborn, your description of France and England are amazingly simplistic, there is no such thing has pure multiculturalism or pure monoculturalism, kids living in their communities are ultimately flooded by English culture, like it or not, they become more and more English as time goes by, you can't avoid a certain degree of uniformisation, witch is no bad thing for the unity of a country, and as for France, we may speak of integration (I do believe in it), yet each city has it's Arab and African town and it's china town, in every way similar to those in the States or the UK, because you can't avoid the concentration of people of the same ethnic origin. My god, I live near an ugly little city called Mulhouse in the east of France, and you should check the streets, all you can hear is Vietnamese, Arab, turk, Chinese, each with their own part of town, it's amazingly cosmopolitan and I love it...so come and visit us with your eyes open this time, you'll discover that France can't stop the social natural order of things, not anymore that it can stop or would want to stop the ever growing influence of the culture "des banlieues" in french comics, books, movies and especially music. Let me illustrate: the top five stand up comedians in France are Gad Elmaleh (a Jew from Magreb), Eric & Ramzi (Outremer and magreb), Jamel Debbouze (Magreb)and Eli semoun (Jew from Magreb). Some might say this is a sign of a successful integration, but it is also a pure sign of multiculturalism, those comedians holding on dearly to their origins, thinking of themselves as both French, Arab, métisse or Arab Jew. What are you gonna do, France is a complicated country.
Complain about this comment
Crackpot;
"...yet each city has it's Arab and African town and it's china town, in every way similar to those in the States or the UK, because you can't avoid the concentration of people of the same ethnic origin...."
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Similar to the UK, yes, to the US no. You Europeans are like most other countries (except for the US, maybe to a degree Canada, and maybe to a degree Isreal.) To become a Frenchman or an Englishman if you were not born to it is impossible. You take immigrants part way down a road and then you throw up a door which can never be unlocked and opened. And they you don't understaned why they turn back and revert to what they came from. Arabs, Pakistanis, Chinese, cannot become fully integrated citizens of your country. They can NEVER be prime minister or occupy the true seats of power. They will always be unwelcome outsiders and they know it. They are lucky to even get jobs in some countries like France. To be accepted as fully French, you must have a shared history, a shared culture, a shared ethnicity. To be a fully fledged American you must only adopt shared values. One is possible, the other isn't. This is one big reason Europe is dying. The consequences of the inner sanctum of Europe being closed to outsiders is fatal.
This is why Europe is doomed and the US isn't. This is why Europeans have suddenly reversed course, swallowed hard, and embraced Americans. But America cannot save Europe because Europe will not and cannot save itself. I for one will not mourn its passing, I will simply observe it. When it is gone, the world will not have lost anything of much value.
Complain about this comment
358. At 11:24pm on 24 Jan 2010, Gheryando wrote:
'EUpris: Gheryamdo!! How about you and people like you starting to imagine how Brits like me feel who have had a lousy dictatorship imposed upon them. This is something that you and people like you seem to refuse to do.
lol '
EUpris Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my comment!
Complain about this comment
431. At 6:23pm on 25 Jan 2010, Freeborn John wrote:
" ... The EU's own "Debate Europe" ... I gave up on it once i started getting death threats. ... "
EUpris: I am not surprised that you got death threats since I have had some Germans screaming at me dementedly for merely criticising the "EU" mildly.
The imposition of the Lisbon Treaty on the British people is ultimately fascist. It has some similarities with Hitler's invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, with the Chinese occupation of Tibet and with the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands.
Did the policed investigate? Was anybody charged? Did you complain to the police?
Complain about this comment
JeanLeBon, :o))))
No, in clothes all Russians are fashion victims. It was more of the absence of things, influencing our eh well clothes' style :o))) than the ? some obligation not to look like capitalists. Absolutely all wanted "to look like capitalists" :o))) only few could afford :o(
But when you got hold of something foreign - I assure you you won't keep it in your wardrobe scared of some policing, but showed it up as much as possible :o)) ! and boasted about it. And even the KGB would understand you because they also wanted to look like how to say - up to the latest world trends' people. Fashions were desperately copied from foreign films, from rare magazines that sailors brought in and then these were circulated to copy the clothes worn into holes (the magazines :o), I am afraid we are quite paranoid about clothes and always were, USSR or no USSR.
If I pass by a scanner I'll copy some photos of USSR times onto the flickr for you to have fun. The problem was we were always dressed up 2 years later than the rest of the world, when something went out of fashion in the West, it was only understood in the East and introducted into life. I had an acquainatnce, a sewing lady, who I drove mad by my demands to "make me a dress - like in that picture". And it was a common practice, all had their sewers? seamstresses? who made things, for what was sold in the shops was impossible to wear. And the bad thing was all realised own deficiences, because one look at a foreign movie in a movie theatre - and you realised you are out of fashion by 2 years min. :o))))
All could sew in the USSR, had sewing machines at home. I think we threw out into garbage plots in Perestroyka more steel in sewing machines weight than in the total disarmament. With incredible relief. The only thing that consoles Russians in the collapse of the USSR is the final ability to buy clothes.
When I was able to buy things finally I think I bought myself ennough during the first 5 years for the rest of my life. (now I wish I concentrated more on boots and coats than on 10,000 T-shirts and various light summer stuff). When a Russian has a bit of money - he/she spends it on clothes like a clinical idiot. First thing. Even if you have none left to buy a fridge or a TV or to pay for the apartment. I was pointed out to these evil spend-drifting? practices of our nation by many a foreign acquaintance, who said it is mad and not sensible and why not to save a bit and why do you do it, like. Be sensible.
Well, now we are sensible, after the 20 years of satisfaction finally, but it was really, how to say, a compensation for all the USSR years spent un-dressed. I still have fits of it at times :o))) What if things will dissapear again. :o)))
Russians are artistic, well, overall, but, I mean, who isn't, but how to say. When you like beautiful things you can not skip noticing that you yourself look extraordinary ugly. There were lots of cat walking and fashion shows in the USSR, local industries hopelessly competed LOL with the Western industries, because the notion was we are competeing with the West and local industries are able to dress you up to the latest world fashions. But oh my the results the production dear me.
Complain about this comment
I think not one thousand of people got to prizon during 1970-1990 for the crime of "private entrepreneurship". That's all the undeground small sewing factories who were secretly sewing things for all to wear "Like in the West". Odessa city in (current Ukraine) was famous for it, as it was a port city and sailors boot-legged home tons of cloth in all ships' LOL empty parts, for the small private factories to make clothes of. And then it was sold, from hands to hands, throughout the whole USSR. Because the market, how to say, LOL, was huge, profits - too alluring, so the state arrested private factories owners but they grew up as muchrooms everywhere anyway. Those chaps had the mission to dress the whole USSR! :o)))) And were ready to risk prizon for the huge profits. Besides, it was always possible in Russia to avoid prizon for a bribe :o)))
Latest world designs were copied immediately what we call "Montana" :o))) - "made in Maly Arnautsky, sewn on the kneee". A street in Odessa.
Maly Arnautsky became an expression, we still suspiciously check up labels in the shops and someone would mumble "real? or - Maly Arnautsky?"
This days M. Arnautsky is China. Before it was us, I am afraid. :o) But for own consumption only, if this consoles anyone, never crossed USSR borders. :o)
Complain about this comment
Respect goes both ways.
People world over like to see the person they are speaking too atleast when someone is infront of them. If religion is more important than society stay indoors, avoid school & other things or be in a Islamic country. Why question the majority with harmless intention.
In school teachers need to see the student they are teaching. In office your superiors & friends need to know about your mood and attitude. Religion is good but Nation is more important. Muslim countries enfroce thier rules on all foreigners dont you see CNN & BBC reporters from Islamic countries on T.V. eg Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. but Muslims should obey the rules of that country they stay in. Religion is sensitive but National issues are even more sensitive. Why worry only about your freedom when you question the history and the culture of the land you stay in.
Complain about this comment
Dont like it.
Dont live there.
Complain about this comment
Well, well..Chrystelle Khedrouche may have concerns regarding the burkha ban.. what about general concerns of people like me, where i find it very uncomfortble looking at people in burkha.. My 1&1/2 year son is scared of people with burkha`s.. and yes.. If burkha clad people wont like the ban, we dont like the burkha`s.. and majority prevails. .
They can comfortably go to Saudi or Iran where burkha is welcome.. No one stops them..
Complain about this comment
unhappy with the law? perhaps you should live in a country where the burka is acceptable. problem solved.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius "But America cannot save Europe because Europe will not and cannot save itself. I for one will not mourn its passing, I will simply observe it. When it is gone, the world will not have lost anything of much value."
Well that's your motto in a nut shell, and what a sad one it is! You fascinate me, you literally choke on your own hate. I'm starting to wonder, did a European girl (or boy) cheat on you, rejected you and broke your little heart? I don't want to patronise, but you must have suffered some kind of terrible trauma about Europe, because how could a sane person wish for an entire continent to self destruct and fall into oblivion?! I mean if we were talking about say...Australia, we could discuss it (just kidding), but to wish the disappearance of the the birth place of Mozart, Voltaire, Shakespeare or Da Vinci, sounds pretty insane, don't it?!
Complain about this comment
One thing we have always been failing to acknowledge is that freedom can either not be imposed or given, it is a matter of the self that comes from within. European governments cannot expect open hearted integration, perhaps assimilation of the Muslim community if such kind of law is made to take the centre stage of the society.
Complain about this comment
The French popularised the idea of liberty for the modern world. And yet in today's France a woman cannot cover her face if she so desires? What would the philosophers of the Declaration of Rights of Man say about this?
Complain about this comment
If I'm assualted by somebody in this dress style I would want to see the person who has struck me.
Complain about this comment
Good for the French. Personally, in Britain, I would not speak to someone face to face if they were covered up.
If they want to cover their faces on the 'phone, that's OK.
In a predominantly muslim country, that's OK too, but not in Western Europe.
Complain about this comment
From Translation of Quran,
33. Surah Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)
59. O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allâh is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful.
55. It is no sin on them (the Prophet's wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother's sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves, and keep your duty to Allâh. Verily, Allâh is Ever AllWitness over everything.
I believe the above is useful,
Complain about this comment
55. At 7:13pm on 22 Jan 2010, nick wrote:
1.where do atheists believe they go when they die?
2.What do atheists believe in?
3.Who do they draw their knowledge from?
1.Nowhere
2.Nothing
3.Nobody
What draws me to atheists is their complete toolbox of answers when I question my own spirituality!
In Answer to your questions Nick
1 Wherever they want to (imagination is a wonderful thing)
2 Evolution
3 Science
i.e Real Life
Complain about this comment
Personally I think its disgusting, undemocratic and simply not practical.
The law exists to defend individual rights not to discriminate against the minority.
Sad day for democracy.
Complain about this comment
I live in France and what the government and most public figures have been telling us for years is that women were imposed the burka. I personally believe it is not our duty to stop women from wearing it, except if it truely were to give them a legal tool to refuse wearing it.
I have been on the lookout for an account from a lady wearing a burka in france saying it was her choice. These articles are few and this is the first one I have actually seen. Either she is alone or others are not given the space to express themselves in the French media.
It is not surprising in all cases that the French are against the burka when they are told, day after day, that women do not really want to wear it and are not given any comments going the opposite way.
I hope many French people will read your article. Could you send it to the French press?
Complain about this comment
To be French does not mean being a Muslim. It never has and never will. Being Muslim is a religious thing and has nothing to do with the country you live in, were born in or reside in.
If you choose to live in a predominantly catholic, white, and non Muslim country then don't be shocked!
The day we French can go build cathedrals and enforce all christian rituals in Muslim countries, will be the day these Muslims residing in France can comment. The crusades are over. It's about time people realised that understanding and forgiveness has limites.
I personally would advise all muslims if they are unhappy with the rules of the land, to return to their own country and try to make it better, rather than sucking the bone marrow out of western countries and adding little to no value but increasing national debt and sponging off the state.
Proud to be French.
Complain about this comment
@427 Jan_Keeskop
I’m back friend. In order to save your time, I’ll say right now that the pan-Slavism appeared in the early days of the 19 century as a political movement among the Slavic nations that felt oppressed as being subjects of several powerful empires, still dominated by other non-Slavic nations. For ex., the Poles(*), the Slovaks, the Czechs, the Croats and the Slovenians felt discriminated by the Austrians and the Hungarians who ruled the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918; the south Slavs, I mean the Serbs, the Montenegrins, the Bulgarians and the Macedonians (who are Bulgarians by origin and traditions, but politically separated from us for historic reasons) felt themselves oppressed by the Ottoman Empire. But, after all those nations obtained their independence in the aftermath of WW1, the mere idea of a United Slavic Political Entity lost speed and gradually disappeared as a special kind of ideology, based predominantly on cultural similarities & traditions, rather than on political strategy and tactics…
(*)Until 1918, half of the Polish nation was still within the Russian Empire, and naturally, the Poles felt discriminated by St.Petersburg (the capital of the Empire);
After WW2, the USSR tried to extend its political and cultural influence in Central & Eastern Europe (relying on what remained as pan-Slavic traditions), thus counteracting the western political and cultural influence. In a way, the Russians gained some ground (especially in Bulgaria which is still considered as being the most pro-Russian nation(**) after Byelorussia)…
In a word, the pan-Slavism is death, but the cultural exchange between the Slavic nations still exists… For more details, see the Wikipedia record…
(**) Bulgaria obtained its independence thanks to the successful Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78. Both nations use the same alphabet, share the same faith, have similar cultures, and enjoy privileged cultural exchange.
Regards, Generalissimo, Sofia, Jan.26 2010
P.S., except for the flag and the anthem that were introduced by one of the pan-Slavic congresses (held in Prague in the first half of the 19 cent.), there is no other visual symbol of the movement. All the said Slavic nations are now organized as independent & secular states, and consequently, there is no pressing need of wearing such medieval accessories like the burkha…
(may you please excuse my English, I am orthodox Slav by birth & tradition, just like Alice from St.Petersburg)
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
The French are right. We keep being told it's about choice. 'Westerners' have to observe the rules and cultures of the land they visit in the middle east. These are the countries that have flogged, stoned or imprisoned westerners for 'offences' such as drinking alcohol, or having unmarried sex. No tolerance or choice there!
So why do these people come to Europe and then expect exemption from our cultures and laws? Free choice allows them to leave at any time.
Or how about westerners exercise their freedom of choice and start parading in swimsuits outside a mosque?
More and more we are expected respect and embrace different cultures, religions and standards of immigrants and refugees, while these same people refuse to show any tolerance or respect to our heritage, culture and worst of all our laws.
Complain about this comment
I must admit I have never really come across so much prejudice and lack of understanding. I am European and I live in the UAE, a muslim country. Forget all what you may think you know about living in a muslim country, because a lot of it is just plainly wrong and untrue. However, the main difference here is that you are expected to respect the culture, reglion and laws of the country. This doesnt mean that you have to become muslim, dress like a local or anything of the sort. It means that you are expected to abide by the laws and customs in this country or face being deported. This should be the same for all countries, regardless of religion etc. If one lives in a country whereby the local customs expect you not to cover your face, then sorry but you should respect that. I for one do not believe that persons should argue that their rights are being denied, because they are not. I know for example that it would be insulting to walk around the UAE showing public displays of affection to my wife etc, so out of respect I do not do that. That is denying my freedom to interact with my wife, but it does not present me with any great hardship as I can interact with her in my home. I am also expected not to eat pork in public. Again, this is a restriction of my freedom, but again out of respect I dont walk around eating sausages etc because it is offensive. This is the same argument. When I am back in the UK I am not in a country whereby covering ones face is the custom. In western culture we do not cover our faces, so why shoudl western culture be changed? If one doesnt like the western culture then one is not forced to live in the west, one is free to choose where they live, as long as they abide by the laws and respect the culture of that country. I do not protest to the UAE, nor would I, that the culture here must be changed, as I wouldnt protest to the Saudi government that they must allow non-muslims into the Holy City of Mecca. Its time people started respecting others and stopped being so selfish. This is not an argument about Islam, nor is it Islamaphobia, it is merely stating that in the West our culture is not to cover ones face. Finally, to MarcusAureliusII, you are a very deluded person indeed. You really think that the US intergrates and embraces all who come there & that all get the right to be President? I am amazed over how little you know your own country. The US law forbids anyone not born in the US to become President - hence why Arnie cant be president. Even now in the US many persons are not considered as equals (hispanic, african-american, korean, chinese to name but a few) and suffer as a result. Im not saying Europe is perfect, but its no worse than the US in its outlook. It is interesting to note however that your hatred for Europe is rather huge - rather like some US citizens hatred towards Arabs, who are apparently all terrorists? When will people cease to pre-judge people and finally accept that we are all humans, despite our beliefs in reglion, despite our skin colour and despite the fact that we live in different countries with different views and values?
Complain about this comment
She is simply scary. I don't want to see walking black bags on my streets. Kids are scared, old people are scared, even punks are scared. If she enjoys such BDSM folklores I suggest her to move to the countries where it belongs.
Complain about this comment
Women wearing Burka! Everytime I see a burka clad woman I feel pity. It reminds me of living in a male dominated society, a world which boasts of the modernity but still lives in a conservative dark mantle. I dont understand why these women dont realize that they are being suppressed and exploited this way, why dont they want to live under a free open sky, when would they believe in their own strength, when would they start walking shoulder to shoulder with their men! It's a damn pity. I myself feel humiliated seeing such women. I am sorry to say but only such women give a proof to this society that see this is what women are...no identity in public, a deep hidden creature!
Complain about this comment
Ban on veil for muslim women is kind of "extremeism" of West.
Complain about this comment
My point is what the french state say when 'It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.' how will you be sure what is 'radical religious practice' is? Is is wearing a beard? or going to mosque to pray? The french have a history of having hatred towards Muslims from the time of the crusades and uptill the british/french invasion of Palistine in 1917 when A French general, Gouraud , went up to the grave of Salah-u-din who had liberated Palestine 900 years ago. He went up to the grave and he kicked that grave and he said "It is now that the crusades have come to an end!". the french still resent the fact that Muslims live in France.
Complain about this comment
One other commentor made a point about living in the UAE and all that is required by none UAE people living and working there is to respect the laws of the Muslim country just as I did while Living in Saudia Arabia. So why dont the muslims living in Europe have to respect our religions and laws and our social values ? Many Muslims living in europe believe they should be above our laws etc because of there religion not accepting certain parts like being able to walk around with no veil or have relationships without being marrried. I say good on the french government and i wish our British government was as strong, if we are to be all treated farely and equally in this country and within europe there is no room for a 2 tier system either live by our values and laws or live somewhere else where your values are the same as the countries SIMPLES.
Complain about this comment
France are playing with Allah creation. Allah knows what’s best for Women and best for Men. Women in Islam respect their Beauty just like Nuns, Jewish Women. Men provide the women a Home and Food. Women in Islam have a right to wear a Vail to stop people exposing at them such as Murders and Rapist. The Western World has far more Murders and Rapist than Middle Eastern Countries. More Crime and More Children getting Abused. A Muslim women is protected by her Vail from Individual looking for a Quick Peep. France president is judging a book from its cover. He is challenging Allah Laws. He forgets his final return is to Allah the creator of the Earth and Heavens. Islam gave the Western World science and Technology. Do not repeat a new Crusade. Allah is watching your every move. This world belongs To Allah and just like those before us never listened and were arrogant with the Messengers of Allah. You will be doomed. Allah does love all Mankind but not those who play around with Allah’s Laws.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
As I see it this is, or should be, a strictly security measure with no intended regions discrimination. You can pack a heck of a lot of explosives under those robes and you could be either sex so basically a walking loaded bomb with your identify completely hidden.
Complain about this comment
Thanks to France, Every European country should fallow this. It may controls unnecessary intruders in Europe .
Complain about this comment
Chrystelle points out that a smile can be heard over the phone.
Hmm that's sounds quite expressive - not sure I approve.
In fact, if phones had existed at the time these misogynistic tribal laws were set down, it's a fair bet her religion would forbid women from using them unless their husband was present.
Complain about this comment
Ban the burka, this ridiculous garment. It is NOT necessary for muslim women to wear, I believe the qur'an says they must be covered, as in the Hijab, which I have no real problems with, but the niqab/burka are both symbols of oppression for women in the islamic world and they have no place here in Britain or Europe or the west for that matter. Both imposed on women by selfish and ruthless men by a primitive culture that doesn't belong here in Europe and should to be frank, update itself in places like Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
The burka is oppressive to women and not only that, criminals have been to known to cover up in it in this country for scenarios like bank robberies for example, there is nothing good or civilised about the burka, and I hope this comment gets published and freedom of speech prevails or it's just another example of how PC the media and whole country really have become due to this wonderful Labour Government.....Say if Labour and Brown maybe had a bit of BACKBONE like Sarkozy, then we could do the same thing here but Brown wouldn't dream of it as we already know he hasn't been tough on extremism for example and he wouldn't want to do anything to offend the muslim community now would he!!! Even though, he'd be standing up for women's rights!!!
Talk to British Muslims for secular democracy, they'd say exactly what i've just said!
Complain about this comment
"475.fugit2477" - well said!
I do feel that Chrystelle Khedrouche is overreacting to this "ban". Perhaps the poll that shows the majority of people living in French against burka is mostly biased (because maybe some people are just indifferent to this topic), but it makes sense to remove veils and reveal faces for identity purpose. Therefore no need for Chrystelle to feel sad or offended.
Complain about this comment
Majid, I'm sorry to say but you are imposing your beliefs upon others, which is unreasonable. France does not follow Sharia and therefore the laws are not those passed down by Allah. Western countries do not follow Sharia, nor do they implement Sharia law as in Islamic countries. What you are debating is that Sharia takes precendent over all laws, regardless of the reglious beliefs of the country, which is imposing your ideals and faith and disrespecting others. If the French are acting against Sharia and this is the primary argument, then alas those who feel wronged should live in a Sharia country I am afraid. People shoudl not impose their beliefs on others, after all Christains, Jews, Hindus or in fact any other religion does not seek to impose their views upon Islamic countries by demanding crosses to be put up or churches built (which is illegal in Saudi in any event). Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions, but not at the point whereby customs and beliefs of the indigenous population is changed. Finally, the comment regarding the crusades is rather unnecessary and inflammatory. At no point has anyone stated that the Islamic world should be invaded or such, far from it. Furthermore, I have many muslim friends from different muslim countries and not all of them believe that the covering the face, head, hair or body is in the Quran. The Quran does state that women should retain their modesty, that is not the same as wearing a veil. That is a custom and practice which is not shared in all Islamic countries and therefore is not Sharia.
Complain about this comment
Islam is great, that only in some countries, this is a first treatment to controlling a deadly disease to Europe
Complain about this comment
Dear All,
Below are few translations on the commandments of Allah in His holy book the Quran.
“O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)
Complain about this comment
I do not identify as a member of any faith. Neither do I identify as an aeithist. But I do believe I live my life in a way that would not harm anyone. I choose to live this way because I associate religions with evil. Yes, evil and for a good reason. One such reason is what provoked this discussion.
Everyone knows the call for a ban on veils is about security. Before radical muslims began causing security fears noone cared about what their women wore or didn't. Now that they have killed or maimed many people around the world by way of suicide bombs, it is my submission they have lost their right to dress in any way that can facilitate concealment of suicide bombs.
Never again should the citizens of the world allow a "young Nigerian" suicide bomber disguised as a muslim "virgin" access a public place to kill or maim innocent people. Those who want to go to heaven should go there on their own. They should leave those of us who want to remain here on earth longer to do so. We reject this "God" of theirs who allows them to execute their evil plans.
It is silly for the Americans to consider strip searches at the airports when there are potential bomb couriers roaming in their crowded cities wearing veils in the name of religion. All Western governments should wake up and protect the majority without fear of political or religious repercussions. Al-Qaeda must be planning to exploit the Western goverments' nonsense of religious freedoms to employ veils as covers for suicide bombs to inflict maximum casualties in the crowded cities.
The US president recently called for the security agents to be a step ahead of Al Qaeda. To allow freedom of religous dress codes is in my view staying one step behind. I forsee a muslim woman or a man disguised as woman(or multiples of them) causing maximum loss of life. That is when politicians will shed their fear and ban religious dresses in public. Let us do something now to save lives. The life saved could be yours, mine or one or more of our relatives/friends.
Complain about this comment
The immigration by people of Middle Eastern decent to the west is the worst thing to happen to western culture since the bubonic plague.
the Muslims nations especially Midle east exports 3 things... oil, terrorism and Islam. since Islam is insane, your might as well say they export insanity.
now they want to implement sharia law in the west. they demand respect from us for their religion and values... but they don't respect ours in return. If you take a bible to Saudi Arabia they will burn that immediately , if you place a photo of Jesus in your room they will distry that and punish you , but now they doing open worships in Great cities in Europe publicly , they blocking the roads for worship , they even have mosque in Rome .
No more visa for Muslims / no renewal of visa / on long slayable visa / no citizenship for Muslims,
No more visa for Muslims / no renewal of visa / on long slayable visa / no citizenship for Muslims ,
Muslims don't deserve tolerance, they deserve deportation.
Other ways Europe would be the hell in the world very soon
Hope you will spared this message and discuss about this matter and do proper action to this wide spreading plague
Complain about this comment
I am rather sad because this young woman has no idea that the rest of us cannot see past the veil. She has chosen, by wearing it to exclude herself and make herself unapproachable. In effect if she is truly aware of this, then she is deliberately making herself different to the rest of the community in which she lives.
A couple of years ago, I was sitting next to such a woman in a nursery school. I tried to strike up a conversation,she looked at me through her veil, narrowed her eyes and physically turned herself away. I felt like a pariah, it was horrid. I have not bothered to try to engage another Muslim woman since then.
By mentioning Jesus and Mary in her speech, I personally found that offensive, From what I have seen in the media, Islam is not tolerant of the Christian faith or of the Western Countries who are Christian.If it were then the middle eastern issues would not exist and nor would Al Queda or the constant terrorism we live with.
By wearing such a garment she is perpetuating that intollerance and hatred on both sides. Chucking Jesus and Mary into the equation is below the belt and not needed. If you cannot back something up by your own rhetoric and your own beliefs dont plunder an other faith to do it. Besides, she is wrong, I have not seen one image of the Virgin Mary in a full veil or burka. Yes she wears a head scarf, but how much of that is the romantic ideals and imagination of the painter? No one can say otherwise. By the same token, God made the Garden of Eden, he made Adam and Eve, when they ate the apple, God they made themselves wear clothes out of modesty. God had them free from sin and free of conscience, therefore if we were to translate that, into any faith, the more you wear the more sin you have, or in this case Islam by insisting its women wear full burkas must consider its women to be the most sinful shameful women on the face of the earth.
Complain about this comment
"You're supposed to be progressive in the West, there is supposed to be freedom of speech and of expression. We have rights...please let us keep our restrictive, ancient dress that suppresses our women"
I don't think so. This is not circa 600AD. This is not Arabia in the time of Mohammed for goodness sake. This is 2010 in a modern, secular society. Insistance on this ancient 'costume' is backwards. Society and culture progress, women in many Muslim countries last century did not wear the head scarf as has been mentioned. Unfortunately Wahhabism has spread and become the dominant Islamic school of thought, removing the more peaceful and spiritual Sufism and the modern, progressive schools of thought. For some reason this school of thought insists of the veil. I cannot and do not accept an interpretation of what was once a beautiful religion that dictates only women wear this ridiculous costume.
Islam never went through a reformation as Christianity did. It needs to, it needs to re-think it's core traditions and customs. It needs to allow women the freedom to not wear the veil, because the current interpretation is only defending a cultural tradition, there is no religious foundation to it.
Complain about this comment
[ • 447. At 00:46am on 26 Jan 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
174. At 4:44pm on 23 Jan 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
It seems to me that religions which are supposedly there to tell their story about god, they certainly seem preoccupied with sex. In fact that's mostly what they seem to focus on lately, just sex, sex, sex. Is that all religious people can think about these days?
________
It's because they aren't getting any.]
________
No, it’s a way of exerting control over their congregations.
[• 471. At 11:34am on 26 Jan 2010, Paul wrote:
To be French does not mean being a Muslim. It never has and never will. Being Muslim is a religious thing and has nothing to do with the country you live in, were born in or reside in. ]
Paul, to the Muslim, being a Muslim is all that matters. They are Muslim before they are French, British or American.
[• 481. At 12:22pm on 26 Jan 2010, Majid wrote:
France are playing with Allah creation. Allah knows what’s best for Women and best for Men. Women in Islam respect their Beauty just like Nuns, Jewish Women. Men provide the women a Home and Food. Women in Islam have a right to wear a Vail to stop people exposing at them such as Murders and Rapist. ]
Nuns do NOT wear a burqa – they wear the equivalent of a hijab. And their veil has not, in the past protected them from rapists, I do assure you.
The problem seems to be that to a Muslim man (not all of them, but many) an unveiled woman is ‘asking for it’. The problem is with *their* lack of self-control, not with the women who do not wish to wear a veil of any kind. They really should learn some discipline.
They also need to learn that ‘Allah’s laws’ are just so many rantings in the pages of yet another ‘holy book’ to the majority of us. We are not interested in it. Nor in wearing a black sack so that we can go about our lives unmolested by a bunch of men who think that being Muslim men gives them the right to behave like pigs (with apologies to pigs!).
"A mother is a school. If she is educated, then a whole people are educated". Shame their menfolk are so ignorant then!
Complain about this comment
481 "Allah does love all Mankind but not those who play around with Allah’s Laws."
Eternal damnation awaits those who question God's unconditional love eh?
Complain about this comment
Chrystelle says, "to say that it is not part of our religion I find very difficult, because we know that the wives of the prophet were dressed like this, they were fully covered."
The wives of the prophet lived in a desert country 1400 years ago, of course they wore veils. But the Qur'an itself, as far as I'm aware, makes no mention of it as a religious requirement.
Does the fact that the prophet's wives lived in a desert country mean that modern muslim women have a religious obligation to do the same?
Complain about this comment
The argument that it's part of someone's own culture, and western folk have no right to pass judgement on it. Hmmm....
1) Do people honestly believe that full-on muslim societies allow western women to *publically* - and this is what the issue is all about, wearing it *publically* - to publically go about wearing swimsuits, drinking alcohol, and doing all the other things which are a part or *our* culture?
2) Imagine this story - not a comparison, but a general illustration. I let slip to my friends at school that at home, my father and I eat first, while my mother and sister eat our scraps; my father and I do no housework, but my mother and sister have to clean the house daily, licking the surfaces clean with their tongues. My friends tell me this is all wrong, its inhuman - but I respond that it seems correct to me and to my sister: it was done the same in my grandfather's house, and in his father's house.
Does this mean that my friends are simply failing to understand my family's culture?
Or does it mean that my family is actually screwed up, and my sister and I have been brainwashed into perpetuating screwed-up values?
Complain about this comment
I am a Muslim lady I have the rigth to choose which kind of clothing that i will prefere... but there are some Muslim ladies who have different culture which at the same time will benifit them and make them safe. in other hand, the government have the right also to implement such things. Like what the other reader said in Iran and Saudi they are forcing the people to wear covering for their head and body. They have the right to implement which they think will protect thier country. other wise everybody have freewill... if they can't respect the law no space for you. We are civilized people... we must to learn to follow rules in each and every country... with no exception... When other nationalities wants to visit Iran and Saudi if they will not wear the proper dress they are imposing you mihgt be in trouble... so same thing... Brothers and sisters in Muslim, lets show them that we can follow also... There are too many Christians working in Saudi, even they hate Abaya, they don't have choice but to follow... let's learn to respect others so that they will respect us as well...
But one thing I dis agree with Mr. Peter, please you don't know what are the sufferings of other Muslim be sensitive with your comment you might have bad expirience with Muslims, but they are there in your country because they just want to live a normal life... free from fear... Do you know what's the feeling of a person which they know that they are not welcome with the society they belong to? it's hard but they choose to because they suffer a lot. I dont want argument with you i just want to explain the sides of My Muslim Brothers and Siters in your place. Be greatful that you don't have to beg to other country just to live your life...
If there are Muslim Terrorists.. remember there are innocent also...
My God bless my fellow Muslims....
Complain about this comment
I find it strange that this woman is used as an example but she is only an example of a radically different view of Islam. She says that Allah said that women should cover their faces... where does he say this? It is not in the Qur'an where it only says that women should cover their hair and dress modestly. I have not seen it in the bible or the tora...
The Prophet was bedouin and bedouin women wear the veil but he never said that it was a requirement of Islam. Even in bedouin countries it is common to ban the veil in certain places. Lots of public buildings in Saudi Arabia do not allow the veil and colleges and universities ban the veil there also. In the Emirates they allow the veil in such places and it is a real problem. The girls cheat in the exams by sending their sister instead or they talk on the phone under the veil. I think that it should be restricted in all countries.
Hadija would not have covered here face nor would he have told her to. She was his boss, after all, and she told him what to do. It was her money he spent on his project. By the end of his time, when he was married to Alisha (the 6 year old child), he was more used to having his women (or girls) do as he told them.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS