Converted to Islam, girl shows how she looks in a head covering.

reply to post by babloyi

Personally, in this day and age, whatever your interpretation of the verses, I find it a bit disturbing the amount of pressure put on women against wearing such things (especially in Europe), under the guise of "freeing women". Seems a bit contradictory to free women by imposing what they can and cannot wear.

When talking about total concealment of the head and body, in the civilized world the banning of this isn't about religious beliefs or the taking away of someone's freedom. It's about social responsibility. If I owned a store and one person (or three or five) walked in wearing a sheet, I would definitely be worried. Would you allow men to walk in your store wearing a mask? Should men have a right to wear a mask all the time?

Objectively, why shouldn't they (although this example sort of dodges the issue, because, for example, walking around in public in France with a mask on is not illegal)?

babloyi

Personally, in this day and age, whatever your interpretation of the verses, I find it a bit disturbing the amount of pressure put on women against wearing such things (especially in Europe), under the guise of "freeing women". Seems a bit contradictory to free women by imposing what they can and cannot wear.

My understanding of the situation, at least in France, is that the purpose of pertinent regulations is to secure for all French people the secular republic which the French Constitution guarantees. In the special case of tax-supported schools, integration into the mainstream of French society is an explicit goal of the French public educational system.

There is also concern that women are subject to violent harrasment by street rowdies if they don't wear this costume, and further reprisal if they report the battery to the police. So, a regulation which frustrates difficult-to-prevent violent crimes is enforced, despite the regulation also inhibiting the rights of the potential victims of the violent crime. It's a balancing situation, civil order versus personal rights; compare regulations which exist in many jurisdictions forbidding the payment of ransom to kidnappers.

As an American libertarian, I would be reluctant to support the enactment of regulations here about what anybody can or cannot wear, in the absence of some urgent need narrowly addressed. However, I appreciate that French ideals of liberty don't, and shouldn't be expected to, conform in every particular with American notions. Their concern is no less libertarian than my own.

It will not do, then, to claim falsely that there is some intellectual dishonesty or incompetence in the "European" reasoning about this issue. The French case is well thought-out, and consistent with both the political ideals and legal requirements of the freedom-loving among the French.
-

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by windword

 

Well, now that is an interesting thought. Since he would have likened what they were doing to paganistic practices, and abominable before God. So I think you have a valid angle. It's something I hadn't considered that he might be referencing there. Well done.

Paul has always mystified me in some ways. His actions didn't always seem to match his teaching. And I think he took the "all things to all men" angle to an extreme sometimes. On the one hand, he didn't allow women to speak in the church, or have authority over men. Yet on the other, he made deacons of a few women. So much for not speaking in church. A deacon has to be able to teach and preach with authority.

ETA: Sorry Jigger. I'm seriously not trying to hijack your thread.

edit on 4/2/2013 by Klassified because: eta

I think in fact your discussion about Paul in a broader sense is from my point the same example of humans creating dogmas and saying they are from god just because certain people like the dogma (unspecified definition of what is that have not been quantified by as the truth at this time in any religion or science since to know what is, you have to know everything that includes every view of what is). From my point of view the religions of today are too ineffective because they are creating a lot of unimportant fluff around the spiritual core and therefore becomes pointless to follow at least for me. To much view/ego and to little questioning.

When I read the bible Paul and Jesus always from my point of view starts to contradict each other and that is why I view everything Paul preaches with suspicion. If I look at the core of Buddhism or Hinduism or Toltec and Jesus then it seem to point in the same direction. When I read Paul he seem to point in a different direction.

Maybe my mind is to dumb to understand Paul but if I remove him as a piece of a puzzle then all pieces seem to fit and make a beautiful picture.

If a girl want to put on a shawl to play a certain roleplaying type of character (muslim) then let her. I do not mind when people chose their road when they are strong enought not to be manipulated. Maybe she knows what she wants to experiance. What I dislike is when people are forced into playing a specific role by other people that they do not feel comfortable with. That is the greatest blasphemy you can do. Limit a persons way of expressing the life given to that person, and limiting the symbiosis that the person can achieve with the unknown reality around us. If your way of expressing your life is not harming others then nobody has any right to limit your exploration of life and what is.

And now that I have made this argument I got tired of my own thought. So serious. Bah. If you are gonna get anything from my post just look below. . That is probably the best advise I can give:

Originally posted by jiggerj
When a woman converts to islam, does it mean that she WANTS to be subservient to men?

Apparently so. Either that, or she has no clue how Islam views and treats women.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by jiggerj
When a woman converts to islam, does it mean that she WANTS to be subservient to men?

Apparently so. Either that, or she has no clue how Islam views and treats women.

Or she doesn't buy into the anti-Islamic propaganda, regarding women... that you have clearly fallen for.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by jiggerj

 

When a woman converts to islam, does it mean that she WANTS to be subservient to men?

NO. The woman is just choosing to submit to God, you could think of a muslimah as a nun who can marry and enjoy life too. There's more to enjoy in the world then being complimented by eyes of lusting men and being offered drinks or asked her number etc.
Muslim women are not subservient to their husbands, inside the house every woman is similar no matter what her religion is and i don't have to tell who rules in the house
Btw they don't have to cover up in the house.

I posted below links yesterday on another thread. ATS_THREAD

British women who turn to Islam.
LINK1
Will Britain convert to Islam?
LINK2
The Last White Kids.
LINK3
Isle of White.
LINK4

What will happen when Islam takes over Britain.

British muslims want to take over the UK.

England: No-Go areas for Kuffar (Non-Muslims).

Why UK providing financial aid to Pakistan?
LINK5
UK MSM with a different voice though.
LINK6
Disaster for the British Monarchy?
LINK6
Britain's self-islamization.
LINK7
The Islamization of British Police.
LINK8

Islamization of London.
LINK8
Smooching up to Islamic Population.
LINK9

Originally posted by adjensen
For some reason, that brought to mind this:

The whole "hide the women to keep men from being tempted" thing just seems ridiculous to me.

it is ridiculous because its not why muslim women cover.
The reason behind it is the when a woman on the street uncovers to reveal her beauty she is providing a reference/comparison to every man when they go home to their own wives.
Men being very visual can't help but objectively judge who looks better, their wife or the blonde that smiled at them.
Over the time the wife starts looking ugly.

A beautiful woman who covers up is doing a favour to the wives of men with whom she is interacting and those wives will return the favour and pass it on by covering themselves.

Muslim men are told to lower their eyes and guard their modesty and muslim women are told the same. Both sexes contribute equally to make a society where home is the place where people want to go(to see their beautiful wife/to get complimented by their husband) and not a society where people want to escape from the house to get some peace.

reply to post by eletheia

I have no idea what is in the Quran... But I was always under the impression that they covered up to avoid the unwanted attentions of men other than their husbands, who were unable to control themselves!

thats not why they cover. Qur'an says that the believing women should cover so that they are 'recognised' and not molested/troubled.

Its like a sign to the cheap entertainment/flirting and casual sex seekers to stay away while being dressed the opposite way becomes an intentional/unintentional invitation for them to approch and propose their own intentions.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n


Instead, let me ask you... when a woman go out in public in revealing clothes does it mean she WANTS to be seen as a sex objects?

Is yes the wrong answer? I'm thinking yes, or at least she wants to be seen as attractive.

try to say that to any woman who is dressed that way and you'l be made to feel like you are a savage.
Its an expression of their freedom you see!! You are a savage to look at them as sex objects, grow up its the 21st century!!

I see this thread has attracted it's fair amount of crazies, so I'll keep this short

Forcing/encouraging woman to dress like like this is incredibly backwards, but then how many organisations/clubs/cults that were created and run by men ever treated women well?


don't forget the base weirdness of marrying 6 year olds...

Originally posted by Prezbo369
I see this thread has attracted it's fair amount of crazies, so I'll keep this short

Forcing/encouraging woman to dress like like this is incredibly backwards, but then how many organisations/clubs/cults that were created and run by men ever treated women well?

don't forget the base weirdness of marrying 6 year olds...

how fair is it to throw in a photoshoped pic(a growing trend on this thread) and selected and sometimes half verses from Qur'an and a line from a hadith with english words used in translation that fit the agenda to show Islam as backward and brutal.

Here are some verses and maybe it would be good to check an authentic islamic site for all the verses to see if what they appear as is really true.

2:222. They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt
and a pollution: So keep away from
women in their courses, and do not
approach them until they are clean.
But when they have purified
themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained
for you by Allah. For Allah loves those
who turn to Him constantly and He
loves those who keep themselves
pure and clean.

it does not however mean to be away from them physically (just sexually), cuddling is ok and prophet Muhammad used to sleep in the same bed with his wives even when they were mesturating and he put his head in lap of Aisha, just she would be wearing a lower garment during menses.

223. Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or
how ye will; but do some good act for
your souls beforehand; and fear
Allah. And know that ye are to meet
Him (in the Hereafter), and give
(these) good tidings to those who believe.

this verse was revealed to dispel a superstition among the pagan arabs that the offspring born by intercourse from behind will be cross eyed!!
Wives are compared to a field just to send a point home that they can be approched from any direction just like a man can enter his farm from any direction not that they are a piece of property like a field.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
My understanding of the situation, at least in France, is that the purpose of pertinent regulations is to secure for all French people the secular republic which the French Constitution guarantees. In the special case of tax-supported schools, integration into the mainstream of French society is an explicit goal of the French public educational system.

There is also concern that women are subject to violent harrasment by street rowdies if they don't wear this costume, and further reprisal if they report the battery to the police.

Hey eightbits!
Those are all very interesting reasons, except (in the case of burqas) they aren't just banned in schools, they are banned everywhere in public. And I don't quite agree with conflating "integrating into French society" with "dress like us, eat like us, hold beliefs like us". Even taking into consideration French stereotypes, that isn't true.

As for your second reason, again, I've heard it very very often from anti-islam websites and other such fringe sources, but I've never heard an official source give such reasoning, nor any official news sources speak of such incidents being in such a number that such actions would be necessary.

It is kinda odd how France (with much of mainland Europe following suit) is shifting from "Secular" (separation of Church and State) to "Anti-religious" (State making laws against religiousity), at least in terms of Islam and to a less extent, Christianity.

For all the claims of Islam's supposed hate towards women, it is interesting how in much of the west, the greatest percentage of converts to Islam are women.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Forcing/encouraging woman to dress like like this is incredibly backwards,

The woman in the OP (and most of the women who wear head coverings) do so by choice.

babloyi

Those are all very interesting reasons, except (in the case of burqas) they aren't just banned in schools, they are banned everywhere in public. And I don't quite agree with conflating "integrating into French society" with "dress like us, eat like us, hold beliefs like us". Even taking into consideration French stereotypes, that isn't true.

Yes, the French Constituion's secular society guarantees apply everywhere in France, and so all public religious displays are closely regulated by law everywhere there. Vigilante violence, the frustration of which is another reason for the regulations, is also criminal everywhere in France.

Tax-supported schools came up as a special case, because they are more likely to enforce regulations consistently, and schools have attracted separate discussion and analysis. Public schools are public places, of course, and the French ones have the mission which I described.

If you think they ought to have a different mission, or that they don't do a good job implementing the mission they have, then I can't help you. I was responding directly to your assertion of contradiction, which was

I find it a bit disturbing the amount of pressure put on women against wearing such things (especially in Europe), under the guise of "freeing women". Seems a bit contradictory to free women by imposing what they can and cannot wear.

So, all I have to say is that there is no such contradiction, at least in the French policies. Of course, you may not agree with the wisdom of the actual reasons for their regulations either, but there is a tremendous difference between irrational or pretextual behavior and sincerely reasoned behavior of which you disapprove.

As I thought was clear, I wouldn't vote for that kind of thing in the United States, where I have a vote. I don't have a vote in France, just an acquaintance with how things work there. I am, then, the proverbial messenger who would prefer not to be shot. These are not "my" reasons,

As for your second reason, ...

But it sounds like you have found the reasons already. France is a functioning democracy. Explanations of policies that appear in political discussions are as much reasons for government policy as any "official statement." Also, France is no longer the last judge of its human-rights related activity; some of that is now in the hands of the EU. Under those circumstances, I, too, would reserve my lengthier "official statements" about a foreseeably litigation-prone issue for the court, rather than have my case tried on the Internet.

For all the claims of Islam's supposed hate towards women, it is interesting how in much of the west, the greatest percentage of converts to Islam are women.

I am unsure why that was addressed to me, since other posters have discussed Muslim attitudes towards women. I don't know the empirical basis of your statement about the gender composition of Western converts. I'd be delighted to look at anything you might suggest, even if it is a different aspect of the topic than what I posted about.
-

reply to post by eight bits

Hey 8b!
I only sought clarification, because you specifically and of your own accord, brought up two reasons in defense of the French government's actions- one for integration, and one as some sort of preventative measure for women against street ruffians. I realise you're not French, and not in charge of legislation or these rulings, but you did offer up those reasons from somewhere, so it ended up me asking your interpretation of the situation.
I realise the actual situation in France with regards to secularism and islamophobia has nothing to do with you - the interior minister, for example, speaking for banning the hijab, and previously supporting the ban on the burqa, while praising the kippah and speaking of jews wearing it in public with pride; banning websites documenting violence against muslims, all of which resulting in a blowback effect among the population with mosque/muslim graveyard vandalisms, burnings, civilian assaults on muslim women based on what they wear, and even absurd stuff like mailing envelopes with pork to mosques.

One being "integration into the mainstream French society", as if the way people dress is somehow under that. You may consider "the way people dress" to be something innocuous that it doesn't matter if it is changed, but then...so next they'll be getting lessons on how to eat ham and drink red wine properly, and then finally how to hold trysts properly. All these examples are equally absurd, forcing a dress code is not less absurd than forcing you to drink red wine. Hence my statement of how stereotypes of the French is not what the French are.
I still consider it a contradiction, because the "freedom" and "oppression" of women always seems to be a major point that comes up when French politicians talk on the issue.

Originally posted by eight bits
I don't know the empirical basis of your statement about the gender composition of Western converts. I'd be delighted to look at anything you might suggest, even if it is a different aspect of the topic than what I posted about.

I'm a bit short on time right now, really sorry, but it was all over the news after some report back in 2005, if you google "europe converts islam women", you'll get loads of news articles of back then. And it isn't just converting for marrying muslim men (that isn't the major percentage)!

reply to post by logical7





I would have thought that we had reached a place in time when ALL women

should be 'recognised' and not molested/troubled whatever they are wearing.

Prostitution being the 'oldest' profession there should be no need of 'signs to cheap

entertainment and casual sex seekers'...the town telegraph/gossips will have all those

areas well documented!!


Whilst reading threads like this I get the impression that there is little trust, or credit

given by men to either themselves or other males in being able to exercise any self

control, so women are made to take on the responsibility for the 'lack of self control' in

men!!


'Ideally' (if it were not for indecency laws) women /or men should be able to (if they want)

walk around naked without fear of attack ...I'm not a naturist ...but they seem to be able to

manage...don't hear much about molestation from them??

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by jiggerj

 

When a woman converts to islam, does it mean that she WANTS to be subservient to men?

No it just means she's ignorant about Quran and Sharia Law. No sane woman with a brain would willingly hitch themselves to that wagon if they knew anything about it. The whole getting raped and requiring the testimony of 4 men because a woman's testimony is not counted in court because theyre less than animals,being beaten if they refuse to have sex with their husbands or being executed if they marry non muslim men wouldnt sit real well with a woman who really knew what she was getting into.

Most people here don't seem to realize that women can ALSO be religious and spiritual.... and therefore, be tuned into the spiritual aspect of a religion.... in this case, Islam. Which is why they convert.

But interestingly in this thread... the same people who accuse Islam of having a low view of women.... stop short of acknowledging women, like men, can also take up a religion because they see spiritual value in it.... regardless of whether or not they believe.

It is they who truly treat women as less than animals.
They see women, even of their own race as animals that are incapable of spirituality.