Another day, another burqa ban(in Denmark)

[Frievolk]

Atheists beat their wives and deny women agency too.

Burqa bans just aren't one of those times.

I wasn't saying atheist are all good and pure, just saying I am one. Also, I'm a virgin.

"You can't beat you're wife if you don't have one."
[Insert roll safe]

Still though, what about one global religion? There would be a lot more unity if nearly everyone wasn't arguing over which religion is the best.

It's not like Christians and Muslims don't have bloody internal conflicts about "which interpretation of their religion" is the one true interpretation after all.

[New yugoslavaia]

I wasn't saying atheist are all good and pure, just saying I am one. Also, I'm a virgin.

"You can't beat you're wife if you don't have one."
[Insert roll safe]

Still though, what about one global religion? There would be a lot more unity if nearly everyone wasn't arguing over which religion is the best.

It's not like Christians and Muslims don't have bloody internal conflicts about "which interpretation of their religion" is the one true interpretation after all.

I am aware of that...

(why didn't I think about that)?

...but still, it would be a lot nicer if everyone followed one religion with no extra sects...or just didn't follow a religion at all.

(The world will probably never be united...or will it...shame...)

[Uxupox]

It's not like Christians and Muslims don't have bloody internal conflicts about "which interpretation of their religion" is the one true interpretation after all.

I am aware of that...

(why didn't I think about that)?

...but still, it would be a lot nicer if everyone followed one religion with no extra sects...or just didn't follow a religion at all.

(The world will probably never be united...or will it...shame...)

people will always find an excuse to kill that being you hold a different political view from them up to they just want your oasis of water. religious issues just add an extra another common justification it would seem.

[New yugoslavaia]

I am aware of that...

(why didn't I think about that)?

...but still, it would be a lot nicer if everyone followed one religion with no extra sects...or just didn't follow a religion at all.

(The world will probably never be united...or will it...shame...)

people will always find an excuse to kill that being you hold a different political view from them up to they just want your oasis of water. religious issues just add an extra another common justification it would seem.

Well, the less layers, the better.

[Fahran]

She's justifying it as not a simple abuse of religious freedom because of dickheads, when in reality that's all it is.

Again, no, I'm not. My first post in this thread should make that abundantly clear.

As a general rule, I find government-imposed secularism outside of the political sphere cumbersome and vexing.

My intention was to pull the conversation in a slightly more nuanced direction, since, while calling people Islamophobes is quite cathartic, it's not always accurate or altogether useful in challenging our values. You're correct in stating that this is a violation of religious liberty and free expression. I mentioned that as well. I merely clarified that the intention wasn't to suppress those rights for all Muslims, but rather the rights of a subsection of them in the interest of discouraging religious radicalism and promoting the rights of women. I'm inclined to point out that the Left and Europe in general have not exactly been the most ardent champions of outward religious expression over the course of the last half century.

In any case, let's discuss the actual issue at greater length. Should freedom of expression and religious liberty be permitted even when they promote potentially caustic and reactionary cultural mores? And, please, don't resort to "not all Muslims." I'm well aware that most Muslims are not hard-line conservatives that want to stone adulterous women and apostates or throw gay people off buildings. The people targeted by this legislation, however, are generally Wahhabis or Deobandis. They are hard-line conservatives on social issues and some of them are even overt Islamists.

With regard to the rights of women, I'll reiterate my point about such garbs having been imposed by force in cultures and states where it is seen a socially acceptable - often with the stated objective of reducing women's autonomy and public role in society. That's why some Muslim majority countries, such as Morocco, Syria, Turkey, and even urban regions of Pakistan have historically discouraged its use. It's not different from some of the practices of the Charedim in that respect. I would merely like some acknowledgement of the nuances behind the burqa and the niqab as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction in defense of religious liberty, which while worthwhile, is not conducive to deeper consideration of one's paradigm.

"Be exactly like us or GTFO". Got it.

Not the argument the Danish government is making. Not an argument that anyone is making, really. Not even most Islamists or most white nationalists.

Well, the less layers, the better.

Are you proposing a sort of Spanish Inquisition?

Someone better get the reference.

[Ifreann]

The people who want to drive the Muslims from Europa and re-take the Holy Land are largely the same people as those who want to "cure" anyone suspected of having the gay. So there's nothing surprising about LGBT people speaking out in support of the rights of Muslims.

We're talking about them supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups, not supporting the rights of run of the mill Muslims.

Why is it always the LGBTQXEDGTESDFTEDGR+ who rush first to defend Islam in spite of everything when their very beliefs and ideology would be persecuted like never before if those very same extremists got into power. That unsurprisingly bogger the mind of quite a lot of people.

I don't see anything here about "supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups".

---

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

No, the enemy of your enemy is very much also your enemy in this scenario. That's the case more often than not.

"The conservative Christian government is oppressing us"
"The conservative Christian government is oppressing us too!"
"Wow! We have no common cause and I'll never support your rights, even though it's a fundamental tenet of my beliefs that everyone should enjoy the same rights!"

[Fahran]

I don't see anything here about "supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups".

I wouldn't go so far as to call all Wahhabis and Deobandis Islamists, but they are hard-line social conservatives as a rule. The vast majority of them are well to the right of the religious political factions sprinkled across Europe and the United States. Any alliance with them would only last so long as both of the groups in question felt oppressed by society or one deliberately betrayed their stated political objectives. It's born from necessity, not actual friendship or shared values.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

It's not like Christians and Muslims don't have bloody internal conflicts about "which interpretation of their religion" is the one true interpretation after all.

I am aware of that...

(why didn't I think about that)?

...but still, it would be a lot nicer if everyone followed one religion with no extra sects...or just didn't follow a religion at all.

(The world will probably never be united...or will it...shame...)

Yeah, but we're dealing with hypothetical situations now, very hypothetical.

[Canadensia]

We're talking about them supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups, not supporting the rights of run of the mill Muslims.

Why is it always the LGBTQXEDGTESDFTEDGR+ who rush first to defend Islam in spite of everything when their very beliefs and ideology would be persecuted like never before if those very same extremists got into power. That unsurprisingly bogger the mind of quite a lot of people.

I don't see anything here about "supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups".

Frankly, it's extremely rare for someone who wears a burqa (or advocates that women should wear burqas) to not be an Islamist. As others have already pointed out, most Muslims who fit either of the above are Salafists, Wahhabis, Deobandis or other kinds of fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. These are not your run-of-the-mill milquetoast Muslims who just go to mosque on fridays and pray salat every now and then. These are genuine, bonified extremists, many of which outright advocate violence in order to achieve their ends.

Supporting them in their policies (which includes opposing burqa bans) is insane, especially if one happens to be gay, lesbian or otherwise sexually non-normative, since these are people who would, if they had the power, hang every last LGBT person they could find. It's utterly idiotic and indicative of the contrarian, partisan nonsense that has permeated much of the West's political spectrum.

[Petrasylvania]

I don't see anything here about "supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups".

Frankly, it's extremely rare for someone who wears a burqa (or advocates that women should wear burqas) to not be an Islamist. As others have already pointed out, most Muslims who fit either of the above are Salafists, Wahhabis, Deobandis or other kinds of fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. These are not your run-of-the-mill milquetoast Muslims who just go to mosque on fridays and pray salat every now and then. These are genuine, bonified extremists, many of which outright advocate violence in order to achieve their ends.

Supporting them in their policies (which includes opposing burqa bans) is insane, especially if one happens to be gay, lesbian or otherwise sexually non-normative, since these are people who would, if they had the power, hang every last LGBT person they could find. It's utterly idiotic and indicative of the contrarian, partisan nonsense that has permeated much of the West's political spectrum.

So any woman wearing a hijab or niqab is an Islamist.

[Frievolk]

Frankly, it's extremely rare for someone who wears a burqa (or advocates that women should wear burqas) to not be an Islamist. As others have already pointed out, most Muslims who fit either of the above are Salafists, Wahhabis, Deobandis or other kinds of fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. These are not your run-of-the-mill milquetoast Muslims who just go to mosque on fridays and pray salat every now and then. These are genuine, bonified extremists, many of which outright advocate violence in order to achieve their ends.

Supporting them in their policies (which includes opposing burqa bans) is insane, especially if one happens to be gay, lesbian or otherwise sexually non-normative, since these are people who would, if they had the power, hang every last LGBT person they could find. It's utterly idiotic and indicative of the contrarian, partisan nonsense that has permeated much of the West's political spectrum.

So any woman wearing a hijab or niqab is an Islamist.

A Niqab or a Burqa? She's either an Islamist or she's being forced to wear one by an Islamist. Yes.
A Hijab (as in, anything that covers certain parts of a woman's body including her hair) like a shawl or something? No. She's probably just a run of the mill Muslim

[Canadensia]

Frankly, it's extremely rare for someone who wears a burqa (or advocates that women should wear burqas) to not be an Islamist. As others have already pointed out, most Muslims who fit either of the above are Salafists, Wahhabis, Deobandis or other kinds of fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. These are not your run-of-the-mill milquetoast Muslims who just go to mosque on fridays and pray salat every now and then. These are genuine, bonified extremists, many of which outright advocate violence in order to achieve their ends.

Supporting them in their policies (which includes opposing burqa bans) is insane, especially if one happens to be gay, lesbian or otherwise sexually non-normative, since these are people who would, if they had the power, hang every last LGBT person they could find. It's utterly idiotic and indicative of the contrarian, partisan nonsense that has permeated much of the West's political spectrum.

So any woman wearing a hijab or niqab is an Islamist.

A hijab isn't even remotely similar to a niqab, nor does it have the same degree of religious symbolism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Political uniforms in the UK are banned, I see no reason this shouldn't extent to religious uniforms.

[Fahran]

So any woman wearing a hijab or niqab is an Islamist.

The hijab is not comparable to the niqab. It is commonly worn throughout the Dar as-Salaam and is not usually tied to extremist revivalist movements. As for the niqab, generally speaking, yes, it has a strong connection to Islamism, especially when worn by women who aren't from Saudi Arabia or rural Pakistan/Afghanistan - where women have been forced to wear it for decades by Islamists. Burqas and niqabs have actually been banned or discouraged in multiple Muslim majority nations/countries as a result.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

Meh, I've seen Sufi women wearing Niqaabs as well such in Istanbul.

[Fahran]

Meh, I've seen Sufi women wearing Niqaabs as well such in Istanbul.

It’s not unheard of, but I still wouldn’t say that it negates any of the previous arguments. In any case, Denmark’s probably not targeting all that many Sufis given the makeup of its Muslim population. Maybe a couple Turks, but the Deobandi Pakistanis and Wahhabis of multiple backgrounds are the main target.

Another source.

[Kubumba Tribe]

The history of it comes from fundamentalist Islam forcing women to wear the burqas and treating them as second class citizens. But if they wear it by their choice there's no problem with that.

There is no choice. It's a decision made entirely without, and for the purpose of denying, women's sexual agency. It hides the female body while keeping the male body exposed.

That's sort of how those old religions like Islam and Orthodox Christianity work. Women do not make choices, decisions, or have agency. They do what their husbands tell them and get beaten when they refuse.

None of this is true.

I don't see anything here about "supporting known Islamists and/or allying with Islamist groups".

Frankly, it's extremely rare for someone who wears a burqa (or advocates that women should wear burqas) to not be an Islamist. As others have already pointed out, most Muslims who fit either of the above are Salafists, Wahhabis, Deobandis or other kinds of fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. These are not your run-of-the-mill milquetoast Muslims who just go to mosque on fridays and pray salat every now and then. These are genuine, bonified extremists, many of which outright advocate violence in order to achieve their ends.

False.

So any woman wearing a hijab or niqab is an Islamist.

A hijab isn't even remotely similar to a niqab, nor does it have the same degree of religious symbolism.

Hijabs actually have more religious symbolism than niqabs and burqas.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is no choice. It's a decision made entirely without, and for the purpose of denying, women's sexual agency. It hides the female body while keeping the male body exposed.

That's sort of how those old religions like Islam and Orthodox Christianity work. Women do not make choices, decisions, or have agency. They do what their husbands tell them and get beaten when they refuse.

None of this is true.

Sure it is, you're just supposed to beat your wife with a toothbrush if you want to be a good Muslim man. Remember when you told us all that?

[Canadensia]

Frankly, it's extremely rare for someone who wears a burqa (or advocates that women should wear burqas) to not be an Islamist. As others have already pointed out, most Muslims who fit either of the above are Salafists, Wahhabis, Deobandis or other kinds of fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. These are not your run-of-the-mill milquetoast Muslims who just go to mosque on fridays and pray salat every now and then. These are genuine, bonified extremists, many of which outright advocate violence in order to achieve their ends.

False.

A hijab isn't even remotely similar to a niqab, nor does it have the same degree of religious symbolism.

Hijabs actually have more religious symbolism than niqabs and burqas.

Actually provide a decent retort rather than resorting to weak-spirited denialism.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

False.

Hijabs actually have more religious symbolism than niqabs and burqas.

Actually provide a decent retort rather than resorting to weak-spirited denialism.

Actually show some respect.

Niqabs are an optional alternative to wearing hijab because some Muslim women feel it is better for them. It's not a symbol of anything except peity. Of course they shouldn't be forced to wear it, those who do so are in the wrong.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

Meh, I've seen Sufi women wearing Niqaabs as well such in Istanbul.

It’s not unheard of, but I still wouldn’t say that it negates any of the previous arguments. In any case, Denmark’s probably not targeting all that many Sufis given the makeup of its Muslim population. Maybe a couple Turks, but the Deobandi Pakistanis and Wahhabis of multiple backgrounds are the main target.

Another source.

Reee article limit.

Nevertheless the aim of the bill is to identify people, which again I don't see the reasoning for it. AFAIK even the most Orthodox fatwa agency of Saudi Arabia accepts that women may uncover their faces if needed (for identification for example).

https://islamqa.info/en/2198

I do understand the ban though. People want a ban on the symbolism and with that hope to banish the ideology. I don't see that happening though.

[Canadensia]

Actually provide a decent retort rather than resorting to weak-spirited denialism.

Actually show some respect.

Niqabs are an optional alternative to wearing hijab because some Muslim women feel it is better for them. It's not a symbol of anything except peity. Of course they shouldn't be forced to wear it, those who do so are in the wrong.

You show some respect.

Actually acknowledge the drawbacks of your religion as opposed to simply masking them as misunderstandings or false interpretations.

You feign support for individualism and tolerance, yet refuse to acknowledge the rigidity of your own faith or its dogmatic shortcomings. All the while you demand that other countries, especially those in the West, cater to its whims. Both the burqa and niqab are religious symbols of oppression, each intended to denote women as property, they are not merely symbols of piety.

[Hatterleigh]

Banning burqas is useless, and people should be allowed to wear burqas. That being said, Denmark should instead strike at the root of the problem and just not let any refugees in.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Actually show some respect.

Niqabs are an optional alternative to wearing hijab because some Muslim women feel it is better for them. It's not a symbol of anything except peity. Of course they shouldn't be forced to wear it, those who do so are in the wrong.

You show some respect.

Actually acknowledge the drawbacks of your religion as opposed to simply masking them as misunderstandings or false interpretations.

You feign support for individualism and tolerance, yet refuse to acknowledge the rigidity of your own faith or its dogmatic shortcomings. All the while you demand that other countries, especially those in the West, cater to its whims. Both the burqa and niqab are religious symbols of oppression, each intended to denote women as property, they are not merely symbols of piety.

There is no bad in Al-Islam, just stuff people don't like. And no, neither the niqab nor burqa represent oppression. They represent imaan. Idk why you're trying to persuade me to rebel against Allah (SWT).

And afaik, I have been showing respect.

[Frievolk]

There is no bad in Al-Islam, just stuff people don't like. And no, neither the niqab nor burqa represent oppression. They represent imaan. Idk why you're trying to persuade me to rebel against Allah (SWT).

And afaik, I have been showing respect.

1- there is bad in Islam. A very good example of it is the whole "legalize and regulate slavery" thing (which gave way to the creation of The Arab Slave Trade... which was still going on until The Middle East was forced into European puppetry after ww1) or the whole aforementioned "hit your wife if you want to, just do it gently.
These are all objectively evil. If your religion doesn't see them as such, it is objectively not moral.

2- They both represent oppression, as they were (and are) symbols of the Muslim Woman being property of her father and later her husband. (Essentially the idea of a Burqa is to "hide the goods" until due time)

3- The minimum of respect would be not responding "false" to long ass posts and expecting us to take you seriously.