Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So, which of the 1,000,000+ different interpretations of the Holy Qu´ran is the correct one?

His own, of course. Just like every other Islamist.

I don't agree too much on life imprisonment and capital punishment, so Turkey's wrong imo. And I didn't say special treatment, just that I be treated like everybody else.

In my opinion, your ideology is a cancer which seeks to snuff out all freedoms and enforce a single belief system on everybody. Your point? And yes, you would not be treated specially. Again, I fully suppressing Islamism with whatever is necessary, except by taking lives. The ideology is a cancer on the very tenets of freedom of both speech and belief, a reactionary system of dogmas which seeks to pull humanity centuries back.

Only dictatorship seek to snuff out freedom. Besides, I only want Islamism for Muslim communities, not everybody. And I also support Christianism, Judaism, etc. for those respective communities.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I still feel like his is not the right turn Latvia wants to take. I want Islam to be free, not to be put in a box and told what to do by people who might not even know the religion well. As long as no one's being harmed, everything's alright.

Except the face cover has been used several times in order to circumvent security. The latest example was a twin suicide bombing in Chad where the attackers used extremely conservative dress to hide their identity and the bomb under the cloths. This was also the case in Cameroon where a similar incident took place. There are real world concerns for countries to want to not have ways for people to publicly conceal their identity and especially given the recent string of attacks by the Islamic State and the threat of several more in the future. It's not out of the question to not have a religious loop hole in any sort of anti-concealment legislation.

That could've happened even without a niqab.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

There are no 'Muslim' countries because none of them interpret the Holy Qur'an correctly.

So, which of the 1,000,000+ different interpretations of the Holy Qu´ran is the correct one?

Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) interpretation is the correct one.

[Soviet128]

Latvia is being sensible. Latvia has a very small population and is concerned about its security and even its independence. It has enough problems already without importing more problems from Muslim countries.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/islamic-muslim-face-veil-niqab-burqa-banned-latvia-despite-being-worn-by-just-three-women-entire-a6993991.html

Latvia has banned women from wearing the Islamic full-face veil in public, despite only three people being known to wear them in the entire country. Authorities say the new legislation is necessary in order to protect Latvian culture and prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons under garments. The move follows a similar ban on full-face veils in public spaces implemented by France in 2011.

So, it seems Latvia, will ban niqabs despite the fact that only three people in the country wear them. Very peculiar. This raises a lot of questions: do these three people even know each other? Are they on some kind of terrorist watchlist? Is this move a result of Islamophobia? But, most importantly, what do you think of this, NSG? Is this justified? Should we ban the niqab? Should we ban Muslims? Or do you think that alienating an extremely small community in your country because of your prejudice is something only mean folks do? Comment below.

[Bojikami]

Not actually all too surprised about this.

[Vzysokarus]

Except the face cover has been used several times in order to circumvent security. The latest example was a twin suicide bombing in Chad where the attackers used extremely conservative dress to hide their identity and the bomb under the cloths. This was also the case in Cameroon where a similar incident took place. There are real world concerns for countries to want to not have ways for people to publicly conceal their identity and especially given the recent string of attacks by the Islamic State and the threat of several more in the future. It's not out of the question to not have a religious loop hole in any sort of anti-concealment legislation.

That could've happened even without a niqab.

obviously, but Niqabs have been helpful in performing these attacks. as I've stated several times however is that most countries have laws forbidding people from concealing their identity in public. Niqabs or similar garments should not be given special status. I'd say they same if it were Christian or Pagan religious clothing on topic if they had similar effects to the Niqab or Burqa.

[Baltenstein]

So, which of the 1,000,000+ different interpretations of the Holy Qu´ran is the correct one?

Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) interpretation is the correct one.

Ah, ok.

And which of the 1,000,000+ Muslim movements/schools/sects/etc that are currently around happens to be in posession of Prophet Muhammad's interpretation?

[Kubumba Tribe]

That could've happened even without a niqab.

obviously, but Niqabs have been helpful in performing these attacks. as I've stated several times however is that most countries have laws forbidding people from concealing their identity in public. Niqabs or similar garments should not be given special status. I'd say they same if it were Christian or Pagan religious clothing on topic if they had similar effects to the Niqab or Burqa.

I feel that nations should conform to religion, not the other way around. I'd support a Christian version of niqab if there was/is 1 also. What nations could do is find a different way of doing security without barring people from practicing their religion.

[Baltenstein]

obviously, but Niqabs have been helpful in performing these attacks. as I've stated several times however is that most countries have laws forbidding people from concealing their identity in public. Niqabs or similar garments should not be given special status. I'd say they same if it were Christian or Pagan religious clothing on topic if they had similar effects to the Niqab or Burqa.

I feel that nations should conform to religion, not the other way around.

Son, let me introduce you to something called "Laicité".

[Kubumba Tribe]

Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) interpretation is the correct one.

Ah, ok.

And which of the 1,000,000+ Muslim movements/schools/sects/etc that are currently around happens to be in posession of Prophet Muhammad's interpretation?

That's a great question! We Muslims weren't even supposed to go into all these different sects of Islam anyway. We were just supposed to be 1 Islamic Ummah. So it seems that no sect of Islam follows Muhammad's (SAWS) interpretation. That means that we might have to look into the Ahadith in order to find prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) interpretation.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I feel that nations should conform to religion, not the other way around.

Son, let me introduce you to something called "Laicité".

I looked it up. Cool. I may not agree to it, but cool.

[Vzysokarus]

obviously, but Niqabs have been helpful in performing these attacks. as I've stated several times however is that most countries have laws forbidding people from concealing their identity in public. Niqabs or similar garments should not be given special status. I'd say they same if it were Christian or Pagan religious clothing on topic if they had similar effects to the Niqab or Burqa.

I feel that nations should conform to religion, not the other way around. I'd support a Christian version of niqab if there was/is 1 also. What nations could do is find a different way of doing security without barring people from practicing their religion.

Than were not going to agree at all here. no point in arguing over basic belief systems. although id ask if say Iran or Saudi Arabia were to see an influx of Christians and Jews or even Hindus and Buddhist should they conform to be more Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Or Buddhist? My person belief is that we have to have equality in Law no matter what the excuse to have differences in the law for different groups. A ban on face vails while still allowing women to wear very conservative Hijabs and other garments is not in my personal opinion discriminatory to Muslims if its applied across the board in both secular and religious context.

[Herargon]

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

If the West wants to be seen as an example to the world, which by far they aren't, they allow the niqab to stay. And yes I do think that Saudi Arabia should allow more religious freedom.

..... so Saudi Arabia is an example to the world because they allow the niqab to stay. And of course all stoning, lashes, death penalties, et cetera are less important than wearing some veil, even if only for a religious purpose. Is being obliged to wear an islamic veil called religious freedom? No.

If you're obliged to not wear a veil which covers your entire face and is non-necessary, non-useful and non-advised to wear, on the other hand, then that is no problem.
Because then all religions and all atheist, agnostic and -isms get treated equally in equal cases.

Except the face cover has been used several times in order to circumvent security. The latest example was a twin suicide bombing in Chad where the attackers used extremely conservative dress to hide their identity and the bomb under the cloths. This was also the case in Cameroon where a similar incident took place. There are real world concerns for countries to want to not have ways for people to publicly conceal their identity and especially given the recent string of attacks by the Islamic State and the threat of several more in the future. It's not out of the question to not have a religious loop hole in any sort of anti-concealment legislation.

That could've happened even without a niqab.

Yes, but then you are identified much faster, and it's much harder for you to flee. A criminal would not want to be identified, and thus we need to make them identifiable by making people that break the law identifiable. Suppose you have thousand people, and that non-necessary, non-useful, non-advised head-covering wear is not forbidden.
Of those thousand people, you could say there are 100 wearers of niqabs, burkas, christian veils, non-specific face covering wear or such.
Now, let's say there are 20 criminals between those thousand people. Those are likely to not want to get identified, thus they wear a face-covering wear.
We do now have: 1000 people, of which 100 are wearers of face-covering wear, of which 20 are criminals.
Thus you have 0/900 people (those who do not wear head-covering wear), and 20/100 criminal people.

If we outlaw the non-necessary, non-useful, non-advised head-covering wear, then you have much less people that will wear a headwear. Obviously, not everyone that still wears it will be a criminal, but the chance now is much higher:

Now you have 1000 people, of which 40 are wearers of niqabs, burkas, christian veils, non-specific head-covering wear, or such.
Of those 1000 people, let's say there are still 20 criminals.
We do now have: 0/960 people (those who do not wear head-covering wear), and 20/40 criminal people.

The criminals don't want to get identified. Surely, they know they will have to flee faster when they are, but they can get around and if they are followed, they can put on non-head covering clothes and nobody will still know their identity. Their head-covering clothes would be known, but that's it. This is contrary to when it's legal to wear such clothes.

That is why a ban would be fine - but not if it is upon islamic veils only. A ban on head-covering wear that is non-useful, non-necessary and non-advised upon, in general, is fine though.
A burka and a niqab as well do fall under that category I mentioned in my second-to-last sentence.

[The Lone Alliance]

If the West wants to be seen as an example to the world, which by far they aren't, they allow the niqab to stay. And yes I do think that Saudi Arabia should allow more religious freedom.

The west should set examples that they know no one else will follow to prove how good and accepting they are?

That's stupid

[Kubumba Tribe]

I feel that nations should conform to religion, not the other way around. I'd support a Christian version of niqab if there was/is 1 also. What nations could do is find a different way of doing security without barring people from practicing their religion.

Than were not going to agree at all here. no point in arguing over basic belief systems. although id ask if say Iran or Saudi Arabia were to see an influx of Christians and Jews or even Hindus and Buddhist should they conform to be more Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Or Buddhist? My person belief is that we have to have equality in Law no matter what the excuse to have differences in the law for different groups. A ban on face vails while still allowing women to wear very conservative Hijabs and other garments is not in my personal opinion discriminatory to Muslims if its applied across the board in both secular and religious context.

No, they shouldn't become more of that religion, but they should be more accepting of them and accommodate.

[Kubumba Tribe]

If the West wants to be seen as an example to the world, which by far they aren't, they allow the niqab to stay. And yes I do think that Saudi Arabia should allow more religious freedom.

..... so Saudi Arabia is an example to the world because they allow the niqab to stay. And of course all stoning, lashes, death penalties, et cetera are less important than wearing some veil, even if only for a religious purpose. Is being obliged to wear an islamic veil called religious freedom? No.

If you're obliged to not wear a veil which covers your entire face and is non-necessary, non-useful and non-advised to wear, on the other hand, then that is no problem.
Because then all religions and all atheist, agnostic and -isms get treated equally in equal cases.

Isn't this about Latvia banning niqab? I'm not saying that cruel and unusual punishment isn't important. It is. But this is about Latvia, we could go make another forum about how Saudi Arabia treats non-Muslims. And niqab is furthering one's faith to Allah in some of my Muslim sister's opinion, so it's totally reasonable.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Exactly
Usually, Muslims go to Europe and demand their little religious stuff like veils and so on.
Seriously, if they want to live in Europe, then fit into European culture.
And Islam certainly does not belong in 95% of Europe.
If we visit another country, we don't try to force our stuff on them now do we?

You're telling us Muslims to disregard our religion to 'fit in'? Then Christianity doesn't belong in the Middle East (scenario. I don't stand by this) if you say that.

Christianity has existed in the Middle East longer than islam has existed, so the comparison isn't valid.

[Kubumba Tribe]

If the West wants to be seen as an example to the world, which by far they aren't, they allow the niqab to stay. And yes I do think that Saudi Arabia should allow more religious freedom.

The west should set examples that they know no one else will follow to prove how good and accepting they are?

That's stupid

I wouldn't blame the East for not following the West's example. After all, the West did some really messed-up stuff to the East. I wouldn't trust the West for anything, except if I found out they were gonna attack the East, then yeah.

[Kubumba Tribe]

You're telling us Muslims to disregard our religion to 'fit in'? Then Christianity doesn't belong in the Middle East (scenario. I don't stand by this) if you say that.

Christianity has existed in the Middle East longer than islam has existed, so the comparison isn't valid.

Yes it is, because the Mid East govs don't really accept Christians.

[Herargon]

..... so Saudi Arabia is an example to the world because they allow the niqab to stay. And of course all stoning, lashes, death penalties, et cetera are less important than wearing some veil, even if only for a religious purpose. Is being obliged to wear an islamic veil called religious freedom? No.

If you're obliged to not wear a veil which covers your entire face and is non-necessary, non-useful and non-advised to wear, on the other hand, then that is no problem.
Because then all religions and all atheist, agnostic and -isms get treated equally in equal cases.

Isn't this about Latvia banning niqab? I'm not saying that cruel and unusual punishment isn't important. It is. But this is about Latvia, we could go make another forum about how Saudi Arabia treats non-Muslims. And niqab is furthering one's faith to Allah in some of my Muslim sister's opinion, so it's totally reasonable.

Read my response regarding ''That could've happened even without a niqab'', if you want. I suggest it; it's a detailed explanation, and it has to do with Latvia banning niqabs.

[Herargon]

..... so Saudi Arabia is an example to the world because they allow the niqab to stay. And of course all stoning, lashes, death penalties, et cetera are less important than wearing some veil, even if only for a religious purpose. Is being obliged to wear an islamic veil called religious freedom? No.

If you're obliged to not wear a veil which covers your entire face and is non-necessary, non-useful and non-advised to wear, on the other hand, then that is no problem.
Because then all religions and all atheist, agnostic and -isms get treated equally in equal cases.

Isn't this about Latvia banning niqab? I'm not saying that cruel and unusual punishment isn't important. It is. But this is about Latvia, we could go make another forum about how Saudi Arabia treats non-Muslims. And niqab is furthering one's faith to Allah in some of my Muslim sister's opinion, so it's totally reasonable.

The thing is, we do accept it if people are religious... but not too radically religious. Furthering a faith in Allah (the Islamic 'God', not 'God' in general), is not something the West desires, because people that further their faith in Allah in the West often become radicalised. And those people -- we do not desire to see those in the West. Those are the people that commit bombings, suicide attacks, et cetera.

I'm all for accepting Muslims into the West, but they have to assimilate completely. Being more secular does fall under that category as well.
If you are in the Middle East and being very religious, fine - as long as there are no radical punishments or strange laws.
But immigrating to the West - and then you have to assimilate completely. That is how we think there. 'In Rome, do as the Romans do'.

[Jochistan]

That is the why to all nations with religious freedom to ban Islam. If they abolish these primitive laws, they could go and have freedom in the west.

Exactly
Usually, Muslims go to Europe and demand their little religious stuff like veils and so on.
Seriously, if they want to live in Europe, then fit into European culture.
And Islam certainly does not belong in 95% of Europe.
If we visit another country, we don't try to force our stuff on them now do we?

I can't exactly mention when you did for risk of being accused of being a leftist.

But you don't really immigrate to those countries in that number. So...

[Communist Xomaniax]

Christianity has existed in the Middle East longer than islam has existed, so the comparison isn't valid.

Yes it is, because the Mid East govs don't really accept Christians.

There's also a big difference between saying you can't wear the Magical Burlap Sack of Tribalism to cover your face in public and banning all members of a religious minority that predates the nation and its religion.

One is prioritizing national security and crime prevention over muslim feelings, and the other is a human rights violation.

[Jochistan]

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

That is the why to all nations with religious freedom to ban Islam. If they abolish these primitive laws, they could go and have freedom in the west.

Banning Islamic Fundamentalism would be the only course of action.

But then again, your standard for being a fundamentalist is probably pretty fucking low.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Isn't this about Latvia banning niqab? I'm not saying that cruel and unusual punishment isn't important. It is. But this is about Latvia, we could go make another forum about how Saudi Arabia treats non-Muslims. And niqab is furthering one's faith to Allah in some of my Muslim sister's opinion, so it's totally reasonable.

The thing is, we do accept it if people are religious... but not too radically religious. Furthering a faith in Allah (the Islamic 'God', not 'God' in general), is not something the West desires, because people that further their faith in Allah in the West often become radicalised. And those people -- we do not desire to see those in the West. Those are the people that commit bombings, suicide attacks, et cetera.

I'm all for accepting Muslims into the West, but they have to assimilate completely. Being more secular does fall under that category as well.
If you are in the Middle East and being very religious, fine - as long as there are no radical punishments or strange laws.
But immigrating to the West - and then you have to assimilate completely. That is how we think there. 'In Rome, do as the Romans do'.

Allah's God in all the 3 religions. Anyways, I don't believe in assimilation because that that means throwing your whole life away. Throwing away your food, dance, sometimes religion, etc. Also I won't become secular. I try to be as Muslim as I can and always will try till I go to the Day of judgment. Besides, radicalization ends up in extremism, so it's not furthering faith in Allah (SWT).