Now Belgium bans burqa in public places

[Abu Rashid]

Caladan,

Its Caladan.

Indeed it is, my sincerest apologies.

covering from head to toe is outlandish to women liberation movements

Outlandish? LOL. What is outlandish is the fact you are able to keep a straight face saying such things. Is covering breasts outlandish to women's liberation movements in Papua New Guinea? Because it isn't something they cover there?

You seem obstinate in your refusal to accept that different levels of covering are peculiar to different societies, and do not inherently in themselves indicate a misogynistic or 'outlandish' condition.

fully covering should be tackled for what it is

Right and you've still failed to address just what it supposedly is.

the Jews in Europe did not threat the way of life of Europeans

Many Europeans seemed to feel they did. According to books like La France Juive Jews were trying to take over Europe and had to be stopped, they clearly felt their way of life was being threatened by Jews.

they did not blow up trains

Well they did blow up hotels and postal offices and cinemas, didn't they?

and they were well integrated to the point of most Germans Jews considering themselves to be Germans above all, and Jewish as secondary.

That speaks more about their disloyalty to God than loyalty to their country imho. Muslims must always put God before country, whether it be Germany or Saudi Arabia.

and while we are on the topic of anti-Seimitism in Europe, its important to note that the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe is attributed to anti-Jewish sentiments by Muslims in Europe.

The rise? So back in 1886 when La France Juive was published, Muslims were there whipping Europeans up into an anti-Semitic frenzy were they?

Integrating means speaking the local language

I don't know too many Muslims in my country who don't speak English. It might not be strong amongst much older generations who come here, but that's to be expected, and is the same amongst all immigrant groups. This is a ridiculous and baseless claim.

its about accepting the fact that your ideology like all other ideologies is going to be criticized and murdering your fellow citizens for it is a no no

Agreed. However the ideas your promoting would seek to go further and prevent Muslims even protesting against such things.

its not acceptable to exploit the generous welfare of European nations

Not quite sure what the meaning of this accusation is. Care to clarify that one?

it is about accepting the legal platform of the host nation and not fight the social and cultural norms.

That sounds mighty undemocratic to me. In a democratic country, people are supposedly free to express their opinions and even to lobby and work to implement them. Are you suggesting that Muslims should voluntarily resign to a second class status if they happen to live in European countries, and to forfeit their right to be politically active or influential in their countries? Sounds scarily similar to what the anti-Semites of the early 20th. century were demanding of the Jews.

Or perhaps they need to have lived there a certain amount of generations before they're allowed to freely hold views and opinions? Does this second class status apply to native Europeans who convert to Islam also?

You do realise how ridiculous and dangerous such suggestions are... I hope.

I went straight into the heart of the issue, and I'm not surprised you dont care to go there.

You didn't go into the heart of anything. You merely quoted a Muslim who said women that dress in a provocative manner encourage sexual advances. A view not uncommon amongst Australian males generally actually. Regardless, it has nothing to do with whether a certain level of dress is misogynistic or not. If I state that wearing no bra or blouse invites sexual advances, does that automatically render them misogynistic? Only in the minds of the undiscerning.

perhaps we should talk about the Iranian Imam who recently accused women who are not dressed modestly for causing earthquake?

More of the same flawed reasoning. He's talking about women who don't wear bras and blouses as well... again does it make them articles of misogynism? Surely you are capable of seeing how flawed such statements are.

Its nice to know that you feel that human attraction is akin to urinating in public.

Nice to know you're incapable of fathoming the analogy.

Obviously some prominent Muslim leaders in Europe feel differently:

Well some prominent Jewish leaders in Europe also supported Nazism, does that validate Nazism in your eyes?

 

[Abu Rashid]

zenzero,

Just curious 'friend'. why do you feel the need to post everything in bold and larger font? Do you feel your words don't have as much impact as you'd like? And so you need to augment them with style and formatting? If so, then I'd suggest re-evaluating what you're saying, rather than just reformatting it.

it is clear that many women discard their burqa at the first opportunity

Whether this is true or not (I'd like to see some statistics), it doesn't alter the situation one little bit. If many Christian women who went to PNG took off their tops, does that mean the government therefore should be able to force all Christian women to take off their tops?

The only cases of woman wearing niqabs being pressured that I've come across is women being pressured not to wear it against their will. Not just in Belgium, but also in Muslim countries, and by the families of those women. I've never heard of a single case (personally) of it being forced on, but have heard of many of it being forced off, or of it causing problems because family members don't want a girl wearing it. Contradicts the media hype just a little.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Draka,

Personally, I don't see any difference in one woman wearing a burqa and another going totally naked.

Whilst I don't share your opinion, I certainly find it more logical than most others here.

because I believe that there is nothing inherently shameful about the human body

As I said, there's nothing inherently shameful about sex or urinating either, but it's just not appropriate in public.

How does my nudity affect your space

People's nudity does affect others, whether you like it or not. To deny that nudity has an effect on people would be to deny reality.

unless I'm rubbing my nude body up against you?

The effect does not begin merely at the point of physical contact, it begins before that, and I think you know that.

Truly, however, if people are going to push the "security" issue about clothing...then all clothing should be banned. If people didn't wear clothing at all then there couldn't be any way of hiding anything, what a person looks like AND the ability to carry concealed weapons.

Agreed.

.then they have no case to ban the burqa on "security" grounds.

Well the face is considered the defining feature through which people can be identified, so they do have a bit of a point there. But it makes one wonder whether they're going to ban clowns or people who dress up in suits for kids, perhaps even Santa Claus? I highly doubt it.. just Muslim women. Which makes it quite apparent the security issue is just a smokescreen for their disgusting hatred.

 

[Caladan]

Outlandish? LOL. What is outlandish is the fact you are able to keep a straight face saying such things. Is covering breasts outlandish to women's liberation movements in Papua New Guinea? Because it isn't something they cover there?

Stay focused. there is no comparison between the two hypothetical scenarios. there is no comparison between covering from head to toe and walking topless, and any connection is imaginery.

You seem obstinate in your refusal to accept that different levels of covering are peculiar to different societies, and do not inherently in themselves indicate a misogynistic or 'outlandish' condition.

It is 100% misogynistic.

Right and you've still failed to address just what it supposedly is.

Muslims are doing a good job talking about it themselves. again, it is misogynistic and has no place in the modern and yes civilized world.

Many Europeans seemed to feel they did. According to books like La France Juive Jews were trying to take over Europe and had to be stopped, they clearly felt their way of life was being threatened by Jews.

Conspiracy theories have no connection to the problems we are dicussing about here.

Well they did blow up hotels and postal offices and cinemas, didn't they?

Stay focused and on topic, I was not asking about the Jewish resistance in the mandate of Palestine or an event in Egypt 56 years ago, in the 2000s Muslims have bombed train stations in Europe, have murdered Europeans who have criticized Islam, and have caused politicians, cartoonists and activists to go into hiding. this is happening right now in Europe. how many Jews citizens in Europe have blew up cafes? have murdered people who have criticized Israel or Judaism? how many Jews or Israelis burn embassies when a cartoon about Israel is drawn in European newspapers?

That speaks more about their disloyalty to God than loyalty to their country imho. Muslims must always put God before country, whether it be Germany or Saudi Arabia.

This speaks about their values as integrated and contribution as citizens, something you fail to understand.

The rise? So back in 1886 when La France Juive was published, Muslims were there whipping Europeans up into an anti-Semitic frenzy were they?

We are talking about Europe TODAY, you brought up anti Islamic sentiments TODAY and how it is the expression of the anti-Semitism contained within the Europeans of our time. focus.

I don't know too many Muslims in my country who don't speak English. It might not be strong amongst much older generations who come here, but that's to be expected, and is the same amongst all immigrant groups. This is a ridiculous and baseless claim.

Lets see what Der Spiegel, one of Europe's largest publications says about this.

"For too long we were used to the fact that we have primary school classes where 80 percent of children can't speak German,"

Reiner Klingholz says immigrants and their children should be expected to make more effort to get an education and to speak German as well as to accept Germany's legal order and cultural norms. "We can no longer accept that someone refuses to take part in sports lessons on religious grounds," he says.

Source: Immigration: Survey Shows Alarming Lack of Integration in Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Agreed. However the ideas your promoting would seek to go further and prevent Muslims even protesting against such things.Not quite sure what the meaning of this accusation is. Care to clarify that one?

"Caldwell suggests a welfare state makes a bad marriage with mass, unskilled immigration. Welfare rather than opportunity becomes the attraction. More importantly, welfare becomes a lethal poverty trap."

Source: Uncontrolled Muslim influx a threat | The Australian

That sounds mighty undemocratic to me. In a democratic country, people are supposedly free to express their opinions and even to lobby and work to implement them. Are you suggesting that Muslims should voluntarily resign to a second class status if they happen to live in European countries, and to forfeit their right to be politically active or influential in their countries? Sounds scarily similar to what the anti-Semites of the early 20th. century were demanding of the Jews.

Muslims should use the accepted modern means to make their case. they should use the plaform of the media, public debate and criticism to promote their agendas. fighting to silence Europeans in their own nations, issuing fatwas against European citizens, and refusing to co exist with the values of the host nation is the rape of democracy and freedom of speech.

You do realise how ridiculous and dangerous such suggestions are... I hope.

My challenge stands, if you cannot do anything more than calling my analysis ridiculous without making a convincing case of your own, you haven't said much.

You didn't go into the heart of anything. You merely quoted a Muslim who said women that dress in a provocative manner encourage sexual advances. A view not uncommon amongst Australian males generally actually.

Regardless of you shrugging this off, this information is available for anyone to investigage, and any normal citizen of a modern nation has that inch of critical thought to pick up the important points. the equation is very simple.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with whether a certain level of dress is misogynistic or not. If I state that wearing no bra or blouse invites sexual advances, does that automatically render them misogynistic? Only in the minds of the undiscerning.

Actually many women would claim so, regardless there is a huge difference between saying that and saying that not covering oneself or dressing 'modestly' (another way of saying 'not covering yourself) is akin to an invitation to rape, or is the cause for earthquakes.

More of the same flawed reasoning. He's talking about women who don't wear bras and blouses as well... again does it make them articles of misogynism? Surely you are capable of seeing how flawed such statements are.

Really? he is not talking about women who do not cover their hair? or women who dare to dress in a way which might indicate Western influence?
Yes HE IS A MISOGYNIST, of the worst kind, and the video taken on the streets of Iran shows that dystopian mind set, where women who show a little bit of hair are harassed by the police.

Nice to know you're incapable of fathoming the analogy.

Nice to know you dont stand behind your statements.

Well some prominent Jewish leaders in Europe also supported Nazism, does that validate Nazism in your eyes?

Really? so voicing an opinion on what Islamic scholars and leaders argue about is akin to supporting Nazism? nice to see you got your priorities and proportions straight and that you keep a level head.

 

[sonofskeptish]

"Western Freedom" is disgusting hypocrisy.......

Oppression of women under the banner of "religious freedom" is disgusting hypocrisy.......

 

[darkendless]

I will let a Muslim cleric answer that for you:

“The uncovered meat is the problem.”
The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”
He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.
​

Source: Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks | The Australian

..... and for some stupid reason this man continues to live in our country. What a disgrace, if he wants muslims to be feared he's doing a good job.

 

[Sahar]

Great posts, Abu Rashid. Well done.

 

[Draka]

As I said, there's nothing inherently shameful about sex or urinating either, but it's just not appropriate in public.

Isn't that all dependent upon the "public"? In some areas of the world nudity is totally "appropriate". In fact, the only societies that have an issue with nudity are the ones who have hang-ups and perversion ideas about sex in general.

People's nudity does affect others, whether you like it or not. To deny that nudity has an effect on people would be to deny reality.

Only in societies which pervert sex and have it drilled into them that the body and sex are "dirty". In societies which are open and don't have those hang-ups there are no problems like that. And truly, if someone else is affected by my nudity, that is their hang-up and their problem to deal with...not mine. I shouldn't have to police my own appearance because someone else has sexual urges or desires they are too immature to deal with.

The effect does not begin merely at the point of physical contact, it begins before that, and I think you know that.

See above.

Well the face is considered the defining feature through which people can be identified, so they do have a bit of a point there. But it makes one wonder whether they're going to ban clowns or people who dress up in suits for kids, perhaps even Santa Claus? I highly doubt it.. just Muslim women. Which makes it quite apparent the security issue is just a smokescreen for their disgusting hatred.

I agree.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Friend fatima,

Your response makes it clear that we are not buddies as personally consider everyone to be a friend under all circumstances and do take their help in growing my personal understanding as they [friends] are also medium and forms of the same energy which are labeled as god/allah/brahman or just the *whole* [personal preference].

If in your view the conclusion is wrongly placed, you are free like every human to voice your opinion on the subject in response.

Yes, also am sure you will read this when you wake up fresh from a good night sleep and would have been in touch with that whole/energy through out the rest period and will be charged positively to respond accordingly at that time.

Good morning!
Love & rgds

I am very awake now, and Im still like "what the???? :banghead3" I really starting to think that you intentionnally talk with meanless riddles to shut me up

And why oh why do you always have to make your writings look so big?? Please try to make it smaller (maybe I'll understand what you're talking about then lol)

Best regards

 

[zenzero]

Friend fatima,

I am very awake now, and Im still like "what the???? :banghead3" I really starting to think that you intentionnally talk with meanless riddles to shut me up

And why oh why do you always have to make your writings look so big?? Please try to make it smaller (maybe I'll understand what you're talking about then lol)

Best regards

This is not helping our cause i.e. the intention of the thread by going off track; however since this is to the bigger interest of humankind towards enlightenment we are all committed towards THAT by birth.

From your response it is clear that you did not have rest only your body parts rested as you are still carrying the mood you went to sleep with.

use of font sizes - That is just for convenience of all readers be they big, small, weak eyesight, weak attention span etc.
Well after all none can satisfy all the minds as each mind is made up differently, am sure you agree!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abu Rashid,

Just curious 'friend'. why do you feel the need to post everything in bold and larger font? Do you feel your words don't have as much impact as you'd like? And so you need to augment them with style and formatting? If so, then I'd suggest re-evaluating what you're saying, rather than just reformatting it.

Since you have a problem, it is for you to adjust to it. If it is a legislation at RF, shall abide by it. Any words thought and written is also a waste of the same energy one could use positively towards understanding and merging with that *whole* which is what religion is about.

Whether this is true or not (I'd like to see some statistics)

You need something, then the onus lies on you to do so for which you are totally free. However whatever you are stating is meaningless as mentioned earlier you are wasting your energies as legislation is Beligium is for sure and all you can do is to find how those who are getting affected are adjusting to this new law, when it comes.

Love & rgds

 

[Abu Rashid]

Caladan,

Stay focused. there is no comparison between the two hypothetical scenarios. there is no comparison between covering from head to toe and walking topless, and any connection is imaginery.

There is a very obvious comparison. Both would be cases of a society which permits more nudity, trying to force people to undress to that level of nudity. Keep thinking about it, you'll get it eventually, I'm sure.

It is 100% misogynistic.

Mindless repetition of this mantra doesn't make it so.

Stay focused and on topic, I was not asking about the Jewish resistance in the mandate of Palestine or an event in Egypt 56 years ago

They were carried out by Jews against European targets during the height of European anti-Semitism.

Lets see what Der Spiegel, one of Europe's largest publications says about this.

"For too long we were used to the fact that we have primary school classes where 80 percent of children can't speak German,"

No doubt the article is referencing a special class designed for very recent immigrants. I very highly doubt Turkish Muslim immigrants for instance, who've been there for several decades cannot speak German. Sounds like a very suspicious claim to me.

Most likely talking about a specific program designed for recent immigrants, rather than a mainstream school.

"Caldwell suggests a welfare state makes a bad marriage with mass, unskilled immigration. Welfare rather than opportunity becomes the attraction. More importantly, welfare becomes a lethal poverty trap."

Well offering welfare to recent arrivals isn't a good idea, Muslim or otherwise. It seems you're falling into the trap of associating Muslims with immigrants. You seem to be switching between criticism of Muslims and immigrants as if the two groups are the same thing.

I can only speak for Australia, but the vast majority of immigrants here are definitely not Muslims. And the majority of Muslims were born here, and are not immigrants.

Muslims should use the accepted modern means to make their case. they should use the plaform of the media, public debate and criticism to promote their agendas. fighting to silence Europeans in their own nations, issuing fatwas against European citizens, and refusing to co exist with the values of the host nation is the rape of democracy and freedom of speech.

Well they should be free to do whatever they like, within the confines of the law, as any other citizen of a country is. I honestly can't understand why you're claiming Muslims are a special case in this regard. All people who seek to do things outside of the law should be regarded as criminals, regardless of their religion. Those who seek to do things within the law are none of your business.

Regardless of you shrugging this off, this information is available for anyone to investigage, and any normal citizen of a modern nation has that inch of critical thought to pick up the important points. the equation is very simple.

Regardless of whether the information is available, it doesn't make certain styles of dress misogynistic. For the last time, I implore you to present your evidence for why you believe an article of clothing is misogynistic. You've failed miserably thus far. All you've managed to do is repeat over and over the assertion that it is, without even the slightest explanation as to why. Or to make baseless claims that because Muslims say it's sinful not to cover your body, therefore it's misogynistic. As I've mentioned, this does not make the article of clothing misogynistic, any more than panties and bras are misogynistic because Western society prescribes that they must be worn. Prescribing a level of public decency has nothing to do with misogynism.

Actually many women would claim so...

Right... but they'd be wrong wouldn't they? As you are.

Really? he is not talking about women who do not cover their hair?

He's talking about both, and pants/skirts as well. Covering the hair is more than covering breasts or legs, so his speech would include those as well.

So does that make bras or pants or skirts misogynistic? Please answer. Don't avoid this one again and resort to chanting mantras.

Nice to know you dont stand behind your statements.

I made an analogy, if you're not capable of applying it to the situation without attempting to interpret it literally, then I'm afraid I can't do much for you.

Really? so voicing an opinion on what Islamic scholars and leaders argue about is akin to supporting Nazism?...

Well actually the more severe case of supporting Nazism actually makes my point even stronger

I'm not surprised the point of it eluded you.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Darkendless,

..... and for some stupid reason this man continues to live in our country. What a disgrace, if he wants muslims to be feared he's doing a good job.

As I've already pointed out to you in another thread, this kind of viewpoint (and much worse actually) is fairly stock standard amongst Australian blokes, so Sheikh Taj actually fits in quite well here. He's probably more Aussie than you or I.

 

[Abu Rashid]

not3me,

Great posts, Abu Rashid. Well done.

Gazak'allah khyr ya ukhti, May God reward you with goodness sister.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Isn't that all dependent upon the "public"? In some areas of the world nudity is totally "appropriate".

In some societies partial nudity is acceptable, but there's very few or any where full nudity is the norm. And in pretty much all of them, public sex is also not kosher. I think it's a natural part of forming a society that we understand there's some things which just aren't appropriate in public.

Only in societies which pervert sex and have it drilled into them that the body and sex are "dirty".

Well I think you're just basing this idea on your experience in Christian society. In Islam sex is most definitely not considered dirty, in fact it's considered sacred and is an act of worship for which people will be rewarded (if carried out within the correct bounds, ie. marriage).

And truly, if someone else is affected by my nudity, that is their hang-up and their problem to deal with...not mine.

So if other people do things that affect you, then that's your problem not theirs? That's a bit of a self-centred attitude don't you think?

 

[Abu Rashid]

Since you have a problem, it is for you to adjust to it.

I guess the fact you cannot just take the middle path, but have to goto excesses (big or small) is an indication of where you "are at".

Thanks.

You need something, then the onus lies on you to do so for which you are totally free.

I don't think so. The onus of proof is upon the one making the claim, or the claim is rendered invalid. You made the claim, so provide the evidence for it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Integrating means speaking the local language, its about accepting the fact that your ideology like all other ideologies is going to be criticized and murdering your fellow citizens for it is a no no, its not acceptable to exploit the generous welfare of European nations, it is about accepting the legal platform of the host nation and not fight the social and cultural norms.

... got it ...

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abu Rashid,

You made the claim, so provide the evidence for it.

There was no claim made besides what was stated in earlier posts have not been read by you, so the onus is on you to read and understand all the previous posts and then discuss.

I guess the fact you cannot just take the middle path, but have to goto excesses (big or small) is an indication of where you "are at".

Thank you for your understanding, as personally have no idea where that *I* is.
May allah bless you!

Love & rgds

 

[linwood]

As I already said, I can understand the security concerns. But I think it's just a sad result of a society that is rife with criminality.

"Criminality" isn`t a problem for most of the western world (The USA aside as most people incarcerated in the US aren`t "criminals").

Same for the Jews last century? Did they reap what they had sown in Europe also?

I don`t think this modern "oppression" of Muslims is comparable to oppression of the Jews last century.

It is Muslims who detonate bombs in European subways.
It is Muslims who kill journalists/cartoonists/authors.
The very center of free speech Muslims seek to destroy.

If Muslims do not wish to be thought of as a security concern by the rest of the populace perhaps Muslims should stop being a security concern.

Although the security concerns are often added to the discussion, I really don't think they are the driving force behind it.

Indeed I have already agreed.

The driving force behind laws such as these is fear.
It is a rational fear.
It is a fear Muslims have created and now call objectionable.

I lack sympathy for such "oppression".

 

[Draka]

In some societies partial nudity is acceptable, but there's very few or any where full nudity is the norm. And in pretty much all of them, public sex is also not kosher. I think it's a natural part of forming a society that we understand there's some things which just aren't appropriate in public.

but who was talking about public sex? I was saying that the ones with hang-ups about sex in general have issues with nudity. As if the body is just a sexual thing and nothing else. Like, for instance, there is absolutely no reason for the double standard of why a man can go without a shirt and a woman can't. Why a man can show his breasts and a woman can't. Societies have sexualized the female breast and turned them into "naughty parts". They are the same inherent thing as a man's breast however women's just tend to be more fatty and pronounced as they are to function as milk repositories and feeding apparatuses for babies. We've taken something that is meant to feed babies and turned it into a sex plaything and how disturbing is that?

Well I think you're just basing this idea on your experience in Christian society. In Islam sex is most definitely not considered dirty, in fact it's considered sacred and is an act of worship for which people will be rewarded (if carried out within the correct bounds, ie. marriage).

I'm basing this idea on the fact that there are obvious ideas about the human body being just a sexual or "special" thing for a mate. It is MY body. MY living vehicle for ME to live my life. It is not anyone else's business how I dress it, tattoo it, or otherwise adorn or decorate it.

So if other people do things that affect you, then that's your problem not theirs? That's a bit of a self-centred attitude don't you think?

Not at all. I think you and I have quite a different attitude as to what "affects" someone. See, if I were to sunbathe nude in my own backyard and you were to walk down the alley and see me I am actually doing nothing to affect you. If you, however, feel "affected" by the mere sight of me then it is on you to deal with those feelings and...novel idea...stop looking. It simply is not upon me to regulate your mind and hormonal responses. It is for you to do. It is YOUR conditioning or CHOICE to be "affected" but the truth is, it is not ME that is affecting you...it is your own mind. It is very much like some people's attitudes about same sex marriage. Truly, two women down the street getting married has ABSOLUTELY no affect or bearing on my life and any "effect" from that marriage upon me is just concocted in my head...regardless of reality.

All in all, my argument defends both your stance and mine. It truly does not affect anyone else if a Muslim woman happens to be wearing a burqa while grocery shopping...and any affect perceived is just that...perceived...not actual. And to base laws on people's "feelings" and how they only perceive they are "affected" is unfair and, flat out, ludicrous.