Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

niharjhatn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
899
Likes
391
I would venture that it is a combination of Islamophobia as well as Sarkozy trying to create some new votes for himself and cementing his position by using the Islamophobia to his advantage in spinning up some pseudo-nationalism.

A law could be easily passed where police etc. could under suitable stances remove the veil for checking, but the nature of the complete ban I feel complies more with my initial view - dirty politics!
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
As long as likes of Anjem Choudary are the flag-bearers of Muslim community in west, I believe such reactions are quite expected.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Why would French pass a law in which it explicitly states 'This ban is only for Muslims and for the insecurity French people have towards people who migrate to France and do not integrate with the society and are seen in clothes that covers them from head to toe'? That would be racism, is not it?

The main concern is security and the secondary concern is integration in French society. Read between the lines. It is Islamophobia and it is very much prevalent in the West.

The point remains that security considerations is not factor in passing the law, it did not set the rationale. Click on "fineprint" in my older post.

If you want to live in a state, you have to live by some rules. Sometimes, it's hard, but then you have to accept this for the greater good.
Yeah, but it's not that all French Muslims are "outsiders", and France is not a "Christian republic". It's a secular republic.

Exactly. But Nuns and clergy do not cover their face.
That's beside the point. France's reasons for banning the face-veil was "religious oppression" and "infliction of a sense of inferiority" to the wearer of such a veil. Applying the same rationale, nuns and clergy are are denied "equality" in the society to wear the attire of their choice by the Church. Of course you can argue that those people chose to be nuns, and then I can argue that there are Muslims women who chose to wear a veil. To such people, the practice and methods of religion are not an act of oppression. If it is, then non-Muslims have no business to decide what's right for them, as long as basic rights are not violated, and they're not made to wear the veil against their wish.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
The point remains that security considerations is not factor in passing the law, it did not set the rationale. Click on "fineprint" in my older post.
I did read the fineprint.

Yeah, but it's not that all French Muslims are "outsiders", and France is not a "Christian republic". It's a secular republic.
Yeah, and your point is?


That's beside the point. France's reasons for banning the face-veil was "religious oppression" and "infliction of a sense of inferiority" to the wearer of such a veil. Applying the same rationale, nuns and clergy are are denied "equality" in the society to wear the attire of their choice by the Church. Of course you can argue that those people chose to be nuns, and then I can argue that there are Muslims women who chose to wear a veil. To such people, the practice and methods of religion are not an act of oppression. If it is, then non-Muslims have no business to decide what's right for them, as long as basic rights are not violated, and they're not made to wear the veil against their wish.
Yes, and they are not entirely wrong.
 
Last edited:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
I did read the fineprint.
Good. So we're clear about security considerations. That's out of the way.

Yeah, and your point is?
That French Christians aren't entitled to greater liberties than French Muslims, especially when Muslim French citizens are not outsiders.

Yes, and they are not entirely wrong.
In case of women who voluntarily wear the veil, they are completely and absolutely wrong. Since they didn't leave a provision for such women, the law as a whole is flawed. If their objective is to somehow uplift women who are forced to wear the veil, they can create appropriate laws for that, since forcing someone to use a veil would be violation of liberties. But forcing someone to stay unveiled is an equal violation of liberties.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
In case of women who voluntarily wear the veil, they are completely and absolutely wrong.......
........which is a miniscule number compared to those who are 'forced' to wear the veil by their fathers and brothers to safeguard the family honor. True a law cannot satisfy each and every one in the society. If it it satisfies the majority,without overtly discriminating or causing physical/mental harm to the remaining minority, I consider it a job well done. And prohibiting wearing a full ninja clothing is never a torture by any extent.

Even in India I have seen many girls wear their veil till they come out from their homes and once they are out of their area just remove it, put it in their bag and carry on with their work.
 
Last edited:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
........which is a miniscule number compared to those who are 'forced' to wear the veil by their fathers and brothers to safeguard the family honor. True a law cannot satisfy each and every one in the society. If it it satisfies the majority, I consider it a job well done. And prohibiting wearing a full ninja clothing is never a torture by any extent.
If you have figures to suggest that that number is "minisule", present them.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
If you have figures to suggest that that number is "minisule", present them.
C'mon I can just reverse it to ask you if you have figures to say every one wears it out of their own volition. Thats not the point.

The point is this law is not as discriminatory as you make it out to be and IIRC it bans all conspicuous religious symbols, not exclusively Islam's.

And as I said, I myself have seen girls removing their veils once they are out of sight of their family. If this law helps once such girl I am happy for that law.

Burqa is never mentioned in the Quran. It is not a religious thing,.It is rather a cultural thing which has its roots in the sub-continent.
 
Last edited:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
C'mon I can just reverse it to ask you if you have figures to say every one wears it out of their own volition
I needn't present figures, since I did not quantify either of those (women who are forced to veil, and women who voluntarily veil) to build my argument. You did.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
I needn't present figures, since I did not quantify either of those (women who are forced to veil, and women who voluntarily veil) to build my argument. You did.
And as I said, I myself have seen girls removing their veils once they are out of sight of their family. If this law helps once such girl I am happy for that law.
Also I have had my share of conversation with Muslim girls.And without an exception they are made to wear that ninja clothing by their families. I dont know if the girls in France share the same feeling. But I'm positive considering the environment and peer pressure over there.

Also a point to note is that this law applies only to public places and not private properties.
 
Last edited:

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1375770/France-burka-ban-Burka-alien-cultural-monstrosity-CAN-banned-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The decision by the French government to outlaw all forms of public face-masking, including the burka and niqab, is welcomed by all thinking Muslims around the world.

The Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford which has pioneered an enlightened and egalitarian Islam salutes France for its bold legislative steps to eradicate this hideous tribal dress code that is deliberately given a completely false veneer of Islam.

However, since Britain tackles social problems in its own particular way and has different ways of doing things, the scourge of this foreign face-masking fad that is unfortunately growing in popularity in the Muslim community has to be confronted imaginatively and not exclusively through legal channels.

What is critical is that every effort should be made to disparage and discourage this tribal trend and cultural custom from infesting British society.

France, like other Western nations, has sovereign rights to implement any laws passed by democratic consent. Its National Assembly overwhelmingly approved legislation making all facial concealment in public a criminal act. Although France is entitled to exercise its legislative powers, this is too blunt an instrument to combat the blight of burkas on Europe's streets.

What is required is an orchestrated and multilateral strategy to expose the twisted theology and cultural sexism that underpins this pernicious foreign fashion.

It is important to understand why the burka and niqab have been expediently transformed into an emblem of Islam. Under the rapacious influence of Saudi Wahhabism and other extremist sects, many Muslim women in France and elsewhere have been conditioned by the repressive masculine fraternity that it is a religious necessity to completely conceal female identity in public.



All the Koran requires is that both genders dress modestly. But the misogynistic clergy defies the Koran text and distorts the reputed sayings (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (recorded over 250 years after his death) to elevate an archaic pre-Islamic convention into a contemporary religious imperative.

France has sovereign rights to implement any laws passed by democratic consent but its banning of wearing veils in public is too blunt an instrument to combat the blight of burkas on Europe's streets

Sadly, even here in the UK, most informed Muslims have succumbed to this vile Wahhabi-Deobandi propaganda to condone female face-masking on spurious theological grounds or inconsistent and bogus civil rights arguments.

Face-masking is a pre-Islamic Byzantine and Persian practice and is non-existent in the Koran. Indeed, since Muslim women are banned from hiding their faces while praying or when they perform the pilgrimage, why do they need to do so in the public realm? Women should be reminded that as face-masking is not found in Islam's transcendent text, it is therefore a non-Koranic and un-Islamic habit, not a fundamental feature of their religion. Islam is not a faith of superficial symbolism.

All educated Muslims must resist the importation of this Saudi and Taliban face-mask, not only because it is cultural, non-religious and a security risk, but also because it disempowers women by making them invisible and isolated while discriminating against men who cannot hide their faces in public.

Furthermore, face-masking inhibits effective social interaction and community cohesion. Moreover, it poses a burgeoning health hazard as fully shrouded women are not exposed to natural sunlight thereby lacking essential Vitamin D, which leads directly to increasing rickets and infant morbidity in the UK.

Forward-looking and progressive British Muslims who resist the Talibanisation of Islam in the UK should lead a coordinated campaign to rid this country of this alien cultural monstrosity.

Two days before the French law became operative, a group of integrated Muslims in Oxford burned the burka as a mark of our collective disgust and disdain.

What needs to be done now is to introduce a twin track strategy of LMR (lampooning, mocking and ridiculing face-masking) which will be combined with a systematic programme of re-education and information that will empower Muslim women and make them realise that this tribal rag and cultural cloth is not intrinsic but incidental to Islam. It is purely the product of male chauvinism and not religious necessity.
Dr Taj Hargey is Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation and Chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Let alone the French who are exposed to this only fairly recently. Even I find it odd when a fully black clothed lady completely covered from head to toe moves about.

Well it may be branded Islamophobia, but even Islamophobia doesn't arise out of a vacuum.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Whether or not the burkha and niqab (forms of veils) are oppressive or not according to the west is entirely besides the point. They are enforced items of clothing in many muslim majority or islamic theocratic states, and people who dress otherwise are beaten, raped, imprisoned, etc... In the west they are political symbols of an unwillingness to assimilate and be a part of the culture, and that is before we get to security issues; which I also agree with.

I haven't read the law itself so I can't really comment on the rationale behind it, but the move itself is symbolic of something that should be done at any rate. Freedom of expression is important, but you have to draw the line somewhere. You shouldn't be able to wear an item of clothing that covers the entire body including the face, which is anti-social in nature, a piece of clothing that represents religious extremism, and which also has security risks attached. If someone wore a KKK outfit in public, don't you think there should be laws against people wearing such things in public? If so, on what basis? Racism? Prejudice? Well the niqab and burkhas are symbols of prejudice against women.

As for islamophobia; it's a made-up word that seeks to even shield islam from academic or legitimate criticism as some form of racism, ignoring the fact that muslims aren't a race. Barring all of what I just said, if people here are really concerned about it being legalized; why not have all other forms of clothing legalized to be worn in public in most muslim countries? It swings both ways I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:

arshi

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
45
Likes
13
Let us shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let us set the record straight. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. 76 He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying," It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty." Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". 77 Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband.

What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).
From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did endorse it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......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...." (Quran 24:30,31).

The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear:

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (Quran 33:59).

This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished:

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" (Quran 24:4)

Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible:

" If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deut. 22:28-30)

One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?

Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. We would say: fine but not enough. If 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot ? If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like Queen's has a 'walk home service' mainly for female students on campus? If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States! I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women's office at Queen's University:

In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes,
1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives,
1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime,
1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and
A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn't get caught.
Something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. A radical change in the society's life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed, modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Actually, we all suffer but as K. Gibran has said, "...for the person who receives the blows is not like the one who counts them." 84 Therefore, a society like France which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.

It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of 'holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of 'oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women.
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
^^^ Can we for once discuss without taking references from Qu'ran? Are Muslims so obsessed with their way of life that they don't want to accept anything that is not prescribed in the holy book? If Muslims can't change, they must not expect "Unbelievers" to change, France belongs to French people, they have the right to protect their way of life if they desire to.

Whenever we talk about modernity, these points about sexual assaults etc. are raised to justify how Burqa protects women from wandering eyes and hearts. Its like putting a bird into cage to protect it from predators.

All this drama in Europe started after migrants from Muslim nations started talking about converting UK and France into "Islamic Republics" and justified incidences like 9/11.
 
Last edited:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Also I have had my share of conversation with Muslim girls.And without an exception they are made to wear that ninja clothing by their families. I dont know if the girls in France share the same feeling.
Wow..how scientific.:boink:
 

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
If Europe don't start fighting the growing Islam in their countries then in 50 years we will see a new Eurostan member to the UN in no time and perhaps also El Burkhastan and Northern Sunistan. The immigrants don't integrate into society and instead form ghettos were they keep their old Muslim culture. What will happen when those ghettos will make the majority? In England, as statistic studies show, that is very likely to happen already in 2050.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
Well, good luck Europe. Let's see if you can protect your continent from becoming an extension of the Arab world ! The clock has already started ticking.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
I would venture that it is a combination of Islamophobia as well as Sarkozy trying to create some new votes for himself and cementing his position by using the Islamophobia to his advantage in spinning up some pseudo-nationalism.

A law could be easily passed where police etc. could under suitable stances remove the veil for checking, but the nature of the complete ban I feel complies more with my initial view - dirty politics!
It is rather hard to blame it on Sarko poll numbers when the vote passed 246:1. Even the opposition Socialists voted alongside UMP.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top