Another day, another burqa ban(in Denmark)

[Bienenhalde]

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

And even then it's like backing strict Catholics to snub evangelical Protestants. Both sides still hate their guts.

Tridentine Catholics have fabulous vestments and incense, though. :^)

[Canadensia]

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.

Yeah yeah, your religion is perfect and the real problem is humanity, blah, blah, blah.

This is the retort of practically every dogmatist, religious or otherwise. And frankly, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

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).

The origin of the burqa was to have a clear identifier for Mohammed's wives and daughters. It was to identify property.

The niqab has similar connotations.

Their religious symbolism is frankly irrelevant. Both garments represent notions that are utterly antithetical to Western civilization, and any crises of faith that people might have in the face of a burqa or niqab ban are frankly their own personal problems that they have to deal with on their own. It is not a country's duty to cater to foreign cultures and religious practices.

[Fahran]

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

He's a Salafi scholar. It's important that most of the exceptions you mention refer explicitly to an absence of fitnah, that is temptation, as being essential to revealing a woman's face. It's not surprising that exceptions would exist within very particular circumstances and parameters given the legalistic nature of Islam - one thing it shares in common with Judaism. Practically speaking though, the burqa and niqab do put an immense burden on women - and, according to most Muslim scholars, unnecessarily so. As Kumba mentioned earlier, the hijab is the more popular Islamic garb for women. I'll stand by argument that the covering of the face tends to be an extreme revivalist practice.

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.

I'm inclined to agree. That's part of the reason I do not enthusiastically support a ban. There are more astute policy measures available to counteract extremist ideologies. I'm not certain the Europeans would implement those though - since many would probably strike the average person as draconian and it remains to be seen if those are even necessary as of yet.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The origin of the burqa was to have a clear identifier for Mohammed's wives and daughters. It was to identify property.

The Prophet's (SAWS) wives (RA) didn't wear burqas, nor is the burqa about property.

The niqab has similar connotations.

No it don't

Their religious symbolism is frankly irrelevant.

So you're arguing from a kufr perspective?

Both garments represent notions that are utterly antithetical to Western civilization

Idc

and any crises of faith that people might have in the face of a burqa or niqab ban are frankly their own personal problems that they have to deal with on their own.

And there'll be some brave people protesting that.

It is not a country's duty to cater to foreign cultures and religious practices.

It's the country's duty to have rights.

[Canadensia]

The Prophet's (SAWS) wives (RA) didn't wear burqas, nor is the burqa about property.

It's quite literally written in the Quran.

Surah 33, Verse 59:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed."

No it don't

Wow, what a well thought-out retort.

So you're arguing from a kufr perspective?

Yes, I'm an accursed infidel. Ooga booga.

Idc

Then leave the West and go live somewhere else. If you identify with your religion more than your country, go live in some Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia. You have no right to enforce your beliefs upon the West.

And there'll be some brave people protesting that.

Good for them.

It's the country's duty to have rights.

Yes, and most of the West just so happens to have gender equality as one such right. What a curious concept.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The Prophet's (SAWS) wives (RA) didn't wear burqas, nor is the burqa about property.

It's quite literally written in the Quran.

Surah 33, Verse 59:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed."

So where's the part about covering their faces?

Then leave the West and go live somewhere else. If you identify with your religion more than your country, go live in some Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Saudi isn't an Islamic theocracy.

You have no right to enforce your beliefs upon the West.

Wearing a niqab or burqa has nothing to do with forcing beliefs.

Yes, and most of the West just so happens to have gender equality as one such right. What a curious concept.

It's not a curious concept, and banning clothing has nothing to do with gender equality.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Canadensia, the fact that you're using ayat from the Holy Qur'an proves my point that the niqab isn't something that came out of nowhere and was used to oppress and isn't only used by extremists.

[Canadensia]

It's quite literally written in the Quran.

Surah 33, Verse 59:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed."

So where's the part about covering their faces?

I assumed you were familiar with the other relevant verses and fatwas, but apparently not, so for your information, Surah 24, Verse 31 states:

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarves (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty 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 brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful".

Awrah, or intimate/private parts, has been interpreted by many Islamic theologians both past and present as including the face of women, hence the existence of fatwas to that effect.

Saudi isn't an Islamic theocracy.

Literally an absolute monarchy ruling by the grace of a several centuries old religious pact.

Wearing a niqab or burqa has nothing to do with forcing beliefs.

It is when you expect non-Muslim countries to go out of their way to accommodate such practices.

It's not a curious concept, and banning clothing has nothing to do with gender equality.

If that clothing explicitly represents servitude and proprietorship, then yes, it does.

Canadensia, the fact that you're using ayat from the Holy Qur'an proves my point that the niqab isn't something that came out of nowhere and was used to oppress and isn't only used by extremists.

It's religiously ordained symbolic servitude. There's nothing moderate about that.

[Kubumba Tribe]

So where's the part about covering their faces?

I assumed you were familiar with the other relevant verses and fatwas, but apparently not, so for your information, Surah 24, Verse 31 states:

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarves (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty 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 brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful".

That ayah says nothing about covering the face.

It is when you expect non-Muslim countries to go out of their way to accommodate such practices.

Nations pass a repeal laws all the time, so repealing this ban is no where near going out of their way.

It's religiously ordained symbolic servitude. There's nothing moderate about that.

Since when has being moderate meant France-level secularism?

[Canadensia]

I assumed you were familiar with the other relevant verses and fatwas, but apparently not, so for your information, Surah 24, Verse 31 states:

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarves (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty 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 brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful".

That ayah says nothing about covering the face.

Not according to several fatwas, no.

Nations pass a repeal laws all the time, so repealing this ban is no where near going out of their way.

It is in the context of forcing other countries to accept religious views that are utterly incompatible with their own cultural mores.

Since when has being moderate meant France-level secularism?

I never mentioned laicité.

Banning burqas and niqabs isn't state-enforced secularism by default.

[Kubumba Tribe]

That ayah says nothing about covering the face.

Not according to several fatwas, no.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/34/85, http://www.shariahprogram.ca/islam-qa-w ... awra.shtml:

"e) Awra in front of non-Mahram males

The Awra in front of non-Mahram males (those with whom marriage is unlawful), which includes cousin brother, brother in-law, paternal uncle (one’s father’s sister’s husband), maternal uncle (one’s mother’s sister’s husband), husband’s uncle, husband’s nephew, etc) consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. It is similar to that which is considered Awra in prayer (salat).

Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“It is impermissible for a man to look at the whole body of a non-Mahram woman (due to it being part of Awra, m) except for her face and hands"

It is in the context of forcing other countries to accept religious views that are utterly incompatible with their own cultural mores.

Rights > culture

[Canadensia]

Not according to several fatwas, no.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/34/85, http://www.shariahprogram.ca/islam-qa-w ... awra.shtml:

"e) Awra in front of non-Mahram males

The Awra in front of non-Mahram males (those with whom marriage is unlawful), which includes cousin brother, brother in-law, paternal uncle (one’s father’s sister’s husband), maternal uncle (one’s mother’s sister’s husband), husband’s uncle, husband’s nephew, etc) consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. It is similar to that which is considered Awra in prayer (salat).

Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“It is impermissible for a man to look at the whole body of a non-Mahram woman (due to it being part of Awra, m) except for her face and hands"

According to Muhammad Al-Munajjid, one of the main Islamic scholars of the Qutbist movement:

"The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman's face is 'awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest 'awrah of a woman."

Rights > culture

Funny you mention that, since legally (especially in the context of Denmark) countries that have banned burqas explicitly do not consider wearing them a right.

[Des-Bal]

Not according to several fatwas, no.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/34/85, http://www.shariahprogram.ca/islam-qa-w ... awra.shtml:

"e) Awra in front of non-Mahram males

The Awra in front of non-Mahram males (those with whom marriage is unlawful), which includes cousin brother, brother in-law, paternal uncle (one’s father’s sister’s husband), maternal uncle (one’s mother’s sister’s husband), husband’s uncle, husband’s nephew, etc) consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. It is similar to that which is considered Awra in prayer (salat).

Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“It is impermissible for a man to look at the whole body of a non-Mahram woman (due to it being part of Awra, m) except for her face and hands"

It is in the context of forcing other countries to accept religious views that are utterly incompatible with their own cultural mores.

Rights > culture

Sounds like men should wear blindfolds.

[The Alma Mater]

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/34/85, http://www.shariahprogram.ca/islam-qa-w ... awra.shtml:

"e) Awra in front of non-Mahram males

The Awra in front of non-Mahram males (those with whom marriage is unlawful), which includes cousin brother, brother in-law, paternal uncle (one’s father’s sister’s husband), maternal uncle (one’s mother’s sister’s husband), husband’s uncle, husband’s nephew, etc) consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. It is similar to that which is considered Awra in prayer (salat).

Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“It is impermissible for a man to look at the whole body of a non-Mahram woman (due to it being part of Awra, m) except for her face and hands"

Rights > culture

Sounds like men should wear blindfolds.

Do not be silly. If a muslim discovers a weakness or flaw within himself (e.g. getting unclean thoughts when seeing a woman or not being well educated) the solution is never to try to better himself but always to either blame another or to reduce that other to a level beneath the muslim.

It is why people whose ancestors where once amongst the most advanced and highly developed of the planet are now reduced to their current state. It is an intrinsic property of the religion.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I just wanted to ask, has anyone actually seen a Muslim women wearing a Burqa in person? I’m talking the actual Burqa, not the Niqab. I haven’t seen the former at all and there is a rather large Muslim population in my city

[Des-Bal]

I just wanted to ask, has anyone actually seen a Muslim women wearing a Burqa in person? I’m talking the actual Burqa, not the Niqab. I haven’t seen the former at all and there is a rather large Muslim population in my city

Exceedingly few muslim women in the west wear burqas. There are maybe 150 in denmark.

[The South Falls]

I just wanted to ask, has anyone actually seen a Muslim women wearing a Burqa in person? I’m talking the actual Burqa, not the Niqab. I haven’t seen the former at all and there is a rather large Muslim population in my city

One lady smack dab in the middle of sixth street, Austin. During SXSW, no less.

[Page]

I just wanted to ask, has anyone actually seen a Muslim women wearing a Burqa in person? I’m talking the actual Burqa, not the Niqab. I haven’t seen the former at all and there is a rather large Muslim population in my city

I don't see women in full burqas with face veils too often, maybe a dozen or so in the last two years I have lived in Europe. Niqabs I see somewhat more often, though most days not. When I lived in America, maybe a handful there.

On the flip side, I have seen a lot of people from the Muslim world embrace secularism. Smoking and eating during Ramadan, women without hijabs and in western clothes.

Really depends on what country and culture they come from too. Syria before the war was rather secular already as far as Middle Eastern countries go.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

He's a Salafi scholar. It's important that most of the exceptions you mention refer explicitly to an absence of fitnah, that is temptation, as being essential to revealing a woman's face. It's not surprising that exceptions would exist within very particular circumstances and parameters given the legalistic nature of Islam - one thing it shares in common with Judaism. Practically speaking though, the burqa and niqab do put an immense burden on women - and, according to most Muslim scholars, unnecessarily so. As Kumba mentioned earlier, the hijab is the more popular Islamic garb for women. I'll stand by argument that the covering of the face tends to be an extreme revivalist practice.

I'm very aware of that, but the reason why the burqa/niqab was banned in the Netherlands was because women said it's not allowed to show their faces to police officers/public officials if they'd ask for their identification. However even the most puritanical legalistic scholars say that it is allowed to do so.

The blame is completely on those who were uninformed of that for that matter. The Dutch government gave them an option (reveal when asked by a public officer) but they refused.

[Ifreann]

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.

If you support Muslim women being allowed to wear whatever they want then ISIS WILL TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND EXECUTE YOU!

Seems legit.

---

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

Just had word that the Orange Order are planning to route a march through Ostro's kitchen.

[Fahran]

Sounds like men should wear blindfolds.

Kinky.

I just wanted to ask, has anyone actually seen a Muslim women wearing a Burqa in person? I’m talking the actual Burqa, not the Niqab. I haven’t seen the former at all and there is a rather large Muslim population in my city

Nope. I see plenty of garments similar to hijabs, but then the US Muslim population is generally very moderate. Actually, most of the Muslim women I know and have met don't even wear a hijab. The arguments they give are similar to mine for explaining why I don't wear a tichel. It'd be immodest in the context of wider society and would draw undue attention.

The blame is completely on those who were uninformed of that for that matter. The Dutch government gave them an option (reveal when asked by a public officer) but they refused.

That suggests that the people who were asked to identify themselves didn't view public officers as legitimate legal authorities. In that case, the government absolutely should crack down on them and, if they're immigrants, deport them. Being a devout Muslim is one thing. Disrespecting the laws and authority of a country where your a citizen or resident is another. Still ambivalent on the whole "ban the burqa" thing, but I can see why people who have been strong secularists would support it.

Also... You mean revivalists don't know Islam? Color me surprised.

[Tekania]

I'd argue that the vast majority of women who wear the burqa only do so due to social pressure. If they truly "chose" to wear it, then they should be able to remove it at will without any retribution from their husbands or families, but is most often not the case.

I'd personally go for a compromise. Ban any and all religious symbols when holding any public or governmental position or job, allow businesses to decide whether they wish for their clients to display religious symbols or not (to an extent, abuse must be controlled), and let them do whatever they want in public areas and private areas.

That's a surprisingly rational compromise. I like it.

Unfortunately people on average are not rational. They are extremely reactionary ideologues.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

That suggests that the people who were asked to identify themselves didn't view public officers as legitimate legal authorities. In that case, the government absolutely should crack down on them and, if they're immigrants, deport them.

I didn't say that. They just think showing their face, even in necessity, is still a sin. I don't see where you come to said conclusion.

Being a devout Muslim is one thing. Disrespecting the laws and authority of a country where your a citizen or resident is another. Still ambivalent on the whole "ban the burqa" thing, but I can see why people who have been strong secularists would support it.

It's more a perpetual fear to fall in sin

Also... You mean revivalists don't know Islam? Color me surprised.

Usually puritans can stamp up more texts and so forth than the regular laymen. And I think they just didn't know said fatwa.

[Fahran]

Usually puritans can stamp up more texts and so forth than the regular laymen. And I think they just didn't know said fatwa.

I'm not certain that religious extremism always correlates with religious knowledge. Plenty of televangelists have no idea what they're rambling on about. Cultural convention and moral indignation are powerful motivators - and rightly so. They're causing dysfunction within society in this instance though. If they knew about the fatwa and ignored it, the reasoning in my post would be applicable.

[Canadensia]

The closest thing to a neo-Nazi propaganda influence on youngsters is 4chan, and I'd say that associating them with Nazism is quite the stretch.

As for allowing them too much of a free hand to spread their message, I imagine you wouldn't actually be a fan of true censorship in practice. Since if Western countries actually made a concerted effort to stamp out Neo-Nazism, it would probably entail a general censorship war on radicalism, which evidently would make your own ideological beliefs impossible to propagate without running the risk of being criminally prosecuted.

Oh, I'm not advocating for censorship as a solution.

Oh, mea culpa.

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.

If you support Muslim women being allowed to wear whatever they want then ISIS WILL TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND EXECUTE YOU!

Seems legit.

Don't be an alarmist.

Do you have no concept of gradualism?