Jump to content
Islamic Forum
ParadiseLost

France Bans Niqab/burqa

Recommended Posts

Today the law banning veils in France has been enforced and already 2 women have been arrested for wearing it.

What does everyone think about it? Is it good or bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Sure it's bad -) It's attack on Islam.

Why did they banned minarets in Switzerland? -the same background...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are saying they banned it from a security point of view i.e. they need to see peoples face in public places in case someone steals something. I don't know if France have a history of women wearing the burqa or niqab stealing though. Also their other reason is because France is a secular country ( like the way Turkey bans the headscarf in public places). Thankfully they didn't go as extreme in France and ban the hijab even but still I guess it can be used as a stepping stone in that direction maybe?

Also the worrying thing is that unlike Turkey, France is a non muslim majority European country and therefore other European countries may follow in this way, hopefully not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different strokes for different folks. One culture may view it as something to be respected, others may see it as something to be feared. Especially where I'm from, a covered face means bad guy. Watching a western, you see that handkerchief get pulled up over the face and you know there is about to be some lawbreaking.

 

Western governments have put a lot of resources into security cameras, facial recognition and the like. In this age of terrorism, when it is becoming necessary to get groped just to get on an airplane, being unable to mask your identity in public places doesn't seem like such to be such a big deal.

 

Of course, I am all for different folks in different parts of the world following their own cultural norms. Burkas for all 24/7 if that what is deemed appropriate. If that were that law there, I would fully expect to comply, or simply not visit that country. The choice is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are saying they banned it from a security point of view

 

There is one Radovan Karadzic who represented himself as Dragan Dabic for 10 years, and he didn't cover himself :sl: . If someone wants to do something illegal, anything, he will find way.

 

But if there is a law that defines the limits of covering then there have to be limit of uncovering, otherwise it's not fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

 

Solution proposed by a Niqabi sister:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

Solution proposed by a Niqabi sister:

 

 

alhamdulillah. She has brain. I think the solution is simple but would be effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try reversing the situation.

 

Would a "solution" similar to that work in trying to avoid wearing it in a culture in which it is required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try reversing the situation.

 

Would a "solution" similar to that work in trying to avoid wearing it in a culture in which it is required?

Don't understand what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't understand what you mean?

 

It is a contrived "solution". If a one Islamic woman had a medical condition requiring the use of a medical mask, liberal Western governments would probably allow it. If all of a sudden, this "solution" were put into effect, and most Islamic women developed this mysterious condition requiring them all to wear medical masks, it would be recognized as a sham.

 

It would be like all Western women showing a doctor's excuse to the Taliban saying that they have a medical condition requiring the free flow of oxygen to the mouth and nose.

 

I guess it all boils down to a "solution" being based on the truth rather than a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a contrived "solution". If a one Islamic woman had a medical condition requiring the use of a medical mask, liberal Western governments would probably allow it. If all of a sudden, this "solution" were put into effect, and most Islamic women developed this mysterious condition requiring them all to wear medical masks, it would be recognized as a sham.

 

It would be like all Western women showing a doctor's excuse to the Taliban saying that they have a medical condition requiring the free flow of oxygen to the mouth and nose.

 

I guess it all boils down to a "solution" being based on the truth rather than a lie.

 

I doubt suddenly thousands of Muslim women will take this solution. Probably only a few will see the video, and even fewer would be bold enough to try it.

 

And if the western non-Muslim women think such an excuse might be effective, I say go for it. I don't see why they have to wear a Burqa to begin with, if they're not Muslim.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt suddenly thousands of Muslim women will take this solution. Probably only a few will see the video, and even fewer would be bold enough to try it.

 

So the dishonest abuse of freedom is ok as long as it involves only a few bold people and not thousands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point gill but this is infringement of their human rights and therefore I think the medical mask thing is a good idea if they wish to wear it.

And not all Muslim women wear the burqa/niqab its only like 2000 women out of around 5 million french muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that depends who is providing the definition of "human rights". Personally, I have never felt that wearing a mask was one of my human rights.

 

There may be a few very basic human rights that are accepted around the world, but I don't think any one group can dictate to the world what should be acceptable. They might plead their case and try to change the law, but ultimately the rule of law needs to prevail.

 

In the US, the first of our rights listed in our "Bill of Rights" is the freedom of speech. This includes the burning of any book. Try to do that in certain parts of the world and try to claim it is a "human right".

 

You cannot have it both ways.

Edited by gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Japanese say, 'The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the Japanese say, 'The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.'

 

True. But isn't it true for every aspect - for an individual or a nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Japanese phrase refers to individuals. Individuality was frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the dishonest abuse of freedom is ok as long as it involves only a few bold people and not thousands?

 

So the bigoted subjugation of people who wish to follow their religion is okay as long as they happen to be Muslim women?

 

See how easy it is to pervert your opponent's position?

 

In the US, the first of our rights listed in our "Bill of Rights" is the freedom of speech. This includes the burning of any book. Try to do that in certain parts of the world and try to claim it is a "human right".

 

You cannot have it both ways.

 

Nor can you say it both ways. If you support human rights, do so full-hearted without being selective in who you adminster it to.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the Japanese say, 'The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.'

 

And as the Americans say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as the Americans say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Salam.

 

 

 

You lost me, L.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure it's bad -) It's attack on Islam.

Why did they banned minarets in Switzerland? -the same background...

 

France is wrong, but I think people who condemn the west yet fail to condemn Muslim countries when they force non-Muslim women to wear hijab are a bit hypocritical. If it's wrong to force people to dress a certain way in the west, it is also wrong to do so in the Islamic world. If non-Muslims must be sensitive to Islamic customs and social norms, then Muslims should also be sensitive to European or secular morals and if they do not feel comfortable, they can move to Muslim countries. I will not go to Saudi if they force me to wear hijab or niqab and it is that simple. A Saudi has the choice to leave if they are not comfortable with the rules of their country as do Muslims in the West.

Switzerland banned minarets, but not Masjids in general if I am not mistaken. And again, some Muslim countries place restrictions on non-Muslim houses of prayer, so if it's wrong in the west, it is wrong in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and wherever else it happens. Who says that Islam is attacking non-Muslims then? There is a double standard.

 

Discrimination is wrong both ways, right?

 

Peace.

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Arabs tell you to put hijab they don't forbid something what your religion dedicates to you.

 

Switzerland banned minarets, but not Masjids in general if I am not mistaken. And again, some Muslim countries place restrictions on non-Muslim houses of prayer, so if it's wrong in the west, it is wrong in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and wherever else it happens.

 

It's not minaret what bothers Switzerland but a symbol of Islam.

Here, where I live, many Masjids were destroyed during the war, but not and churches.

None attacks or laughs at Christianity, but you have some "democratic" cartoonists drawing Prophet, burning of the Qur'an, banning of the minarets, niqab ban... and soon there will be more.

It's "democracy".

I don't know if some Muslims burned the Bible, laughed at Christianity, banned churches or anything from your religion.

Something more,it was some time ago, but it happen.. during the Ottoman empire many Jews found refuge there, non-Muslims were safe in there, but on the other side you have 10 genocides over the Balkan Muslims, first was from 1683 to 1699, and the last one 1992-1995, in democratic and contemporary large-minded Europe.

It's example of democratic west and reserved east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discrimination is wrong both ways, right?

 

I agree.

I think we should be outraged at it from a human rights approach rather than a religious approach because it is an attack on human rights for all of us. What is the point in having human rights if countries and people don't even respect them.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Like sister Redeem said 'If you support human rights, do so full-hearted without being selective in who you adminster it to.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not minaret what bothers Switzerland but a symbol of Islam.

Here, where I live, many Masjids were destroyed during the war, but not and churches.

None attacks or laughs at Christianity, but you have some "democratic" cartoonists drawing Prophet, burning of the Qur'an, banning of the minarets, niqab ban... and soon there will be more.

It's "democracy".

I don't know if some Muslims burned the Bible, laughed at Christianity, banned churches or anything from your religion.

Something more,it was some time ago, but it happen.. during the Ottoman empire many Jews found refuge there, non-Muslims were safe in there, but on the other side you have 10 genocides over the Balkan Muslims, first was from 1683 to 1699, and the last one 1992-1995, in democratic and contemporary large-minded Europe.

It's example of democratic west and reserved east.

 

Perhaps you are unaware of this but according to one U.K. NGO 75% of all people killed for their religion are Christians, mainly in Muslim countries. Have you forgotten about the recent massacres of Christians in Iraq and Egypt, and there have also been recent attacks in Ethiopia. I saw Muslims on the news last week burning crosses. Christianity and Christians are made fun of in the West - every religion is. The perception is that it is ONLY Islam because it arouses the most 'excitement' from extremists. Even Buddha was depicted on South Park! You should also remember that Terry Jones was practically begged not to burn the Qur'an and he has been condemned.

 

The Ottoman Empire wiped out 2.1 million Christians in 1915 alone, and there were many other atrocities committed by them and other Muslim nations before then.

 

What happened in your country is wrong, and I went to school with refugees of the war.

Let's also remember not to associate those who destroyed Masjids with all Christians or Westerners, just as I will not associate the 7/7 bombers or Islamic slave traders with you. Also, the West intervened though I believe they should have done so sooner, yet who intervened when tens of millions of Hindus were wiped out by Muslim conquerors? We have to look at history in context. No one is perfect.

 

Yes, it is the symbol of Islam they are trying to suppress by banning the masjids, but we must be fair and acknowledge that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others are guilty of the same.

 

When Arabs tell you to put hijab they don't forbid something what your religion dedicates to you.

 

Covering my face because I am forced to does go against my morals, which are based in my faith.

 

I agree.

I think we should be outraged at it from a human rights approach rather than a religious approach because it is an attack on human rights for all of us. What is the point in having human rights if countries and people don't even respect them.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Like sister Redeem said 'If you support human rights, do so full-hearted without being selective in who you adminster it to.'

 

I agree totally with Redeems statement and yours!

 

Peace.

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many Christians? Yes, according to U.K.

I didn't say we Muslims are perfect since we are just humans,nor east is perfect.What I'm trying to say is that when you have to cover your hair(not your face) when you are in some Arabic country isn't same as when you have to put off your niqab when you are in non-Muslim country, and that the west isn't so democratic as you're trying to say.

And, yes, what happen here is wrong, just like and in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, Kosovo, Sudan...

Burning a cross?-isn't that revenge because of burning of the Qur'an?

And again, yes, what Talibans are doing is actually wrong:

 

"AND DO NOT THINK THAT Allah IS UNAWARE OF WHAT THE UNJUST AND TRANSGRESSORS DO, HE IS BUT POSTPONING THEM TO A DAY WHEN THEIR EYES WILL BE DAZED.

RUSHING, RAISING THEIR HEADS, THEIR EYES DO NOT BLINK, AND THEIR HEARTS ARE EMPTY." (Qur'an, 14:42,43)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×