Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

What relevance does that have? Are "kafirs" inferior in your eyes?

The answer is I was raised Muslim, taken to the mosque every week but I never practiced on my own. When I got old enough to think about such issues I concluded religions are frauds, since in America one is free to choose their religion (not so in Muslim country after Muslim country...). What turned me off the most was the widespread hatred toward "kafirs". There were 3 imams of that mosque; all three were Islamists of some stripe who hate "kafirs." I heard lots of talk about Israel at the mosque or at family and Pakistani community functions but never--not a single time--heard anyone talk about the persecution of minorities in Muslim lands in general and Pakistan in particular. Why is that? It is because it is assumed by many that the "kafir" is inferior and hence deserves inferior status.

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

The problem is, happyheart, that women are taking on the niqaab, because of encouragement from religious authorities and instiutions and their misguided friends, that niqaab is sunnah.

So, its not really free speech. Its a small segment of the muslim population which is trying to spread extremism and one way is to get all the women covered up, and all the men wearing a certain type of clothing as well. Just like there are misquided advisors out there encouraging the niqaab, there are advisors who are requesting guys to not wear westernized clothing. What you get, in the end, is an alarming cult-like behavior. because once you control a person at a level of clothing, day-to-day activties, etc, then you can also control them to have protests where you want and over what issues, and you can control their political ideas, and political behavior as well.

So when people are being taken advantage of in the name of Islam, is it not your responsibility as a muslim to put an end to such things?

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

Reason, I'm sorry to hear that. In that case, why not report those imams to authorities. The FBI is looking for hate-mongers. We don't have this at our masjid. One guy tried something, and I think he was handed over by the people themselves.

I'm sorry to hear that your view of Islam is tainted now because of ill behavior on the part of some jaahils. Imams in America, for the most part, have sketchy training.

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

Two of them are gone. One is now in Saudi Arabia (at least he is not a hypocrite and went to a sharia utopia) and the other moved and has no contact with the local mosque. These two were the worst. The current one is a conservative Islamist type but he doesn't actively hate "kafirs" like the other two. There is nothing to report because they have not done anything illegal. They don't advocate violence and it is, while reprehensible, legal to be a bigot. They didn't say kill "kafirs." They would say things like "Do not be friends with kafirs", "Kafirs are inferior to Muslims because..." and so on.

What is more disturbing to me is not them. It is what the regular people did, the otherwise respectable doctors, engineers, etc. At iftaar dinners, at the pre-namaz chat, at social functions or family functions they often discussed politics. They never said anything about the persecution of "kafirs" in Pakistan, although they often talked about discrimination against Muslims in other countries. They all thought remarkably alike. Once the lone liberal of local Pakistani community said women are persecuted in Saudi Arabia; he was opposed by every other adult at the table. How ridiculous! It is clear as day that women do not have equal status there and no one in Saudi Arabia hides that but these guys were defending it because they do not believe in equal rights.

I am not a fan of religion in general so even if I did not see these things I would not adhere to a religion anyway.

Agains you are putting your version and whatever you believe in my mouth and that is totally
wrong bro. Again you are assuming that i am against Kafirs. I think you really do not read what i write here and only try to convey what you wanna say to me.
But for your convenience i am ready to eleborate to you again i dont mind it only takes few more minutes and its for a good cause :)

I do not even believe one should say Kafir to anyone its not up to me who is Kafir or non Kafir. So be careful with your assumtions please because you have a nice name: Reason, but you are not being reasonable here. :)

Well thats why i did ask you what is your religion and what you believe. Thank you so very much because i am not surprised that u think like you think :) No wonder if i went through same situation like yours then i would have turned out to be like you are. no no no don't take me wrong i am not saying that you are bad or whatever but....

...As you said that 3 mullahs said something which did not attract you or you did find it offensive is it fair to all the other hundred thousands or millions of Mullahs whom u did never meet?
Anyhow mulllah's are Mullahs there is a big difference in a Islamic scholar who has ILM of HAdith Quran and Islamic jurisprudence.

Anyhow from your posts i truely believe you are a good person and you have a big issue with EXTREMISM in Islam right? Maybe you also have issue with Islam or other religions i dont' know.
But what i would like you to do is think about other religions who have also extremist Rabbi's (Judaism) or Padri's (Hinduism) or Pastors (Christians).

You live in USA and i am sure you are familiar with almost hundreds or more EVANGALIST TV CHANNELS right? :) My goodnes it scares the hell out of me if i watch those channels i mean its full with hate against Islam, China, India (yes even India and Hinduism) and all that is Non Christian. Do you agree with me? So like in every religion there are some elements that are bad.

ANd in Judaism wow Judaism believe me my friend that the worse enemy of the Jews is not Islam or Palestinians its the Orthodox Extreme fundamentalist RAbbi's who are full with hatred i am sure u did see a documentary about how they behave against "liberal jews" they consider them KARIFS in their own term.

You keep on talking about Islamic Countries....which islamic country? i mean as far as i know there is not one islamic country where there is Islamic law and islamic shariah implemented.

Saudi Arabia? well if so then u also know there is no place for the Royal family in Islam so its selective Shariah. u know as well as i know how bad the immigrants are treatedin S.Arabia.
If there was Islamic law then this was not allowed but u know how much the bloody arabs discriminate against pakistanis, indians, Bagladeshi's.!!!!

I will tell u honestly i rather live in Holland (though things are not that well here) then in Middle East or any other " Islamic country" (as you want to call them).

I just want you to reason with yourself and what you are saying. Being angry at something is ok but always be reasonable please and do not generalise.

I can write so much but i am sooooooooooooooooooo tired really lolz
and i will now east roti with some potato's

bon apetit to myself.

CiAo

[QUOTE]
o wonder if i went through same situation like yours then i would have turned out to be like you are
[/QUOTE]

I was never religious, even before I was old enough to know what bigotry is and long before I understood what Islamism is.

[QUOTE]
...As you said that 3 mullahs said something which did not attract you or you did find it offensive is it fair to all the other hundred thousands or millions of Mullahs whom u did never meet?
Anyhow mulllah's are Mullahs there is a big difference in a Islamic scholar who has ILM of HAdith Quran and Islamic jurisprudence.
[/QUOTE]
Name a few Muslim countries other than secular ones like Turkey which grant equal rights to "kafirs." It isn't just a few nuts but widespread. What was most disturbing was not the three imams but the otherwise respectable doctors and engineers who never utter a single world about the persecution of "kafirs." Look at Pakistan. Is there a movement of Muslims marching in the streets for equal rights for "kafirs" like there were movements for the rights of racial minorities, religious minorities, women, and today sexual orientation minorities around the world? There is no such movement in Pakistan. Why? The subjugation of the "kafir" is widely accepted in the Muslim world.

[QUOTE]
Anyhow from your posts i truely believe you are a good person and you have a big issue with EXTREMISM in Islam right? Maybe you also have issue with Islam or other religions i dont' know.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I care little about Islam itself or other religions, although I don't like the concept of religion in general and the three violence prone religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in particular (compare their records to that of, say, Buddhism). My opposition is to Islamism, which is a form of fascism with a religious veneer. This occurred after 9/11. I didn't care about it before they started threatening me and my country.

The Evangelicals in the US are not in the same league as Islamists. What they chiefly want is school prayer, the 10 commandments in government buildings, bans on abortion and pornography. This doesn't compare to the totalitarian ideology of Islamists. The other key point is the Evangelicals can never impose their views because of the Constitution. The only thing they can perhaps overturn is abortion but pornography is likely to always be protected as free speech and school prayer and the commandments kept out by the separation between religion and state. They are also using peaceful means, namely elections to attempt to achieve their ends. Islamists seek a violent revolution in countries and ultimately the imposition of shariah around the world.

Evangelicals are also a minority in America. The vast majority of Americans believe in equal rights and even a lot of evangelicals do. In contrast, name just one leading Islamist outside of Turkey who believes "kafirs" or women deserve equal rights...

I am aware of Jewish fundamentalists but not too concerned about that. They are only a factor in one distant small country.

[QUOTE]
You keep on talking about Islamic Countries....which islamic country? i mean as far as i know there is not one islamic country where there is Islamic law and islamic shariah implemented.

[/QUOTE]
Muslims themselves often talk about "Muslim countries"/"Islamic countries." Shariah is in force in several countries and was imposed briefly in Pakistan in Swat.

[QUOTE]
Saudi Arabia? well if so then u also know there is no place for the Royal family in Islam so its selective Shariah.
[/QUOTE]
The Shias in effect wanted a royal family.

Look at the recent 1,000 lash penalty in Saudi Arabia. Where did they get that penalty from? Shariah.

Yes, the Saudis discriminate against foreigners but yet Pakistanis still love Saudi sahib?! Is Saudi Arabia not the favorite foreign country of Pakistanis?

[QUOTE]
I will tell u honestly i rather live in Holland (though things are not that well here) then in Middle East or any other " Islamic country" (as you want to call them).
[/QUOTE]
The Netherlands also faces an Islamist threat. If you want to keep Holland as it is Islamism, like Fascism and Communism before it, has to be crushed.

I oppose religion altogether. Look at what religious figures have done for one. Moses ordered the killing of infants. What credibility does someone like that have as a "holy" man? Zero in my book.

Eh, comparing Persia after the invasion by Umar ibn al-Khattab to the Arabization efforts in Pakistan isn't a fair comparison bro.

Persia has always maintained its non-Arab character, while retaining its Islamic identity. Just because their language is in Arabic script doesn't mean it is Arabized. Look at Persian intellectuals, you can't tell me that Rumi, Hafez, Sa'adi, and Omar Khayyam have been effectively Arabized.

I am against Arabization, but even I'll admit that if the entire Muslim world was Arabized, wouldn't we all be speaking Arabic instead of our own languages? Something to think about.

I'm not opposed to Islam by any means, but I feel a need to retain our unique Islamic character in the face of Arab cultural imperialism fueled by petro dollars/euros. I do not like the Arabized Pakistanis no more than the so-called "liberal" Pakistanis (whose definition of liberalism consists of drinking, smoking, and fornication).

[quote]
The Evangelicals in the US are not in the same league as Islamists. What they chiefly want is school prayer, the 10 commandments in government buildings, bans on abortion and pornography. This doesn't compare to the totalitarian ideology of Islamists. The other key point is the Evangelicals can never impose their views because of the Constitution. The only thing they can perhaps overturn is abortion but pornography is likely to always be protected as free speech and school prayer and the commandments kept out by the separation between religion and state. They are also using peaceful means, namely elections to attempt to achieve their ends. Islamists seek a violent revolution in countries and ultimately the imposition of shariah around the world.

Evangelicals are also a minority in America. The vast majority of Americans believe in equal rights and even a lot of evangelicals do. In contrast, name just one leading Islamist outside of Turkey who believes "kafirs" or women deserve equal rights...
[/quote]

Dude you live in the Northeast. I live in Texas and believe me, there are a lot of those Evangelical nutjobs here who believe in the creationism garbage. They are to me not much different from Islamic fundamentalists. Heck, those idiots who whine about how "immoral" American society is should go move to a small town in the Deep South; it's really not much different from what they are accustomed to.

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

Well well well
i cannot talk withyou my friend
i mean when you say: My opposition is to Islamism, which is a form of fascism with a religious veneer.

Then its useless to argue with you or discuss with you anything sensible.
When you say that the Evangelists are harmless and only preach 10 commandments then you are totally out of touch with what is happening in the USA.

Well live in peace and harmony and say whatever you wanna say but to me most insulting was what your thought was about Islam:

"My opposition is to Islamism, which is a form of fascism with a religious veneer."

But that does not harm Islam it may hurt me but Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world while everything i mean the complete international Media and non Islamic countries are propagating against Islam and Muslims 24/7 whole year long does not harm Islam at all.

It may harm or hurt Muslims i am sure but thats something personal and everyone should deal with it themselfs. :)

You are brainwashed like the children in Madrassas and you have preconceived ideas and thoughts that i cannot fight :).

No you do not oppose religion altogether because your only problem is Islam.
Everything you said is full with hatred against the Islam that saddens me because it only
shows your deep deep problem /issue with Islam and not other religions.

If you are treated badly and religions (in this case Islam) was forced upon you then its the problem of people who did force it onto you not of Islam.

If you think like: My opposition is to Islamism, which is a form of fascism with a religious veneer.

Then it means that over 1 1/2 billion Muslims are Fascist. :)
That is a big thing to say you know.

Ameen :)

In my opinion much balanced post of yours mate. ;)
Keep it up!!

Persia kept some of its basic culture but the Arabs certainly made efforts to Arabize it and had some success.

[QUOTE]
"liberal" Pakistanis (whose definition of liberalism consists of drinking, smoking, and fornication).
[/QUOTE]

One of those things is a consequence of liberty. You cannot police fornication without infringing greatly on liberty. Drinking and smoking bans are also infringements on liberty but minor ones and could perhaps be justified by citing public safety/health, although I would oppose such bans. Prohibition was tried in the US and all it did was lead to a rise of underground alcohol funded gangs. Moreover, if you ban smoking based on health grounds then that justifies banning, say, cheeseburgers or soda so it opens up a can of worms. Of the three it is fornication which Pakistanis abhor by far the most without recognizing the cost of policing it. In short, Pakistan will never be an advanced country if it continues to obsess over something like that.

I agree there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists, especially in the South. What I don't think is that they are a serious threat to impose their views on the rest because of the Constitution. They have voted Republican for three decades to achieve their goals and even when 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees abortion remained legal, school prayer and the 10 commandments in schools banned. With the pendulum swinging to the Democratic Party for the next 25-30 years, replacing the "Age of Reagan" (1980-2008) they will be in the wilderness for the foreseeable future. My only concern with them is if they start using violence like Islamists.

There is a significant difference between, say, Mike Huckabee and Mullah Omar. Does Huckabee want to sent squads out to enforce the wearing of beards, women to be imprisoned in homes and not allowed to work or go to school, religious minorities to be persecuted, converts out of Christianity murdered, etc. The analogue to Islamists is not Christian fundamentalists in my view but 20th century Fascists and Communists. Both Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism are bad but the latter is far worse.

[QUOTE]
i mean when you say: My opposition is to Islamism, which is a form of fascism with a religious veneer.

Then its useless to argue with you or discuss with you anything sensible.
[/QUOTE]
Why? That is what it is. Here is a definition of fasicm:

[QUOTE]
a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
[/QUOTE]
Replace "nationalist" with "religious" and it fits to a tee.

[QUOTE]
When you say that the Evangelists are harmless and only preach 10 commandments then you are totally out of touch with what is happening in the USA.
[/QUOTE]
What do you think their agenda is? They are harmless in that they can never achieve their limited goals, aside from banning abortion.

[QUOTE]
But that does not harm Islam it may hurt me but Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world
[/QUOTE]
I said Islamism, not Islam. Islamism was created in the 1920's by people like Mawdudi.

It is the fast growing because of insanely high birth rates. It is ironic that Muslims love to quote the "fastest growing" stat and then always complain about the Islamic world being behind the rest of the world. Well, controlling your birth rate would be a start. The economies of Muslim countries cannot support high population growth. Pakistan's population has increased by an average of 4.6 million a year this decade. Where are they going to work? This places a further strain on a country which already struggles to feed its people.

Why not have an open competition? Muslims can send imams to US prisons to convert people (where many do convert), Muslims can openly proselytize in Christian countries, Buddhist countries, Hindu countries, etc. Why do few Muslim countries allow the same? Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest contributor to Islamic dawah around the world yet it allows 0 practice of any religion other than Islam let alone allow others to propagate their religions there. Another example is Muslims in the US often talk about promoting their religion--even though their countries of origin do not allow minority religions the same opportunity.

This is regarding competition between religions. Then there is the issue of criticizing religions. It is allowed everywhere except Islamic nations (well, you can criticize religions--as long as it doesn't happen to be Islam). In the US or UK you can write a book titled "God is not Great" and be a prominent author and commentator (Christopher Hithcnes); if a Pakistani or Saudi did the same he would be murdered.

I conclude from this there is a degree of insecurity regarding religion endemic to the Islamic world.

[QUOTE]
the complete international Media and non Islamic countries are propagating against Islam and Muslims 24/7 wh
[/QUOTE]
By what? They simply report what Islamists do. It is Islamists who say they act in the name of Islam, not the media. Muslims complain about media reporting of Islamists yet often, especially those in the West, say nothing about the Islamists themselves. Why was Rushdie condemned by Muslims around the world while only one fatwa has been issued against Bin Laden declaring him a "kafir"?

We don't know what effect recent events have had on Islam because Islamic nations threaten those who convert out of Islam with murder. Therefore converts out of Islam in Muslim nations remain silent. There is no way to know for sure what effect Islamist violence has had on Islam because of this. Why are Muslims the only ones who call for killing people for changing their religion (well, if they change out of Islam. If they change into Islam they are hailed as heroes)? There are no Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Tao killings based on apostasy. You keep acting as if things like this are the work of a minority but in fact some of them are widely accepted. It is debatable whether Islam itself calls for this. If you read literally it does but if you look at the context it doesn't. What matters now is that Islamic jurists during the formative period of shariah decided it does and this is accepted by most ulema.

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

Who gave Fatwa or Salman Rushdi? The Islamists or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran?
Do you also consider Iran and the Ayatollah's of Iran as Islamist cum Fascist?

Did you know that in Holland u r not allowed to insult the Queen of Holland else you will get fined??

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

You keep on contradicting yourself.
You keep on saying that your not against Islam and you did not say that Islam is a Fascist religion but Islamist are Fascists. But you contue to mention Muslims of the world and Muslims countries of the world. Whils you know its a small minority who are very good in propagating the Wahabi type of Islam. Majority of Muslim is not followling that type of Islam.

You also think that those who are against USA they are by default Wahabi's
well majority of Europeans does not agree with the USA foreign policy mate so does that make them a Wahabi?

You really need to differentiate and clearify what you mean when you blame some group to be a Fascist group.

Whenever someone criticizes Islam they are given a flurry of threats. A former Muslim wrote an article in an Oklahoma newspaper in which he criticized all religions and said Muhammad was not perfect. Within two days he received 30 threats on his phone--from people he knew from the local Muslim community--and this included death threats. This was one guy in one newspaper. Look at what happened during the Dutch cartoon controversy which was globalized by Islamists. Why? People criticize Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. all the time and no one threatens them with murder.

[QUOTE]
Did you know that in Holland u r not allowed to insult the Queen of Holland else you will get fined??

[/QUOTE]
No but that is a joke law. We have none like that in America. You cannot compare a fine to death sentences for criticism or apostasy.

In Holland can you criticize the prime minister, Jesus, or Moses?

[QUOTE]
You keep on saying that your not against Islam and you did not say that Islam is a Fascist religion but Islamist are Fascists. But you contue to mention Muslims of the world and Muslims countries of the world. Whils you know its a small minority who are very good in propagating the Wahabi type of Islam. Majority of Muslim is not followling that type of Islam.
[/QUOTE]
You are confusing two separate things. Islamism is Fascist but there are objectionable elements common to the Muslim world, such as persecution of religious minorities. I mention that because of the myth that those things are being done by a minority. Who in Pakistan stands for equal rights for minorities? No one because it is accepted that just like the sky is blue "kafirs" are inferior. Only a minority of Muslims are Islamists but most accept "kafir" inferiority. Am I supposed to pretend this is not so? This is one reason the Muslim world has stood still for the past 300+ years. There is little self-criticism (notice how nearly everything is blamed on outsiders?). If you have no flaws there is nothing to correct. So nothing changes and the Islamic world keeps slipping farther and farther behind. I am trying to help. I hope the Islamic world adopts modern values such as freedom of thought, religion, speech, equal rights for women and minorities. There is a clash between people in Islamic lands who believe in these things and Islamists and I want to see the liberals win the clash.

As a historical analogy, was Christianity racist when European colonialism existed? No, but Christians were at the time. Islam itself can be interpreted a million different ways, just like any religion.

[QUOTE]
You also think that those who are against USA they are by default Wahabi's
well majority of Europeans does not agree with the USA foreign policy mate so does that make them a Wahabi?
[/QUOTE]
No. There are many Americans who disagree with American foreign policy as well. Islamists are easy to spot: they openly state that they are Islamist. They are proud of their ideology and its program. Who are some examples of Islamists? Qazi Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmednijad, Ayman Al-Zahwari, Mullah Omar, whoever is the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Khalid Mishal, etc.

Islamists' beef with America goes far beyond foreign policy. There opposition is mainly ideological for America is the best example of liberal, democratic, secular values. If the issue were merely foreign policy why were there no "Death to Russia" marches in the Middle East/Pakistan-Afghanistan? Were Soviet flags burned? Did anyone fly planes into Moscow State University? Did many Muslims obsess about the USSR? For 40 years the USSR as also a superpower. However, unlike America it occupied Muslim majority areas (as well as non-Russian areas such as the Ukraine and Belarus) in the Soviet empire. Muslims complained often about US support for Israel during the 70's and 80's because Israel occupies Palestinian ares. Well, where was the outrage regarding the USSR? The USSR itself ruled 50 million Muslims and occupied 5 Muslim majority republics. The Soviets saved Israel in 1948 (through Czechslovkia) while the US did nothing. It was Israel's chief ally during Israel's early years while the US was aloof from it. Was the Soviet Union hated in the Muslim world for this? No.

The Iraq war is often cited as a reason for some Muslims hating America but that happened in 2003. What was the Muslim, and especially Islamist, beef with America for the previous half century? "Support" for dictators? Well, the Soviets did the same thing and few hated the Soviets. Let's look at Pakistan as a case study. Pakistan has had two dictators in the past 30 years. Who were its biggest allies? The US--and Saudi Arabia. Yet no country is revered more by Pakistanis than Saudi Arabia. China also "supported" Zia and Musharaaf. Pakistanis still like China. Moreover, what exactly is this "support"? The US gives Jordan $400 million a year. Is that enough to purchase Jordan? Get real. The US gives $0 to Saudi Arabia. Yet we are told the US "controls" Saudi Arabia, a nation which exports hatred of "kafirs" around the world--including even in America?

What makes the US unique? Its cultural, economic, and ideological dominance. No one watched Soviet movies or listened to Russian films outside of the USSR. How many people sent their kids to study in Moscow and Leningrad? Few looked to the Soviet Union as a model state, although this was the case in a few countries. Who traded in rubles and worried about the impact of the Soviet economy on their country? The Soviet cultural, economic, and ideological influence was largely limited to the Communist bloc; American influence in these areas extended everywhere else than and now extends practically everywhere.

While the typical Muslim may dislike the US over its policy on Israel (although this is unclear. Where was this opposition when the USSR saved Israel in 48'?), Islamist opposition is more fundamental and will not end based on anything the US could do. Remember what Khomeni said: he did not fear economic sanctions or the American military. What he feared was Western (chiefly American) universities. The reason is obvious: he feared the ideas taught in those citadels of knowledge. Islamists hate Western culture and admit it. They recognize Western culture is the opposite of their values and Western culture has a global appeal. The US is the leader of the West so it becomes the recipient of their hatred of the West. They want their ideology imposed upon the world; America's cultural and ideological appeal and its power are the chief obstacle to their plans just as it stood in the way of Nazism and Communism in the past.

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

^ get a job, both of yous :hehe:

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

@ reason

u r talking about Muslims why dont u look at the country u belong. around 2500 got killed in US in 9/11 attacks. USA has killed more than 1 lac at least (very prudent estimate) in iraq in afghanistan and still is blood thirsty.

specially iraq that nothing to do wid alqaeda and 9/11. after destroying the whole country US admiited that there is no chemical weapon in IRAQ and intelligence reports of its agencies were misleading and incorrect.

personally speaking US citizens are in general , is the best example of mind control using media.

as US economy is gradually going down and its soft power is decreasing rapidly it is using the myth of war against terror to maintain its image of sole superpower of the world, as a last resort (perhaps.

muslims reaction are fallout of atoricities of USA. otherwise situation was entirely different in IRAQ.

Re: Tantawi calls for a ban on niqab

@ reason

islamism irritates u coz u havent seen ppl who practice their relegion. as most of the ppl specially christian are lukeworm.

And how do you know how Christians practice living in Karachi? Besides, a lot of Pakistani Muslims would rather see Christians wiped out from Pakistan as evident by the mob reaction of them, yet cry persecution from the "kuffar".

I haven’t read all the posts - but I think it’s interesting that even in a progressive and inclusive country like Canada - there is a similar movement (see link): Muslim group moves to ban burka - The Globe and Mail

**Muslim group moves to ban burka **

Canadian lobbyists say garments are ‘medieval’ and ‘misogynist’ and they are urging Ottawa to take action

Middle Eastern garments designed to cover a woman’s face are “medieval” and “misogynist” symbols of extremism with no basis in Islam, said a Canadian Muslim lobby group as it urged Ottawa to ban the burka and the niqab.
The Muslim Canadian Congress Wednesday called on the federal government to prohibit the two garments in order to prevent women from covering their faces in public – a practice the group said has no place in a society that supports gender equality.
“To cover your face is to conceal your identity,” congress spokeswoman Farzana Hassan said in a telephone interview, describing the issue as a matter of public safety, since concealing one’s identity is a common practice for criminals.
The tradition of Muslim women covering their faces in public is a tradition rooted more in Middle Eastern culture than in the Islamic faith, Ms. Hassan added.
There is nothing in any of the primary Islamic religious texts, including the Koran, that requires women to cover their faces, she said — not even in the ultra-conservative tenets of Sharia law.
Considering the fact that women are in fact forbidden from wearing burkas in the grand mosque in Mecca, Islam’s holiest site, it hardly makes sense that the practice should be permitted in Canada, she said.
“If a government claims to uphold equality between men and women, there is no reason for them to support a practice that marginalizes women.”
The proposed ban would include the burka, an iconic head-to-toe gown with a mesh-like panel over the face that allows the wearer to see and to breathe, as well as the niqab — a veil that leaves only the eyes exposed.
Ms. Hassan said the ban would not extend to the hijab, a traditional headscarf that does not cover the face.
The proposed ban comes on the heels of reports that Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of Egypt’s al-Azhar university and the country’s highest Muslim authority, is poised to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, against the garments.
Media reports Monday said Sheikh Tantawi described the face coverings as “a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.”
Mohamed Elmasry, former president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said he agrees the tradition has its roots in cultural customs rather than religious teachings, but that the issue is irrelevant in Canada where the practice is not widespread.
Mr. Elmasry disputed suggestions that the garments pose a security threat, saying only a minority of Muslim women living in Canada feel the need to conceal their features in public.
He said he believes those women should have the freedom to decide whether they wish to cover their faces, and that a ban would limit freedom of expression.
“People feel it’s part of their identity, people feel it’s part of their culture,” Mr. Elmasry said.
“It’s not for you and me to decide.”

I have my own opinion on the practice of wearing a burka/niqab which I would not impose on anyone else - but what concerns me is the slippery slope argument. If the states interferes in certain religious practices which it deems contrary to public interest - how far is that interference allowed to extend and who defines public interest? Morality and values are not homogenous - but whose values should hold sway?

Muslim Canadian Congress? The group founded by Tarek Fatah? I don’t know any Muslims who takes them seriously.