« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Umi A.
Joined: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 6
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 24
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Mississauga
|
Muslim Head Scarf Ban
December 21, 2003 - 02:29 AM
|
|
Thought this would incite some interesting discussion.
---------------
Chirac backs head scarf ban
Defends France's 'crucial' secularism
Law to prohibit skullcaps, big crosses
SANDRO CONTENTA
EUROPEAN BUREAU
LONDON—French President Jacques Chirac has launched a potentially explosive defence of France's secular tradition by calling for a ban on Islamic head scarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols in public schools.
Chirac called for the new law in a televised address yesterday, adding that it should also ban the wearing of large crosses for Christians and skullcaps for Jewish boys.
"Secularism is one of the Republic's great achievements," Chirac said. "It's a crucial element in social peace and national cohesion. We must not allow it to be weakened.
"In all conscience, I consider that the wearing of dress or symbols which conspicuously show religious affiliation should be banned in schools," Chirac said in a speech to 400 invited guests at the Elysée Palace.
More "discreet" symbols, such as small Islamic pendants, Christian crosses, or the Star of David, would be allowed under the new law, he added.
The French president called on the government to pass the law in time for the new school year next fall. Chirac didn't spell out what would happen to students who broke the new law, but the understanding is that they would be thrown out of state schools.
Chirac said the protection of secularism, which he said was at the heart of French identity, must go beyond public schools.
He said the law should also prevent patients in public hospitals from refusing medical care by doctors of the opposite sex. And it should allow employers to ban the wearing of religious symbols for reasons of health and safety, or "contact with the clientele."
In the public service, employees should each be given a new "secular code" describing the principles to be upheld. Finally, an "independent authority" should be set up to "fight against all forms of discrimination," Chirac added.
Representatives of France's Muslim community — which makes up eight per cent of the population — had urged Chirac not to call for the legislation.
"A law on religious symbols in the school environment could stigmatize a whole community," said Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith.
But he called on his community to react "with wisdom, calm reflection, and serenity."
Mouloud Aounit, head of a Paris-based anti-racism group, expressed his "immense fear" that the president's vision of a "tolerant secularism" would be undermined by the law.
Aounit noted that Chirac specifically rejected the British or Canadian model of multiculturalism, where ethnic minority groups keep their culture while adhering to the larger society.
But if his law passes, Aounit said young girls will be thrown out of the public schools that instil secular French citizenship above all, and find themselves in private Qur'anic schools that foster separateness rather than integration.
France's leading Jewish secular organization came out strongly in favour of the proposed new law.
"Everyone who lives in France must submit to the rules and customs of French society. It is the reaffirmation of the principle of equality between men and women," said a statement by the Representative Council of French Jewish Organizations.
Saying he was "overall very satisfied" with Chirac's move, France's chief rabbi, Joseph Sitruk, said it was "extremely clear about the place of religious belief in a modern society."
A survey published by Le Parisien newspaper yesterday found that 69 per cent of French citizens support a ban on religious symbols in public schools. The same poll found only 39 per cent of French Muslims favoured a ban.
Chirac's announcement caps a debate that has raged in France for almost 15 years, after two 14-year-old girls refused to remove their hijabs in school in 1989.
At the moment, schools are left to decide how to deal with students whose dress contravenes secular principles. It has led to some students being expelled.
During the debate, there quickly developed a sense among the political elite that a 1905 law separating church and state was no longer adequate. The suspicion that many are first identifying themselves as Muslims rather than French citizens unleashed a cultural panic that led to Chirac's intervention.
The battle has been specifically about Muslim headscarves. But in a move to avoid singling out France's Muslim community, which at 5 million is the largest in Europe, a Chirac-appointed group to study the issue recently called for a ban on all "conspicuous" religious symbols.
Still, some observers have seen the defence of secular principles in the head scarf debate as camouflage for an intolerant streak in France's Catholic-dominated society, which continues to marginalize its Muslim population.
Suspicions are all the higher since some accounts indicate a decrease in the number of girls wearing head scarves to school in the past decade.
"We used a sledge hammer to break an egg," leading sociologist Edgar Morin says in an interview to be published in Le Monde newspaper today.
"This matter of the head scarf has been blown out of proportion in an extraordinary way. The number of cases are quite small, and I'm in favour of keeping those young girls inside secular schools where they can be allowed to evolve."
Most puzzling for some observers is an apparent lack of logic in the reaction. The fear is that France's model of integration — resting largely on its secular schools — is failing. Yet rather than change or reform the model, Chirac's answer is to force more of the same.
With regional elections set for March, some detect a political calculation. Chirac may be hoping that his tough stand to maintain the division between church and state will help boost his sliding popularity and prevent the far-right National Front, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, from cashing in with its anti-immigration theme.
Party vice-president Marine Le Pen, Le Pen's daughter, accused Chirac of making "a sort of apology for immigration."
In his speech, Chirac insisted his new law must be accompanied by increased efforts at creating a tolerant, equal society.
"We must also, with firmness and vigilance, wage a battle without mercy against xenophobia, racism and especially, anti-Semitism," Chirac said.
http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1071702610970
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Abdallah Diwan
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 21
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Iskandariyah
City: Alexandria
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
December 21, 2003 - 04:26 AM
|
|
i think this is really crazy, and this a way to block the freedom of religion practicess
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jarra McGrath
Joined: Oct 27, 2000
Posts: 18
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Australia
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
December 21, 2003 - 04:45 AM
|
|
But he called on his community to react "with wisdom, calm reflection, and serenity."
---
I like that 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
M.F.Mughal
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Posts: 18
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
December 21, 2003 - 09:27 AM
|
|
Links to articles discussing wife beating verse and status of women in islam.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ArabChristian30907.htm
http://debate.domini.org/newton/womeng.html
http://www.muslimsandislamic.faithweb.com/photo3.html
a)
1) Fact = we are all born ignorant.
2) Fact = muslims start indoctrinating their children as soon as they are born.
3) Fact = muslims children are frightened into believeing in relgion of islam eg allah will burn them in hell or destroy them in this life if they did not do so. Children are supposed to be beaten up if they do not practice their religion from the age of seven years.
4) conclusion = children not able to evaluate things for themselves and so unable to make well informed choices in life and likewise they cannot choose whether they should wear scarf or not. This is why all muslims are speaking with one vice on the basis of relgion in France and the international muslim community is supporting them fully. Thinking people never speak with one voice without a good reason.
b)
Islam is a totalatarian ideology that imposes upon its followers to submit to it in total. So following islam means opposing secular democracy. The more choice is given to muslims to follow their religion, the less room is left for other people to follow their ideologies.
Look at muslim states all around the world and see, how many are free of islamic totalatarianism. The secular democratic states have been sleep walking into this trouble some situation. It is good that they are waking up. If muslims could be tolerant as regard their religious belief and practices, then waring or not waring scarf should not matter to them, should it? And that they should not have made so much noise about it either in a secular democratic state, should they?
If nudist are willing to send their kids to school with clothes on for sake of social tolerance, why shouldn't muslims take off a bit of their clothes for sake of compromise? After all we are not asking them to be completely naked, are we?
Moreover, we are only talking here about kids in school. Why should muslims be allowed to impose on their kids their own will? It is because they treat their women and children as their properties rather than as individuals with minds of their own.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saladin
Joined: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 34
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Redbridge
City: Ilford
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
January 11, 2004 - 03:40 AM
|
|
Dear members, please read this simple research that might clarify some points in women's rights in Islam, please read it.
Stereotyping Islam as a religion aiming to oppress women is a direct result of the abuse of Islam by some Muslim states, depending on the absolute respect given to religion by Muslim societies. In fact, Islamic law, if interpreted outside of its proper context, could be abused to justify and codify the violations of women's rights in Muslim societies and states, in the name of religion, in order to achieve certain social and political goals. The central question that poses itself, is whether there already exists a space for women to enjoy their human rights under the umbrella of Islam, or whether in general, men "have a degree" over women in Islam (Abdul-Ati).
If some people are arguing that Islam ensures equity between men and women in both rights and duties, then what does it mean when the Qur'an, which is the standard revelatory source of Islamic Law, says: "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage in some cases of inheritance) over them" (Qur'an 2:228). How would those people explain the meaning of that "degree" by which men are over women? Is it because of that revelatory verse that some Muslim societies until now treat women as second-degree creatures in the name of Islam? What is this "degree"? There are different views about it.
One strict view is that it means that qualities of leadership, surveillance and maintenance, are bestowed only on men. Another moderate view is that it signifies the tolerance with which men must treat their wives even when in extremely bad moods. Yet another view is that it is man's natural gift from God for judging matters relating to his family and managing the problems affecting it. Hammuda Abdul-Ati, an Egyptian PhD at Al-Azhar Islamic University, provides a very interesting interpretation of that verse, when he says that this degree is neither a title of supremacy nor an authorization of dominance over women, but it is to correspond with the extra responsibilities of men, and to give them some compensation for their familial duties. Thus, "it is the extra responsibilities that give man a degree over woman in some economic aspects," and that degree "is not a higher degree in humanity or in character, nor is it a dominance of one over the other or suppression of one by the other" (Abdul-Ati). In addition, Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Doi, Professor of Islamic Law in the International Islamic University of Malaysia,introduces what Sheikh Muhammad 'Abduh, who was known as one of the earliest Muslim women liberators, has said, commenting on that verse. 'Abduh says that it does neither mean that every man is generally better than every woman nor vice versa, but it is an indication that "each sex, in general, has some preferential advantage over the other, though men have a degree over women" in financial duties and responsibilities particularly, provided that men must possess the four elements of familial responsibility or guardianship, which are protection, surveillance, custody, and maintenance (qtd. in Doi). Hence, it might be
understandable then when we hear that in Islam, "a woman inherits half of the man and the man inherits twice as much as the woman because he has to take care of all women in his family",moreover, her part of the inheritance is considered as her fully-owned property (Al-Disuqi).An Islamic researcher called Dr.Mohamed Saad told a useful story once:
a brother and sister inherited such that the sister got half of what her brother had got; according to Islamic Shari'a, at the same time, another brother and sister inherited in the same way... then, the first brother was married to the second sister, and the second brother was married to the second sister, so that, at the end, each of the new families had equal shares!
On the other hand, Jamal Badawi, a PhD at Indiana State University, says that in some cases indeed, women have certain advantages and yet "degrees" also over men. For example, the Muslim woman is exempted from the daily prayers, from fasting during her menstrual periods and during the forty days that come after childbirth. She is also exempted from fasting during her pregnancy and when she is nursing her baby if there is any threat to her health or her baby's. If she misses the obligatory fasting (during the month of Ramadan), she can make up for the missed days whenever she can. She does not have to make up for the prayers missed for any of the previous reasons. Although women can and did go into mosques during the days of the prophet, their attendance at the Friday prayers is optional for them while it is mandatory for men (Badawi).
The existence of some specific women's rights in Islam is now obvious, and provided with a good argument, but how about polygamy in Islam? Is it true that a Muslim man has the right to marry up till four wives? Where is equity then? What does it mean when the Qur'an states that a Muslim man, if he has the potential, can choose to marry one, or two, or three, or even four women (Badawi)?Does it mean that women are that marginalized and humiliated by the name of the religion?
Fairly, let us hear what can Islamic searchers and thinkers say about that, keeping in mind that polygamy existed in several cultures before the appearance of Islam. Therefore,"associating polygamy with Islam, as if it were introduced by it or is the norm according to its teachings, is one of the most persistent myths" (Badawi). This is supposed then to mean that while monogamy represents a universal tradition, polygamy represents a universal special case, or exception. Taking this into consideration, we can find that Islam has regulated polygamy, and furthermore restricted it by mandatory conditions that the husband must afford, like justice and financial capabilities, without outlawing it. Moreover, Islam did not make polygamy as an obligatory task, but as an optional but not encouraged matter. The wisdom of permitting polygamy, as Badawi thinks, lies in dealing with special contingencies and imbalances between the number of males and females created by frequent wars for example. Thus, polygamy in such special cases provides a humanitarian practical solution to the problems of widows and orphans, who would otherwise be economically and socially vulnerable (Badawi). This interpretation of polygamy in Islam is quite logical, but why did the Prophet of Islam marry more than four wives? Is this a violation of a religion's principle by its own prophet? One may reply to this by saying that the prophet of Islam has certain advantages over the rest of Muslims. Another more logical one may say that the prophet didn't choose to marry except in his first marriage from Khadeejah, and that in all other cases there were direct verses in the Qur'an that ordered the prophet to marry from certain women belonging to different tribes, in order to maintain peace and unity between Muslim tribes who were in continuous conflicts before Islam, knowing that the new Muslims were following their prophet in that peace process.
A third may say that between the twelve wives of the prophet, there were Jews and Christians, which means that God allows Muslims to marry Jews and Christians, by a vivid example (Al-Tamimi).
"This may be one reason why a great scholar like Al-Tabari could not find any evidence from any revelatory source (Qur'an or Sunnah) to exclude women from something as important as testimony: being herself a judge who hears and evaluates the testimony of others" (qtd. in Badawi). Another strong argument states that the first Qur'anic verse indicates that the number of witnesses shall either be two males, or a male and two females. The same reason, which is the assertion of the testimony, and the prevention of error, is behind the need of two male witnesses also. Moreover, the most crucial aspect of Islamic Law is its ability to be adapted to social and historical changes, without escaping from the spirit of Islam. Badawi states that if the general rule in Islamic testimony fully equates between men and women, an exception occurs in the case of business testimony. Therefore, in a similar manner, exceptions may occur in the case of business testimony, when a woman's testimony could be more valuable than a man's testimony, due to her educational or experimental superiority in lots of domain during the contemporary history. He states on the principle of "Ijtihad", which means the collective search in Islamic sources in order to afford a certain flexibility to Islamic Law, to let it match the social, economic, geographical and historical variations (Badawi).
While some consider the standing of Muslim women behind men in prayers a practical evidence that women under Islam, are excluded and humiliated, even in matters regarding their spiritual rights, other see that the explanation of this fact requires a simple knowledge about the nature of Islamic daily prayers, which involve actions, motions, standing, bowing, and prostration. Consequently, "if men mix with women in the same lines, it is possible that something disturbing or distracting may happen. The mind will become occupied by something alien to prayer and derailed from the clear path of mediation" (qtd. in Abdul-Ati). Hence, "to avoid any embarrassment and distraction to help concentrate on mediation and pure thoughts, to maintain harmony and order among worshippers, to fulfill the true purposes of prayers, Islam has ordained the organization of rows, whereby men stand in front lines, and women behind them"(qtd. in Abdul-Ati).In others words, if the woman bows in front of the man, standing behind her, the man's mind will be occupied by sexual desires.
One may oppose this opinion by claiming that Abdul-Ati's argument justifies only the separation between men and women in prayers, but does not justify the standing of women behind men. A possible response to this is that the congregational prayers (i.e. prayers at mosques), are obligatory for men, and optional for women, who are allowed to pray at home in order to look after her children. Moreover, the mother has a task in adapting her children to prayer, by accompanying them to the mosque for example. In perhaps every mosque today, there exists a part for women, and a part for men. Even in the women's part, mothers who bring their children stand with them in the back, in order to prevent the other women from any distraction that children may often cause. Another reason behind the standing of women in the back, is simply preventing them from any embarrassment caused by the uncover of certain parts of her body, unwillingly, due to the various actions, motions, standings, bowings, and prostrations that have to be done in the Muslim prayers (Abdul-Ati).
Why the veil? Is it a religious requirement or a cultural influence? Those are questions frequently posed in most non-Muslim societies. Before all, let us examine what Islamic revelatory sources, and Muslim searchers say about the veil. The prophet of Islam once said:"It is not lawful for any woman who believes in Allah (Note: Allah is an Arabic translation of the English word God) and the Last Day that she should uncover her hand more than this, and then he placed his hand on his wrist," and he said also on another occasion: "When a woman reaches puberty no part of her body should remain uncovered except her face and the hand up to the wrist joint"(qtd. in Doi). It is clear then that the type of veil indicated in the previous prophetic narrations is a requirement by Islam, and neither traditional nor cultural influence. But again, why the veil? Abdul-Ati states that it is Islamic that women beautify themselves with the veil of honor, dignity, charity, purity, and integrity, and that women should refrain from all deeds and gestures that might stir the passions of people other than her legitimate husband or can cause evil assumptions about her morality. "The veil which she must put on is one that can save her soul from weakness, her mind from indulgence, her eyes from lustful looks, and her personality from demoralization"(qtd. in Abdul-Ati). As we can see, the description of the veil, as well as its purpose is far apart from violating women's rights. However, the complete veil (which is father or husband-imposed in most cases) worn by many women in various Muslim countries might rise an important questioning about the freedom given to Muslim women to choose to be veiled or unveiled. Have all the great numbers of veiled teenage girls and women in Muslim societies chosen the veil out of sense of faith, or because their fathers or husbands obliged them?
Certainly, both kinds of women exist. The fact that some Muslim men impose the veil on their daughters or wives doesn't prove that this is Islamic. The Qur'an states: "There is no compulsion in religion. Right has been made distinct from error" (Qur'an 2:256). Therefore, to oblige someone to do a religious task is not Islamic (Ali et al.). That might be the reason behind which Islam does not impose any sort of penalty upon unveiled women. It is extremely confusing, however, when we examine the obligatory and complete veil or (Niqab) that covers all the body, imposed by the state in cases like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the different kind of veil stated in numerous prophetic narrations. Accordingly, the most interesting fact that we should know is that Islam obliges men to cover there bodies from the abdomen to the knee.
The previous example of the obligatory Niqab imposed by Muslim Governments leads us to many other examples of supposedly-Islamic-based laws in various Muslim countries, dealing with extremely sensitive issues directly related to women's rights. This strange situation has lead Rasha al-Disuqi, Phd in Islamic Studies, University of Wales, to state: "If we examine the rights that are supposed to be given as compared to the rights that are being given and practiced, we will find that we are far behind the 7th century!"(qtd. in Al-Disuqi). The example of the public elections for the Saudi Parliament is an interesting one. Islam has given the right to women to voice their opinion and participate in politics 1400 years ago.
The prophet of Islam was ordered in the Qur'an to ratify and accept the oath of various women who went to him and declared their Islam, as stated in the Qur'an (60:12). Hence, "This established the right of women to select their leader publicly and declare so" (qtd. in Ali etal.) Illogically, and added to the obligatory Niqab, we find that the Saudi Government deprive Saudi women from their right to vote in public elections. Moreover, while women were riding on horses and camels freely at the time of prophecy, and even participating in battles, "the Saudi Government doesn't allow Saudi women to get driving licenses" (qtd. in Al-Tahlawi). The only possible explanation of these facts, is that the Saudi Government tries, after veiling women's bodies, to veil their basic and essential freedoms, in order to control, by selective religion-based arguments, the half of the Saudi people.
In a quite similar manner, but in Egypt, "the wives and children of Egyptian men are granted Egyptian Citizenship automatically, but Egyptian women cannot pass their nationality on to anyone"(qtd. in Leila). The Islamic-based argument of the authorities here depends on an issue that has nothing to do with citizenship, which is legislation. A Qur'anic verse that states that children must be named after their father is taken by the Government as an Islamic authorization of the establishment of such citizenship law. Hence, not only did the Egyptian authority abuse Islam to relate Islamic nomenclature of children with their citizenship, but also it did not give any justification for the favoring of foreign women over Egyptian women. Some Muslim and secular Egyptian thinkers find that the use of any religious-based law in such a way, is not applicable in cases of non-Muslim minorities for example, who do not believe in Islam. Fortunately the application of this law has been ended in September 2003, after long years of injustice.
The most severe example of supposedly-Islamic-based laws were those of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Women were obliged to remain inside their houses. Added to the obligatory Niqab, education was forbidden to females, while the prophet of Islam says: "Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim, male and female"(qtd. in Badawi). The prophet made it a point of duty for every father and mother to make sure that their daughters (and sons also) did not remain ignorant of the teachings of Islam because they would, after the marriage, have to play important roles as housewives and as mothers of children (Doi). These were very few examples of how an image of a religion can be darkened and twisted because of the political, cultural and authoritative motives of policy-makers and societies.
In conclusion, the great gap between the rights that are supposed to be given to women by Islam, and the rights that are given to them now by Muslim states who work on implementing their own agendas, and by Muslim societies who are still under the influence of their pre-Islamic male-dominant cultures, exists and impacts both Muslim and non-Muslim societies.
Reform from within Muslim societies is needed, first by education, knowing that from 1.5 billion Muslims today, there are 900 million who are illiterate, and from the remaining 600 million, only 200 million knows Arabic, which is the language of the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam. Education is the most important key that will lead Muslims, at least individual males and females within the societies, to explore more about their religion, and know the real position of women in Islam which is currently unknown by that terrible number of illiterate Muslims. Hence, "The Muslim woman, if she is true to the principles of her religion, has lessons in equality to teach the westerner, and her descendants in the east have to learn anew the role demanded of them by their religion" (Al- Faruqi). Taking into consideration the relative impossibility of changing countries' political agendas, we shall know that in order to fill the gap between women's rights afforded by Islam, and women's rights afforded by at least the Muslim societies, Muslim males and females will have to accept that in Islam, "the general rule in social and political life is participation and collaboration of males and females in public affairs (Badawi).
----------------------------------------------------------
Works Cited
Abdul-Ati, Hammuda. "Women's Status in Islam". From Islam in Focus. Plainfield: American Trust Publications, 1994.
Al-Disuqi, Rasha. The Resurgent Voice of Muslim Women. Cardiff: Black Stone Press, 1999.
Al-Faruqi, Lois Lamya. Women, Muslim Society, and Islam. Trenton: Prentice Hall College Div, July 1986.
Ali, Mary, et al. "Women's Liberation Through Islam." Diss. Institute of Islamic Information and Education, 1996.
Al-Tahlawi, Lubna W. "Privileges of Saudi Women." Arabnews. 29 Oct. 2002
Al-Tamimi, Ali. "Islam-Elevation of Women's Status". Chicago: Jannah, 1997. Online. Sisters. Internet. 20 April 2003. www.jannah.org
Badawi, Jamal. Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles. Plainfield: American Trust Publications, 1995.
Badawi, Jamal. "The Status of Women in Islam." 8.2 Al-Ittihad. 1971.
Doi, Abdur-Rahman I. "Women in Shari'ah (Islamic Law)." Diss. International Islamic U of Malaysia, 1992.
Leila, Reem. "Their Mother's Country." Al-Ahram Weekly. 10-16 Jan. 2002. 568
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ansari, Omar Mansoor
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: Afghanistan
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
January 11, 2004 - 04:49 AM
|
|
Originally posted by MMughal
Moreover, we are only talking here about kids in school. Why should muslims be allowed to impose on their kids their own will? It is because they treat their women and children as their properties rather than as individuals with minds of their own.
Mughal, “be khalta fair kadi” if you know Persian.
Every child is property to his/her parents and the government should also be concerned with their good and bad. That’s why the governments put a ban on child nudity and ban on sex and other risky behaviors. Why is making love illegal until the age of 18 in the west? Most of the kids want to have sex as soon as they are grown up. Then why the parents in the west and the government are against it? There might be something, you couldn’t realized so far.
This point of yours is not valid, revise it plz.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ansari, Omar Mansoor
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: Afghanistan
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
January 11, 2004 - 05:21 AM
|
|
Originally posted by MMughal
1) Fact = we are all born ignorant.
2) Fact = muslims start indoctrinating their children as soon as they are born.
3) Fact = muslims children are frightened into believeing in relgion of islam eg allah will burn them in hell or destroy them in this life if they did not do so. Children are supposed to be beaten up if they do not practice their religion from the age of seven years.
4) conclusion = children not able to evaluate things for themselves and so unable to make well informed choices in life and likewise they cannot choose whether they should wear scarf or not. This is why all muslims are speaking with one vice on the basis of relgion in France and the international muslim community is supporting them fully. Thinking people never speak with one voice without a good reason.
b)
They do it as soon as the children start understanding them, my parents taught me “your name is Omar, we are your parents and Siddiq is your elder brother, we are one family, and we have to respect each other...”
Do you think my parents did anything wrong? Ofcurse, NO.
Then they told me: “We are Afghans, live in Jalalabad, this is our hometown, Afghanistan is our country, and there are other countries in the world too, many people live in many countries, they speak different languages, we speak Pashto, they have different coultures, we follow Afghan culture…”
Do you think they made a mistake? Surely, NO.
And then they taught me: “We are Muslims, we believe in One God (Allah), Qur’an is our holly book, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah who communicated the messages of Allah to us… Allah rewards us for our good and He punishes us for our evil in hereafter..."
Do you think they did wrong? Never.
This is what every other parent does, why is a Christians child Christian and Hindu’s Hindu? Why an English’s child is speaking English and a German’s German?
Coming to the world today: every one respects the laws made by the governments and teaching their kids to do so, they indoctrinating them not to do any illegal act otherwise they will face the consequences.
Do you think every one in the world does wrong? If every one leave their children do what ever they do, eat what ever they eat, drink what ever they drink, then their wont be any laws in the world, me and you wont be able to talk to each other. What is your proposal for the people of the world, do they need to send their kids somewhere they never see them again and let them do what ever they want as individuals with minds of their own?
You are an extremist in your thoughts regarding Islam, Mughal.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ansari, Omar Mansoor
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: Afghanistan
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
January 11, 2004 - 05:38 AM
|
|
Originally posted by MMughal
Islam is a totalatarian ideology that imposes upon its followers to submit to it in total. So following islam means opposing secular democracy. The more choice is given to muslims to follow their religion, the less room is left for other people to follow their ideologies.
Look at muslim states all around the world and see, how many are free of islamic totalatarianism. The secular democratic states have been sleep walking into this trouble some situation. It is good that they are waking up. If muslims could be tolerant as regard their religious belief and practices, then waring or not waring scarf should not matter to them, should it? And that they should not have made so much noise about it either in a secular democratic state, should they?
This is crazy,
You think Islam does not give rights to the other people. Okay, we suppose that you are right. But this discussion is to criticize those raising slogans of democracy, of individual rights and of freedom of blah blah…
If the Sikh children can wear their religious dress in there, why cant Muslim children?
This is discrimination against Muslims. And you are crazy in that.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Muslim Head Scarf Ban
January 11, 2004 - 05:41 AM
|
|
I think any restriction on what people wear is an encroachment on freedom.
Free people are free to wear whatever they want, and free to express cultural ideals and traditions.
Hemogeny is not a noble goal.
Ultimately this law will fail.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Abdallah Diwan
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 21
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Iskandariyah
City: Alexandria
|
Who is Mmugaheil
January 11, 2004 - 06:06 AM
|
|
YES , you are right Luke , i think this is really againest Human Rights, and people are really free to wear what ever they want . any way i want to know are you a muslim Mugahel ?? or you are afraied to get discrimeinated in the west so you act like this to earn living and protect your self , this is not an offence againest you but i am confused about the way you started your disscussion , you said : Fact = we are all born ignorant.
is the (we) means you belong to us as muslims , i am not sure as all your acts refare not to be a muslim so i think you should changed to Muslims , and not even they cause it is also discriminating , it looks really you were born ignorant as you said , but TIG is the best place you can learn from weel educated people and youth in islamic countreies like us , maybe it is the problems of your parents and maybe the setuation of your contrie's policy that time , but i think if you go back or if you ask an educated well , one of the great muslims i ever met omar and Hasseib from your own country , they are really well educated and a good example of the youth leaders when i met them at the World Summit on the Information Society.
even luke he is againest Arabs always  , but he saied the truth cause he is well educated , and i think he could be ashamed from hiding the truth , or talking about the jews as you talk about Islam , you need to read why is islam great not why do some muslims forgot the Islam and act only to earn a good living in UK or in the West for example . any way if you need a guide from the people on TIG we are all there for you to help you young man . and try to learn , not repeating what you heard like a parot from others
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saladin
Joined: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 34
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Redbridge
City: Ilford
|
BEATING WOMEN AND CHILDREN !!
January 12, 2004 - 09:02 AM
|
|
Thanks to Abdallah, Omar, and Luke,
Dear Mughal, are you sure that Islam encourages beating women and children?
You will say of course that you are sure of that, and that the reason is the direct quotation from the Qur'an that translates: "If you (husbands) fear that your wives would go astray,..etc....and beat them(i.e.your wives)".
I would say that the quotation is right, but I would add that your readings are again, selective, incomplete, and induced by an incredible potential inside you that pushes you towards finding anaything that could be taken against Islam.
First, let's stick to the original Arabic quotation:
"and beat them" in English= "Wa Idribouhonn" in Arabic
Wa=and.
Idribou=Imperative tense for the male plural that HAS COUNTLESS MEANINGS, although translated as "beat".
honn=Pronoun that refers to "wives".
How does the term "Idribou" have countless meanings?
In Arabic, most words have lots and lots of meanings, so that interpretations may rank from very extremist ones, like yours, they may include moderate ones, like the ones we are seeking, and may also include very weak interpretations, that we must avoid.
Examples that show the various meaning of the word "Idribou"
are many:
When you say to some people: "Idribou" a tent; that means that you order them to prepare it and to build it, and not to "beat" it.
When you day to them: "Idribou" money; you are telling them to print money.
When you say to them:"Idribou" from eating; you are telling them to PREVENT themselves from eating: It is a kind of punishment.
When you say to them: "Idribou" the drums; you are telling them to CLAPP the drums.
When you say to them: "Idribou" the sea shells (and Arabic expression); you are telling them to PLACE the shells on some sand.
When God orders moses in the SAME QUR'AN: "We said: O Moses "Idrib" the Sea with your stick ", the word "Idrib" hear doesn't mean torture, brutalize, nor beat, it simply means that Moses has to make a slight CLAPP, or a tiny knock, on the water surface.
Most moderate Imams of Islam, such as Muhammad Mitwalli Al-Sha'rawi, Malek, Abu-Hanifa, Al-Shafe'i, Ibn-Al-Jawzi, Ibn-Taymiya, Ibn-Al Qayyim, Muhammad 'Abdou, Al-Afghani, Al-Tabari, Al-Ghazali, and others have agreed on that interpretation for "Idribouhonn", and they all insisted that this would happen only in extreme cases; they prooved that condition because they raid and understood the Qur'an from the first to the last word: Where they found very nice verses translating as follows:"And (O believers) don't forget MERCY between yourselves", and also "We made between you LOVE and MERCY", and most important: "Whom ever who forgives and forgets, (this action) it would be of the patience deeds".
Switching to the Hadith in which Muhammad says:"Teach your children the prayer when they are 7, and (Idribouhom) "beat" them in 10"(and not in 7 as you mentioned above; please choose some reliable Sunnah sources), we have to choose the most moderate interpretation, as we did before, without sticking blindly to the most extreme ones.We may find another Hadith told by Al-Bukhari and Muslim (Muttafaqun 'Alayh), that translates as follows: "Not of us who doesn't show mercy to children, and who doesn't respect elders".
Therefore, I believe that Islam doesn't encourage the harming of women and children, which makes no sense of your question-answer pattern.
*Let me ask you a question: are you being paid to make your best effort in order to show a dark picture of Islam?
Please try to learn Arabic, if you don't know it, it can make our discussion easier.
I think it is about the time to close that strange thread
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Huss
Joined: Dec 17, 2001
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Closing the Thread!
January 12, 2004 - 10:12 AM
|
|
Dear Friends,
As the moderator of this forum I have been receiving numerous e-mail complaints and requests about this particular thread and the prospects of closing it altogether.
It it our policy here at TIG to ensure freedom of speech for all within a mutual atmosphere of respect and honour for all participants (regardless of their ethnicity and creed) in a given discussion. Seeing as respect for, and dignity of, different participants have not been upheld by some in this discussion, I have no other choice but to close the thread to prevent any further offence.
Sincerely yours,
Huss Banai
TakingITGlobal.org
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
Liamjod
Moderators:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
|
|
Home
Community
