[Closed] Muslim Folks: help me defeat this xenophobic nonsense

Unfortunately the article destroys just about every argument you've come up with Graham.

Although as others have noticed, I was just having fun earlier. I was saving that article for use as a nuclear option after dragging you guys down to a certain level of idiocy.

British law is "common law" rather than "civil law", cheeky boy. Common law is based on rulings which are based on the customs of the country. In the case of the UK, the customs of a society based on the Christian ethics found in the New Testament. Whilst the influence of the protestant church on the judicial system is declining it should not be underestimated. Cases where the church view does not prevail make headlines.

Am I wrong in saying that this common law is relatively fair and gives adequate protection to our freedoms ?
I for one quite enjoy living in the UK !
Currently working in West Africa were the law appears to be there to protect only those who can afford it.

Ah public schools eh

So you never had showers at school then JY?!? 😉

as i dont really care

+1 hence can get my head around the mutilation stuff. All pretty OTT IMO.

FWIW, the WHO is supporting male circumcision as a means to tackling HIV - are they also evil mutilators? I doubt it!!

So Tom does "having a bit of fun..dragging you guys down" = trolling?

dragging you guys down to a certain level of idiocy.

And then defeating us through experience 😆

Unfortunately the article destroys just about every argument you've come up with Graham.

Much as I enjoyed that article in all its magniloquence and sesquipedalian loquaciousness, no, I don't think it addresses every argument.

It offers a few counters. Some of them even have quite valid points lurking amongst the verbal jungle.

But I suggest you put that article to the young muslim women in [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/beyond-the-veil-londons-burka-wearers-go-on-the-defensive-6532864.html ]Evening Standard article I linked to earlier[/url]:

A group of teenage Bengali-speaking girls, all wearing hijabs (headscarves), skinny jeans and high-street dresses, giggle in a collective huddle when I ask why they choose to wear the headscarf. "'Cos we're Muslims," says 16-year-old Zainab Zaman, suppressing a "durr!". "And you can tell that instantly. That's our identity, it's who we are."

Mishal Akhtar, 23, a part-time hijab wearer who works for a fashion magazine, believes wearing a headscarf can "actually be a bit punk. In your teens, in London, it's fashionable and cool — it's another accessory. It also marks you out and makes you belong at the same time. So yes, the appeal is really obvious."

Fatima Barktulla, 31, a cheery pregnant mother of three boys who was born and grew up in Hackney, elaborates: "I started with the hijab, but when I got married I wanted to wear the niqab It isn't a rejection of society, or an attempt to be different. It's not a political statement either."

Does she feel it might be perceived as such? "No woman I know who wears a niqab is doing it to make a huge point. It's a personal, spiritual conviction. And I know that the niqab is a virtuous option and it is not obligatory."

They don't sound very oppressed to me.

But y'know I'm sure they'd welcome non-muslim Westerners [i]rescuing[/i] them by banning them from choosing what they wear on their head and forcing them into something they may feel is less "virtuous".

Although as others have noticed, I was just having fun earlier.

Bet you're a riot at parties.

They don't sound very oppressed to me.

But y'know I'm sure they'd welcome non-muslim Westerners rescuing them by banning them from choosing what they wear on their head and forcing them into something they may feel is less "virtuous".

The hijab is on a somewhat different level compared to the burqa in terms of the demographics of those who wear it. The women who do quite often come from a more moderate background, whilst those who wear the burqa do not. Not that it makes the headscarf much better but it is a much milder form of repression.

However, on the topic of both the headscarf and the burqa! You've have chosen a small sample of supportive muslim women, you will find if you look for them - many muslim women who say the same thing that I have. I was reading an article somewhere written by a muslim feminist who found it offensive that westerners sought the advice of muslim women about the headscarf to justify an unwillingness to criticize head wear. I would also argue that some Muslim women are willing to look past the repressive origins of the the hijab/burqa purely to distinguish themselves and rebel against the west.

Personally, I have not seen one argument from yourself that justifies special treatment in the eyes of the state when being asked to remove clothing that covers the face. Religion should not be given special consideration - at all - in a western society. Which is what this thread was originally about, if you do support special treatment for them you have capitulated to theocracy.

Tom I meant on here not in general, was that not obvious?
I am aware some folk do not treat all women well and that not all of them are Muslims.
If banning the wearing of this liberated all women from oppression then count me in.
Clearly it will not and will, at best, simply change who is being oppressed from those "forced" to wear it to those no longer able to choose to wear it.
Its not a solution to the problem it simply changes the victims.

So you never had showers at school then JY?!?

Graham you are not a left wing apologist as you are just too wet ..come the revolution I shall let you have the transport dept though 😉

if you look for them - many muslim women who say the same thing that I have

I have not seen one argument from yourself that justifies special treatment in the eyes of the state when being asked to remove clothing that covers the face

Religion should not be given special consideration - at all - in a western society.*

No one offered one they simply explained simple practical measures to allow a female to view them in private.

Special treatment.

Trying to claim there is no relation between the two is just as big a fallacy as claiming they are the same (which no-one here has actually done).

Phallusy, heh.

Except, it's not, is it. Male circumcision is done for a variety of reasons, it's not solely a religious decision. Offhand, in the US something like 80% of male children are circumcised; in the rest of the Western world it's about 20%.

The reasons cited are many, with varying levels of credence. Religion is the obvious one of course; there's also a (misguided) belief that it's more hygienic; "we want him to look like his father" (aka, 'we've always done it); habit - sometimes the operation is performed automatically as it's assumed to be the norm; anecdotally, a close American friend chose to have her son done because they didn't want him to look unusual compared to his peers. And so on. The operation is a removal of a bit of skin, usually performed on newborns, and can be anaesthetised.

Compared to female "circumcision" (which really needs a different name), which is motivated by religion, control and oppression. It's performed on children (age 5-10 IIRC) without anaesthetic, and involves the removal of most of the external genitalia. In case you missed it, that's without anaesthetic.

As I said before, I'm very much anti- genital mutilation for whatever reason, and believe that both are forms of child abuse. But drawing parallels, any parallels, between male and female circumcision is ludicrous. They have absolutely nothing in common beyond "non-consensual, unnecessary surgery in the genital area."

Can you save me Tom - of course please think of the children first

Except I haven't advocated saving them have I? I wouldn't ban them but at the same time I think there is a culture of silence among the left (and don't get me wrong, I'm mostly left wing) when it comes to criticizing anything remotely connected to Islam. I used trollish sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of that.

Judging by my experience of this forum, I get the feeling that I would have been labelled a closet racist if I'd posted a topic questioning Islamic values such as the burqa etc.

How is outwardly showing your religion provocative? Perhaps they think your lack of religious symbols is a provocative sign of your atheism - is it ? or is it just how you dress?

Purely for the lolz...and I do mean purely for the hypothetical lolz, given that it can be an offence under the 1986 public order act to display symbols such as the swastika outside a school full of Jews then I can also see wearing a Burqa to a convention full of feminists being an offence. The difference is I'm not sure who the law with side in the latter situation though.

Special treatment.

As you would not ban it, though you dont really like it, I assume all the colourful trolling insults apply equally to yourself.
Well your right we did indeed have some fun that last one is just brilliant ...oh my sides

I am sure you could request the same if you so wished so I would say it is sensitivity rather than special. Anyone could ask for it not just the religious.

Firstly, I resent the quite frankly sexist idea that I as a man somehow like pissing next to other men and that women would not like pissing next to each other. I would like more separated male urinals so I don't get drunk ****s pissing on me.

Secondly in court, I'm sure just about every judge in the land would tell me to **** off if I said "Can I have this....because I'm an atheist".

Why not try it when refusing to swear on the bible or an other religious book because you are an atheist.
Let me know what happens and how long your sentence was

I'd happily swear on the bible, but first I'd open it and read the lines about swearing oaths and falling to condemnation, and some other lines of wisdom about testimony and oaths.

Are you not proving my point further jy, religion is given a disgusting level of significance in this country and your attitude helps to feed it.

"Why not try it when refusing to swear on the bible or an other religious book because you are an atheist.
Let me know what happens and how long your sentence was " loads of people decline to swear on a religious book not only defendants but witnesses and jury members. They just afirm instead it's perfectly acceptable in court.

Are you not proving my point further jy

I pointed out earlier that our judicial system is based on Christian values. Then you mentioned swearing on the Bible, Junkyard. [url= http://www.truthmagazine.com/oaths ]Have a read and consider how our whole system of statements by sworn in witnesses is based on biblical teaching.[/url]

I am often stunned that Muslim women in the west would want to wear a face covering.

It is no coincidence that the countries where facial covering is required are the same countries that womens rights are stamped on in so many other ways, yet immigrants who have the freedom to wear clothing that doesn't socially isolate them continue to do so in solidarity with the oppressive misogynistic regimes around the world.

well as we are a [decreasingly] religious society so you could argue everything we have ever done was religious in nature if you wished to. Some things will have more than others for sure.

I think an atheist legal system would still require an oath to be sworn saying you were being honest.
It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.
Folk used to swear an oath to a king or Caesar or whatever.
IMHO religion likes to claim lots of things as its - great art, music, oaths, morals etc but it is often not the case that without religion we would not have these things.

Good link edukator [ not sarcasm]

immigrants who have the freedom to wear clothing that doesn't socially isolate them continue to do so in solidarity with the oppressive misogynistic regimes around the world.

I enjoyed reading the Lewis and Clark book about the crossing of the American continent, in part because of the insight into Amerindian culture and morals. Without the transmission of the teachings of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Co. and enforcement by organised religion a very different moral code had developed. As an ageing man their system has some appeal, I quite fancy younger warriors lending me their wives. 8)

Have you considered that they do it for another reason like say choice and desire to respect their [ interpretation] of islamic values?

Yes, and having witnessed the treatment of the woman by her (assumed) husband in the supermarket and car park thought it was more likely his desire and choice.

Have you considered that they do it for another reason like say choice and desire to respect their [ interpretation] of islamic values?

I am sure that they do it out of choice, in much the same way as young kids love to get their genitals mutilated out of devotion to their religion.

So, after 4 pages have any Muslim folk chipped in to defeat this xenophobic nonsense?

Nooo they're sat back laughing at the useful do-gooders trying to do it for them, bless em.

So an adult woman choosing to wear the veil is just like a child having genital mutilation 😕
re read the last few pages we covered this side bar

So an adult woman choosing to wear the veil is just like a child having genital mutilation

In many ways, yes. Veil wearing doesn't start when a girl is an adult, it starts when they first menstruate. Similarly, circumcision happens roughly at the time of the onset of puberty for a Jewish boy. Both are conventions imposed on the child before they have the capacity to decide if they want to do it.

Both are considered rites of passage that one must undergo on the path to maturity. Both are done because of a community and religious compunction to do so. They both have a long term effect on the life of the child.

In fact, the only real difference that I can see, aside from the small matter of a bit of butchery is that a woman makes a choice to wear a veil every day.

It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.

Why? what value does it have. As an Atheist why would I believe that somebody swearing an oath on a bible would be more likely to tell the truth. Are they more likely to tell the truth from that moment on but may have been lying up until that point? What type of Christian would rely on that oath to begin telling the truth and when does that commitment expire? 10 mins? 1hr? 3 days? and then do they revert back to their lying self??

Comedy Gold! 🙂

[i] when does that expire? 10 mins? 1hr? 3 days?[/i]

I thought there was some sort geographical caveat in there?

"I promise on my holy book to tell the truth in answer to direct questions whilst within 3ft of the witness box, after that I shall revert to my previous habit of lying through my teeth whenever it suits me"

[edit] damn. I only popped into this thread to see if the arguing was getting any more entertaining and you sucked me into posting.

yet immigrants who have the freedom to wear clothing that doesn't socially isolate them continue to do so in solidarity with the oppressive misogynistic regimes around the world.

And misguided and cowardly liberals instead of addressing the real issue of the oppression of womens rights go for the low lying fruit!

As an Atheist why would I believe that somebody swearing an oath on a bible would be more likely to tell the truth.

If you accept that they take their "Christian values" seriously then it's a fair assumption. A better question would be, why would we believe you as an atheist swearing on a bible?

Fortunately, there are now secular alternatives in court. Cross my heart and hope to die, or something.

why would we believe you as an atheist swearing on a bible?

Exactly. Why would the process change what I would say? hence my point that for believers or non believers the process has no value.

Torminalis - Member

In fact, the only real difference that I can see, aside from the small matter of a bit of butchery is that a woman makes a choice to wear a veil every day.

Well yes, that is the difference, choice or not. Welcome to the cool team.

why would we believe you as an atheist swearing on a bible?

Exactly. Why would the process change what I would say? hence my point that for believers or non believers the process has no value.

Well, as an Atheist, who obviously cares about this subject enough to moan about it, you would have done your homework beforehand and pointed out that you didnt want to swear an oath on the Bible.

And you would instead be asked to make a non religious Affirmation designed exactly for your needs.

Happy ?

In many ways, yes.

Both are conventions imposed on the child before they have the capacity to decide if they want to do it.

As an Atheist why would I believe that somebody swearing an oath on a bible would be more likely to tell the truth

For fear of starting a spat again I suggest you re read what i wrote

I think an atheist legal system would still require an oath to be sworn saying you were being honest.
It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.
Folk used to swear an oath to a king or Caesar or whatever.

for believers or non believers the process has no value.

so is girls here wearing skirts and boys wearing trousers. I dont think this means I can compare it to FGM.

So, firstly you only address one of several of the similarities that I describe and then you use female genital mutilation where my example was relating to circumcision. I am not feeling very successfully shot down.

I think that the social expectation of women to wear veils is probably far more damaging to individuals and society than male circumcision so in many ways it is worse.

From the Koran:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss

Now, correct me if I am wrong but this does not mention facial covering, it looks more like an appeal not to wear low cut tops and to be modest with their 'ornaments' if you read it. It is not prescriptive, rather subject to interpretation.

So why, in our permissive society do women still wear the veil? Because they are encouraged to do so by the communities and families they live in, not for any informed religious adherence. Are Muslim women who do not wear the veil somehow lesser muslims?

I completely agree that every person should have a choice and nothing should be banned, but I do reckon that the veil is symptomatic of a broader level of suppression of women's freedoms. As I said in my first post, it is no conincidence that the countries where the veil is required are also those that have the worst treatment of women. It seems intrinsically linked to the denial of education to females, the denial of their right to drive, to freedom of expression and of their equality generally.

It is a pretty shabby state of affairs really and meanwhile hand wringing westerners whitter about womens right to be oppressed if they choose.

It is a cultural tool for the oppression of women and we should do everything we can to encourage women to throw off the symbols and tools that repress them.

then you use female genital mutilation where my example was relating to circumcision.

So an adult woman choosing to wear the veil is just like a child having genital mutilation
In many ways, yes.

I think this will explain my confusion

Torminalis - Member
It is a pretty shabby state of affairs really and meanwhile hand wringing westerners whitter about womens right to be oppressed if they choose.

It is a cultural tool for the oppression of women and we should do everything we can to encourage women to throw off the symbols and tools that repress them.

When a woman says she wears the veil as she sees it as a 'virtuous choice' is she lying?

I do reckon that the veil is symptomatic of a broader level of suppression of women's freedoms.

I would tend to agree, but.....

1) I really know next to bugger all about it, so don't really feel that qualified to start lecturing people with a deeply held conviction
2) Telling people their culture is stupid and backward isn't generally the way to win them over to your point of view

It is a cultural tool for the oppression of women and we should do everything we can to encourage women to throw off the symbols and tools that repress them.

Ok, so what are you suggesting exactly?

I think that the social expectation of women to wear veils is probably far more damaging to individuals and society than male circumcision so in many ways it is worse.

Except that one is irreversible and done without consent, to children.

I think this will explain my confusion

Well, to be perfectly clear, I see both male and female circumcision to be pretty troubling things. I used male circumcision because for some perverse reason it doesn't share the same stigma that female circumcision does and was better for my argument.

I sense I am not going to come out of this well if I keep on digging. I think veils and circumcision and oppression are all pretty bad things and concede that they have different levels of impact on lives. I do believe though that they share many similarities, obviously aside from the final nature of circumcision.

I have worked very closely with 4 ****stani guys for the last 5 years and they all feel kind of the same as I do. They are all Muslims and none of their wives wear veils.

I think three issues are being discussed here
1. Circumcision - my view its bad for both genders and far worse for females and should be made illegal - as indeed it is for females- males would be more controversial as the damage is more debatable
2. Is Islam oppressive to women - in general yes but I would also say most religions are as well as being wrong.
3. should we ban the veil - no

Yes some women are forced to wear it like school girls are forced to wear skirts. the majority of those who choose to do so are generally fine with this choice and make a "free" choice. It may just mean they are socially conditioned or brain washed to do this [ in both cultures].

If banning its use or encouraging its non use would liberate women everywhere then I would support it but i dont think it would.
You just change the victims of oppression with a ban IMHO from those forced to wear it to those who can no longer choose to wear it.
I am not sure a male non muslim encouraging them to not do what the Quran says* will be all that persuasive anymore than I would listen to a muslim telling me how to act/behave etc

Do i like it , not particularly but plenty of folks wear clothes I dont like.

* yes there is debate as to exactly what should be worn
NB i mean in this country more than I mean repressive Islamic regimes

I sense I am not going to come out of this well if I keep on digging

For fear of starting a spat again I suggest you re read what i wrote

I think an atheist legal system would still require an oath to be sworn saying you were being honest.
It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.
Folk used to swear an oath to a king or Caesar or whatever.

I am not suggesting an atheist swears on a Bible and , if you read it all, it seems odd to suggest I am

I never suggested you were, why do you claim people misread/misquote you when they havent then misread/misquote them.

I claimed that swearing on anything for anybody has no value, it is is simply a tradition.

Its probably fair to say it does not really matter whether someone does or does not swear an oath as we can be certain that not all of them are telling the truth

This is my point exactly however you have changed your view which is good news. 😀

1) I really know next to bugger all about it, so don't really feel that qualified to start lecturing people with a deeply held conviction

But (and this is an extreme view to make my point) do we need to understand a persons culture to interpret that their physical abuse of their child is wrong?
We dont need to analyse their background, understand their cultural heritage then reflect on all the terrible things we have done in the past which may have impacted on their actions.
These things may be useful as a tool but we shouldnt allow people to simply externalise blame. That is just liberal hand wringing of the most cowardly kind. In the above example "most right minded people" (correct in this context?) would agree that physical abuse towards children is wrong.
If they did it through some "deeply held conviction" would that mean we have an excuse not to act?

1. Circumcision - my view its bad for both genders and far worse for females and should be made illegal - as indeed it is for females- males would be more controversial as the damage is more debatable
2. Is Islam oppressive to women - in general yes but I would also say most religions are as well as being wrong.
3. should we ban the veil - no

+1

But (and this is an extreme view to make my point) do we need to understand a persons culture to interpret that their physical abuse of their child is wrong?

Are we talking about circumcision again? 😉

No-one is arguing about whether child abuse is wrong and should be condemned, but there could be a discussion about what exactly constitutes child abuse. I might argue that indoctrinating children into a religion is a form of child abuse - but I'd expect many people to angrily disagree with me.

The debate isn't about whether oppressing women is wrong, it's about whether the veil is oppressing women.

I'm inclined to think it is, but I can't say for sure. And as JY says non-Muslims lecturing Muslims about freedom (while we line up to bomb yet another Muslim country) probably won't go down too well and is likely to be counter-productive. Banning faith schools might help though.

I think this debate could do without all the straw-man insults over 'cowardly liberal hand-wringing' etc.

Are we talking about circumcision again?

No, my mistake. I meant for example extreme physical abuse not FGM.