Another day, another burqa ban(in Denmark)

[Vassenor]

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

Oh, mea culpa.

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?

So clearly we need to play into the terrorists' narratives about oppression because if we give them the inch of wearing Burqas they'll take the mile of demanding full sharia?

[Ifreann]

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

Oh, mea culpa.

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?

Ah, so if Muslim women are allowed to wear whatever they want, then slowly and gradually ISIS WILL TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND EXECUTE ALL GAY PEOPLE

[Canadensia]

Oh, mea culpa.



Don't be an alarmist.

Do you have no concept of gradualism?

So clearly we need to play into the terrorists' narratives about oppression because if we give them the inch of wearing Burqas they'll take the mile of demanding full sharia?

Oh don't give me that "playing into the hands of the terrorists" crap. It's appeasement, plain and simple.

Burqas are antithetical to the values of most Western countries. We have a right to ban them.

Oh, mea culpa.



Don't be an alarmist.

Do you have no concept of gradualism?

Ah, so if Muslim women are allowed to wear whatever they want, then slowly and gradually ISIS WILL TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND EXECUTE ALL GAY PEOPLE

Over the course of several centuries, yes, that is a possibility. 'Course it wouldn't be ISIS, but rather some future sultanate or theocracy or what-have-you. The replacement of a majority culture with what was previously a minority culture in a country is a staple of history. If country's don't defend and enforce their own values and beliefs, they lose them over time. That is the natural course of things.

[Vassenor]

So clearly we need to play into the terrorists' narratives about oppression because if we give them the inch of wearing Burqas they'll take the mile of demanding full sharia?

Oh don't give me that "playing into the hands of the terrorists" crap. It's appeasement, plain and simple.

Burqas are antithetical to the values of most Western countries. We have a right to ban them.

And what makes it appeasement?

And I would say religious intolerance is more antithetical to Western values than a piece of cloth over someone's face.

[Ifreann]

So clearly we need to play into the terrorists' narratives about oppression because if we give them the inch of wearing Burqas they'll take the mile of demanding full sharia?

Oh don't give me that "playing into the hands of the terrorists" crap. It's appeasement, plain and simple.

Burqas are antithetical to the values of most Western countries. We have a right to ban them.

Ah, so if Muslim women are allowed to wear whatever they want, then slowly and gradually ISIS WILL TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND EXECUTE ALL GAY PEOPLE

Over the course of several centuries, yes, that is a possibility.

'Course it wouldn't be ISIS, but rather some future sultanate or theocracy or what-have-you. The replacement of a majority culture with what was previously a minority culture in a country is a staple of history. If country's don't defend and enforce their own values and beliefs, they lose them over time. That is the natural course of things.

Values of belief change over time regardless. You can't hold them static.

[Canadensia]

Oh don't give me that "playing into the hands of the terrorists" crap. It's appeasement, plain and simple.

Burqas are antithetical to the values of most Western countries. We have a right to ban them.

And what makes it appeasement?

The fact that the only people who want to wear them are religious radicals with no real desire to integrate into Western civilization.

And I would say religious intolerance is more antithetical to Western values than a piece of cloth over someone's face.

Do you support human sacrifice? No?

Then you're in favour of religious intolerance to some degree. You just aren't willing to recognize it as such.

[Kubumba Tribe]

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."

That's 1 Salafi scholar, most of the ulama allow Muslim women to show their face. Also, that ruling - to me - looks like he's going against the Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) ruling.

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.

1: Idc
2: Wearing what you want is a right, being forced to wear/not wear something isn't a right.

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.

Why?

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.

Where do you get this stuff?

Oh, mea culpa.



Don't be an alarmist.

Do you have no concept of gradualism?

So clearly we need to play into the terrorists' narratives about oppression because if we give them the inch of wearing Burqas they'll take the mile of demanding full sharia?

I support Shari'ah regardless, so........

[Canadensia]

Oh don't give me that "playing into the hands of the terrorists" crap. It's appeasement, plain and simple.

Burqas are antithetical to the values of most Western countries. We have a right to ban them.



Over the course of several centuries, yes, that is a possibility.

Just ask the Romans.

Values of belief change over time regardless. You can't hold them static.

Some change is always necessary and healthy, yes.

The entire replacement of one's culture with something foreign is not. Unless one hates one's own culture.

[Kubumba Tribe]

And what makes it appeasement?

The fact that the only people who want to wear them are religious radicals with no real desire to integrate into Western civilization.

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

[Canadensia]

The fact that the only people who want to wear them are religious radicals with no real desire to integrate into Western civilization.

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

Name one that isn't a fundamentalist.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

Some change is always necessary and healthy, yes.

The entire replacement of one's culture with something foreign is not. Unless one hates one's own culture.

I mean, you're assuming that immigrants completely take over a certain culture and expect them not to be influenced by the host country's culture.

[Kubumba Tribe]

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

Name one that isn't a fundamentalist.

I don't need to. I just know not to paint every burqa-wearing sister with 1 brush.

[Internationalist Bastard]

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

Name one that isn't a fundamentalist.

Spoiler, it’s probably going to be a list of people that they know personally. You’re not going to get some big name that you can refute

[Washington Resistance Army]

The fact that the only people who want to wear them are religious radicals with no real desire to integrate into Western civilization.

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

Yeah, they just get forced to by extremists.

[Fahran]

So clearly we need to play into the terrorists' narratives about oppression because if we give them the inch of wearing Burqas they'll take the mile of demanding full sharia?

We do already have partial sharia alongside secular law. It's not really that big of a deal. We have halacha too. I just wanted to clarify that. And, again, people are correct when they describe the burqa/niqab as being tied to religious radicalism.

[Frievolk]

The fact that the only people who want to wear them are religious radicals with no real desire to integrate into Western civilization.

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

If she wears one and isn't a radical extremist, she's being forced to wear one by a radical extremist. These are the only two possibilities.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

False, many Muslim women wear burqas and aren't extremists.

If she wears one and isn't a radical extremist, she's being forced to wear one by a radical extremist. These are the only two possibilities.

That's a heavy claim.

[Frievolk]

If she wears one and isn't a radical extremist, she's being forced to wear one by a radical extremist. These are the only two possibilities.

That's a heavy claim.

No. It's the plain fact that believing a woman's body (face included) should be covered is a very extremist and radical position to take. Even in the Islamic theology. If you take that position, you're by definition an extremist. Because that position is not a moderate position.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

That's a heavy claim.

No. It's the plain fact that believing a woman's body (face included) should be covered is a very extremist and radical position to take. Even in the Islamic theology. If you take that position, you're by definition an extremist. Because that position is not a moderate position.

Well, it's Islamically a position. Not moderate nor extremist, just one not being taken by a lot of jurist. I'd say it's a rare stance.

[Canadensia]

Some change is always necessary and healthy, yes.

The entire replacement of one's culture with something foreign is not. Unless one hates one's own culture.

I mean, you're assuming that immigrants completely take over a certain culture and expect them not to be influenced by the host country's culture.

In cases where they come en masse and no effort is made to assimilate them, yes, they do.

That is the historical trend.

[Fahran]

Well, it's Islamically a position. Not moderate nor extremist, just one not being taken by a lot of jurist. I'd say it's a rare stance.

That's like calling shomer negiah a rare stance in the context of American Judaism. It's also patently ridiculous when you look at the sects of Islam that mandate the wearing of the niqab/burqa. They're hard-line conservatives and, generally, revivalists.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

I mean, you're assuming that immigrants completely take over a certain culture and expect them not to be influenced by the host country's culture.

In cases where they come en masse and no effort is made to assimilate them, yes, they do.

That is the historical trend.

Even if no effort is done by the government there's still interaction between the other immigrants/non-immigrants and the said immigrant group. Cultures will always influence eachother, it's a two way street not a one way street, hence the culture of the natives never dissapear.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

Well, it's Islamically a position. Not moderate nor extremist, just one not being taken by a lot of jurist. I'd say it's a rare stance.

That's like calling shomer negiah a rare stance in the context of American Judaism. It's also patently ridiculous when you look at the sects of Islam that mandate the wearing of the niqab/burqa. They're hard-line conservatives and, generally, revivalists.

I stand my point, they're an Islamic position.

[Ifreann]

Just ask the Romans.

Burqas caused the fall of Rome?

Values of belief change over time regardless. You can't hold them static.

Some change is always necessary and healthy, yes.

The entire replacement of one's culture with something foreign is not. Unless one hates one's own culture.

On a timescale of centuries all cultures are replaced. The Middle Eastern/Muslim cultures you're so afraid of will be gone as well.

[Frievolk]

That's like calling shomer negiah a rare stance in the context of American Judaism. It's also patently ridiculous when you look at the sects of Islam that mandate the wearing of the niqab/burqa. They're hard-line conservatives and, generally, revivalists.

I stand my point, they're an Islamic position.

Yes. They're a radical extremist position in Islamic theology. Which makes it a radical extremist position.