Muslims - should they be unveiled

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 215 discussions (730 posts)

61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
let there be peace among the nations
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We are not bad at the peace among nations thing in Australia, but we are sure pi**ing off the mining companies at the moment.
  Our Government wants to take 40% tax off them to redistribute to the states!
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A high tax on mining is an excellent idea - mining causes huge environmental problems - and these are normally left for the public (through government) to pay for the clean up as the money makers are long gone.
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeah, skyrocketing energy prices are always a great boon for the economy! "The public" should just love that.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you don't know anything you could at least go do some homework if you are going to comment, you would not look so stupid.
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If that ever comes up I'll be sure to remember your friendly advice.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It looks very dodgy right now that the new tax you are talking about will go through Earnest. Our PM should have started with 10% and put it up by 10% every year over a four year period. He should have snuck up on 'em.
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As an Australian, I say good on ya Kevin! It's about time the citizens of Australia received a decent share of the profits made from the public property...
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nice idea Irish observer, how do you propose we achieve it? Which group of non-conformists do we first put against the wall
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
40% - Jesuz - even the Greek Government could not come up with a figure like that
reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
peace
reply report
68
Rod Marsdenposted 14 years ago
I am NOT going to tell the women in my life what to wear. Not only don't I think of it as the right thing to do but I like to live in peace with the women folk. Nah! As far as I am concerned women make the rules as far as what they'll wear and that is fair enough with me. The women happiest in mini-skirts are the one who want to be in mini-skirts and that's fair enough too.

Three things you can make a woman do.

1. Make her smile.

2. Make her laugh.

3. Make her glad she knows you.

Well, that is the beginning and end of my despotism when it comes to the opposite sex and I don't care if I have offended someone.
reply report
38
brethodgeposted 14 years ago
I strongly believe that all Muslims are not same.. only the handful of this community work as a terrorist group on the name of Jihad...Peace is the one thing that every religion teach and so does the Quran... So its good to reveal the Real muslims and not just the terrorists..
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are best revealed by your actions. Yes there are Muslims living in Australia that have done well and do fit in with the rest of society. It is the ones that don't fit in because they don't want to fit in that cause a lot of trouble. Maybe if Muslims were to learn a bit about the history of Cordoba, Spain they might develop some of their old pride in being able to mix with other religions and other peoples. Our counting system Arabic numerals comes from the Muslims and so does Algebra (the Moors). Without Algebra it is doubtful the Americans could have landed men on the moon in 1969.
  
  The Muslims I don't want in my country are the ones that have no regard for others. The rest I am happy to see stay in my country and good luck to them.
  .
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But surely they are just as Australian as any other immigrant ? only the Aboriginal people could possibly claim it to be 'their' Australia in the way you describe.
  
  I am amazed at some of the comments on here from normally rational nice posters. It is nobody's business except our own what we wear and how we live our culture - as it is nobody's business but a Muslim's how a Muslim lives. It would appear that the Christian / American war on Islam is warping ideas of personal freedom everywhere.
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  " It would appear that the Christian / American war on Islam "
  
  There is no such thing.
  reply report
  64
  Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  come on Sab.. tell the truth... we are sending a landing party to Dubai
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you have enough money I hear you can party pretty hard in Dubai!
  reply report
  64
  Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  it's just an expeditionary force we are sending... just enough beer money for the weekend
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The Muslim migrants that are just as Australian as any migrant are the ones that want to make a go of being in Australia. The Muslim migrants that are just as Australian as any other migrant make an effort to get along with other Australians. The ones that don't do these things? Well just because my country was founded on immigration like the USA or Canada doesn't mean there is a green light for people coming in today to just walk all over us. I was born in Australia and so were my parents. For over 200 years there have been European types living in Australia. As for the Aborigines they are looked upon with contempt by the radical Muslims who really don't want to be Australian. I have no such contempt for them and neither do the Muslims who really do want to make a proper go of working in with the rest of us.
  
  I am Australian born and bred though my ancestors are English. I have grown up with Greek and Italian Australians born and bred who strongly believe and with good reason they are Australian. I do not dispute this as they have made the effort when they first got here to become part of my country.
  
  Yes china man it is generally nobody's business what we wear and it only becomes everybody's business culture-wise if a culture coming in clashes with an already existing culture. Live and let live is the common rule but what if the culture entering the country does not agree with live and let live?
  
  There are practical reasons why in various countries there is a ban on any person covering up there face before entering a place of business. You will not be popular walking into a bank wearing your helmet with the visor down especially if it is a sun visor and no one can see your face. We are used to business transactions such as money for goods being done out in the open. We are used to seeing the other person's face. The other way of doing business is via the internet. Maybe this will be the answer for Muslim women who have some religious problem with showing their faces to chemist shop owners, bank tellers, etc.
  
  Some years ago in the Bankstown area of NSW there was a male gang of vicious Muslim rapists who were let off by a judge because they were Muslims and by the culture they came from they didn't know any better. No jail time. Out on good behavior. The general public was outraged. The verdict was overturned and the rapists did do time.
  
  If I have to obey the laws of my own country then I would like to believe that others should as well. Walking softly to avoid clashes doesn't work. The judge was definitely in the wrong. Are all Muslim youth as bad as the lot described? Actually no. Even so justice has to be seen to be done.
  
  Agreed Sab Oh, no Christian/American war on Islam. The enemies of democracy would like you to believe it exists that is why militant and purposely offensive Muslims are trying to press our buttons.
  
  How much do you consider beer money Greek One? Don't reckon I could afford Dubai.
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  brethodge
  
  I totally agree with you, I have not meet a rude Muslim...
  
  Although I think you overestimate the size of the terrorists who call themselves Muslim, much less than a 'handful' when assessed as a percentage of the total global Muslim population....
  reply report
38
brethodgeposted 14 years ago
Why are we discussing only about Muslims to be unveiled? There are many other religion people who work as a terrorists for other countries. And moreover the people who give road for the attack are more guilty then the one who attack...
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  again brethodge,
  
  I agree! Why the focus on a single demographic? I hazard the answer - it serves a conservative political agenda and stems from the mindset that sees things as black and white - binary hierarchical thinking. It makes things much simpler to argue about us and them.... Don't you think?
  reply report
68
Rod Marsdenposted 14 years ago
This is supposed to be about whether Muslims should be unveiled or not. The working question here is Muslims - should they be unveiled? Well people here are answering that question.

Should other people make their faces and the shapes of their heads known in public as well?

There are pubs and clubs in Sydney where the bouncers will show you the door if you are wearing a hood that is up and hiding part of your face and dark glasses or simply won't let you in until you at least remove the hood from your head. This makes sense to me. They don't care where you come from.

You try to enter a bank with a biker helmet on and you will most likely be told to take the helmet off. Again they won't care where you come from they just feel antsy about anyone doing a cover up.
reply report
54
(Q)posted 14 years ago
If we start banning the archaic and ancient rituals bounded by shepherds and nomads from a time when myths and superstitions ruled the world, we might then start thinking about each other for a change...
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How would that work?
  
  Should we ban one myth with another myth? Must we all see the world through the eyes of the white patriarchal bourgeoisie?
  
  Viva la difference!
  reply report
0
Lady_Eposted 14 years ago
It would be nice if they could adhere to their religion and be Veiled, however people are abusing this and I support that they should be unveiled.

1) A Muslim man believed to have killed a police officer left Heathrow airport wearing the veil and Niqab. He used his sister's passport, carrying a ladies handbag and left the country.

2) A hubber shared with me that 2 men committed a robbery in France wearing the Niqab. See 2nd comment - http://hubpages.com/hub/Being-Observant-Pays

As it's being abused, then sadly I feel they should be unveiled. Sometimes, "she" is actually a "he". I'm sorry if my comments offend any muslims.
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  One could argue that this man was an exception to the rule. One exception does not justify imposing a ban on millions of other people...
  reply report
61
NamVetRichposted 14 years ago
I agree with Lady_E, when I was stationed in Vietnam if you were Vietnames and you wore all black it would bring attention upon yourself, us GI's called them pajama's and we would associate them with Viet Cong. It was part of there culture and make up to ware black, also to ward off the heat.
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wearing black does not ward off heat in the sun, wearing white does that.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  (Q) has a point.
  
  Lady-E is kind of heart but makes the point a lot of us have tried to make.
  
  I remember stories from Vietnam. Even children could prove to be dangerous. You wouldn't think of searching a child for weapons. On more than one occasion a child carrying a live grenade with the pin pulled was sent into an American camp. The pressure of the child's thumb stops it from exploding. The child releases his or her grip on the grenade to show some soldier what he or she has in their hand and we have an explosion. A soldier enough of a distance away not to get killed remembers the scene and records what happened. Small doesn't mean you can't kill. In the end any sign of the enemy was looked for including clothes worn. If black generally means Vietcong then in a war zone during the Vietnam War you can't blame GIs for being extra cautious around natives wearing black.
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If dark colors do not ward off heat - why did nature evolve dark skin?
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where it can be extremely hot during the day it can likewise be extremely cold during the night.
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Let there be peace among the nations
reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
In Ireland you are requested to remove your helmet but there is no law as such
reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Will a Labour/Lib Dem coalition Government in Britain help relax racial tensions
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hell no!
  
  The issue is not party differences - Labour, Lib Dem or Tory - the thinking common among each party, and that will impose more restrictions, is the bourgeois mentality...
  reply report
57
foreignpressposted 14 years ago
Without reading all the above posts, I'll add my two cents by saying that no country can be all things to all people. If a country's laws don't fit your personal preferences then don't live there. That's how it has to be until we become a one-world everything.
One possible solution is for extremists to set up a community that is governed by their laws and their laws only. Those entering that enclave abide by their rules (for example, wearing a headscarf). If they venture outside that community they must respect the laws of others.
Laws of all kinds are being tossed aside like refuse. Don't like a certain law then disregard it. Such is the case with illegal immigration. But laws also provide a common continuity. Without laws we degenerate into chaos.
reply report
1. 50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend foreignpress
  
  I generally agree with you.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
2. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sensible foreignpress. You say if a country's laws don't fit your personal preferences then don't live there. The chances, however, of us becoming a one world everything are slim.
  
  No one would want a part of their own country sectioned off where mad laws and strange behavior dominate.
  
  Toss a law aside and the reason for the law becomes apparent. Laws were tossed aside on beaches in NSW a few years ago in that the police had their hands tied by political correctness issues and there was literally one law for one group and virtually no law for another group. The result was violence. If all in a country are not treated equally and fairly you will have people taking the law into their own hands.
  
  Yes laws do provide a common continuity and also a feeling of equality among people when properly administered. It was decided a long time ago that no one should be about the law including royalty. Laws for all do work. Yes laws can be changed to fit changes in circumstance but again they need to be changed for all.
  
  Yes without laws that are for all and protect all we do degenerate into chaos. To disregard a law is wrong. To see the law as bad and work toward changing it is a much better idea. To have a law for one group in society but not for everyone is a really bad idea and I believe in the long run unworkable.
  reply report
3. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not everybody has that choice...Resettlement programs for refugees do not always give the refugee such a luxury...
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
I think that the Taliban have created such a community - well at least that was one of the excuses America used to justify invading Afghanistan
reply report
1. 55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I worked with a number of women who lived under Taliban rule. They told some hair-raising stories of their experiences.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend Sab Oh
  
  They are fanatics and handling "religion politically"; I also find many incursion of the Muslim rulers in the past who invaded other countries just for territorial gains, totally unauthorized by Quran/Islam/Muhammad. What has religion to do with it? Such endevours only hamper peaceful spread of a Religion and need not to be justified and supported.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you paaraurrey that fanatics make it bad for everyone and may someday put an end to multiculturalism in a number of counties including Australia. During the Middle Ages there were Muslims who felt that a multicultural society in which everyone was welcome was the way to go. They did well in Spain. That spirit is still alive among some Muslims but their best efforts are certainly hampered by fanatics. Live and let live isn't a bad way to go. If you can't have that then I have to say you can't have multiculturalism or at least not the sort I grew up with. Treating people the same way no matter where they come from. Treat people in a fair and honest way or you might as well kiss multiculturalism goodbye.
  reply report
  60
  bonny2010posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you 100percent - personally I have no problem with theveil -buthave to admit it is being abused so I can understand peoples reactions However it would be rather sad to see it disappear from our society which has always accepted people for themselves
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no real distinction between politics and religion - especially with Islam.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend Sab Oh
  
  Multiculturalism is OK. I we have to survive and coexist in this beautiful world which has now shrunk to a little village we have to show love for all and hatred for none. I have lived in village where everything was like it would be in Jesus'or Moses'time; all barter trading and hardly any currency was used to buy anything. In fact every family was self-sufficient in almost everything. Then I have lived in big cities of the third-world and now living in the West.
  
  I don't thing there is any problem in co-existing in this world. People everywhere are beautiful, loving and accommodating one another.
  
  The problems could be solved in the roots very truthfully and peacefully; without any arsenal being used; if only will is there and no Politics is done.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where there is a will
  So there is a way
  
  Peace be with you
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I see no distinction between politics and religion - in the West. Practically every Western politician aligns with the church... Every Prime Minister of Australia and the UK and President of USA attends church on a regular basis...They may not make direct reference to the bible in their policies but IMO that does not mean the church does not influence politics...
  
  The rhetoric of the western liberal dream - a secular society - does not dissolve the link between politics and religion. IMO the rhetoric simply disguises the link...
  reply report
  60
  Rajab Nsubugaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sab Oh: there is nodifference between religion and politics, especially in Islam. Is vatican a state? Isthe pope a religious leader?
  reply report
2. 50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friends
  
  I don't think America has also gained anything from this endeavor.
  
  Thanks
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  America did not go into Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq with good intelligence. They didn't have enough interpreters on the ground or much of an understanding of the people. During the Vietnam War they paid dearly for lack of knowledge. In the present conflicts they have paid dearly for general lack of good intelligence. Blasting the hell out of a country when you have the technology is easy but making a peace that will stick is another thing altogether.
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
I cant even begin to imagine what these people suffered
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Like Sab Oh I have heard some hair raising stories. The Taliban are not opposed to stoning people, especially women, to death.
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
peace to all men
reply report
1. 50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And women - veiled or not
  reply report
70
LeanManposted 14 years ago
I live in Saudi Arabia....

I'm all for the veil... It makes them look very sexy, just the eyes made up very beautifully... you have to work hard with your imagination to think what there is beneath that layer of black cloth...

Maybe I've been here too long.... hehehehe
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  good on ya, eanman!
  
  I also find the veil 'becoming'...
  reply report
60
AKaddanotherAposted 14 years ago
Personally, if the fine is because she could not be identified, what happened to just carrying around a form of ID. I mean, celebrities put on glasses and hats and face masks and god knows what else to avoid being "identified" by a passerby so what's the problem with a veil instead? If one finds it necessary to learn the name and identification, that's why people have IDs.

A fine is just taking things to extremes and asking for trouble.
reply report
1. 55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Think about that for a second...
  
  ...
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well said AKaddanotherA - we don't care if Western celebrities cover up and disguise themselves. IMO, the fines are not about security, but a racist attack on misunderstood culture...and for purely political advantage
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Rajab - Peace among the nations
reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Ireland has yesterday introduced new laws to close down Head Shops - these are shops that until yesterday sold legal highs - are we becoming a Nanny State
reply report
1. 55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What legal highs?
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have you never heard of 'legal highs'?
  
  What rock do you live under?
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Becoming? Western nations became nanny state long ago!
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Peace and Love
reply report
60
Rajab Nsubugaposted 14 years ago
This is a revealing post. However, when all is being said I think there are one or two things that are being conceal.

The post clearly mentions of a woman who was fined upon walking veiled in Nantes, France. What is not mentioned that France does not observe the shalia law. This removes all possibilities of the woman being forced to veil.

The veiled woman was in company of her husband, however, it was not the husband who was fined therefore, exonerating him for having imposed it onto the woman. What it also implies that it was the woman's free will to veil. So judgement should have focused on the enforcers of the law in Nantes rather than blaming the muslim males.

When is veiling bad? Who draws the Line? Most of the participants in this thread are putting on masks, using pseudonyms, monks and nuns veil not forgetting our lordships in courts of law. When is veiling degrading?
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Veiling is only degrading when the person doesn't want to hide themselves and when it is part of something else that is degrading.
  
  Degrading or not, hiding one's appearance becomes an issue when it affects necessary easy identification. Cameras are everywhere nowadays keeping track of everything we do in malls, etc.
  
  Wearing hoods or veils that can distort or in some way hide our features looks mighty suspicious in the world of high tech security. We in the West are used to being spied on by one form of security or another. It has become a way of life. We don't always like it but if it is the law we abide by it. Is it the way we should live? I don't know. What I can say is that it is the way we do live.
  
  Carrying around ID does help but if those cameras can't see you properly alarm bells chime in the minds of police and other security and that's just the truth. Besides, for an ID with photo to work the person has to show their face anyway otherwise they could be anyone.
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good point Rajab Nsubuga
  
  We all have our masks.
  We all want our anonymity.
  We all want our culture.
  
  Clearly, the dress-code imposed by Western bourgeois governments reveals the bigoted thinking of the supposed 'representatives' of the citizens...
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Yes. They should be.

Considering the Qu'ran promotes the concepts of, "Tiqqiya" & "Kithman" ie: Deciet and Deption. In order to advance Islam into the "Dar AL'Harb" "House Of War".

These are old and well tried concepts of Jihad. As derived from the Qu'ranic verse which reads, "All things are lawful to the Musliim in times such as these."

Also.

These concepts and thier use are alive and well today in Isra'el and the middle east. News reports all the time are in regards to suicide bombers dressed as woman.

Suicide bombers, another accepted practice of Islam. Al'Azhar University in Cairo has issued a fatwa, and Declaration, in support of suicide matrydom. Saying in part... "that "Muslims have no alternative in the face of such well armed and advanced enemies as those they face today. Accept to use all those thing Allah has given them" ie: their bodies and minds.

Yup... it is okay to be a suicide bomber, and to hide your true self.

So?... Should they show themselves...

Yes.
reply report
77
thisisoliposted 14 years ago
It is not the governments place to stop people wearing what they want.

However the spread of any religion worries me. Does that make me a bigamist, probably, but it seems like preventing the irrational is logical to the rational.
reply report
1. 61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is not about wearing what you want.
  
  Wear what you want all you want.
  
  But don't get pissy when asked to remove it for indentification purposes.
  
  That is what this is about. knowing who is around you is always a good idea for your own personal security. Same goes for public and national security. We don't know you are who you look to be, unless we check.
  
  It is fairly simple.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You got it TMMason.
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
peace
reply report
70
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
In my opinion, women should be free to wear or not wear veils or whatever else they wish to wear especially if it is a custom called for by their religion. They should neither be required (by law, religion or by their husbands) to wear veils nor prohibited from wearing them.
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In a perfect world this would be great Ralph. It would be great to always have that freedom around for everybody.
  reply report
0
zampanoposted 14 years ago
in the year of 1900 the mayor of a commune called kremlin-bicêtre, near paris, forbade priest from wearing their soutane in public.
1900
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is the ban still in place?
  reply report
69
blondepoetposted 14 years ago
Well it has finally happened in my country, we had a robbery here in Oz and they were wearing a veil across the face....
reply report
1. 70
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's the difference between veils and ski masks or Nixon masks? I'm sure it's illegal everywhere to rob a bank with or without a mask.
  reply report
  69
  blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is crazy in Oz we were disallowed to wear motor bike helmets(security reasons) in our banks yet muslim veils allowed.
  Currently however the government is proposing to ban the full face veil.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes blondepoet hence probably the reason for the question Muslims - should they be unveiled? It is security versus religious belief and I think security will win. It has won in other European style countries. Oz will be seen as backward if we don't. We can only bend so far. breaking shouldn't be an option.
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  None of the women who received a fine under these draconian laws were convicted of robbery, or any other illegal activity... they went about their daily business, like you and me... and for you to presume them guilty of a terrorist act is a perversion of the presumption of innocence - the corner-stone of legal system of the bourgeois liberal society in which you live...
  reply report
71
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
So far so good in Australia, although I did hear someone bring it up the other day, that we should consider a ban based on security risks.

Personally I think covering your head in Australia is a damn good idea. We have a lot of melanoma cancer here from the intense sunlight.
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well you have a point there Earnest when it comes to skin cancer. I should wear a hat in summer but often do not.
  
  A ban based on security risks is the thing. It may seem right now overdoing it but our security is strongly based on people being seen and thus identified.
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Perhaps its time for religion to be removed from all aspects of civil society - if people want to follow a religion they should do it in their houses or in their churches
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm be happy with that. I got to know a neighbour the other day I don't want to visit.
  She came over on Sunday morning to invite me to her church.
  
  Makes it easier to sort them out sometimes, especially when I know I will not want to join them at their church or at home!
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your intolerance must make you are super neighbor. Let's hope you never need anything from them.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No problem there.
  
  I have other neighbours who are sane, and don't assume their psychotic beliefs on others by assuming I have nothing better to do on Sunday than follow their religion!
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How nice that you have at least some neighbors you don't hate. That way you can save up your intolerance for those who really 'deserve' it.
  
  Be careful you don't get dehydrated spitting in the face of friendly, neighborly gestures all the time.
  
  What a prince...
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't need to be a prince to deal with religious fundies who knock on my door asking me to go to their church sab oh!
  Don't feel left out, I would remove your sad and sorry self as well!
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you are free to hate and be intolerant of whomever you want. Congratulations
  
  I'm sure you excuse the exact same behavior when exercised by others against their chosen group, right?
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nah leave all that to you.
  The expert.
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You have not only demonstrated it but admitted to it, so don't try to deny it now.
  reply report
  66
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  and the definition of EXPERT
  
  a drip under pressure
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Figures you'd start in with the insults.
  reply report
  66
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  After 6 nothing but insulting posts from you above - and now you want to criticise me or are you claiming expert for yourself
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My posts were observational based on someone's own words. Yours was just another in a long line of childish insults.
  reply report
  60
  watchyaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  I love this kind of arguments ! LOL
  
  I'm listening !
  report
2. 55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Perhaps its time for religion to be removed from all aspects of civil society - if people want to follow a religion they should do it in their houses or in their churches"
  
  Oh sure, push the majority into hiding to satisfy a small minority, that's a swell idea.
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
nicely said earnest - let them be at one with themselves
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Plenty of front!
  Imagine if I had just assumed she was a petrol head and invited her to come out back and help me rebuild a racing motor!
  
  She is religious, so ... isn't everyone else religious and catholic as well?
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
exactly - so it is that we look forward to a day when they can keep their vodoo indoors and let us live in peace
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not religious, but I cannot abide with your attitude that the streets should reflect only your irrational version of rationalism. I defend the right of everybody to think in a manner that differs with mine...
  
  Viva la difference!
  reply report
80
Don Wposted 14 years ago
This is not about religion, it's about personal liberty. If I am not causing harm or being obscene, then if I want to walk down the street with a paper bag over my head with two holes cut for eyes, whose business is it? Not yours and certainly not the government's.

If I want to enter a private establishment and that proprietor refuses me entry unless I uncover my head, that's the proprietor's prerogative. And it's my choice to either remove my head gear or not enter. But nothing to do with you or the government.

If a woman wants to walk down the street with her face covered, that's her business not yours and not the governments.

This is not about security. It's about intolerance. Whether it's Christian intolerance (Italy) towards another religion, or secular intolerance against religion per se.

If not, then these police officers must also levy a fine on anyone publicly wearing cycle masks, head scarves with sunglasses, hats that obscure the face, surgical masks, full balaclavas, animal costumes, super hero costumes, crash helmets etc. When you remove the religious aspect, the idiocy is exposed.

Whatever you think of Islam, whatever you think of religion, it is not for the law to tell people what to think or believe. And it's certainly not for the law to penalise a woman for that horrendous and shocking crime of wearing a bit of bloody fabric round her head. Disgusting!
reply report
1. 80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  . . . and another thing, how ridiculous is it to try to combat Islamic (or any) religious intolerance by being intolerant. This is the best we can do to address the situation? Assume everyone Muslim woman is a terrorist who must be unveiled and exposed for the safety of the public at large.
  
  Do people really not see that forcing a woman NOT to wear something on her head, is the same as forcing her to wear something on her head?
  reply report
  64
  Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you get it Don?
  
  If we can't oppress others that are different from ourselves (especially if they are in the minority), then what else are we supposed to do to calm our xenophobia??
  
  Get with the times!!
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not a perfect world Don W. And there have been Muslim attacks on women whose only crime is the wearing of mini-skirts in summer in malls or bikinis on the beach. So it hasn't been all one way. This is the reason why they want to screen Muslims who want to settle in Holland very carefully. The ones who have a religious distaste for women dressed the way the women of Holland tend to dress in summer need not apply and I see their point of view. If there is intolerance then it has gone both ways.
  
  Women have been and will be terrorists. A slim minority of a minority indeed but they are possibly here.
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Either intolerance is okay, or it's not. The situation where legally sanctioned intolerance towards Muslims is accepted, but Islamic intolerance towards anyone else is condemed is ridiculous.
  
  And the argument that some Muslims are intolerant towards non Muslim dress, therefore it's okay to be intolerant towards Muslim dress is idiotic. It's like saying, you do it to us, so we'll do it to you. Are we kids in a playground?
  
  And what's with this assumption that all Muslim women secretly long to rush out and buy a mini-skirt or bikini? That's a patronizing and arrogant assumption. Some women choose to wear the niqab (veil) as a sign of commitment to their faith and culture, and do so even when the hijab (head covering) alone is deemed acceptable. For some it is a deliberate and intentional choice. Should we assume women are not capable of making conscious choices about themselves and what they wear? A woman should be able to wear or not wear the niqab as she chooses, not be forced by law to do one thing or the other.
  
  As for the security argument. That just doesn't wash. The guy in New York concealed a device in his underpants. Not the first time something dangerous has been concealed that way! Are underpants a security risk then? Should the wearing of underpants in public be banned now? Maybe only certain types (some would welcome a ban on Y-fronts). What about overcoats? Has an overcoat ever been used to conceal a weapon? Shouldn't overcoats be banned? That whole argument is moronic. It's just a way of rationalising a form of intolerance.
  
  The fact is that a woman was stopped, questioned by police officers (embarrassing enough in itself), then made to pay a fine, simply for wearing a piece of fabric around her head. That's not security, it's an abuse of power by the lawmakers. The fact that anyone can argue this is acceptable is bewildering.
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Some women choose to wear the niqab (veil) as a sign of commitment to their faith and culture, and do so even when the hijab (head covering) alone is deemed acceptable. For some it is a deliberate and intentional choice. Should we assume women are not capable of making conscious choices about themselves and what they wear? "
  
  In either case the woman is not given the choice. Forced by law not to wear it or forced by family to wear it. Where is the choice?
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course some Muslim women are under pressure from other Muslims who advocate head covering. But that pressure is not sanctioned by law. No one has the legal right to make someone wear a garment for religious or cultural reasons. And we are appalled at the idea of it. We should be equally appalled at someone being FORCED to NOT wear something.
  
  Baroness Warsi, new cabinet member of David Cameron's government in Britain happens to be female and happens to be Muslim. Two scenarios showing the possible effects of such laws:
  
  The Baroness chooses not to cover her head. Other Muslims (but not her family as they are moderate) criticise that decision. They have the right to express those views, but they have no legal right to force the Baroness to cover her head. She remains able to choose not to do so as she wishes and deal with the issues raised, through campaigning, education, debating, or whatever.
  
  Scenario two; the Baroness chooses to cover her head. Non Muslims criticise that decision. They also have the right to express their view. But now (assuming a similar law to that of Italy) those objectors also have the LEGAL right to FORCE Baroness Warsi not to cover her head (a legal prohibition). If the Baroness now wears this piece of fabric around her head she is effectively breaking the law of the land.
  
  The latter situation has far reaching consequences for society. The Baroness (and others like her) could not be a serving cabinet member, or a peer in the House of Lords whilst breaking the law of the land. Employment opportunities outside politics would also be affected (difficult to find employment if you're breaking the law). Indeed it would mean that women of the Islamic faith who express that faith by covering their heads in public are now effectively banned from holding political office, and are subject to much restricted employment opportunities.
  
  What if she refused to pay any fines on principle? Should she go to prison? Should she be given a criminal record? Should every female Muslim who chooses to cover her head in public be made a criminal?
  
  What if Muslim women still refuse to comply? Criminalise Islam? Criminalised religion? How should we punish non-compliance? This type of law can lead to places we don't want to go. Indeed places we've already been. May as well be back in Germany circa 1933.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  
  It is sanctified by law.
  
  That is a rediculous statement to assert and is in total contridiction to the Qu'ran.
  
  Every word of Allah in the Qu'ran, is LAW.
  
  And it says...
  
  Sura 24 - Al-Noor (MADINA) : Verse 31
  And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms,) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islâm), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allâh to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful[]
  
  Translation : Eng-Dr. Mohsin
  
  Sura 24 - Al-Noor (MADINA) : Verse 31
  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 (ordinarily) appear thereof; 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 slaves 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 ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah that ye may attain Bliss.
  
  Translation : Eng-Yusuf Ali
  
  Sura 24 - Al-Noor (MADINA) : Verse 31
  And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.
  
  Translation : Eng-Pickthal-Audio
  
  PLEASE STOP LYING ABOUT ISLAM.
  
  Qu'ran LAW supercedes all Hadith and Ijtihad. It is indisputable.
  
  COVER EM UP. OR BE STONED.
  reply report
  55
  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "As for the security argument. That just doesn't wash."
  
  Not in all circumstances, but would you allow people to walk into a bank with ski masks on? How about the airport? Would you support someone stopped for a traffic violation conceling their identity from the police? Not so simple.
  reply report
  66
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In my opinion this is completely right - the issue is part of a much wider problem caused by the mis-handling of society. This issue of women's clothing comes about because of gross and unwarrented interference in the business of others (for whatever reasons) - a clear example is Al Quaieda who were created and funded by the US to oppose unwarranted intrusion of Russia into Afghanistan - then who turned on the US becuase of the mis-handling of Israeli matters and mid-eastern matters generally.
  
  The little things that make no sense are often indications of much bigger problems, symptoms of the disease.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Some of us are like kids in a playground Don W. Getting back to it not being a perfect world. In recent years the law at least in Australia has discriminated in favor of Muslims and now it appears to be turning around. There will I suppose eventually be a balance in which everyone will be treated fairly and equally. If the law can see to it that women wearing bikinis and mini-skirts in summer are not discriminated against then there will be less reason for women wearing Muslim garb to be discriminated against. It is not okay to act intolerantly toward anyone no matter how provoked to do so but not many people are saints. We look to the law to set the pace and when the law lets us down then as you say Don it is back to being like kids in a playground.
  
  Who knows what Muslim women want to do in terms of how they wish to cloth themselves? I never made the assumption they would care to dress as Westerners though some of them obviously want to because some of them in fact do so. Sure some of the women choose to wear the veil as a commitment to their religion but you also have some who feel they have no choice because they are married to a traditional Muslim man who would treat them rough if they did not comply.
  
  Sure let a woman wear what she wants in the street. A shop keeper or a banker, however, has the right to see who he or she is dealing with in their own place of business and they should have the right to ask that person to leave.
  
  Well Don if you are going to ban underpants you are also going to have to ban socks since plastique, a form of explosive, has been hidden in the past in socks. Yes weapons have been hidden in overcoats. The point of not having the face masked comes down to follow up. If a security camera has a nice shot of the perp's face then finding the bank robber, etc has got to be made easier. If someone robs a place with a weapon concealed in an overcoat but no mask then there is a better chance of catching up with them later. This makes sense to me.
  
  As for the woman it is a pity she went through that but the law is the law. A European style woman visiting a Muslim country might not be able to get around without masking her face. She might feel uncomfortable masking up and if she refuses to do so she might be arrested for not doing so. Why? She would be flying in the face of law and custom. This sort of thing has happened before. Why should Muslims not act like Muslims and expect others to abide by Muslim customs in Muslim countries you say? I agree. But the argument goes both ways. When in Rome as they say...
  
  It sounds to me Sab Oh that Don W would allow people to walk into a bank with ski masks on provided they come from some cold, northern country and ski masks have some cultural significance. Maybe some religious significance can also be tagged onto the ski mask...It is possible.
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You keep mentioning the fact that western women can't wear what they want in Muslim countries. That's totally irrelevant. Just because other countries have laws which undermine people's civil liberties in this area, doesn't mean European law should follow suit.
  
  If it's considered undesirable for individuals in other countries to be forced to wear something by law, then European law should reflect that by protecting the rights of individuals to wear (or not wear) whatever they want.
  
  This law doesn't do that. It just prohibits the wearing of a garment, thus taking away an indivuals right to choose for themself. If your concerns are as you say, then you should be arguing for laws that afford individuals the right to choose for themselves, not take away that right.
  
  And the whole bank/ski-mask argument is moot. This woman was NOT entering a bank. She was NOT in a government building. She was NOT in a military area. She was walking down a public street on her way to worship at the local bloody Mosque!
  
  There is no excuse for this. It is simply legally sanctioned harassment and discrimination, and an abuse of power. It has no place in a supposedly "civilised" country. I hope this woman appeals. In fact I hope she takes it to the European Court of Human Rights. Anyone want to start a fund? First donation right here!
  reply report
  62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  She was still in Italy. She was still on Italian soil. She was still filing her government papers under Italian control. It does not matter where or why she was going or walking. What matters is that she broke the law.
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's the point. The law is an ass.
  reply report
  62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It very well may be, however, it is the law. That is the bottomline.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just pointing out that there are different customs in different countries Don W. Whereas I don't expect Muslin people to go against their beliefs to accommodate Western women in their countries you expect people living in Western countries to throw out their beliefs to accommodate Muslim women. Doesn't sound very fair to me. No. the fact that western women can't wear what they want in Muslim countries because they have to go along with the customs of said countries is very relevant. It points out for a start that different countries can have different customs and beliefs and if you respect one grouping of customs and beliefs you should also accept the others as best you can. Fair is fair.
  
  Yes law does often reflect custom and belief.
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't talk nonsense. What beliefs? Since when has not covering your face been a European social and cultural tradition? There are many customs AND fashions in European culture that involve the covering of the face:
  
  The image below is NOT the KKK
  
  These people are all now breaking the law according to the authorities in an Italian town and possibly in France. Seriously? for wearing a spider-man outfit or trick or treating? Give me a break. As I said, this is not just about religion, it's about civil liberties.
  
  If you want to ban the niqab, then ban the niqab (good luck with that). But don't tell me I can't cover my face in public just so you can have a swipe at the Muslims, and are too lazy or too stupid to do so without legislation.
  
  And don't tell me it's about the Italians respecting "womens dignity". Have you ever seen Italian television? And the attitude towards women in the US and the UK is no better.
  
  We baulk when the practice of another culture degrades women, yet our own culture degrades women constantly by presenting them as nothing more than sexual objects that exist solely for the pleasure of men. But hey, the women get paid for it, so it's not degrading at all.
  
  I'm sorry, but if you think laws like this are about women's dignity, or preserving European customs then you've been hoodwinked. It's about Islamaphobia. Simple Muslim bashing. The feminists, the anti-religionists, the Christian fundies all know it, but don't care because it furthers their agendas. Meanwhile we all take yet another step towards 1984. Marvellous.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, Don, but your pictures do not support that argument. We don't see people wearing spiderman costumes and hoods worn everyday in the streets, and then compare that with alleged Islamophobia.
  
  Big time strawman argument.
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The point I am making is that I don't "expect people living in Western countries to throw out their beliefs to accommodate Muslim women" as Rod Marsden suggests.
  
  Because there are no European customs, traditions or beliefs relating to not covering your face in public. It's ludicrous to suggest there is. There are however European traditions, customs and fashions in which the face is covered. That these are not everyday occurrences is irrelevant.
  
  FORCING someone to wear something is definitely contrary to the values laid out in the European Charter of human rights. However, the same applies to forcing someone NOT to wear something. So the argument that this is about preserving European customs and traditions is a red-herring.
  
  Arguments for this law on the grounds of "security", "preserving European tradition" and protecting the "dignity of women" have no basis.
  
  I believe the intention of the authorities involved are good. But the fact that the implications for civil liberties are being overlooked I believe is due to negative pre-judgement of Muslims as a group.
  
  This is largely due to the mis-representation of Muslims in mainstream western media caused by focusing solely on the actions and attitudes of a MINORITY of Islamic extremists. These are the only stories relating to Muslims deemed "newsworthy" (not many human interest stories on CNN about the life of an ordinary Muslim family in Cairo for example). The dread of Muslims and the fear it provokes (see TMMason's comments) constitutes Islamaphobia.
  
  So while the law is driven by a good intention, it's negative consequences are being over-looked because of Islamaphobia.
  
  It doesn't help Muslim women who are forced to wear a veil (who may just be restricted from going outside), it discriminates against those women who choose to wear veils, and it sets a president for the further undermining of civil liberties for everyone. It's pretty much a loose, loose, loose situation. But hey, as long as the anti-religion, Christian fundies and white is right brigades get to score some points against the Muslims, well it must be okay.
  
  what a crock!
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no misrepresentation of Muslim extremism, the dead bodies are there for all to see. The issue is that we are forced to paint all other Muslims along with the actions and attitudes of the minority of Islamic extremists because the majority of the Muslim community does nothing about it. And, when someone outside the community takes a stand, they are branded Islamaphobes.
  
  Whenever there are violations of humans rights, humans ban together to preserve those rights.
  
  When women are forced to do something, whether it be wearing clothes to cover themselves, or some other barbaric ritual, other women should not be "choosing" to wear those same clothes unless they also support the rights violation.
  
  Certainly, any woman who complains that she can't cover her body with those clothes while other women are forced to do so, is not supporting her sisters in bondage.
  reply report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When ALL Muslims are feared and dreaded because of the actions of SOME Muslims, that's Islamaphobia like it or not.
  
  And saying the Muslim community itself is doing nothing about extremism is a plain lie. The problem is that Muslims killing and hating is “newsworthy”, Muslims fighting fundamentalism and extremism is not. So the “bodies” are all you get to see.
  
  It’s also politically expedient for ALL Muslims to be portrayed as the “enemy”. It makes it much easier for our political leaders to justify killing them. People might protest about killing for the sake of oil, but less so for the sake of “defending our way of life” against an army of extremists intent on our utter destruction. So painting all Muslims with the same brush makes for good politics.
  
  It's political propaganda, and don’t insult me by suggesting you don’t know that. It’s propaganda, but it happens to further some people's agenda, whether that’s an anti religionist agenda, a Christian fundamentalist agenda, a racist agenda or a feminist agenda. Portraying ALL Muslims as the enemy is unfair and unjust, but it furthers some people's cause. It stinks, but that’s the reality of the world. Ridiculous attempts to justify it with red herrings like “security” and "safety", only make you look intellectually dishonest.
  
  "When women are forced to do something, whether it be wearing clothes to cover themselves, or some other barbaric ritual, other women should not be "choosing" to wear those same clothes unless they also support the rights violation...”
  
  That’s a crap argument too. Women from Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) are forced by violence into the sex trade, while others in Europe and the US enter it through choice. I don’t hear you protesting that female porn stars in the US are unsupportive of their European "sisters in bondage". I don’t hear the French, Belgians and Italians complaining that women who choose to work in their legal brothels are unsupportive of those “sisters in bondage” who are forced to do so. Get real. Don't apply one standard to Muslim women, and another standard to European and US women.
  
  The point to all this is that unfairness and injustice is exactly what we are criticising in others, and rightly so. But if we become unfair and unjust in our efforts to change things for the better, then we’ve entirely lost the plot.
  
  Fairness and justice are values I’m proud of. But laws like this don’t promote those values, they throw them away. There are other ways of addressing the issue that are not unjust. Unfortunately between the blind fear and panic of some, and the blind desire to score political points of others, that fact is being ignored. The result is that we are in the process of becoming exactly what we criticise others for, but it's okay because we have "good" intentions. So for the Italians, French, Belgians, you and those like you, two wrongs apparently do make a right.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When ALL Muslims do nothing to suppress their extremist brethren from murdering others, yet rally round causes of cartoon images and protest in the streets, it's quite obvious they passively condone the actions of their extremist brethren. Yes Don, that would be newsworthy if it actually occurred. It doesn't, and you and I both know it.
  
  It wouldn't be unjust to portray ALL Muslims as the enemy if they got off their butts and actually did something to suppress their extremist brethren. They don't. That is a fact, Don.
  
  The sex trade is against the law, Don. Didn't you know that? Did you also know that it is primarily the Muslim community who are involved in this illegal sex trade?
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7-dLgWwJ2I
  
  Sorry Don, but it does not appear that you've got all your ducks in a row on this one. Fairness and justice would not see the Islamic religion constantly violating human rights as it does to women and men alike.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not going to list the Muslim groups that are trying to fight extremism. If you choose to lie that's your business. Anyone with a brain and an internet connection can see for themselves that groups from within the Muslim community are trying to fight extremism. They need help and they need more publicity, but they are there. If lying is the only way for you to support your argument, then there's something wrong with your argument.
  
  "The sex trade is against the law, Don. Didn't you know that?"
  
  Don't talk crap. In France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom and most other European countries prostitution is legal. It's public solicitation and forced prostitution that are illegal. In most European countries "organised" prostitution, e.g. brothels are also (officially) illegal, but authorities tend to (unofficially) turn a blind eye, especially on the continent. In some European countries prostitution is even regulated. So women can freely and LEGALLY work in the sex trade if they choose to.
  
  Likewise pornography is perfectly legal in most European countries. In fact in France it's an industry in its own right both in magazines and in broadcasting. Ditto Belgium, ditto Italy. Don't tell me trading in sex is illegal. What planet are you on?
  
  So where's your protest that women who freely and legally enter the sex trade are not supporting their "sisters in bondage" who are forced into it? You're quick enough to say Muslim women who choose to cover their heads are betraying their "sisters in bondage". Your sense of moral outrage is restricted only to Muslim women it seems.
  
  "Fairness and justice would not see the Islamic religion constantly violating human rights as it does to women and men alike."
  
  I agree. Fairness and justice would see those violations addressed FAIRLY and JUSTLY, as opposed to creating laws like this which are unfair and unjust. That's the point. Addressing these violations by creating further violations entirely defeats the object. Trying to make something right (the situation of Muslim women), by doing something wrong (creating unjust laws) is self-defeating.
  
  What's your justification for hating Muslims? Not every Muslim is fighting extremism. True, some are, some aren't. So? Is every atheist fighting racism, bigotry, poverty, war, discrimination and injustice? Is every Christian? Is every secularist? Is every humanist? Did every German fight Nazism? Did every French citizen resist occupation? The Swiss and Spanish didn't even enter the fight. Do you hate all Germans, French, Swiss and Spanish? You should if you hate those who don't fight for what's right. I'm guessing you don't hate them. Yet you hate Muslims because they don't all fight for what's right. Strange that.
  
  Let's be frank. You hate Muslims. That's all. Have the guts to say that and give up these ridiculous arguments.
  
  You live on the diet the mainstream media feeds you. You see the bombings and the flag burnings and intolerance and you believe that's what Muslim's are. You don't seem to have the wherewithal to recognise that's what SOME Muslims are. And even then that's mostly because Islam has been politicised by Islamic leaders as a way to get the populace to exercise their will.
  
  Is that an argument to dislike religion? Sure. Is that an argument to hate 1.4 million people you've never met? Only if you're incapable of thinking.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Couldn't find any?
  
  I haven't called you a liar, Don. That really was unnecessary.
  
  You couldn't find any.
  
  If you say so, Don.
  
  Well done, Don. We're on the same page, then.
  
  Earth, why not come down here sometime?
  
  That would be your spin on it, Don, not mine.
  
  Ah, so you are in favor of removing freedoms. And, you are not in favor of making laws to discourage removing those freedoms.
  
  I love it when other put words in my mouth to support their own arguments. Well don, Don.
  
  Yes, strange you would just make all of that up and use it as a strawman argument. Again, well done, Don.
  
  That would most certainly bring credibility to your argument. Alas, you are wrong.
  
  I lived with a Muslim family in Morroco, Don. That's where I first learned a lot about Islam and the Arab mindset.
  
  No, that's where you get your information, Don. Please don't confuse your sources with mine.
  
  Incapable, Don? Perhaps, it would do you some good to reflect on yourself and the way you're handling this argument. You might just learn something.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I say it as I see it, and I stand by everything I've said. You're so blinded by your anti-religionist agenda, you're willing to support draconian laws just to take a swipe at one.
  
  That's bad enough, but then you offer "security" and the emancipation of "sisters in bondage" (your words) as a pretext. If you'd come out and said its just about having a jab at the bloody Muslims, even though I don't think that's useful, I'd have some respect for your honesty. But THIS. Sorry, its too shabby. The words I've used are a polite way of saying what I think of this sort of thing.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No one is "having a jab at the bloody Muslims", Don. That's pure nonsense.
  
  I'm sorry that you support human rights violations, sir.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't. That's why I'm against these laws. They violate human rights. That's why Amnsety International is against them also.
  
  There are appropriate European laws already in place to deal with this issue. Muslim women are protected under those existing laws just like anyone else. If Muslim women do not invoke the protection offered by those laws, then THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed.
  
  Trying to address it by simply taking away EVERYONE'S right to choose, is lazy, reactionary, ill-thought out, and counter productive, and represents a human rights violation in itself. Two wrongs don't make for human rights, regardless of good intentions.
  
  These laws are effectively anti-Muslim laws. That's a dangerous president. Disagreeing with a religion, or even religion per se is one thing. Effectively outlawing the expression of it in public, is entirely another. Dangerous times.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Notice Don, the vicious circle that has been created here, the so-called protection of women from the protection of expressing a religious belief. Round and round it goes.
  
  Then, it becomes EVERYONE'S obligation to violate human rights when it is an expression of religious belief.
  
  There are also laws that remove EVERYONE'S right to murder others even though it may be sanctioned within a set of religious beliefs. Good times.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It really isn't that difficult. It's about protecting people from criminal acts without taking away their right to make certain choices themselves. That's not circular. Existing law already does that.
  
  Example: Domestic violence is a crime. So existing laws protect women. If someone's the victim of domestic violence, but doesn't report it (some women don't) that's not a failing in the law. That's a social issue that needs to be addressed at a social level. For example by making it easier for women to give evidence against abusive partners, by providing shelters especially for women escaping abusive partners etc. Those types of measures help women to invoke the protection of EXISTING laws, while maintaining their right to make choices.
  
  We could of course just outlaw marriage, or living together, or relationships. That would no doubt reduce the number of women who suffer domestic violence. But it also violates people's human right to form a family with anyone they choose, so we don't do it.
  
  Nobody needs to violate anyone's human rights. That's the whole point. The laws to deal with this issue ALREADY EXIST and they don't violate human rights, they protect them.
  
  Being able to murder someone is not a human right. Living is a human right and murder laws protect that right.
  
  Likewise, being able to express religious belief is a human right. But that expression is subject to EXISTING laws that already protect people. So FORCING someone to wear something (regardless of the reason) is already covered by existing law. But under existing law you CAN wear that thing if you CHOOSE to. So existing law already protects people from harm, but also maintains their human rights. win-win.
  
  The French, Italians and Belgians should have spent their time and efforts educating Muslim women and empowering them to invoke the protection offered by EXISTING laws. But that would have taken some thought, time and money. So instead they chose to create laws which cause animosity, don't actually help anyone and won't even get past the first legal challenge anyway. Should have used the thought, time and money from the start. Would have saved them in the long run.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The Islamic law is not a choice for Muslims to make but is decreed that they follow it, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with the laws of the land, that is exactly why Muslims want to bring Sharia Law into the non-Islamic countries they emigrate.
  
  Sharia law would uphold the domestic violence as long as the husband could demonstrate Islamic laws were being violated.
  
  There are no laws to protect the rights of Islamic women in France from being forced to wear a bhurka.
  
  Don, even with a recent change in Pakistani law where a woman who pleads rape is actually considered a victim and not an adulteress, human rights violations continue there all in the name of protecting and following Islam.
  
  * “The subordination of women is effectively written into the law. Women have limited or no recourse when they are victimized by domestic violence.”
  
  * "Men view their wives as property and in fact, certain interpretations of Islamic law allow husbands to ‘control and physically discipline their wives as necessary.'"
  
  * "Evidence suggests that somewhere between 70 and 90% of Pakistani women are victims of domestic violence."
  
  * "The Pakistani legal system is comprised of 'tribal codes, Islamic law, Indo-British judicial traditions and customary traditions' that have created an ‘atmosphere of oppression around women, where any advantage or opportunity offered to women by one law, is cancelled out by one or more of the others.'"
  
  * Pakistan does not have any specific legislation against domestic violence.
  
  * Even egregious crimes such as honor killings, where a man murders his wife for apparent or suspected infidelity, almost always receive minimal punishment.
  
  * Women who bring claims of assault often face bias within the justice system from police officers, prosecutors and judges who are more likely to believe that a woman is trying to ‘frame’ a man or that domestic violence is a private matter that is sanctioned by the law and culture.
  
  * A woman claiming sexual assault is more likely to be jailed for fornication or adultery than to be successful in her suit.
  
  * Marriage is a complete defense to a charge of rape.
  
  Sorry Don, but those who interfere with the tenets of Islam are labeled Islamophobes. Remember the vicious circle going round and round?
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is not about Sharia Law. This is about law in the European Union. In European countries there are existing laws which protect people from criminal acts. Whether or not those acts are sanctioned by Sharia law is irrelevant.
  
  The law is blind in that respect. The law protects ALL people from certain acts REGARDLESS of their race, religion, age or gender. So citing "religion" as a reason for committing a criminal act would not be a successful legal defence. Therefore the act of domestic violence would not be "upheld" by the laws of most European countries, regardless of it's status in other parts of the world
  
  "There are no laws to protect the rights of Islamic women in France from being forced to wear a bhurka." You may think so, but that's because the law isn't that prescriptive. It doesn't need to be.
  
  In practice what's involved in this forcing? Unlawful physical force? That's violence. Already Illegal. Being unlawfully restricted to remain in one place? That's false imprisonment. Already illegal. Being taken away or transported elsewhere without consent? That's kidnapping. Already illegal. Threats of violence? That constitutes domestic abuse. Already illegal. Forcing undesirable sexual behaviour? That's sexual abuse. Already illegal.
  
  So which aspect of forcing ANYONE to wear (or do) ANYTHING is not already covered by existing legislation? That's the point. The protection is there in EXISTING laws. Those laws protect ANYONE without violating a basic human right.
  
  What about peer pressure, pressure from family? They are social issues that need to be addressed at a social level.
  
  "those who interfere with the tenets of Islam are labeled Islamophobes"
  
  No. Those who think all 1.4 billion Muslims in the world are sitting around plotting to destroy them are labelled Islamaphobes.
  
  Those who try to improve the situation by engaging with the Islamic community to help moderate readings of Islamic law to gain greater acceptance; by SUPPORTING Muslim women (as opposed to fining them); by encouraging Muslim women to get support from others in dealing with issues of domestic violence; by giving Muslim women a voice -how about a magazine written by Muslim women for Muslim women (paid for by the Italians, French and Belgians); empowering Muslim women through education but also allowing them to make their own CHOICE about what they believe and how they express it.
  
  Someone who did that wouldn't be labelled Islamaphobic. They may be labelled a wishy-washy liberal, but definitely not Islamaphobic.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hence, the reason why Sharia Law is so important to Muslims to have integrated into the society they live. It most certainly does override the laws of that society, that is the entire point.
  
  Yes Don, that vicious circle keeps reeling it's ugly head. Notice how all of that continues to happen within the Muslim state, illegally or otherwise.
  
  And yet, violations of these kind are common place, Don.
  
  Social issues with Muslims involves Islam, Don.
  
  "those who interfere with the tenets of Islam are labeled Islamophobes"
  
  Haha, good one.
  
  And, that's even funnier.
  
  Don, Islam is an ideology. It is a logical fallacy to label the criticism of an ideology a phobia.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "And yet, violations of these kind are common place, Don."
  
  If there are already appropriate laws in place and violations are still commonplace, then the issue is not one of inadequate law, but of enforcement. The reasons for that are varied and include social issues, but better to deal with THOSE issues than throw up ridiculous new laws that don't help.
  
  "Don, Islam is an ideology. It is a logical fallacy to label the criticism of an ideology a phobia."
  
  I wish people wouldn't bandy the term logical fallacy about so loosely. Criticism can easily be a manifestation of phobia if that criticism stems from fear. Like the fear that every Muslim is plotting the downfall of the west for example. That's irrational. Does every criticism of Islam stem from that fear? No. But some does and that, by definition, is phobic.
  
  In addition it's not about criticism of an ideology, it'a about fear of those who follow a certain ideology. Essentially a fear of people. Not just any people, people with other ideas. People with other customs. People with other traditions. People with other values. Doesn't matter what those values or customs etc are. It just matters that they significantly differ from our own. They are other. It's fear of the other. An age old fear that manifests itself throughout history in different forms.
  
  Doesn't have to be religion. Could be skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, being left handed (historical). Doesn't even need to be a real difference, could be just supporting a different team. Someone being other is enough for them to be feared then hated.
  
  Hatred is the side effect of fear. Some non Muslims don't just hate Muslims because of certain practices and customs. Some just hate "them" because they are not "us". Likewise some Muslims don't hate non Muslims because of religion. They hate "us" because we are not "them". It gets dressed up in religion. But politics or race, or any words ending in "ism" would do just as well.
  
  A few million years ago if we met a group of cavemen from another tribe, we would either put on a show of aggression then run away, or smash their heads in with rocks. No religion, politics, or race needed. We'd do it simply because they aren't "us".
  
  It's still is about different tribes trying to smash each others heads in. The tribes have just become more sophisticated, the justifications more convoluted. The problem is not with religion or politics. The problem is the fear that sits at the core of our being that religion and politics can tap into. It's not only irrational, it's positively primeval. But I digress.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I would disagree. The issue is not enforcement, Don. If we follow that logic through, we would need to hire more police to enforce those laws, and we would not see any improvement, but instead the beginnings of a police state. No thanks.
  
  The issue is and has always been education, Don. The misogynist religions of the world do not treat everyone equally and offer the same rights to all individuals. Women are treated as second class citizens and that will never change if those religions are allowed to rule the mindsets of their followers.
  
  Notice you said, "some does"? Clearly Don, you and I, and a lot of other people here know that all Muslims are not plotting the downfall of the west. Many of those same Muslims live in the west, have families and are working to make the best of their lives. They have no reason whatsoever to follow the twisted ideological interpretations of their brethren and their religion.
  
  What would be irrational, Don is to make the claim that people "fear that every Muslim is plotting the downfall of the west" and then create the concept of Islamophobia.
  
  Fair enough, yes, we do have our share of backwater, red-necked hillbillies, Don. They do say the craziest things sometimes.
  
  Perhaps, but we are venturing down the strawman road here, Don.
  
  Let's not forget these same religions teach both of those concepts.
  
  Don, while I would agree that our past included such aggressive acts of violence due to tribal instincts, there were also tribes that didn't show such aggression and did not smash the heads of strangers with rocks.
  
  And, of course, one of the important things about the branch of evolution we label 'intelligence' is the fact that we "learned" to cooperate with each other, despite our differences.
  
  It is only when we follow the ancient myths and superstitions of the Bronze age do we recharge the hatred and fear our ancestors attempted to dispel.
  
  Yes Don, this problem IS with religion. We both know that.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly my point. Education is a social issue. That's what needs to be addressed, not the law. The protection offered by existing laws is more than adequate and they don't violate human rights.
  
  More work can (and has) been done around improved enforcement (agencies taking domestic violence more seriously for example) that doesn't require a "police state". But as you rightly say that isn't the main issue. Addressing the social issues is what's needed. These new laws don't do that. Neither do they offer any further protection beyond existing laws. They do however violate human rights, alienate the people the authorities want to integrate, add to the persecution complex already built in to many religions including Islam, and create fantastic new recruitment material for extremists. These laws are a massive own goal.
  
  It's always been my assertion that SOME criticism of Muslims and Islam is about a simple fear and dread of Muslims. That fear causes people to hate EVERYTHING Muslim and ALL Muslims.
  
  Criticising Muslims or Islam is not Islamaphobic. Having a persistent and irrational fear of an individual because s/he happens to be a Muslim. That is Islamaphobic. I'm glad you and I don't fear and dread people because they happen to be Muslims. But there are people who do and you don't need to go very far to findthem.
  
  Sure. That's why I said we would either fight or "...run away". Obviously that's all pure speculation on my part. But it's not unreasonable to think there was aggression in pre-history.
  
  The point was to illustrate the idea that we, like other animals, act out of instinct. That instinct still affects how we behave in the modern era. Forming groups for example is a biological imperative and a necessity. It aids survival. Groups have increased in size and complexity in the modern era, but the nationalities, countries and federations today are essentially no different to the groups formed at the beginning of human development. This is a bit off topic but I find the interplay of these ideas quite interesting.
  
  It doesn't matter if the common denominator is religious belief. Groups will be formed based on anything. Take away religious belief (impossible anyway) and groups will form based some other common denominator. And as soon as groups are formed, OUTSIDERS are formed. As soon as outsiders are formed, a justification for different treatment of people is readily available. Combine this with the biological imperative to gain and control territory, and you have in my opinion the root of all war.
  
  Religion and politics are simply tools used (unwittingly or not) in the pursuit of those imperatives. If the goal is to eliminate conflict, then trying to eliminate religion won't achieve that. In my opinion conflict is a by-product of the two biological imperatives mentioned. To end conflict humanity would need to somehow escape from those imperatives. Religion and the conflict caused by religion are not the main problem. They are merely symptoms of the problem. Humanity's very nature is the main problem.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then it becomes the acceptance of education, something believers have a big problem with doing.
  
  It would appear that attempting to address the social issue didn't work, that's why they have to bring in new legislation.
  
  And, I'm sure there will be SOME who carry that banner. As you can clearly see though, it is also about the beliefs of Islam, which are being brought to light in the same way the beliefs of Christians or any other cult.
  
  Yes, it is, Don. Look here at the The Runnymede report which identified eight perceptions related to Islamophobia:
  
  1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
  2. It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
  3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
  4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
  5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
  6. Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
  7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
  8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.
  
  Then, let's discard the different religious groups that keep us all divided and base a new group entirely on one common denominator; humanity.
  
  You can't be an outsider of humanity if you're human.
  
  That's what the Abrahamic religions proclaim, and they are quite wrong.
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. New legislation is the easy, lazy option in this case and it's also politically expedient. More can and should be done to tackle this from a social angle.
  
  Correct. Those perceptions are RELATED to Islamaphobia. They don't constitute it. The Runnymede report was very clear in its definition of Islamophobia: "... an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination." That's pretty unequivocal. So no, Islamophobia is not defined as merely criticising Islam.
  
  You'll notice of course that the new law meets the definition of Islamophobia exactly, as it is based on a "dislike of Muslims" and it results in "exclusion and discrimination".
  
  If you want to achieve that through education, campaigning and debate, count me in. If you want to FORCE people to do so by effectively criminalising religious belief and expressions of religious belief, count me out.
  
  That's the truth of course. Unfortunately our biological imperatives don't see it that way. It's literally in our nature to create differences, however artificial, to distinguish "us" from "them" because being in a group aids survival.
  
  But exclusion is a pre-requisite for a group. So as well as naturally creating groups, we naturally exclude "others" from the group, then we naturally compete with other groups.
  
  Laws like this are simply an extension of that nature. You have groups excluding and competing with "others" on the basis of "otherness". And so it goes: creating and maintaining groups, excluding, and competing with other groups. All dressed up in the 21st century garb of religion and politics.
  
  I think good laws are about protecting us from the worst parts of our own nature. I think bad laws cater to the worse parts of our nature. In my opinion Italy, France and Belgium are creating bad laws. Mais c'est la vie.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don, as usual, our discussions are stimulating and interesting. Thank you, sir!
  report
  80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Likewise. My pleasure.
  report
  60
  KFlippinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, if someone blows up something while costumed like a super hero, then it will make for a difficult Halloween -- for the big people.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Has that ever happened?
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hear Hear! Well said! Bravo, Don W
  
  Viva la difference!
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Peace to all men
reply report
1. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Given that you posted 'so it is that we look forward to a day when they can keep their vodoo (sic) indoors and let us live in peace' I guess you quite consciously and deliberately omitted women from your call for peace.
  
  So you make clear that you hold bigoted, racist, sexist attitudes!
  
  Viva la difference!
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Knock Knock, Whos there? Jesuz, Jesuz Who? Jesuz Who died for you
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Peace to all men
reply report
1. 66
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
61
theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago
Let religion and its icons be on display in those places where they dont cause offence
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds good to me. Also when in Rome do as the Romans do. You move to a Western style country expect Western style customs and law.
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LMAO!
  
  People come to the West because the rhetoric of the West emphasizes FREEDOM!
  
  And here you are, taking those freedoms away from them...
  
  Stop speaking about freedom and people will stop coming...
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Freedom in any society is not complete. You can't for example walk into a wine bar and grab a bottle of wine without paying for it and expect someone not to call the police and have you arrested. So you don't have the freedom to take what you have not paid for in most if not all stores. Definitely limited freedom. A person urinating in the middle of the street will definitely be arrested if they are caught. You certainly don't have the freedom to do that and with good reason. Yes there are freedoms to be had in the West but if you have a society then complete freedom cannot be possible unless chaos is your aim. And will what freedom there is comes responsibility.
  
  I suppose Holland has been the most honest country in terms of discouraging Muslims from settling there and perhaps other countries should follow suit. Their attitude is if you don't like the way we live better live elsewhere because we are not going to change to suit you.
  reply report
  0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Rod Marsden
  
  I now 'know' you as a bigot! A far-right moralist! And nothing you say will change my mind
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever. i know you too as a person who would go soft on Muslims harassing Western style women on Australian beaches for wearing bikinis because it is inbuilt in their culture and belief systems to do so. Not all Muslims would do this mind you or even care to. But i can see you defending the ones that would and in fact do on your flimsy moral grounds. You are a bigot in my eyes. A strange one. You hate Western style culture, custom and beliefs. Strange that. Very strange.
  reply report
2. 0
  pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Let me guess...
  
  You and your cohorts in bigotry will define 'those places where they dont (sic) cause offence'.. .Hmmmmmmmm
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Mario get the fire hose.... quick luigie strip 'em down.
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever...
  reply report
60
sepiaprinceposted 14 years ago
Veil is not a part of islamic culture as such it has more to do with Arabic tradition.Although people have the right to decide what they wear in free countries and govt. has no right to interfere.But a full veil 'Niqab' can be a security threat and with lives of people at stake.I think it will be good if muslim community themselves come forward deploring this practice.A woman can look modest with a 'Hijab'(Head Scraf) as well.Veil is incompatible with today's modern society
reply report
1. 80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Here here sepiaprince. Working WITH the Muslim community to address the issue is the way to go. Not introducing Draconian laws.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
You are kidding me right. Islam demands the veil.

To say it doesn't is BS.

Qu'ran 24, 31

Sura 24 - Al-Noor (MADINA) : Verse 31

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms,) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islâm), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allâh to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful[]

Translation : Eng-Dr. Mohsin

Sura 24 - Al-Noor (MADINA) : Verse 31

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 (ordinarily) appear thereof; 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 slaves 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 ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah that ye may attain Bliss.

Translation : Eng-Yusuf Ali

Sura 24 - Al-Noor (MADINA) : Verse 31

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

Translation : Eng-Pickthal-Audio

You know. You may think we are dumb... but.

If your going to lie about Islam. Don't do it around me.
reply report
1. 66
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you know that your bible also has many such little gems ?
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My, "Bible", as you put it, is the New Testament. The Ingeel.
  
  Not the Old Testamnent... Not the Qu'ran.
  
  The New Testament.
  
  As Far as the old testament is concerned. It is the Historical foundation, nothing more, and what the Islams would call the verification.... or Isnad.... "Chain of Transmission".
  
  So Make sure you understand what you think is my "Bible" before you quote the Old Testament to me. Cause that is not my Bible.
  
  You really ought to take into consideration that I am a Chriatian, not a Jew. I follow the New Testament, be sure you seperate the two.
  reply report
2. 63
  FranyaBlueposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  TMMason
  
  The word veil that they use is to describe the word Khumur which is a headscarf.
  
  Your examples from the different translations doesn't show that the Quran itself demands the FACE veil. Only one of your examples actually says 'face' and it is written in brackets because it is just opinion. The word that is stated in Arabic in the Quran is Juyub, which means bosoms not bosoms, neck, hair and face.
  
  The same thing could be done with what the Bible says but it would still just be an opinion and not actually a part of the original message itself:
  
  1 Corinthians 11:6
  If a woman does not cover her head (bosoms, neck and face), she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head (bosoms, neck and face).
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh please.
  
  That is a lame duck excuse.
  
  Oh your translation is not arabic...
  
  These translations are in line with the Arabic.
  
  So Try another one.
  
  Or would you like me to post more reknown and fanatical translations from Islamic scholars such as Ibn Hazm, Or Al Bukkhari, Moslem.
  
  How about we go to the scholars of Usul Al'Fiqh.
  
  They, as you know, would state the same intent as all these translations. How about Imam Shafi'i or Malik, or Sulayman or any of the other hundreds of Islamic Scholars that speak on this.
  
  Those Qu'ranic passages stand as interpreted by the Ulama and ijma as to thier interpretation has been reached. And nothing about denying it will change it.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And again I will say it.
  
  My "Bible" you all talk about, is the Ingeel.
  
  Not the Torat.
  
  Seperate the two. I am not a jew do not quote the old testament to me as my bible
  reply report
  63
  FranyaBlueposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I never said 'oh your translation is not Arabic'
  
  What I said was the word veil is used to translate the word Khumur which doesnt mean face cover, even the word veil doesn't mean face cover.
  
  Niqab may be seen as obligatory by some but not by the majority and the reason for their refusal to accept it as obligatory is because the Quran does not mention face.
  
  There is no excusing about it...the Quran doesn't mention face and that is that. Fanatics can dress it up all they like but they can't make it say face when it doesn't.
  
  And...I never said the translations were not in line with the Arabic what I said was the bits in the brackets are not translation. They are interpretation... Just opinions that are a minority and they are a minority for a reason.
  
  -----------------
  The thing that always makes me laugh is the way fanatics against Islam sound the same as Islamic fanatics. You all come out with the same stuff.
  
  Plus what I quoted was from the NT (not necessarily the Injeel but not the OT either).
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As I said take it up with Islam and it's scholars. They are not in agreement with you. Especially in Saudi Arabia and that is where it counts.
  reply report
  63
  FranyaBlueposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They are also not in agreement with a majority of Muslims and with the majority of Muslim scholars. SA is not where is counts as far as I am aware they are fanatical Wahhabi's, which are a minority, they just happen to be there.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Islam is an Arab-centric religion. They are the best of peoples, as per the Qu'ran. If the Arab world doesn't see it as Islamic. It is not Islamic..
  
  Thats just the way of it.
  
  Why do you think Muslims in Middle-Eastern countries go to such lengths to make it known they are Arab. Don't call a dark skinned Arab, abeed in an arab country. It'll get your throught slit. Just that refrence alone proves it. It is Absurd that they call Egypt or Iran Arab countries. But Islam does.
  
  Arab blood and lieage is what counts in Islam. Especially to effect any change to the heart of Islam, Shari'a itself.
  reply report
  63
  FranyaBlueposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The Prophet said that no Arab is superior to a non-Arab and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab...except by piety and good action.
  
  As per Islam, the best of peoples are the true Muslims, Arab or not.
  
  If people want to think that all Arabs are superior then that is their choice, it doesn't make it true.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend FranyaBlue
  
  I agree with you.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Okay.
  
  First of all, that law, is within the Ummah, only. Not between Arabs and non-Arabs who are un-believers.
  
  Your prophet said "...all are equal under Islam". As far as your inter-actions outside the Dar Al'Islam, they are governed by the latter verses of the Qu'ran, the Madinian veses.
  
  And you know as well as I do that those are in no way friendly to any non-believers.
  
  As far as the Women's rights thing. The Qu'ran speaks for itself, Muslimah.
  
  There is nothing I, nor you, can do about it.
  
  You, a woman, do not even have the right within Islam to be questioning or interpreting the Qu'ran.
  
  Do you not know that?
  
  Mohhammud did not approve of women attempting to interpret and understand Allah's words.
  
  The his words... "...women has been created from a man's rib and in way will be straightened for you; so if you wish to benifit her, benifit her while crookedness remains in her.And if you attemt to straighten her, you will break her..."
  
  It is simple.
  
  Women's rights within Islam, if they exist, are so resrtictive as to be non-existant.
  
  I will post a very well known Banglasdeshi Mufti Fazlul Haq Amini.... and and represents todays muslims. Or any otf hundreds of other Islamic scholars and they will deny you have rights also.
  
  As will most all Islamic Scholars, Imams, and Mujtahid.
  
  If you want to lie to yourself, feel free.
  
  I wish you would be honest with yourself though. You are defending a lost cause.
  reply report
  63
  FranyaBlueposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "First of all, that law, is within the Ummah, only. Not between Arabs and non-Arabs who are un-believers".
  
  Of course it is a statement to the Ummah, the point is to say that we are judged on the basis of piety and good deeds not the colour of our skin, but both Arabs and non-Arabs make up the Ummah and so Islam isn't Arab-centric but Muslim-centric.
  
  "You, a woman, do not even have the right within Islam to be questioning or interpreting the Qu'ran."
  
  There you go sounding like an Islamic fanatic again! Are you sure you're not?
  
  Prophet said:
  "To aquire knowledge is the duty of every Muslim man or woman".
  
  To aquire knowledge is to ask questions.
  
  Firstly, I am not interpreting it off my own back, I am going by what the majority of Islamic scholars say, which is different.
  
  Secondly, There are hadiths which show that the prophets wives themselves would teach men about Islam and so have other women since.
  
  All Muslims are told to question and seek knowledge and all are told to teach others.
  
  You quoted this:
  "...women has been created from a man's rib and in way will be straightened for you; so if you wish to benifit her, benifit her while crookedness remains in her.And if you attemt to straighten her, you will break her..."
  
  At least quote the whole thing. Again...are you sure your not an Islamic fanatic?
  
  "Take my advice with regard to women: Act kindly towards women, for they were created from a rib, and the most crooked part of a rib is its uppermost. If you attempt to straighten it; you will break it, and if you leave it alone it will remain crooked; so act kindly toward women".
  
  This doesn't say that women can't ask questions and try to understand, it says act kindly towards women, it even says it twice!
  
  You can quote whoever you like.....it won't change the fact that the Quran doesn't say FACE when referring to the womans dress. And it still won't change the fact that the majority of Islamic scholars agree it is not obligatory.
  reply report
3. 80
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who cares? Islam's got nothing do with it anyway. If I want to walk down a public street in a spider-man costume, not being obscene and not harming anyone, then I don't expect to be fined for what I'm wearing. You shouldn't have the right to make me wear something else, regardless of how strange or silly you think my attire is.
  reply report
62
RKHenryposted 14 years ago
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It is Italy's law. A law. Most likely not based from the fact they are Muslims, but based on the fact of Islamic terrorism. Again, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Now if she was in this country, a country founded on individual freedoms, I'd understand the debate. But she wasn't, and therefore she should be fined. Its their law.
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds about right RKHenry. When in Rome, do as the Romans do is an old saying. You could just as well say when in London do as the Londoners do or when in New York do as the New yorkers do. And so it goes...
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. It is thier country....
  
  So everyone should leave AZ alone. When in AZ...
  reply report
  62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, exactly.
  reply report
  68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Right on.
  reply report
62
RKHenryposted 14 years ago
Whoever said that Italy as a Western country, emphasizes freedom is dead wrong. Italy's preferred government for over 2300 years has been tyrannous heads of state, and Fascism. They are not the Western powerhouse or role model emphasizing "FREEDOM" as you make them out to be. Again, as I stated earlier when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Their is a real historical value, behind the saying. Italy does not, nor will it ever stand for "freedom."
reply report
1. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah but RKHenry when in Rome do as the Romans do...So if you want more freedom according to you then you move to, say, New York. Well you could have more freedom there but they still have laws and it is then a case of when in New York do as the New Yorkers do.
  reply report
  62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is a philosophical debate.
  
  As it is, according to Italy's history, there is no real evidence to them being the poster child for freedom. Whereas one can argue that no matter what laws are in place in New York City, that New York has been a model of freedom.
  
  Philosophical debates need to be left to the philosophers of this world. I'm no philosopher and will not pretend to be such. Although, I am well versed in historical and modern day political and governmental measures. To debate solely on historical and factual reliance, is more of a debate for me. Thank you for the challenge, though I will pass.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
But just cause you apply the rule... "When in Rome..."

Doesn't mean all those place will be the same as, Rome.
reply report
1. 62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All of what places? Are you implying that New York is somehow Rome now, and that AZ is somehow Italy????
  
  Their historical reflections are not interchangeable. Therefore that tempest cannot be applied. First all, their are major time line issues. Rome is over 2300 years old, and AZ??? February 14, 1912. In less than two years they will be celebrating their 100 year anniv. There are no comparisons to be made. My mind thinks factual. I am not a "what if" philosopher.
  reply report
2. 68
  Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All what places? TMMason you have lost me. New York is New york and New Yorkers have their own way of life just as every city or town or country has its uniqueness.
  
  Why should New York be like Rome? Why should London be like New York? I merely suggest that we should leave it to the people who live in a particular town, city or country to have some say in how they should live. Sounds right to me.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thats exactly what i said.... they are not the same.
  
  See?...
  
  "But just cause you apply the rule... "When in Rome..."
  
  Doesn't mean all those place will be the same as, Rome"
  
  I don't understand Why someone thinks I am saying they are the same. That doesn't say that at all.
  
  IDK you guys are loosing me.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Yes.

That is what I said to you. One does not equate to the other.

How is it you got it so backward?
reply report
62
RKHenryposted 14 years ago
See this is what happens when people involve church and state, and moral laws verses governmental rule. They cannot and should not be interchangeable. Law is law. Church is religion, and religion is not law. If you want to live in a country where church and state are intertwined then move to Iran. However, Italy is not Iran, and Iran is not Italy. Do as the Romans do, yes? Yes.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Christianity in its basis is not a religion. U.S. laws are (or should still be) based on the laws of God (which IS Christianity).
  The U.S. was not based on Catholicism either.
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Christianity in its basis is not a religion. U.S. laws are (or should still be) based on the laws of God (which IS Christianity).
  The U.S. was not based on Catholicism either.
  reply report
  62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So your argument is for the Muslim woman.
  
  Your rhetoric knows no bounds. Ironic.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I dunno what you mean about my argument being for the Muslim woman.
  
  What I do believe is that America should retain its Christian basis in its laws and not cater to any religion, especially Islam. Remember I said Christianity isn't a religion.
  reply report
  62
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yet again, you babble without reading the thread. Yet you expect us to take what you write seriously.
  
  Your own words caught you up in a contradiction. More on the lines- your own written word appears to have made you out to be a hypocrite and nothing more. That is a character flaw, not a virtue Brenda. Read the thread Brenda, then post your rhetoric.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're the one who brought up the connection of church and state and all those issues that extend from the issue of this thread, if you'll read my reply above, so you're very unduly defensive.
  AND offensive. Shall I tell you what you can do with your accusations of "hypocrisy" and "character flaws"? You can----revert those back to yourself, because several of your "character flaws" are apparently showing.
  reply report
  61
  Ohmaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda I hate to tell you this but since you didn't pick up on it I guess I will.
  This thread is about a Muslim women being fined in Italy for violating their law which states that no one is allowed to wear garments that prevent them from being easily identified by the police. She broke this law because she was wearing a veil (which her religious beliefs require) in public.
  It has nothing to do with America or American laws.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I know what the original post is about!
  My responses go along with that, especially since RK Henry brought up the "separation of church and state" issue and mentioned "do as the Romans do" in relating to Italy's dilemma. I pointed out that Catholicism isn't the same as Christianity (which most people equate with "Church"), thereby following along his line of reasoning and replying to it.
  
  Italy is apparently having those issues. I was trying to let RK see the similarity, but I guess neither your nor he "picked up" on that. Italy, just as any other nation, should have the right to maintain their sovreignty and their security by disallowing any entry/activity in their country that poses a threat to those conditions. Especially these days, when men have been known to wear burkhas to hide. I would assume that all Italians have to go through security measures at airports, etc., just as in America. So it only makes sense that someone, anyone, who veils their face/identity should have to unveil. The cries of "religious discrimination", in any nation, seems to be going way too far when it comes to Islam.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yup I agree.
  
  Don't worry about a double post. You will have to repeat yourself many times on here.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah. And I often wonder if it's worth it. Then I remember that sometimes, just sometimes, at least one person will actually "get it" sooner or later, and it makes it all worthwhile....
  reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago
I had a hard time posting and it double-posted; so far it won't let me delete a duplicate post, sorry.
reply report
71
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
As in christianity it is all about the hereafter.

Qur’an 9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e., Jihad) you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you march, He will afflict and punish you with a painful torture, and put others in your place. But you cannot harm Him in the least.”

Some of us would prefer our life right now to promises from the invisible sky fairy of a life hereafter.

The only thing I'm here-after is now.
reply report
1. 66
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Music hall description of the hereafter is the best -
  
  man to women in bar discussion, "if you are not hereafter what I am hereafter you will be hereafter I'm gone!"
  reply report
  60
  KFlippinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I would think many of you would hedge your life bets on a non-existent hereafter by supporting Christians, at least they don't wish to kill you or take away your precious civil liberties to malign and ridicule others. If this country continues on this course of rabid and government sanctioned anti-religion, the future holds a great change in culture and control of our country, in my opinion.
  
  And it does very much matter in this discussion that western women must abide by Muslim law when visiting -- it is in no way irrelevant. Ancient history a few hundred years from now will likely show that so-called blanket 'civil liberties' to demonize and chastise and ridicule others at will, and civil liberty to suppress those who disagree with fear-mongering and labelling, led to our loss of strength as a country, and the loss of our country.
  reply report
70
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
Miss Michigan USA, a Lebanese American from Dearborn--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MluhagN3 … r_embedded

http://www.freep.com/article/20100515/N … tories_8pm

reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
So?... You have time to look at women... but not support your statements about deceptions in my hubs and posts.

Interesting...
reply report
1. 70
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I always have time to look at beautiful women. Any particular innacuracies in your comments that I've neglected? You have made so many that I would have to stay up all night to deal with them!
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You haven't addressed any...?
  
  hahahaha you are funny. you make a blanket statement,... and then claim to have addressed them. lol.
  
  Matter of fact here is as specific as you have ever been...
  
  "Looney tunes. You are sowing misinformation (putting it politely) and hatred."
  
  Hurmmm?... Kind General.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 4 5 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Muslims - should they be unveiled

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Muslims - should they be unveiled

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies