Another day, another burqa ban(in Denmark)

[Beylik of Tunis]

The burqa question is one of the most ridiculous non-issues pushed around today, and not just for the fact that a minuscule number of women actually wear a ‘burqa’. But because the very people who complain that Muslims oppress women by forcing them to dress a certain way are those pushing ‘burqa bans’ that do precisely that: tell women what they can and cannot wear. Now one argument is that such a ban is necessary to prevent crime, but in that case why not ban every facial covering from motorcycle helmets to those stupid micky mouse outfits you see at Disneyland? And how many crimes are committed by burqa wearing women (who are a tiny group of people anyway)? You seriously expect them to run far in a long skirt like that? Now for those of you who push the ‘we need to protect our culture line’, how in the hell is a few women covering their face a threat to the culture of a society that dwarfs them in size? The idea of cultures being these homogenous insular things is silly and pointless, everything comes from somewhere and aspects of culture move from one group of people to another by adoption, there are no pure unsoiled cultures they don’t exist and never have. Even then, rest assured, your not going to wake up one day to a world where the burqa has become the new in fashion trend.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Muslimeen be brave! Hope strong against the kafireen (disbelievers)!

[Beylik of Tunis]

> it comes from a culture of oppressing women
> but if they freely to choose to wear it

Pick one.

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.

Oh I wonder, Mr. Expert where did you get your degree in Middle East Studies? Sheikh Google? In actual fact, dress/veiling had been a minor concern in classical Islamic law, which is why you see such a diversity in women’s dress throughout the Muslim world, from the turbans Chinese Muslim women would wear to the bear breasted attire of women in the Maldives until the colonial period. And how on earth is dress restrictions relegating women to second class citizenship? Islamic law places dress restrictions on men. Historically, families would even make their boys don face veils.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

Oh I wonder, Mr. Expert where did you get your degree in Middle East Studies? Sheikh Google? In actual fact, dress/veiling had been a minor concern in classical Islamic law, which is why you see such a diversity in women’s dress throughout the Muslim world, from the turbans Chinese Muslim women would wear to the bear breasted attire of women in the Maldives until the colonial period. And how on earth is dress restrictions relegating women to second class citizenship? Islamic law places dress restrictions on men. Historically, families would even make their boys don face veils.

Muslim women are supposed to wear hijab.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Didn't Denmark repeal this stupid law?

[Beylik of Tunis]

I support, folks shouldn't be able to hide their faces in public. Other folks have the right to know who they are on the street with.

Okay then, why not legally force people to walk around in public wearing huge signs detailing their name, address, occupation, marital status, sexuality, phone number, email, porn preferences? After all, who knows who those other folks are and what dark secrets they might be hiding?

[Kubumba Tribe]

I support, folks shouldn't be able to hide their faces in public. Other folks have the right to know who they are on the street with.

Okay then, why not legally force people to walk around in public wearing huge signs detailing their name, address, occupation, marital status, sexuality, phone number, email, porn preferences? After all, who knows who those other folks are and what dark secrets they might be hiding?

Don't forget blood type!

[Beylik of Tunis]

Oh I wonder, Mr. Expert where did you get your degree in Middle East Studies? Sheikh Google? In actual fact, dress/veiling had been a minor concern in classical Islamic law, which is why you see such a diversity in women’s dress throughout the Muslim world, from the turbans Chinese Muslim women would wear to the bear breasted attire of women in the Maldives until the colonial period. And how on earth is dress restrictions relegating women to second class citizenship? Islamic law places dress restrictions on men. Historically, families would even make their boys don face veils.

Muslim women are supposed to wear hijab.

It was illegal for a women to wear trousers in France until a decade ago, just because something is the law doesn’t mean that A. People will obey it B. That the powers at be will think it is a rule worth enforcing C. Muslim judges and jurists, as a rule, were forced to respect local customs and rural tribes were left to enforce their own laws

[Kubumba Tribe]

C. Muslim judges and jurists, as a rule, were forced to respect local customs and rural tribes were left to enforce their own laws

Which is wrong. Shari'ah comes before man-made laws.

[Beylik of Tunis]

Okay then, why not legally force people to walk around in public wearing huge signs detailing their name, address, occupation, marital status, sexuality, phone number, email, porn preferences? After all, who knows who those other folks are and what dark secrets they might be hiding?

Don't forget blood type!

Oh God, just think of all the HIV positive people YOU could be around! It’s not sneaky homophobia, we have a right to know!

[Beylik of Tunis]

C. Muslim judges and jurists, as a rule, were forced to respect local customs and rural tribes were left to enforce their own laws

Which is wrong. Shari'ah comes beforr man-made laws.

If you’ve read Al-Shafi’i you’d know that Islamic law is ‘man made’. Muslim jurists have always held the idea that all they are doing is using rational hermeneutics to infer what God’s law is, accepting the fact that they probably could be completely wrong. As Al-Shafi’i puts it, at the end of the day it’s the effort that counts. Likewise, in terms of enforcement, judges and jurists have always been pragmatic and conscious of the fact that the law, in practice, must be sensitive to prevailing social circumstances and that, ultimately, it’s aim is to serve the needs of the community. There was no need to enforce strict Islamic legal requirements on distant tribes or nomadic mongols whose lives were a world apart from city dwellers, even then it would have been practically impossible to enforce it anyway. No matter how stringent your views are, you inevitably have to yield when you start putting a legal system in practice. Even hanbalis eventually supported the use of analogical reasoning in deriving legal rules, despite the fact the founder of their legal tradition strongly opposed it.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Which is wrong. Shari'ah comes beforr man-made laws.

If you’ve read Al-Shafi’i you’d know that Islamic law is ‘man made’. Muslim jurists have always held the idea that all they are doing is using rational hermeneutics to infer what God’s law is, accepting the fact that they probably could be completely wrong. As Al-Shafi’i puts it, at the end of the day it’s the effort that counts. Likewise, in terms of enforcement, judges and jurists have always been pragmatic and conscious of the fact that the law, in practice, must be sensitive to prevailing social circumstances and that, ultimately, it’s aim is to serve the needs of the community. No matter how stringent your views are, you inevitably have to yield when you start putting a legal system in practice. Even hanbalis eventually supported the use of analogical reasoning in deriving legal rules, despite the fact the founder of their legal tradition strongly opposed it.

Hudud is not man-made, and the other laws come from the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). Ta'zir is he man-made stuff. You're also talking about the madhaahib, not the Shari'ah.

[Beylik of Tunis]

If you’ve read Al-Shafi’i you’d know that Islamic law is ‘man made’. Muslim jurists have always held the idea that all they are doing is using rational hermeneutics to infer what God’s law is, accepting the fact that they probably could be completely wrong. As Al-Shafi’i puts it, at the end of the day it’s the effort that counts. Likewise, in terms of enforcement, judges and jurists have always been pragmatic and conscious of the fact that the law, in practice, must be sensitive to prevailing social circumstances and that, ultimately, it’s aim is to serve the needs of the community. No matter how stringent your views are, you inevitably have to yield when you start putting a legal system in practice. Even hanbalis eventually supported the use of analogical reasoning in deriving legal rules, despite the fact the founder of their legal tradition strongly opposed it.

Hudud is not man-made, and the other laws come from the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). Ta'zir is he man-made stuff. You're also talking about the madhaahib, not the Shari'ah.

Historically, Muslim legists looked at Shariah the same way philosophers look at truth, something you aim for but can never really get. Islamic law is a product of an interpretive operation that attempts to infer what Shariah is. In that sense, every rule Muslims follow is man made, because it depends on human interpretation and is simply one out of an endless variety of possible options. Unlike some contemporary Islamists, historical Muslims scholars have never understood their religious texts to be literal legal documents containing already well formed rules that simply need applying to everyday life.

I should note here that hudud and tazir are not separate bodies of law, they refer to classes of offences by the punishments, or possible punishments, that can be levied for them. And anyway, what the hell does this have to do with the topic? If I wanted to discuss Islamic law, i’d have gone to the Islam thread.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Hudud is not man-made, and the other laws come from the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). Ta'zir is he man-made stuff. You're also talking about the madhaahib, not the Shari'ah.

Historically, Muslim legists looked at Shariah the same way philosophers look at truth, something you aim for but can never really get. Islamic law is a product of an interpretive operation that attempts to infer what Shariah is. In that sense, every rule Muslims follow is man made, because it depends on human interpretation and is simply one out of an endless variety of possible options. Unlike some contemporary Islamists, historical Muslims scholars have never understood their religious texts to be literal legal documents containing already well formed rules that simply need applying to everyday life.

I should note here that hudud and tazir are not separate bodies of law, they refer to classes of offences by the punishments, or possible punishments, that can be levied for them. And anyway, what does this have to do with the topic? If I wanted to discuss Islamic law, i’d have gone to the Islam thread.

The laws of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah are non-negotiable. And I know that both hudud and ta'zir fall under Shari'ah. And yeah, you're right, this isn't the topic.

[Sovaal]

So much for progressivism.

[Des-Bal]

I don't like laws that tell people what they can and cannot wear, I don't like them whether they're directed by the KKK, weird protesters, or Muslim women. If you need to look at a person's face and verify their their identity have the police detain them, if that doesn't seem appropriate then it's clearly not that important.

[Kramanica]

C. Muslim judges and jurists, as a rule, were forced to respect local customs and rural tribes were left to enforce their own laws

Which is wrong. Shari'ah comes before man-made laws.

This is why Islam is incompatible with Western society.

[Irou]

From the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/denmark-passes-law-banning-burqa-and-niqab

Denmark has joined several other European countries in banning garments that cover the face, including Islamic veils such as the niqab and burqa, in a move condemned by human rights campaigners as “neither necessary nor proportionate”.

In a 75-30 vote with 74 absentees on Thursday, Danish lawmakers approved the law presented by the centre-right governing coalition. The government said it is not aimed at any religions and does not ban headscarves, turbans or the traditional Jewish skull cap.

But the law is popularly known as the “burqa ban” and is mostly seen as being directed at the dress worn by some Muslim women. Few Muslim women in Denmark wear full-face veils.

The justice minister, Søren Pape Poulsen, said it would be up to police officers to use their common sense when they see people violating the law, which comes into force on 1 August.

The legislation allows people to cover their face when there is a “recognisable purpose” such as cold weather or complying with other legal requirements, for example using motorcycle helmets under Danish traffic rules.

Those violating the law risk a fine of 1,000 kroner (£118). Repeat offenders could be fined up to 10,000 kroner or jailed for up to six months.

Austria, France and Belgium have similar laws.

Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Europe director, said of the Danish decision: “All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs. This ban will have a particularly negative impact on Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab or burqa.

“While some specific restrictions on the wearing of full-face veils for the purposes of public safety may be legitimate, this blanket ban is neither necessary nor proportionate and violates the rights to freedom of expression and religion.

“If the intention of this law was to protect women’s rights, it fails abjectly. Instead, the law criminalises women for their choice of clothing and in so doing flies in the face of those freedoms Denmark purports to uphold.”

Associated Press contributed to this report

*sigh*

Well, Denmark's Folketing voted to ban the burqa and the niqab with over 40% of the chamber absent. I understand that it upsets a few people, but there's no need to resort to banning these things and meddling with other people.

What say you, NSG? And bear in mind that there will be no religious flamewars on my watch.

Can you hear the people sing?

[The Black Party]

That's good news.

[The Black Party]

Can you hear the people sing?

They keep getting louder and louder.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Which is wrong. Shari'ah comes before man-made laws.

This is why Islam is incompatible with Western society.

Religious laws have been in the West before. If it happened once, it can happen again. Also, your Jewish, right? Doesn't the Torah and Talmud dictate that Jews must obey the laws laid out in them?

[Kramanica]

This is why Islam is incompatible with Western society.

Religious laws have been in the West before. If it happened once, it can happen again. Also, your Jewish, right? Doesn't the Torah and Talmud dictate that Jews must obey the laws laid out in them?

Religious laws don't Trump man-made laws in Western society.

Also, I'm a Jew by ethnicity, not religion. But even if I was religious I sincerely doubt I would follow all of the Torah's rules.

[The Alma Mater]

This is why Islam is incompatible with Western society.

Religious laws have been in the West before. If it happened once, it can happen again.

True, but why would the west want that ? It was not a nice period. Muslim countries that like Sharia tend to be shitholes. Muslims in the west who yell for sharia tend to be professional welfare recipients, robbers, rapists or all of the above.

Had muslim countries be paragons of beauty and muslims pillars of society people would indeed be lining up to join.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Religious laws have been in the West before. If it happened once, it can happen again.

True, but why would the west want that ? It was not a nice period. Muslim countries that like Sharia tend to be shitholes.

You know why? Because of corruption, war, poverty, or all of the above.

Muslims in the west who yell for sharia tend to be professional welfare recipients, robbers, rapists or all of the above.

That's a rude generalization.

Had muslim countries be paragons of beauty and muslims pillars of society people would indeed be lining up to join.

There was a time...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It's weird because you'd think the USA would be more socially conservative. On issues of freedom of speech and expression they're much better though. France had a burka ban, Switzerland banned minarets, and now Denmark is doing too. I understand that it comes from a culture of oppressing women, but if they freely choose to wear it should of course be allowed.

Actually, of all the things associated with the right, Islamophobia is one of the more reasonable ones. Islam correlates not only with terrorism, but with some of the attitudes that often but don't always cause terrorism. Christianity isn't necessarily better, it's just more predictable; you KNOW when you're dealing with one of the ones who's against, let's say, ESCR.