Muslims - should they be unveiled

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 215 discussions (730 posts)
  1. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    let there be peace among the nations smile

    1. earnestshub profile image81
      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! smile

      1. profile image0
        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.

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          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.

          1. profile image0
            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.

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              If that ever comes up I'll be sure to remember your friendly advice.

      2. Rod Marsden profile image67
        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.

      3. profile image0
        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...

    2. profile image0
      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 lol

  2. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    40% - Jesuz - even the Greek Government could not come up with a figure like that smile

  3. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    peace smile

  4. Rod Marsden profile image67
    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.

  5. brethodge profile image40
    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..

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.
      .

      1. profile image0
        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.

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          " It would appear that the Christian / American war on Islam "

          There is no such thing.

          1. Greek One profile image64
            Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            come on Sab.. tell the truth... we are sending a landing party to Dubai

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              If you have enough money I hear you can party pretty hard in Dubai!

              1. Greek One profile image64
                Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                it's just an expeditionary force we are sending... just enough beer money for the weekend

        2. Rod Marsden profile image67
          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.

    2. profile image0
      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....

  6. brethodge profile image40
    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...

    1. profile image0
      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? smile lol

  7. Rod Marsden profile image67
    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.

  8. profile image55
    (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... smile

    1. profile image0
      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!

  9. profile image0
    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.

    1. profile image0
      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...

  10. NamVetRich profile image59
    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.

    1. profile image55
      (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Wearing black does not ward off heat in the sun, wearing white does that.

      1. Rod Marsden profile image67
        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.

      2. profile image0
        pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        If dark colors do not ward off heat - why did nature evolve dark skin?

        1. Rod Marsden profile image67
          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.

  11. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Let there be peace among the nations smile

  12. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    In Ireland you are requested to remove your helmet but there is no law as such smile

  13. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Will a Labour/Lib Dem coalition Government in Britain help relax racial tensions smile

    1. profile image0
      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...

  14. profile image55
    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.

    1. profile image49
      paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friend foreignpress

      I generally agree with you.

      Thanks

      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

    2. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

    3. profile image0
      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...

  15. theirishobserver. profile image60
    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 smile

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      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.

      1. profile image49
        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

        1. Rod Marsden profile image67
          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.

          1. bonny2010 profile image60
            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

        2. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          There is no real distinction between politics and religion - especially with Islam.

          1. profile image49
            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

            1. profile image0
              pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Where there is a will
              So there is a way

              Peace be with you

              1. profile image49
                paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks

          2. profile image0
            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...

          3. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
            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?

    2. profile image49
      paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friends

      I don't think America has also gained anything from this endeavor.

      Thanks

      1. Rod Marsden profile image67
        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.

  16. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    I cant even begin to imagine what these people suffered

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

  17. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    peace to all men smile

    1. profile image49
      paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks

    2. profile image0
      pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And women - veiled or not hmm

  18. LeanMan profile image79
    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

    1. profile image0
      pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      good on ya, eanman!

      I also find the veil 'becoming'...

  19. AKaddanotherA profile image58
    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.

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Think about that for a second...

      ... roll

    2. profile image0
      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

  20. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Rajab - Peace among the nations smile

  21. theirishobserver. profile image60
    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 smile

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What legal highs?

      1. profile image0
        pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Have you never heard of 'legal highs'?

        What rock do you live under? hmm

    2. profile image0
      pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Becoming? Western nations became nanny state long ago!

  22. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Peace and Love smile

  23. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
    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?

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

    2. profile image0
      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...

  24. TMMason profile image59
    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.

  25. thisisoli profile image76
    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.

    1. TMMason profile image59
      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.

      1. Rod Marsden profile image67
        Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        You got it TMMason.

  26. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    peace

  27. Ralph Deeds profile image63
    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.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

  28. profile image0
    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

    1. profile image0
      pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Is the ban still in place?

  29. blondepoet profile image68
    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....

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image63
      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.

      1. blondepoet profile image68
        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.

        1. Rod Marsden profile image67
          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.

    2. profile image0
      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...

  30. earnestshub profile image81
    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. smile

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

  31. theirishobserver. profile image60
    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

    1. earnestshub profile image81
      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!

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        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.

        1. earnestshub profile image81
          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! lol

          1. Sab Oh profile image54
            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. roll

            Be careful you don't get dehydrated spitting in the face of friendly, neighborly gestures all the time.

            What a prince...

            1. earnestshub profile image81
              earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              lol lol 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! lol
              Don't feel left out, I would remove your sad and sorry self as well! smile

              1. Sab Oh profile image54
                Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I guess you are free to hate and be intolerant of whomever you want. Congratulations roll


                I'm sure you excuse the exact same behavior when exercised by others against their chosen group, right?

                1. earnestshub profile image81
                  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Nah leave all that to you.
                  The expert. smile

                  1. Sab Oh profile image54
                    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.

                  2. alternate poet profile image67
                    alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                    and the definition of EXPERT

                    a drip under pressure

    2. Sab Oh profile image54
      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.

  32. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    nicely said earnest - let them be at one with themselves smile

    1. earnestshub profile image81
      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?

  33. theirishobserver. profile image60
    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 smile

    1. profile image0
      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!

  34. Don W profile image82
    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!

    1. Don W profile image82
      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?

      1. Greek One profile image64
        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!!

      2. Rod Marsden profile image67
        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.

        1. Don W profile image82
          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.

          1. Sab Oh profile image54
            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?

            1. Don W profile image82
              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.

              1. TMMason profile image59
                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.

          2. Sab Oh profile image54
            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.

            1. alternate poet profile image67
              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.

          3. Rod Marsden profile image67
            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.

            1. Don W profile image82
              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!

              1. RKHenry profile image64
                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.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  That's the point. The law is an ass.

                  1. RKHenry profile image64
                    RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                    It very well may be, however, it is the law.  That is the bottomline.

              2. Rod Marsden profile image67
                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.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  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:

                  http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/images/s/italy-venice-carnevale.jpg

                  http://travel.sky.com/images/inspiration/Mardi_gras/italy_venice_carnival1_www.enit.it_510x286.jpg

                  http://www.bike-eu.com/public/Image/Bike%20Europe%20Website%20Products%20Mask%20Bangkok-totobobomask.jpg

                  http://www.markshields.com/images/spider-man-costume-mark-shields-super-genius-2004.jpg

                  The image below is NOT the KKKhttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?=tbn:TeYctIlwOxTiNM:http://www.popculturepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wtf-spain-easter-parade-4-13-09-1-full.jpg

                  http://z.about.com/d/gospain/1/0/Z/D/-/-/P1100959-sm.JPG

                  http://www.littleclickers.com/300px-Trick_or_Treater.jpg
                  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.

                  1. profile image55
                    (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.

    2. profile image0
      pburgerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hear Hear! Well said! Bravo, Don W

      Viva la difference!

  35. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Peace to all men big_smile

    1. profile image0
      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! hmm tongue

      Viva la difference!

  36. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Knock Knock, Whos there? Jesuz, Jesuz Who? Jesuz Who died for you smile

    1. earnestshub profile image81
      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      lol lol lol

  37. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Peace to all men smile

    1. alternate poet profile image67
      alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      big_smile

  38. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Let religion and its icons be on display in those places where they dont cause offence smile

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

      1. profile image0
        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...hmm

        Stop speaking about freedom and people will stop coming...tongue

        1. Rod Marsden profile image67
          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.

          1. profile image0
            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 big_smile

            1. Rod Marsden profile image67
              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.

    2. profile image0
      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 hmmtongue

  39. TMMason profile image59
    TMMasonposted 14 years ago

    Mario get the fire hose.... quick luigie strip 'em down.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Whatever...

  40. sepiaprince profile image60
    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

    1. Don W profile image82
      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.

  41. TMMason profile image59
    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.

    1. alternate poet profile image67
      alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you know that your bible also has many such little gems ?

      1. TMMason profile image59
        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.

    2. FranyaBlue profile image63
      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).

      1. TMMason profile image59
        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.

      2. TMMason profile image59
        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

        1. FranyaBlue profile image63
          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). smile

          1. TMMason profile image59
            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.

            1. FranyaBlue profile image63
              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.

              1. TMMason profile image59
                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.

                1. FranyaBlue profile image63
                  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.

                  1. profile image49
                    paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi friend FranyaBlue

                    I agree with you.

                    Thanks

                    I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

                  2. TMMason profile image59
                    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.

    3. Don W profile image82
      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.

  42. RKHenry profile image64
    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.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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...

      1. TMMason profile image59
        TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. It is thier country....

        So everyone should leave AZ alone. When in AZ...

        1. RKHenry profile image64
          RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, exactly.

          1. Rod Marsden profile image67
            Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Right on.

  43. RKHenry profile image64
    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."

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

      1. RKHenry profile image64
        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.

  44. TMMason profile image59
    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.

    1. RKHenry profile image64
      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.

    2. Rod Marsden profile image67
      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.

      1. TMMason profile image59
        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.

  45. TMMason profile image59
    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?

  46. RKHenry profile image64
    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.

    1. profile image0
      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.

    2. profile image0
      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.

      1. RKHenry profile image64
        RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        So your argument is for the Muslim woman.

        Your rhetoric knows no bounds.  Ironic.

        1. profile image0
          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.

          1. RKHenry profile image64
            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.

            1. profile image0
              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.

          2. Ohma profile image60
            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.

            1. profile image0
              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.

      2. TMMason profile image59
        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.

        1. profile image0
          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....

  47. profile image0
    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.

  48. earnestshub profile image81
    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. smile

    The only thing I'm here-after is now.

    1. alternate poet profile image67
      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!"

      1. KFlippin profile image60
        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.

  49. Ralph Deeds profile image63
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
  50. TMMason profile image59
    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...

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image63
      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!

      1. TMMason profile image59
        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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)