It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the UK surrendering to Islam?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Muslims are not required to wear head dresses or scarves or anything.

The concept of Hijab applies to both men and women equally and is just a requirement to dress modestly and not display the body above the knees or below the neck. They only have to cover their heads when in a mosque, same as Jews.

As with most things though, it has been corrupted and misunderstood so that now there are women Muslims walking around in tents and the men are wearing shorts and Nike trainers....




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

It's like saying you don't want women officers to wear skirts, as thats not part of the Uniform.


As a woman I don't want officers in skirts, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Officers wearing hijab etc. is something else entirely, and I reject the special religious status for Sikhs and their turbans. If they want to be in public or civil service, they should conform to the same common standard all others must follow. If they can't, there are many other ways of life one can undertake.


Grow up.


You do know how to undermine yourself.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Muslims are not required to wear head dresses or scarves or anything.


That is a global generalisation that is patently untrue. Different sects of Islam have different demands and requirements. And giving ground to anyone who says it is a matter of their religion that they must wear hijab, abbaya, kufi, chadhor, etc., as an officer is a grave mistake. It completely undermines what should be an areligious enforcement of law by officers, and undermines public confidence.

[edit on 10/7/08 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
As a woman I don't want officers in skirts, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Officers wearing hijab etc. is something else entirely, and I reject the special religious status for Sikhs and their turbans.


What, why? women wear skirts, don't they? So why shouldn't they when in uniform? Or do you wear trousers all the time?


Originally posted by Pellevoisin
If they want to be in public or civil service, they should conform to the same common standard all others must follow. If they can't, there are many other ways of life one can undertake.


A Sikh, with his long, flowing hair, would find it pretty tricky to be able to fulfill his obligations unless his hair was tied up out the way, hence the turban. I think they actually look rather smart. I don't understand why your so offended by it. It serves a practical purpose.

A Muslim doesn't have the same problems with his/her hair, so there isn't a practical need, let alone a religious one.


Originally posted by Pellevoisin
You do know how to undermine yourself.


As do you. I think you've lost all credibility with your objections to Sikh headdress and blatant misunderstanding about the concept of Hijab.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
That is a global generalisation that is patently untrue. Different sects of Islam have different demands and requirements. And giving ground to anyone who says it is a matter of their religion that they must wear hijab, abbaya, kufi, chadhor, etc., as an officer is a grave mistake. It completely undermines what should be an areligious enforcement of law by officers, and undermines public confidence.



Actually your quite wrong here entirely. The very items you listed:

abbaya, kufi, chadhor, etc

are all cultural items worn in different area's of the world and were around long before Islam. They are not religious requirements. The different area's like to pretend they are religious requirements, in order to try and suppress women, but they are not required as stated in the Koran.

You seem to think that there are many different sects of Islam. They are only two major ones, Shia and Sunni. There are a couple of very small sects on top of that, but they are regarded as heretical by 99& of the rest of the Islamic world. Neither of the two sects requires anything other than modesty.

Islamic Law doesn't state you wear any of them. Why not go and visit an Islamic site and read up on Hijab, or talk to an Islamic scholar. You quite clearly have some reading to do.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

As do you. I think you've lost all credibility with your objections to Sikh headdress and blatant misunderstanding about the concept of Hijab.


Twaddle. I have expressed my opinion that officers should have a uniform code of dress without variation for sex or religious preference.

Your hypergeneralisations about muslim practise are simply dead wrong.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


Actually your quite wrong here entirely. The very items you listed:

abbaya, kufi, chadhor, etc

are all cultural items worn in different area's of the world and were around long before Islam.


Again, your opinion is false. In each case the local Islamic community interprets these forms of dress as religious obligation, and it is pressure from these communities now dispersed about the world that is causing difficulties in police forces and schools.


You seem to think that there are many different sects of Islam. They are only two major ones, Shia and Sunni.


And you believe that the Shia and Sunni are monolithic denominations of Islam?
There are so many fractures in Islam one can hardly keep count. On top of that there are local ayatullahs, imams, and mullahs who issue their fatwahs as they please for their national communities or individual "orders" or sects.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Twaddle. I have expressed my opinion that officers should have a uniform code of dress without variation for sex or religious preference.


So Sikhs should wear their hair down then? Just to please you?

Women often do have the choice between trousers or skirts. Many choose skirts. What say you?


Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Your hypergeneralisations about muslim practise are simply dead wrong.


Care to furnish any proof of this? Or am I just wrong because YOU said so?

You sound like my girlfriend....



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Shouldn't they cut there hair like the rest?

Or are they given special treatment based on their religion?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Again, your opinion is false. In each case the local Islamic community interprets these forms of dress as religious obligation, and it is pressure from these communities now dispersed about the world that is causing difficulties in police forces and schools.


You said it yourself. It is the LOCAL COMMUNITY that determines what is culturally acceptable. There is no requirement in the Koran for women to be cloaked in mobile tents.

Here, have a read:

`draw their clothes around them a little to be recognized as believers and so that no harm will come to them.` ( Qur'an 33:58-59)

guard their private parts ... and drape a cover (khamr) over their breasts` when in the presence of strange men ( Qur'an 24:31)




And you believe that the Shia and Sunni are monolithic denominations of Islam?
There are so many fractures in Islam one can hardly keep count. On top of that there are local ayatullahs, imams, and mullahs who issue their fatwahs as they please for their national communities or individual "orders" or sects.


Unlike Christianity with it's hundreds of different versions of the Bible, the Koran has remained unchanged since it was written. Pretty hard for these "many fractures" to deviate wildly, unless they just twist it beyond recognition.

Yes, different scholars have different interpretations, but to be honest, it should be the persons own interpretation of the words in the Koran, which quite clearly do not demand such things off women.

Bottom line is, as you said yourself, Hijab depends on the culture you find it in. It is not a religious requirement to wear a tent or cover ones head or face, just to retain modesty around strangers.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by stumason
 


Shouldn't they cut there hair like the rest?

Or are they given special treatment based on their religion?


WHAT???

You CANNOT ask a Sikh to cut his hair.

That's like asking a Catholic to wear a condom or a Jew to eat pork!

You were joking, weren't you?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Originally posted by LDragonFire

Have the politicians had enough of this war and are caving in to the demands of the Islamic faith? Are they surrendering publicly in the guise of being more sensitive towards different faiths? The problem with this is it seems that Islam is the only faith they seem to be catering too.


Perhaps it would be easier to show some evidence of the UK showing the same type of catering to any other religious faith?

Thanks for the example btw



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Ok..

Jews have had religious courts for civil matters for decades. Islamic courts are still not permitted.

Sikhs get to wear their headdress in uniform and have for centuries. Islamic persons still get persecuted for choosing to wear Hijab.

Hindu's were allowed to keep a TB infected cow in their Temple despite the Law saying it should be destroyed. Apparently, it was a Holy Cow....

Christians... Hmm, well they get to chime their church bells every day of the damn week. i should know, I live next to one! I don't like it, but it's their right I suppose. Incidentally, the very same people who chime bells at 2100hrs on a Tuesday night are the ones who would campaign against an Islamic call to prayer on Friday mornings. Lets not even start on what they put me through on Sundays....

Christians also have the Head of State as the Head of the Church, effectively making the UK a Theocracy.

And thats just the off the top of my head.

EDIT: The UK is home to the worlds largest Hindu Temple outside of India. paid for in part by taxpayer money. No one moaned though. Muslims want to build the biggest mosque in the world outside of wherever the other big ones are, but god forbid they should ask for a Government grant!!

Basically, you all seem to fall for the propaganda and don't actually research anything yourself. Muslims are the "bad guy" at the moment, so they get the bad press. 100 years ago it was Jews or blacks and in 100 years it will probably be Chinese or White people getting the stick...


[edit on 10/7/08 by stumason]

[edit on 10/7/08 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Unlike Christianity with it's hundreds of different versions of the Bible, the Koran has remained unchanged since it was written. Pretty hard for these "many fractures" to deviate wildly, unless they just twist it beyond recognition.


Sorry, bub, but you really don't know what you are talking about. There are a number of variations in the Quran itself around the world. What you cite as truth is simply a bit of Muslim wishing and hoping and praying but without any substance in truth. Uthman did not succeed in eliminating all versions but his own.

While the Muslims are all peoples of a Book, Muslim theology is not dependent solely upon the Quran. The scholars look to the Hadith and many other sources to determine Islamic law and practice. One can't simply lift a verse from the Quran and say "See, that proves that is how it is." I suppose one could do that, but one would be extremely ignorant.

As far as what you are peddling about Islam on dress, just keep peddling the Guyana punch. Your rather Wahabbist approach doesn't even begin to grasp how the various parts of Islam function.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Twaddle. I have expressed my opinion that officers should have a uniform code of dress without variation for sex or religious preference.



So Sikhs should wear their hair down then? Just to please you?


Hello.

Pellevoisin made the clear point that there should be uniform order and discipline in police forces in terms of dress. She also said nothing about Sikhs cutting their hair. What she did say - a very good point - is that those who cannot conform to one common code of dress in the police should look for other jobs. On that she's spot on.


[edit on 10-7-2008 by splendourinthegrass]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by splendourinthegrass
Hello.

Pellevoisin made the clear point that there should be uniform order and discipline in police forces in terms of dress. She also said nothing about Sikhs cutting their hair. What she did say - a very good point - is that those who cannot conform to one common code of dress in the police should look for other jobs. On that she's spot on.



Seeing as we're out to best each other here, let me fire one across your bow.

Women in service have to have their hair up in a bun or cut short so that it will fit under their cap.

If a Sikh isn't allowed to wear a turban, then what is he supposed to do? He cannot wear it down, as that would contravene dress code. He cannot cut it, as that is against his religion, so what choice does he have?

Not to join the police/military at all?

What is the big deal over turbans? How is that such a problem?

Would you support a ban on Christian crosses? Or perhaps prevent Scottish or even certain Canadian soldiers from wearing a kilt?

Uniforms are as much about representing the unit's diversity and origin as it is about making everyone look the same. Look at the huge variety of uniforms in the British Army for each regiment. They make up part of the history. Turbans have been worn by british soldiers since the Raj.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Stumason, Stop arguing over the fact that i said muslim instead of seik.

its not the point....

the point is other religions imposing their rules in other nations.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I'm starring and flagging this because something is very much up. The consessions being made are not in line with the constitution of their country, oh but then I forgot, that seems to be in jeapordy with the EU. What was attempted in Canada, with accepting Sharia Law to coexist in with familiy law and others was completely against the constitution which accords all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origins and sex equal rights and entitlement to those rights. In the protests even muslims joined, who had escaped repressive regimes to come here. I'm not sure why the British are allowing any of this to stand in their country. It cannot be sanctioned in anyway, as Sharia law is not a separation of Church and State, and therefore is not constitutional. It is ancient, barbaric and yet a system of massive control. Hmmm. Is this why it is being put into our free democratic countries? Do you think? I sure do.

Commander X has warned that the cabal want to introduce a new form of Christianity for us, like the old testament married to a type of Sharia law, where this becomes the laws of the court and our land, and where homosexuals and possibly adulterors can be hung as well. It is their wet dream of control after all, and it must be met with absolute opposition and completely crushed. Absolute separation of Church and State, absolute protection and equality of all citizens regardless of sex, nationality, religion and sexual orientation. Period!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


As a woman, I would have thought tolerance was something you'd appreciate. Apparently you have a very short memory indeed.

Sikhs having their own headgear is about as trivial a matter as I can think of. Fair enough if it interferes with their duties (ie gas masks don't fit), but if it's not hurting anyone, why alienate an entire religion from being part of the very force that protects it? It's absurd. You're disenfranchising all Sikhs in a single stroke. Genius. I guess all women should be in the kitchen, because some guys don't like women having jobs - see how ridiculous your logic is?

So, either Sikhs should have their own headgear should they want it, or you should put down your computer and go make your husband a pot roast and a martini. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
looks like god has had his wooden spoon out again in this thread.

many asia muslims was let into uk years and years ago, they have not just all of a suden popped up out of fresh air, you could look at it as a sture up of people a bit like the latest eastern europian flood of migrants, mass migration into england is not a new thing, its just at this point we have the war on terror and the muslims are the targets of the new world order, what better way to get unrest in nations, blame the "others", ? then sit back and watch the 2 set of groups go at each other? then get the eastern europians to come in and break it up and police the brits? martial law?

so no England is not turning muslim, its not turning anything, apart from a mess of mixed up people with differant religions and views. then being stired up with a big wooden spoon by the liers we call our goverment.

I believe in God, not christian, no muslim, not buddah, not any of the groups that are offered to us by anyone, i belive in the almighty big creator god who is within me. the one who tels me wright from wrong, love from hate, good from evil,

my moto is "its nice to be important, but its importants to be nice"

love peace and light.




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join