Modesty of dress in Islam for men does not include having your face and or even hair covered. A man can show his ankles too for example. A man can go out on his own. I have been on a few holidays to traditional Muslim countries/refions where you simply do not see any women out and about and certainky not in a cafe for example.

Nun’s are people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to God and live in a special religious environment, the female equivalent to a monk. Muslim women in a burka are generally simply a wife or daughter trying to go about their normal life.

jambalaya – i dont know where the middle picture has been taken….looks like an airport of some sort…the top picture looks like its at the wailing wall and the bottom picture looks like it could be either israel of palestine

Gonzy all the definitions I had seen (and my understanding) is that a burka covers the face with just a slit for the eyes or even less showing a mesh.

traditional burka is as i have described. the addition of the niqab and its variations have muddied the understanding of what a burka is in modern times. take the niqab off and it becomes a traditional burka but because so many wome wear the niqab with the burka the definition of a burka has changed to include the niqab.

the saudis are idiots…its only because they are custodians of our most holy sites that they are in an elevated position of power. their wahabi ideology is frowned upon by the vast majority of muslims…except the fundamentalist nutjobs who are financed by them

Modesty of dress in Islam for men does not include having your face and or even hair covered. A man can show his ankles too for example. A man can go out on his own.

like ive already said before….there is nothing in the quran that says a woman must cover her face.
as for the restriction on women going out on their own…thats is more to do with culture and less to do with religion
men are supposed to wear clothes that do not fall below the ankles. many muslim men dont but those that do are actually required to roll their garments up over the ankle especially when prying

Prying:’excessively interested in a person’s private affairs; too inquisitive’
Hmm

yet some sects and many liberals allow western dress with no head scarves at all

the saudis are idiots…its only because they are custodians of our most holy sites that they are in an elevated position of power

Or perhaps as custodians they feel certain obligations?

I have arranged a business trip to Saudi where I was told a female colleague would have to wear a burka in the street and have her hair covered at all times

It certainly wasn’t that way in the early 80s when I was there. There was the odd clampdown whereby Western women had to cover their arms and men and women weren’t allowed in swimming pools at the same time but such pronouncements died away after a while. Until next time.

Interestingly at that time it did seem there was a certain amount of “testing” of the system by younger Saudi women. Although veiled, the veils were becoming very fine. Stand next to someone clad like this and their features (and makeup) were easily discernable. Oh and there are (or certainly were) areas of Saudi where local tribal custom meant women did not wear veils.

Maybe I’m pretty sanguine regarding dress standards as a result of seeing fully veiled women everywhere I went. Back in Manchester even with it’s multi-cultural population, the number of women in veils is tiny, so it’s not something that particularly bothers me.

Apart from that, as an atheist and liberal, I would like to see an end to all religiously based pronouncements.

What age do girls have to start wearing hijabs/burqas/niqabs? What would happen to them if they decided to reject it?

I see someone shouting “look at me, look at me, I’m different!”

Yeah & ?

Which bizarrely you are choosing to keep to yourself.
Would you care to discuss the reasoning behind the burka allan?
Maybe you can teach me something.

Not bizarrely, quite sensibly as you are not interested in discussion, education or open mindedness, you are only interested in people confirming your bias or trying to shoot down those that disagree.

You’ve already confirmed a lack of understanding of Islam, if you don’t know where then I suggest you go back and read your comments.

Hint: All the Muslim women I’ve ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Back under your bridge.

Or perhaps as custodians they feel certain obligations?

their only obligations is to preserve the holy sites and to ensure the safe passage of pilgrims.
in reality they abuse their position of power…this abuse led to the closure of one of the main walkways to Mina during the 2015 Hajj pilgrimage because a royal wanted to give some of his friends a tour…the closure led to a stampede which resulted in the deaths of over 2000 pilgrims
this same saudin royal family are hell bent on trying to turn mecca into some sort of arab las vegas with some of the building projects going on
this same saudi government is complicit in shady dealings with terrorist organisations and has had its hand in many of the middle eastern troubles
it also has an extensive world wide programme of trying to promote its wahabist ideology…an ideology which treats women as second class citizens, endorses capital and corporal punishment and treats non arabs with contempt
all the while they will show the muslim world that they are the beacon of islam when in reality they are hypocrites and religious zealots who gamble, live excessively, drink alcohol and fornicate at will

the question is this

are women that cover their faces being forced to do so?

If they are choosing to cover their faces then we would be oppressing them by removing that freedom of choice
so before we ban anything we should be answering the first question

+1.

Are so many folks really unable to grasp the simple concept that some of the wearers might be doing so out of choice??

The level of intolerance & ignorance here some days is really quite depressing..

Before you declare everybody intolerant, perhaps you should check exactly how many actually want to ban the burka/niqab. Questioning whether such dress codes are appropriate or repressive doesn’t mean you want to ban them.

repressive

It’s only repressive if the wearer is being forced.

If you force someone to stop wearing the burqa et a whose chosen tol then whose being the repressive one?

Before you declare everybody intoleran

?

Did I actually say everyone? No I said:

Are so many folks really unable to grasp the simple concept that some of the wearers might be doing so out of choice??

That’s really quite different to claiming 100% of posters are against the burqa – don’t try to put words in my mouth!

TL;DR, it’s all about choice, yes? Forcing bad, choosing good.

Is it really that black and white?

An interesting question might be, why are (some) women to dress in such a manner? I’m guessing of course but I’m fairly certain it’s not simply a fashion statement. Doing it to please their husband or because they believe their religion requires it is still a “choice” but it’s not really free will is it; they’re not forced to wear it but there may be pressure or coercion involved.

Where I’m going with this is, people like the lady mentioned earlier who felt that hiding her face made integration easier, shouldn’t we be asking why? Is there more we can do so that they wouldn’t feel compelled to hide? Counselling maybe?

Banning clothing isn’t the answer, because as we’ve discussed it just replaces one restriction with another. If we genuinely want to fight oppression then we need to tackle the root cause rather than a symptom.

All the Muslim women I’ve ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Coincidentally, I drove past a large mosque this morning (I don’t normally but had to take a detour). I noticed the front door was huge and had a big sign saying “MAIN ENTRANCE,” and round the back was a smaller door signed “ENTRANCE FOR LADIES.” I’m sure all the ladies use it by choice though.

The Burka ban in public spaces is to well and truly to cross the Rubicon – Equally to litigate againt private property owners’ right to discretionary measures is also in direct opposition to classical liberalism which recognises the inalienable right to discrimination without persecution ..

perhaps you should check exactly how many actually want to ban the burka/niqab. Questioning whether such dress codes are appropriate or repressive doesn’t mean you want to ban them.

perhaps you ought to ask the wearers whether they think
1. wearing it is repressive and they are forced to
2. Forcing them not to wear it is egalitarian liberal and incredibly freeing

I hate the phrase but it does seem to be white men getting offended on behalf of Muslim women because you have decide they wear it because a man has forced them to. This “hypothesis” – I would call it ignorance personally- will not stand up to much analysis.

I dont like the way some women wear lots of make up- i bet there is some society pressure there to look good as well as personal choice – can I ban it ? or is it basically none of my business how they dress?

it is still a “choice” but it’s not really free will is it; they’re not forced to wear it but there may be pressure or coercion involved.

I am not forced to wear trousers rather than a skirt. However the reaction of the wider society were i to exercise my free will may mean i feel coerced into not wearing one. I am really freely choosing to not wear skirts or have I been coerced gently over time by societal norms? Your point is not without merit but it is an argument that one can use to any society that has a “dress code” however vague. Are any of us truly free to dress as we please ? we all dress like westerners and not like Maoris or the Terena people of Brazil. We are all, to some degree conditioned to dress some way by our culture. That fact alone does not make it oppressive and if it does we are all oppressed.

Is there more we can do so that they wouldn’t feel compelled to hide? Counselling maybe?

Given its you I assume it was well meaning but I dont think it would be well received to suggest Muslim women need counselling due to the clothes they wear.

This “hypothesis” – I would call it ignorance personally- will not stand up to much analysis.

It’s certainly what you’d hope for, however the ignorant & lazy will always find a way to ignore the truth.

I dont think it would be well received to suggest Muslim women need counselling due to the clothes they wear.

That’s not really what I meant, it’s nothing to do with clothing. Point was if they’re wearing something because, say, they don’t feel safe, the solution is to make them feel safe surely.

Counselling is the wrong word, I meant support really, whether that’s for the woman in question or around educating the people she’s attempting to integrate with.

Whenever I see a lady in western society wearing a Burka, I don’t immediately connect it with religious belief and I would never associate it with modesty.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/01/muslim-women-veil-integrate-study

“We conjecture that for highly religious women modernising factors raise the risk and temptation in women’s environments that imperil their reputation for modesty: veiling would then be a strategic response, a form either of commitment to prevent the breach of religious norms or of signalling women’s piety to their communities.

“Highly religious women who have more native friends and live in areas dominated by natives use the veil to keep their pious reputation while being integrated,” said Gambetta, a professor of sociology and an official fellow of Nuffield College, University of Oxford. “Banning or shunning veiling would deprive them of a means that allow them more opportunity for integration rather than marking their differences.”

“As you might expect, we found the tendency for veil wearing decreases among young, highly educated women when they are exposed to modern influences if they are ‘averagely religious’ Muslim women,” Gambetta said. “However, Muslim women who are ‘highly religious’ tend to increase their wearing of religious head coverings and use more conservative styles as the level of modernisation, or ‘risks’ they are exposed to, increase.”

So, whilst the veil helps women to integrate as it means that they are actually allowed to go outside – it does mean that sections of the Muslim community are prejudiced against their own countries culture.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive – it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

Correlation does not imply causation and all that. All that waffle is simply their interpretation of the reasons and doesn’t appear to be supported at all by the evidence, which is simply evidence of correlation.

Here’s my interpretation:
“highly religious” women are subject to pressure from (male) members of their close social group to wear the veil, which increases with modernising forces. This is part of the repression, not an indication of their freedom to choose.

Of course I have no evidence that is the reason, but it’s just as valid as their interpretation of the data.

Looking at the abstract, I see nothing to support the claims in the headline or sub-headline (though they do of course both include the word “may” – well muslim women may wear the veil because it blocks some of the smell of modern life, who knows?)

+1

Back to the OP’s original post…

Is it acceptable for folks to not like it? Within reason, I think so. Some just aren’t happy not being able to see someones face. That is about the only reasonable premise I can think of.

Is it in some circumstances repressive? Yes, if the wearer is being forced to wear it.

Can we tell from looking if the wearer is dressed so out of choice? No, of course not.

So what, as an evolved & (allegedly) enlightened society do we do?

If we are ban the burqa et al then we are guilty of repression – logic dictates that’s a retrograde step. So, do we accept it & try to ensure that nobody is being subjugated? After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can argue whether Islam subjugates till we are blue in the face & I think sharper men than us (certainly me!) have done so with no clear equivocal answer. Yes, some branches do & no, some don’t. Then you have to take into account there’s those who have chosen to dress so..

Arguing that it should be banned is an illogical, backwards, unintelligent step. I would strongly advise to resist it.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive – it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what a complete stranger thinks of you..

Back to the OP’s original post…

Is it acceptable for folks to not like it? Within reason, I think so. Some just aren’t happy not being able to see someones face. That is about the only reasonable premise I can think of

Is it in some circumstances repressive? Yes, if the wearer is being forced to wear it.

Can we tell from looking if the wearer is dressed so out of choice? No, of course not.

So what, as an evolved & (allegedly) enlightened society do we do?

If we are ban the burqa et al then we are guilty of repression – logic dictates that’s a retrograde step. So, do we accept it & try to ensure that nobody is being subjugated? After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can argue whether Islam subjugates till we are blue in the face & I think sharper men than us (certainly me!) have done so with no clear equivocal answer. Yes, some branches do & no, some don’t. Then you have to take into account there’s those who have chosen to dress so..

Arguing that it should be banned is an illogical, backwards, unintelligent step. I would strongly advise to resist it.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive – it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what a complete stranger thinks of you..

I agree with the first part. I don’t agree with your last statement, ultra-conservative attitudes and their conflict with western ideals is what leads to Muslim alienation and radicalisation. As has been pointed out by a Muslim counter-radicalisation expert that I have linked to on here on a number of occasions. So it is important.

don’t agree with your last statement, ultra-conservative attitudes and their conflict with western ideals is what leads to Muslim alienation and radicalisation.

I think I get where you’re coming from – Islam isn’t black & white.

I’d still say that I really couldn’t care less what a total stranger thinks of me but I understand your point & accept it. Still not grounds for a ban IMHO.

I don’t agree on a ban either, it’s a really moronic way of going about trying to resolve differences – these things are best done by trying to engage the Muslim community in a more friendly dialogue.

We need to be denying the zealots propaganda ammunition not giving it to them.

^^^ this.

I’d much rather we ruled iend-to-end encryption illegal and gave Government the right to intercept any communications with a warrant than worry about what women are wearing.

Gonzy thanks for the comments

LOL

You work in finance as well don’t you Jamby, I can’t believe you want to open up buisness to corruption by giving the government amd hackers the power to see and intercept everything.

We’ll be going back to type writers and **** carrier pigeons for secure corporate communications. Thousands of people die each year due to cars – but we accept that because “the economy” – well, how people have died indrectly due to end to end encyption this year?

I assumed J’s comment was more along the lines of “if we really must do something drastic and over the top I’d rather it be banning encryption than banning clothing”.

If that’s the case I’d agree; at least banning encryption hits everyone rather than singling out a weak minority group, however impractical and fruitless it would be.

A bit off track – apologies

Tom we’ve had encryption for as long as I can remember (I studied it a bit at Uni in ’81) the issue is whether it’s uncrackable including that the service provider has no way of seeing the contents. we’ve survived happily without uncrackable personal messaging, banks have operated just fine.

Phii I have to say I don’t think banning such encryption is “ridiculous” France and Germany are pressing the EU to make it EU wide law that you cannot use it.

IMO the service providers are doing 2 things – first and least important its great marketing, your messages are secret and private. Secondly and most importantly it means the service provider cannot be liable for message contents and cannot be required to monitor for keywords. Its a grand cover-your-arse excersize.

I can’t help thinking if it was white blokes telling white women they couldn’t go out unless they wore all that stuff, there’d be outrage. It seems that because these women aren’t white (generally), different rules seem to apply.

Just because someone says they do it through choice doesn’t mean we can’t employ concepts like ‘ideology’ where someone’s expressed interests don’t necessarily coincide with their ‘real’ interests. Some turkeys will vote for Christmas.

we’ve survived happily without uncrackable personal messaging, banks have operated just fine.

Banks operate just fine because they had branches. Remember those?

Phii I have to say I don’t think banning such encryption is “ridiculous”

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is “perfectly sensible” and 10 is “full Jamba,” that statement rates about 13. Strong encryption shouldn’t be banned, it should be mandatory.

🙂

No app messaging system should be uncrackable by manufacturer/service provider or government security services. Whats App / Facebook / Telegram etc have no need for any encryption at all.

As I said Germany and France are working to change EU to make encryption look as I am advocating.

That’s right, because no-one legitimate ever uses messenger services to transmit sensitive information.

Strong encryption shouldn’t be banned, it should be mandatory.

Absolutely. A modern society needs encryption. It doesn’t need bronze age invisible friends or fancy dress.

Exactly how would you ban encryption? Isn’t it a bit late?

Force whatsapp, messenger etcetera to use cleartext, then people will just use something else that’s progressively harder to intercept. Then it turns into an endless game of whackamole that can’t be won as encryption is out there, is easy to use and can be hidden anywhere.

It’s raining outside, I’m tempted to see how long it takes to make an encrypted messaging system that works by representing encrypted messages as a series of cat pictures. Nobody would ever spot that. Hmmmm…

Stenography.

4+ Ways To Secretly Hide Messages In Pictures

As a citizen of this country and I am perfectly entitled to have a personal conversation that cannot be snooped on by the government what I do is none if their **** business – do you think they will share everything they do with us? EVERYONE is entitled to privacy

Why Jamby is advocating an electronic North Korea or Stazi type system is completely lost on me

allan23 – Member

Not bizarrely, quite sensibly as you are not interested in discussion, education or open mindedness, you are only interested in people confirming your bias or trying to shoot down those that disagree.

You’ve already confirmed a lack of understanding of Islam, if you don’t know where then I suggest you go back and read your comments.

Hint: All the Muslim women I’ve ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Now you are being deliberately misleading.

My earlier comment was obviously made in reference to the gender segregation that occurs in mosques.
Are you going to try and tell me this doesn’t happen?
It is pertinent to the discussion, like the reasons behind women covering up, which you don’t seem to want to discuss whilst accusing me of not being interested in discussion. 😕

FWIW, I used to think Islam was just a slightly different flavour of that other silliness Christianity, but due to a friend converting to Islam I thought I’d educate myself in the religion. That’s why I’ve attended mosques and have the opinions I have.

But then if you are going to use strawmen to try and suggest I’m a troll in a lazy effort to avoid discussion then there is no point.
Perhaps if you believe that having different views is trolling then you may have spent too much time here.

Gay ga zinta hate.

Say what you will but the EU is going to outlaw uncrackabke end to end encryption, wait and see. We got by without it for decades, we will do so again. It was always possible to tap your phone / mobile with a warrant/court order, all electronic comms should be the same.

It’s easy to ban it, licence apps and if they don’t comply they are not permitted. ISP and mobile companies are obliged to fall into line and VPN providers will be required to be registered also.

Trust me the providers aren’t using end to end encryption for “civil rights” purposes its marketing and cover-their-arse so they can’t be asked to police content or be held responsible for not doing so.

Trust me

with respect no

Just follow the news then. You have never had the ability before to have a private electronic conversation before by phone or mobile without it being aubject to interception via a court order. You are asking for a new right.

No app messaging system should be uncrackable by manufacturer/service provider or government security services. Whats App / Facebook / Telegram etc have no need for any encryption at all.

Does this include Apple?