Wah bhai wah, suna tha kuttay bhaag’ty hn apnay master k lye, yahan to insaan bhagray hn jahilo k lye. Shabash.
Calling people of HAQ, rats? That will get you far in the next world for sure. :k:
The dominant culture decides what is "in" and what is "out".
Orthodox Muslims and tribal traditions in the Muslim countries have practically stopped innovation and development in their own countries.
And now they are heading to the West, spreading the same orthodoxy. This is not unlike the black plague that gripped Europe not too long ago.
Before the black plague spread by rats, Europeans suffered under the yoke of religious plague spread by pope-ism.
So they know from their painful past, as to not succumb to the orthodoxy just because it is spread in the name of Jesus pbuh, God Almightly, or more recently Allah swt.
it is time Muslims understand the European side before launching tirades against them, and declaring them anti-Islam.
I see you're from Karachi. I suppose I can understand why, coming from a country that still forces people to sign a statement declaring Mirza Ghulam Ahmed an "impostor-nabi" before giving them a passport, you might have some issues understanding how allowing the government to dictate how people interpret religious doctrine in their personal lives is both a violation of personal civil liberties and fundamentally defies the concept of separation of church and state.
Why don't you worry about establishing a functional secular democracy in your own country, rather than attempting to defend (through your own twisted logic) the desecration of secular values and civil liberties in the West through totalitarian legislation.
I see you're from Karachi. I suppose I can understand why, coming from a country that still forces people to sign a statement declaring Mirza Ghulam Ahmed an "impostor-nabi" before giving them a passport, you might have some issues understanding how allowing the government to dictate how people interpret religious doctrine in their personal lives is both a violation of personal civil liberties and fundamentally defies the concept of separation of church and state.
Why don't you worry about establishing a functional secular democracy in your own country, rather than attempting to defend (through your own twisted logic) the desecration of secular values and civil liberties in the West through totalitarian legislation.
Good points in your posts.
I think it is utterly inhuman (ready Nazism) to force people to declare their religion on the passport. Pakistan is for everyone, Muslims or non-Muslims. We must ditch the religion field in the passport along with the primitive tribal implementation of Hadood ordinance.
You forgot one thing in your post when you say "..........allowing the government to dictate how people interpret religious doctrine in their personal lives ".
We are not talking about "personal" lives in this thread. We are talking about "Public" expression. That is hiding your face while in "PUBLIC". Got it?
if you want to wear a full niqab in your mosque parties. That's OK. But when you come out in public, people should be able to see your face.
Thus the governments can and do dictate "public" behaviors. You can always argue that certain behavior is not public, but the concept that government should control the public behavior is A-OK.
Hope you understand it better now.
- You forgot one thing in your post when you say "..........allowing the government to dictate how people interpret religious doctrine in their personal lives ".
We are not talking about "personal" lives in this thread. We are talking about "Public" expression. That is hiding your face while in "PUBLIC". Got it?
if you want to wear a full niqab in your mosque parties. That's OK. But when you come out in public, people should be able to see your face.
Thus the governments can and do dictate "public" behaviors. You can always argue that certain behavior is not public, but the concept that government should control the public behavior is A-OK.
Hope you understand it better now.
Again, here in the secular, pluralistic, Western world, we believe in protecting peoples' right to free **public **expression - whether that takes the form of speech, dress, assembly, etc. A woman's decision to veil or unveil herself has no direct effect on anyone but herself. There are reasonable exceptions, of course, including photographs for ID documents and security checkpoints, where a woman's decision to veil her face would directly counteract the interests of the general public. In those cases, I see nothing wrong with requiring women to unveil. However, when a veiled woman is going about her business on the street, you have no more right to demand that she expose her face to you than you do to demand that she expose her breasts.
For all your talk of Taleban this and tribal Islamists that, you seem to believe in the very same undemocratic, totalitarian principals on the government's role in society and religion that guide their actions.
Again, here in the secular, pluralistic, Western world, we believe in protecting peoples' right to free **public **expression - whether that takes the form of speech, dress, assembly, etc. A woman's decision to veil or unveil herself has no direct effect on anyone but herself. ...
It is not a gender thing. It is equally applicable if a man wants to veil himself.
Hiding the body in a total all enveloping burqa is one extreme, and walking nude in public is the other extreme. You will see that the public dress code tries to find a middle ground between these two extremes. But the extremists (Burqa-ists, and nudists) both would oppose that and we understand why.
Hearing lectures on secularism and free speech from Islamists is a ironic at the very least.
It is not a gender thing. It is equally applicable if a man wants to veil himself.
Hiding the body in a total all enveloping burqa is one extreme, and walking nude in public is the other extreme. You will see that the public dress code tries to find a middle ground between these two extremes. But the extremists (Burqa-ists, and nudists) both would oppose that and we understand why.
Hearing lectures on secularism and free speech from Islamists is a ironic at the very least.
And, with certain exceptions as I already mentioned, he should have every right to do so if he wishes.
Walking around nude is largely tolerated in most of the Western world, and is in fact a specifically protected right in many parts of Europe. Generally speaking, as long as the person is not engaging in overt sexual activity, you will have a hard time prosecuting them simply for being nude in most jurisdictions.
I am not an Islamist, nor have I ever been. As I already pointed out, I have never worn a burqa (or a hejab for that matter) in my life, nor has anyone in my family since my great-grandmother's generation.
True secularists defend the rights of others to practice their religion as they see fit, even if those religious practices take the form of something that is personally distasteful to them. You're just a reactionary totalitarian ideologue.
- And, with certain exceptions as I already mentioned, he should have every right to do so if he wishes.
I think you are confusing "Public" rights with "personal/private" rights.
- Walking around nude is largely tolerated in most of the Western world, and is in fact a specifically protected right in many parts of Europe. Generally speaking, as long as the person is not engaging in overt sexual activity, you will have a hard time prosecuting them simply for being nude in most jurisdictions.
Actually not! walking around nude in public places (exceptions are the beaches etc. ) will get you hauled into lockup under one or other form of "public indecency". You need to brush up on laws and jurisdictions. Few exceptions do not make a rule.
- I am not an Islamist, nor have I ever been. As I already pointed out, I have never worn a burqa (or a hejab for that matter) in my life, nor has anyone in my family since my great-grandmother's generation.
I don't follow your posts on regular basis. Perhaps you have already come out to condemn the Islamists attack on free speech. Otherwise it just remains one sided myopic view of the world.
True secularists defend the rights of others to practice their religion as they see fit, even if those religious practices take the form of something that is personally distasteful to them. You're just a reactionary totalitarian ideologue.
No society is "totally free", as each of them have laws to protect the general public. Apparently many burqabaz people want to selectively attack the secularism by using the secularism by name only.
I think you are confusing "Public" rights with "personal/private" rights.
No offense, but I don't need lectures on civil liberties from someone living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Actually not! walking around nude in public places (exceptions are the beaches etc. ) will get you hauled into lockup under one or other form of "public indecency". You need to brush up on laws and jurisdictions. Few exceptions do not make a rule.
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. I am fully aware of legislation against "indecent exposure". I am also aware of the fact that those laws are rarely used to prosecute people solely for appearing in public nude, and are generally used for people who expose themselves to others in a sexual manner, or who engage in sexual activity in public.
The university I attended (in a major US city that does have laws against indecent exposure), it was an honored tradition for students to run through campus completely naked together on a particular day every year. Needless to say, no one has ever been prosecuted.
No society is "totally free", as each of them have laws to protect the general public. Apparently many burqabaz people want to selectively attack the secularism by using the secularism by name only.
As I already pointed out, the choice to wear a burqa has no impact on the general public. There are a few execptions, and in those cases I think there shouldn't be any problems with having burqa wearers unveil.
As for secularism, it's clear that you don't even understand the concept, and apparently fully support govenment involvement in religious practices.
...... The university I attended (in a major US city that does have laws against indecent exposure), it was an honored tradition for students to run through campus completely naked together on a particular day every year. Needless to say, no one has ever been prosecuted....
Great. So we can see you celebrating an alternative day at the campus.
i.e. Participants wear an Afghan shuttlecock and run like hell through the campus, while the burqa fills with hot air, and practically help the participant float through the air. Magic? no madam! Just hot air. hahahhahahah.
Burka rage as female lawyer rips veil off Muslim woman in French clothes shop
**A 60-year-old female lawyer ripped a Muslim woman’s Islamic veil off during a row in what French police described as the first known case of ‘burqa rage’.
**
The astonishing scene unfolded in a clothes shop in France when the pair came to blows before being arrested.
It came as racial tensions grow over of the country’s plans to introduce a total ban on burqas and other forms of religious dress which cover the face.
The 26-year-old Muslim convert was walking through the store in Trignac, near Nantes, in the western Loire-Atlantique region, when she overhead the lawyer making ‘snide remarks about her black burqa’.
A police officer added: ‘The lawyer said she was not happy seeing a fellow shopper wearing a veil and wanted the ban introduced as soon as possible.’ At one point the lawyer, who was out with her daughter, is said to have likened the Muslim woman to Belphegor - a horror demon character well known to French television viewers.
The lawyer’s use of the name ‘Belphegor’ was particularly inflammatory, said police, because the demon was portrayed by classical writers as ‘Hell’s ambassador to France’. Belphegor, who hates human beings, is usually portrayed as a monstrous demon with horns and pointed nails, but frequently disguises himself. During a period in Paris, Belphegor was said to live with a group of vampires in the Louvre.
Police said the incident was still being investigated, and that charges could follow. Neither woman has yet been named.
**A ‘shouting argument’ started in the store before the older woman is said to have ripped the other woman’s veil off. As they came to blows on Saturday afternoon, the lawyer’s daughter joined in, with the three women clashing. ‘The shop manager and the husband of the Muslim woman moved to break up the fighting,’ the police officer said.
**
**‘All three were arrested and taken to the local gendarmerie for questioning.’ A spokesman for Trignac police said that ‘two complaints had been received’, with the Muslim woman accusing the lawyer of racial and religious assault. The latter, in turn, had accused her opponent of common assault. **
The French parliament has adopted a formal motion declaring burqas and other forms of Islamic dress to be ‘an affront to the nation’s values’.
Some have accused criminals of wearing veils to disguise themselves. This includes everything from terrorists to minor shop lifters. A ban, which could be introduced as early as autumn, would make France the second country after Belgium to outlaw the Islamic veil in public places. But many have criticised the anti-burqa lobby, which includes President Nicolas Sarkozy, for stigmatising Muslim housewives. Many French women from council estates are forced to wear the veils because of pressure from authoritarian husbands.
The promise of a ban has prompted warnings of racial tensions in a country which is home to some five million Muslims - one of the religion’s largest communities in Europe. Mr Sarkozy’s cabinet is to examine a draft bill which will impose one-year prison sentences and fines of up to £14,000 on men who force their wives to wear a burqa.
Women themselves will face a smaller fine of just over £100 because they are ‘often victims with no choice in the matter,’ says the draft. The law would create a new offence of 'incitement to cover the face for reasons of gender’. And it would state: ‘No-one may wear in public places clothes that are aimed at hiding the face.’ Women would not be ‘unveiled’ in the street but instead taken to a police station to be formally identified, the draft law states.
Hmmm, it still surprises me that seeing a woman totally covered can provoke this sort of reaction..
Re: Why is the burqa being banned in Europe?
^ quiet possible, just like people are gonna burn the lady if she is in bikni in Peshawar or Lahore ..it's just opposite in west.
Muslims have to understand the environment in which Western's are brought up what is their culture & values, in the end: each to their own, but you have to respect the local laws, if you don't like them don't go, anyone forcing you?
If you want to go to extreme, some Muslims want to fight, so be it - you will be the loser in the end !
^ quiet possible, just like people are gonna burn the lady if she is in bikni in Peshawar or Lahore ..it's just opposite in west.
And Pakistan is labeled backwards and intolerant because of it. Is France willing to admit then, that it is every bit as backwards and intolerant as NWFP?
The key words there are** "Islamic states**." They have no delusions of being secular nations, and openly proclaim that they are theocratic states. I certainly don't agree with all of their laws, but unlike the Europeans, they aren't trying to claim that they're open, liberal, secular democracies while stripping minorities of the right to practice their religion freely.
Let me put ur argument another way.
janab-e-ali: Hey, they claim they are mr. clean and honest. Most of the time they are but i also saw them cheating sometimes. They are no mr. clean if u ask me!
janab-e-ali: However, I am better then them because I dont claim to be mr. clean, I am a crook and i know it. So it does not matter if i steal all the time!
I hope it is easier to understand.
The key words there are** "Islamic states**." They have no delusions of being secular nations, and openly proclaim that they are theocratic states. I certainly don't agree with all of their laws, but unlike the Europeans, they aren't trying to claim that they're open, liberal, secular democracies while stripping minorities of the right to practice their religion freely.
Isnt the key word there 'Secular" state... Depending on how you define the term and what it implies, then a ban on the Burqa seems quite appropriate.
Different countries define and understand the term differently.
Let me put ur argument another way. janab-e-ali: Hey, they claim they are mr. clean and honest. Most of the time they are but i also saw them cheating sometimes. They are no mr. clean if u ask me! janab-e-ali: However, I am better then them because I dont claim to be mr. clean, I am a crook and i know it. So it does not matter if i steal all the time! I hope it is easier to understand.
- That's a stupid analogy.
- I never said one idea was better than the other. I have repeatedly made it clear that I see no difference between state-enforced hejab and state-enforced unveiling, and I strongly oppose both ideas.
- I was simply pointing out a logical inconsistency in the idea of secular states dictating religious dress codes.
- I hope that makes things easier to understand.
Isnt the key word there 'Secular" state... Depending on how you define the term and what it implies, then a ban on the Burqa seems quite appropriate.
Secularism is defined as the concept of being separated from religion; i.e. the government does not officially endorse any religious practices and leaves those decisions entirely up to the population, as long as they do not compromise public safety.
The suppression of the practice of a particular religion is religion-specific oppression. The suppression of the practice of all religions is state-enforced atheism.
We Muslims better wake up and realize the fact that the current status of the world isn't going to change for the better, it will become worse and worse. Better we strengthen our imaan now than pay the price later. Because the times are changing fast, today it's just the burqa, tomorrow it can be worse. Remember Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Chechnya....! It's already mentioned in ahadith, this is not some terrorists vs the west, it's the WEST vs ISLAM.
Yeah thats what we need some sensationalism in the form our desi version of Bill O Reilly
btw in bosnia the WESt backed the muslims , and muslims are killing EACH OTHER in other places u mentioned bar chechneya where the dispute is more ethnic than religious.
The dominant culture decides what is "in" and what is "out".
Orthodox Muslims and tribal traditions in the Muslim countries have practically stopped innovation and development in their own countries.
And now they are heading to the West, spreading the same orthodoxy. This is not unlike the black plague that gripped Europe not too long ago.
Before the black plague spread by rats, Europeans suffered under the yoke of religious plague spread by pope-ism.
So they know from their painful past, as to not succumb to the orthodoxy just because it is spread in the name of Jesus pbuh, God Almightly, or more recently Allah swt.
it is time Muslims understand the European side before launching tirades against them, and declaring them anti-Islam.
I cant believe it as I normally hate ur posts, but I totally agree with u here
Re: Why is the burqa being banned in Europe?
[QUOTE]
Just think of Bosnia, Gujraat, Kashmir, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya.. all these lands, people thought their neighbours were so friendly and inviting but what happened? Their mothers were raped infront of their eyes and slaughtered, their fathers were tortured and slaughtered, their daughters were raped, ........
[/QUOTE]
but why r u giving every conflict involving muslims a religious color ? do u deny the vicious intra-muslim warfare over the centuries ?
people who want to kill and plunder will do so under any pretext , its not neccesaily religious
Re: Why is the burqa being banned in Europe?
burqa isn't even compulsory in Islam. It just shows oppression towards women. It just makes a country look more outdated.
burqa isn't even compulsory in Islam. It just shows oppression towards women. It just makes a country look more outdated.
firstly many women wear burqa out of choice and will resent not wearing it as they will feel uncomfortable so the "oppression of women" is an useless excuse
secondly the issue is not burqa or minerats the issue is why should the europeans respect every aspect of moslem culture when we fail to show the same respect to them
thirdly in most european countries the issue is not religious but ethnic , islam there is a symbol of immigration ( read nonwhites) and the europeans r not too happy about their country swamped with foreigners.And why should they be welcoming them with open arms ?