Southern Switzerland Bans Niqab

[Aquitaine]

Meh, I say let them wear it in private and in public, but when in public one should expect to be asked to show your face at certain places of business and other areas if ID is needed, or if staff feel it is necessary.

The same with a person walking around with a balaclava/ski mask/motorcycle helmet on in public; as soon as you enter a store it's time to take it off. There have been cases recently in the UK of men wearing Burkhas/Niqabs to rob jewelry stores in.

Also, to my knowledge it is not obligatory in Islam for a woman to cover her face, correct?

 

[Aquitaine]

It should be a woman's personal choice whether or not they wish wear the hijab. It's wrong to insist that they must or must not, as both rob women the freedom to decide for themselves.

I understand what you're saying, but doesn't "the establishment" already place restrictions on what men and women can wear? I mean, if I try to walk outside naked.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's illegal to wear ski masks in banks in some places in the world. No one is screaming racism about that.

What a stupid comment!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Suggesting, in the name of gender equality, that one should replace an Islamic truth squad with clubs with an Islamophobic truth squad with clubs is ugly hypocrisy at best.

I think your assuming far more than what I posted.

Though I am anti-theistic on many a scale so I don't necessarily see the end of Islam as a bad thing. At least so long as it isn't replaced with another religion.

 

[Flankerl]

Oh my here we go again.

 

[dynavert2012]

Also, to my knowledge it is not obligatory in Islam for a woman to cover her face, correct?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

two opinions, one says it's obligation, one says it's optional

 

[Aquitaine]

two opinions, one says it's obligation, one says it's optional

There are two opinions? I thought this was supposed to be from the word of God, how can there be two conflicting opinions?

I guess perhaps this is why we shouldn't attempt to "guess" the word of a God through subjective Human interpretation.

More reason why Religion should be a private matter, behind closed doors. At least when it comes to impractical self-inflicted limitations imposed on oneself.

 

[dynavert2012]

There are two opinions? I thought this was supposed to be from the word of God, how can there be two conflicting opinions?

I guess perhaps this is why we shouldn't attempt to "guess" the word of a God through subjective Human interpretation.

More reason why Religion should be a private matter, behind closed doors. At least when it comes to impractical self-inflicted limitations imposed on oneself.

two opinions is mercy for Muslims, the reason is different understanding of the word of god

 

[Aquitaine]

two opinions is mercy for Muslims, the reason is different understanding of the word of god

Different understanding of the Word of God?

Why bother then? If the whole thing is based off subjective Human interpretation, how on Earth can any of you be sure you've got the correct interpretation? For all you know, you could be doing it completely wrong.

See how flimsy religious issues can be? Why then, should such flimsy ideologies be given special treatment in Public and in the workplace? If believers can't even decide between themselves what the "correct" thing to do is (in relation to your religious "rules"), then why should any non-believers have to bend-over backwards to try and accommodate your own self-inflicted and impractical limitations - especially when your own interpretations of your religious "rules" may not even be correct?

Not too long ago I entered a large Tesco store in the UK, with my coat hood up (because my hair was a mess). My face was still exposed from the front, but not so much from the sides. I was promptly asked by the security guard to retract my hood so I was easier to identify, as they get a lot of shoplifters. I complied.

Why then, should a religious person get special treatment in that scenario, and be allowed to walk around with their face covered?
I could've claimed I was a Jedi, and that it was a breach of my rights etc, but I didn't, because I don't believe religion should get special treatment, unlike this guy. :biglaugh:

Jedi believer wins apology from Jobcentre after being kicked out for wearing a hood | Mail Online

 

[dynavert2012]

Different understanding of the Word of God?

Why bother then? If the whole thing is based off subjective Human interpretation, how on Earth can any of you be sure you've got the correct interpretation? For all you know, you could be doing it completely wrong.

See how flimsy religious issues can be? Why then, should such flimsy ideologies be given special treatment in Public and in the workplace? If believers can't even decide between themselves what the "correct" thing to do is (in relation to your religious "rules"), then why should any non-believers have to bend-over backwards to try and accommodate your own self-inflicted and impractical limitations - especially when your own interpretations of your religious "rules" may not even be correct?

Not too long ago I entered a large Tesco store in the UK, with my coat hood up (because my hair was a mess). My face was still exposed from the front, but not so much from the sides. I was promptly asked by the security guard to retract my hood so I was easier to identify, as they get a lot of shoplifters. I complied.

Why then, should a religious person get special treatment in that scenario, and be allowed to walk around with their face covered?
I could've claimed I was a Jedi, and that it was a breach of my rights etc, but I didn't, because I don't believe religion should get special treatment, unlike this guy. :biglaugh:

Jedi believer wins apology from Jobcentre after being kicked out for wearing a hood | Mail Online

i was expecting for a more polite questioning way, anyway i'll give you the most famous example for two opinions according to two understandings

In Bukhari from Ibn `Umar: On the day of the battle of al-Ahzab (the battle of the Trench) the Prophet said (to a travelling party): "Let none of you pray the `Asr prayer except after reaching the Banu Qurayza." The `Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way. Some of those said: "We will not offer it till we reach the Banu Qurayza," while others said: "Rather, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet did not mean that for us." Later on it was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not take to task any of the two groups, but he commended those who pray on time and didn't wait till they reach banu qurayza

and both sides intention was to obey the prophet, and so nobody deserve to be punished, the same for Niqab, who got from quran and hadith that it's a must for her to cover her face she has to do it, and who got it's optional so no sin for her to show her face

 

[Heim]

In Belgium the ban is not restricted to the niqab. It is a universal ban on all face coverings.
Furthermore the hijab is banned in schools. Some schools ban all outward signs of religiosity (turbans, crosses, etc).

 

[Flankerl]

In Belgium the ban is not restricted to the niqab. It is a universal ban on all face coverings.

Which is also the case in france or germany. But all headlines always only speak about the niqab or burqa ban. Which leads to members of forums also only to speak about them while completely ignoring all the other stuff thats also banned.

 

[Aquitaine]

i was expecting for a more polite questioning way, anyway i'll give you the most famous example for two opinions according to two understandings

In Bukhari from Ibn `Umar: On the day of the battle of al-Ahzab (the battle of the Trench) the Prophet said (to a travelling party): "Let none of you pray the `Asr prayer except after reaching the Banu Qurayza." The `Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way. Some of those said: "We will not offer it till we reach the Banu Qurayza," while others said: "Rather, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet did not mean that for us." Later on it was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not take to task any of the two groups, but he commended those who pray on time and didn't wait till they reach banu qurayza

and both sides intention was to obey the prophet, and so nobody deserve to be punished, the same for Niqab, who got from quran and hadith that it's a must for her to cover her face she has to do it, and who got it's optional so no sin for her to show her face

Wow, so you can do it both ways huh? It's both mandatory and optional? LOL!

Honestly, why bother? Scripture-based lifestyles stem from subjective human interpretation of said scripture, rather than objective "truth".

This is why I have a problem with Religion being given special treatment in the public/workplace. If the religious can't even decide amongst themselves what the "rules" are, then how can they possibly make demands for the rest of society to cater to, in order not to "offend" their spirituality and "discriminate" against them?

Is asking a Jedi to uncloak when entering a public building discrimination against Jedis?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that banning the niqab is a clear restriction on personal freedoms. Unless there's an urgent necessity to ban certain types of clothing for security purposes, what people choose to wear shouldn't be the state's business.

 

[Lien]

I dont see any bad points of ban on wearing niqab but the thing that draws my attention is people says its banned due to security . Then why I see nuns around the city ? They also wear almost the same dresses . How do we know they're "real" nuns , maybe they're evil minded people in nun dresses .

Here we can understand easily that banning niqab is a completely RACIST movement which is not related to security reasons .

 

[Flankerl]

Nuns cover their faces? The more you know.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nuns cover their faces? The more you know.

I didn't know that either. I wonder if that's something new?

 

[Lien]

Nuns cover their faces? The more you know.

Please read my post again .

....They also wear almost the same dresses .....

The main reason of perceive niqab as a threat is not face covering . The reason is bad minded people can hide bomb or guns under niqab . Beucase its a so wide and long dress with opaque colors , usually dark black .


(Note: One of my citizenship is Switzerland.)

 

[Ouroboros]

The main reason of perceive niqab as a threat is not face covering . The reason is bad minded people can hide bomb or guns under niqab . Beucase its a so wide and long dress with opaque colors , usually dark black .

I thought it had to do with identifying people by being able to look in their face and compare to their identification. If it's because you can hide things under the dress, then almost all clothes, jackets, robes, shirts, skirts, gloves, and more are suspect. I have a friend in the police force, and they say they can hide plenty of weapons in a pair of jeans.

So I must agree with you, being able to hide weapons under a niqab isn't a good reason at all. The only reason, I think, is being able to identify a person in the bank, store, etc. I'm sure most banks dislike masked people entering the bank. It's usually because people don't want to be on camera and intend to rob the place. But if that's not the reason, I can totally see your point.

---

Just for fun, I decided to look up the word "niqab". It means "mask" or "veil". So the "niqab" question here isn't about the dress.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The niqab was not perceived as threatening prior to the rise of islamophobia.