IN a country not too far away and not too long ago, a monarch and a Parliament and a people riddled with insecurities and paranoia introduced a ban on a certain and very small section of society wearing its traditional dress. The ban was borne out of an abject fear of being swamped by a violent, murderous minority who – although they lived on the same small island – were regarded as a threat by those who held the reins of power.
The traditional dress was the kilt and the violent minority the Jacobites. The ban was introduced by George II in the Dress Act of 1746 and remained in effect for 35 years. The lasting result was that, once the ban was lifted, the kilt was embraced not just by the Jacobites and the Highlanders whose attire it formed an integral part, it was adopted as the national dress of an entire country and remains today a powerful, romantic, emblematic, respectable and essential part of Britishness.
One monarch banned the kilt – his descendent wears it and so do her family, her soldiers and her people.
Today, 250 years after the ban was introduced, and following a vote by French politicians last night, there are calls for a similar ban on the burkha in Britain. The differences between the kilt and the burkha are substantial. Kilts were worn by treacherous, murderous insurgents who brought death and terror to large parts of England as far south as Derby in their attempt to conquer London and seize power. Burkhas are worn exclusively by a small minority of women who, by and large, keep themselves to themselves and wouldn’t say boo to a goose.
But that doesn’t stop the British press stoking the fires of racial hatred, fear and intolerance, in particular the Daily Express with its completely one-sided, drip-drip campaign against the new – though passive – enemy within.
DEMANDS to ban the burkha in Britain were growing last night after France voted to outlaw the wearing of Islamic full-face veils in public. The Government was urged to follow Paris’s example and stand up against the face and body coverings which have been condemned for creating a divided Britain.
I don’t know about you out there, but my Britain isn’t divided. Nor do I hear calls for a ban. Just the ones I read in papers such as the Express and from one or two insignificant politicians.
A ban on burkhas is supported by 99 per cent of Britons, a Daily Express poll found last month.
Did it? Then why is this poll not on the Express archive like all its other burkha stories?
And last night the French ban was welcomed in one of Britain’s most multicultural cities, Birmingham. Teaching assistant Diana Phillips, 42, said: “I see it as a good thing because it is important to have eye contact with people. The government in France is not anti-Muslim.” Phil Bathurst added: “A ban over here would benefit everyone. Burkhas create a barrier between people.”
Britain’s “most multicultural” city is represented by two people. There has been no attempt whatsoever to put the views of those who would be the targets of a ban.
We can expect over the coming weeks the malignant drip-drip of Express anti-burkha stories to continue. It is a paper obsessed. Reproduced below are Express headlines from this year alone.
I heard about this last night and I was very troubled by it. Maybe the general population is being driven to find this an acceptable law because of years of a misrepresentation of a group of people. I see it as a troubling sign of governments exerting power and control onto people.
What if men wore Burkhas?
Actually the burkha was created by men to enslave women and to protect the mans property.
Ban the burkha
Ban Muslems as it seems to me that Islam is more a political movement then a religion.
Perhaps you have never lived among followers of Islam.
I’m not Muslim, but I spent several months living in a mostly-Muslim area in a major city in the US. Do you want to know what I saw? I saw people who gathered to pray, to celebrate, to grieve. People whose businesses opened and closed when their faith told them they should open and close. Parents who loved their children and tried to teach them to be good people. Children who loved (and troubled) their parents just like children always do.
I saw a community whose faith was part of who they were. In the US, at least, the Christian Right is a far more powerful political movement than any Islamic movement. Shall we ban them, too?
~Kali
Thank you for this, Kali.
More of us, especially non-Muslims, need to speak out for these people who are given so much exaggerated scrutiny by Fox News.
I also live among Muslim brothers and sisters who are just as mindful and down-to-earth and completely sentient as any other human being. Those Muslims who do become aggressive (by statistic) do so when their land and their religion and their loved ones are touched, not the other way around. I am not condoning ANY act of violence, but the only “just” war in the eyes of a Muslim is a defensive war in times of invasion, oppression and homicidal killings of their families and communities. The USA doesn’t even need that excuse; they never even had to defend their land or their rights on their own soil!
Everybody needs to look at what is happening in Iraq: it is called the Iraq WAR and it is the west is on the OFFENSE. Moreover, these soldiers are American and British CHRISTIANS thirsty for a bit of oil and colonization… but nobody thinks about that!
I think you agree when I say, long live our Muslim brothers and sisters.
I know! Why not simply ban xenophobic commenters?
To “wearelittlespinozas,”
How dare you say that Americans never even had to defend their land or their rights on their own soil? How do you think this nation was created? By peace? No. Obviously, you know very little about the American Revolution and the battle won by Americans against the monarchical tyranny of Great Britain. 35,000 men and women died in the creating of this great nation that so many want to flock to and demand their rights in. The difference in my opinion of a Muslim viewpoint according to your post is that the USA did not go to war BECAUSE they are Christian. The USA is not entirely Christian and nor is our government Christian. Our laws are not formed on the basis of scripture in the Bible or on any other religion. Muslim countries cannot boast this as their laws are based on scripture. Our laws are based in the basic tenets of morality for all people. That is why our government works. Are we perfect? No. Is the war in Iraq moral? No. But, it is not a war that is being waged on the basis of Christianity. Just as there are societies of peace-loving Muslims who are giving and family oriented that is also true of many other religions. Please, do not link war to Christianity just as Muslims do not want terrorism linked to them. Muslims who wage war are said to be non-Muslims by their counterparts and I can say the same is true of the history of western countries. I am appalled at the bloody history between Catholicism and Protestantism. But, that bloody history gave way to religious tolerance. Most wars are waged out of the human fallacy of greed and narrow-sightedness rather than religion no matter what justification the wagers of war give. I am not a Christian and I AM an American and I do NOT agree with the war in Iraq. But, nor do I agree with Muslims whining about all of their problems being cause by Europe and America and that they were all just living perfectly peacefully before colonization by Europeans. Arab invasions of the past have been just as violent and volatile. Muslim and Arab history is not purely peace and astounding intellect. Was Iran always Muslim? No. Was Turkey? No. Was Somalia? No. So, don’t act like Muslims are the victims and are exempt from ever having done wrong. If the west is so bad and so corrupt and so Christian don’t live here. But, you have the right to do so because yes, Americans HAVE had to defend their rights on their own soil and it took place 234 years ago. The soldiers of the USA and the UK are NOT thirsty for oil and colonization – the governments are. And I don’t agree with your statement, “Long live our Muslim brothers and sisters.” I say long live all people of every nation and may we all stop killing one another because we differ in our perceptions of faith. Religion has created more division than cohesion. If a religion justifies the hurting of other people then it is not a very good religion. I was raised in a Christian home and I can tell you that there is nothing in the New Testament of the Bible that condones any kind of violence or war. The foremost tenet is the Golden rule which is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Imagine life if we all lived by that rule. Nobody wants bad to be done unto them. Wars and violence in this world are caused by angry, greedy PEOPLE. If they use religion as justification then they are wrong.
Well said efpefp.
How do we know that men aren’t wearing burkhas for illegal activities….jut as a motorcyclist is not allowed to enter a bank or many other places wearing their helmets?
It’s an unfortunate situation that we have here.
In which case do you agree a ban on Beards, makeup, hats and sun glasses as well?
This is as moral as it is a security concern. How come Dubai’s decision not to use full body scanners is not discussed!
Burkha has always been used as a symbol of oppression; has the thought ever occurred that most women choose to wear it.
Much like brilliantmind, I spent a year living in a muslim area of a Canadian city. I’ve seen the same thing.
Just because a woman is wearing a burkha it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a loving relationship there. I’ve spoke to a woman that chooses to wear a burkha. She told me that she sees it as protecting herself from men. She expressed that in Islam they try to show control over (hu)man’s destructive tendencies. She sees it as exercising self control over sexual urges and she is very proud.
To each their own. I advocate freedom that doesn’t impede on the freedom of others.
“I’ve spoke to a woman that chooses to wear a burkha. She told me that she sees it as protecting herself from men. She expressed that in Islam they try to show control over (hu)man’s destructive tendencies. She sees it as exercising self control over sexual urges and she is very proud.”
I’ve always been intrigued by this explanation. I agree that it is her right to choose what she wears and I am glad that she finds pride and pleasure in doing so. I just don’t understand why she personally is responsible for a man’s actions. Shouldn’t the man be accountable for his own actions? Shouldn’t he have control over his sexual tendencies? What does this kind of explanation say about men in cultures where this explanation is given for the veiling of women? Wouldn’t it be more convenient for women if men simply were blindfolded at certain times of the day so that women could get their shopping done without the cumbersome Burkha? I know Islam also says that a man should lower his gaze but most of them don’t, at least not where I live. This part of the debate is one that fascinates me. And I mean that without sarcasm. I’m truly interested.
that’s the difference between infidel countries with Muslim countries. in infidel countries, such as french and swiss Muslim minority and treated unfairly and discrimination. But in Islamic countries to protect the minority population of unbelievers, to keep their rights, and do not bother them.
As for terrorists, wherever it exists. Islam on behalf of terrorists who, I swear that they are the destroyers of religion, not a defender of the religion.
Are you talking about Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where Hindus aren’t allowed to build temples, or Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh where the Hindu minority has decreased sharply in the past 50 years?
You put down terrorists online, but when will you do that in real life? When will you say that the terrorists who continue to operate should be given the death sentence?
It might’ve done that in the past, protect the rights and beliefs of other religions but go to Saudi Arabia and right of choice is just a loose expression. Bibles and crucifixes are banned and if brought into the country are confiscated or thrown in the bin right then and there. People are not allowed to wear religious symbols associated with anything other than Islam. Even liberal countries like the UAE discriminate on grounds of race and religion when it comes to civil or criminal offences. There’s no mass out cry for that. Although the outright ban of the hijab is unfair and wrong, it’s a personal choice, why are these issues so highlighted and debated in the west? because it is allowed, debate is allowed, choices (to a limited comparative amount) are allowed. Where are these privileges in the middle eastern countries?
The wearing of a hijab or a burka is no more personal choice than wearing a cross.
Less, in fact. There is no tenant of Christian faith that demands wearing a cross or crucifix, but many Muslim believers see that the command to dress modestly does in fact demand dressing in a hijab.
@ brilliantmindbrokenbody
The burqa is not found in the Koran, only the hijab is. The burqa is a product of Saudi conservatism (and many more “isms”).
“But in Islamic countries to protect the minority population of unbelievers, to keep their rights, and do not bother them.”
Really? Is that why the Baha’i in Iran are so persecuted?
Hi Tip712,
You make a very interesting point about the American Revolution. Do not forget all the devastating affects that the British brought to the land of the Native Americans such as previously foreign diseases and rape and murder of a culture. After the British colonizers did their deeds, they decided they would like to have it THEIR way and thus broke away from British rule. They were still British in the first place with pure British blood but chose to break away from their own heritage.
Though American, I am Scottish and Irish by blood and I do not condone the colonization of America in such a manner. Furthermore, the Revolution was not the defense of human rights or religion or culture, but a revolt on taxation — something most people whine about on a daily basis. Many people died in the Revolution for the country’s future freedoms, but we cannot forget what the British did to the Natives of the land and how few of them America sees today because of it.
It is eery how much we agree that no war should be waged in the name of religion & religious tolerance and peace should prevail. The recognition that most American / British soldiers are Christian is a purposeful example to show the absurdity of judging their Muslim brothers (not counterparts, mind you) on the basis of religion. It goes like this:
Muslims will use Islam as a scapegoat to wage war when all they want is political freedom, and Christians wage war in the name of political freedom when all they want is a pure Christian world. The Iraq War shows perfect bigotry and U.S. ideology packed into one, neat, ‘Sadam-ridding’ escapade when all they really desire is to remain the world superpower.
Do not forget that any U.S. president will ALWAYS profess he is a God-fearing Christian or America wouldn’t take him; the quarter says “In God We Trust”; the Pledge of Allegiance says “One Nation, Under God…”; why are there disputes on creationism in the classroom and removing “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance?
You bet the American hearts are torn sideways and upside down by the absence of religion in its institutions! The speculation that Barack Obama may secretly be a Muslim scares the sh*t out of America, the land of the ‘secular’.
What support do you have that states Muslim nations currently blame Europe and America for their problems? If you ask them, their main governments are the problem, not other nations. I mentioned in another comment, in pure agreement, that Arab history was brutal — just as brutal as African or South American or European history. Therefore, I never alluded to the fact that Arabic Muslim nations were exempt from any wrongdoing, but it seems that you are putting contradictory blame on them by singling them out after harping that “Muslim and Arab history is not purely peace and astounding intellect.” What is your justification for linking Islam with dumbness and brutality then protecting the “bloody history between Catholicism and Protestantism” before you say “Please, do not link war to Christianity just as Muslims do not want terrorism linked to them.”? It doesn’t add up.
You also mentioned: “If the west is so bad and so corrupt and so Christian don’t live here.”
…I left along time ago to understand other people.
Thought provoking. Some of the points you refute were not directed at you as a person but more at the generality of the many arguments surrounding us.
The tragedies of the Native Americans is a whole other can of worms that deserves its own discussion. I never said America was perfect in its history.
“They were still British in the first place with pure British blood but chose to break away from their own heritage.” No, they were not British in the first place. Many were British. Many were Scottish who at the time fiercely opposed being called British. Many were German and Dutch and Swedish. My ancestors arrived in the 1700′s and were German and Dutch. So, no, they were not all British. And pure British blood? What does that mean? Are we DNA testing?
“Furthermore, the Revolution was not the defense of human rights or religion or culture, but a revolt on taxation — something most people whine about on a daily basis.”
It most certainly WAS the defense of human rights and religion and culture. If it was only about taxation our Constitution would say “no taxes, end of story.” To this day no Catholic can be a monarch of Great Britain. There are still religious restrictions and that is one example. In the USA by law anyone could hold public office and many do. Public majority may encourage a person to profess Christianity for the purpose of winning an election. I’m not saying Christianity isn’t a majority. But we are not all across the board Christians and our government does not govern based on Biblical scripture. If the president says he is a Christian just to get elected then he has been unjust to himself and that is between him and God if he/she believes in God. In God we Trust is on the quarter because our forefathers had a strong ideology with Freemasonry and Freemasonry’s only requirement is that you believe in one Supreme Being or monotheism. The pledge of Allegiance statement, “under God,” was added in the 1950′s and many Americans would like to see this changed. There are many debates about religion in schools, etc. I don’t think I alluded to anything about this. But, we have the option to debate and we have the option to disagree. Those things are not against the law. A lot of people want our government to be Christian based but it isn’t and a lot of us want it to remain that way. Not all American “hearts,” are torn about the absence of religion in institutions.” I was never subjected to prayer in school in the 1970′s. This is a new debate that is surfacing partly out of fear. The issues we are debating within our own country are not the point I was trying to make. In fact, I think I specifically said that America is not perfect.
“What support do you have that states Muslim nations currently blame Europe and America for their problems?”
The support for this statement was based in several of the statements in this thread. There are many people who blame their country’s woes or even their personal woes on the USA and Europe via the colonization of their countries. Colonization had indeed wrought many problems in many places. But, it isn’t the source of ALL problems.
“after harping that “Muslim and Arab history is not purely peace and astounding intellect.” What is your justification for linking Islam with dumbness and brutality…”
I never said anything remotely about Islam being dumb. Some Muslims, as are many other people, are very self-important about their history. They invented algebra. They invented small pox vaccine. They were fine and happy before the Europeans came along. These are all very generalized statements that I have heard over the years in regards to how many Middle Easterners. I have seen it in films, read it in books, etc. It’s out there. The same can be said of most cultures and their idea of self-importance. But, I never ever said that Islam was dumb.
“then protecting the “bloody history between Catholicism and Protestantism,” Protecting? I think I was defaming it along with the rest of the wars in the world. I was clearly admitting that Christianity, or false followers of it rather, have a bloody past.
“…before you say “Please, do not link war to Christianity just as Muslims do not want terrorism linked to them.”? It doesn’t add up.”
It does add up. I am making a point that Christians know that there have been wars in the past that were fought in the name of Christianity and countless crimes that have been justified in the name of Christianity. Many of those crimes have been and ARE against women (who’s freedom this entire thread addresses). The point is that I believe it is a person’s own greed and corruptness that drives him/her to war. They may say it is because of their religion but it is really to serve their own purposes. You were saying that the British and American soldiers are Christian and some of them may be but it is not a war for Christianity. What I’m saying is we are not waging war to spread Christianity. Many terrorists give their reasons for their attacks to wipe out the infidel or to convert the non-believers, etc. I am defending the Muslims who think that these statements misrepresent their religion.
I do live here in the US. Here in my town I have many friends from all different ethnic backgrounds, including Muslim, and from many different religions. I too make an effort to understand people. I do that here at home and I do not allow the borders of my state or my country to extinguish my thirst for the knowledge of other people.
I am as afraid of the radical Christian right as of anything else if not more. The Christian right and fundamentalist Islam have many things in common – one of them being that they want to dictate what women wear, do, and say. In another pose I clearly state that I don’t think the wearing of the Burkha should be made illegal and it is because I don’t think laws about what women wear should even exist. What this specific post between you and I was about was that I, personally, as an American do not want to be represented by a statement that all of America is Christian or British or that American soldiers are CHRISTIAN, as you said. And I also took great exception to your statement that Americans have never had to defend their rights on their own soil.
In my statement, “If the west is so bad and so corrupt don’t live here,” I suppose I am representing a sentiment of frustration. Any time an Islamic issue comes up many comments that defame Europe and the USA go along with it. So, why are so many Islamic people immigrating to these places? I just don’t understand the logic in hating the free society one lives in that allows one to express this sentiment. But, that is the goal after all, isn’t it – to understand one another better.
Long live my human brothers and sisters.
tip712…muslims come to other nations to destroy them from within. If you will take to time to understand the koran, it will show you that it is okay to say and do whatever is necessary to destroy us.
efpefp,
How do you know I have not take the time to understand the Koran?
I believe that if you truly understand the muslim way. Islam is not a religion in the western sense. It is way of life. It is government. It is military.
They are commanded (read the qur’an) to destroy the infidels. They are taught that they can do whatever is necessary to gain our trust (lie, hide their true feeling…whatever) and when the time is right kill the infidels. And anyone who is not a “true believer” is an infidel. (read the qur’an). If you do not understand this basic fact, then you do not understand.
Efpefp,
I did not say that I did not understand. I asked how you know that have not taken the time to understand. You are so absorbed with convincing me of what you believe that you have not or cannot answer the question.
You said, “If you will take time to understand the koran, it will show you, etc….”
I said, “How do you know that I have not taken the time to understand the Koran.”
You then said, “(read the qur’an),” and note the change in spelling, “If you do not understand this basic fact, then you do not understand.”
So, my original question remains unanswered. How do you know that I have not taken the time to understand the Koran? The answer is you don’t.
But, in response to your statement I will say that I don’t believe that most people immigrate from their country to another one to destroy it. The average person is just looking for a better life and it is difficult to reconcile that “better” life with their belief system sometimes. And I think when a person comes from a country where the laws and policies are governed by their religion they have trouble accepting in their new home that laws do not revolve around their religion. It’s culture shock and so they cling more tightly to their culture. Instead of banning something that they may or may not cling to as a symbol of their culture or beliefs there should be an approach to helping them acclimate to their new home. If they do not want to acclimate then they should not have come.
And what exactly is an infidel country? Would that be all countries that do not have Sharia law? I’m pretty sure the United States has something in its Constitution that protects religious freedom. But, the US is an infidel country, right?
Hi Tip,
I figured as much that this was less of a personal battle than a match of opinion, as we both agree that “long live our human brothers and sisters!” So I thank you for pointing that out.
“Pure British blood” points to the fact that they were “British in the first place” warding off Britain. No, it is not a DNA test but a fact that the majority in the colonies were in fact British.
I still do not agree that Christianity is not a heavy basis within our government; as I said before, every president must profess as such or he will be shunned by our society. Why are so many afraid to admit to be Muslim or Hindu or any other major religion? Because of the scrutiny and sheer terror they face by angry Americans who want a pure Christian country.
Not every Muslim nation has Sharia Law which penetrates through most aspects of a citizen’s life, but the countries who’ve adopted it have done so willingly by the people. Just as Hindus fight to keep India Hindu and Israel fights to keep Israel (and Palestine) Jewish, so do Muslims fight and Christians fight for their religious territories.
I also still do not agree that by large Muslims blame the west for their problems. Some women decide to come here and dress a certain way which makes many more westerners complain than the ladies who mind their own business in their burkas (which we have agreed should not be outlawed) than any Muslim upheaval about western values; it is ONLY when a western country is colonizing a Muslim country that they become upset that western antics are ruining their way of life.
The opposite of “not astounding intillect” is dumbness which I was alluding to as a synonym, nothing more.
Though war linked to Christianity or Catholicism or Protestantism may not have been to spread war, it was in the past. We have to look back more than a couple years to see how our Christian brothers and sisters have acted in the name of religion, similar to Islam’s past.
Furthermore, America is no Darfur or Palestine or World War II Germany. We have sent out troops to muddle on foreign soil too many times for the age of our country but would never tolerate a modern-day battle on our own soil. America has caused so many people to suffer than it has suffered and for what causes? To remain a world superpower.
Finally, sitting in America reading a National Geographic magazine is not the same as writing for one and watching CNN is not the same as being a reporter on the frontline. Going abroad helps bridge the gap between people of different nations and cultures into one entity, equal of understanding each other. That is something I could never receive sitting in America watching the news. It is a personal choice to see the world with an open mind and heart and challenging to become an expat. We understand how Americans think; how about understanding how Mexicans or Australians or Russians think?
Long live our human brothers and sisters, indeed.
weare,
I have enjoyed our exchange. Some points we seem to agree upon and some we disagree upon.
I want to say, however, that I do not get my information from CNN or National Geographic. I do read the magazine more for it’s paleontology and archeology information than anything else. But, I’m not a fan of mainstream news. You probably didn’t mean that as a sole reference to me but more as a generalization. But I just want you to know that you don’t have to be an expat to go abroad and meet and talk with other people and other cultures. I have gone abroad many times and for many lengths of times. You also don’t have to become an expat to see the world with an open mind and heart. I may not be an expat but I cannot be grouped with the, “angry Christian Americans,” you speak of either. I have a very open mind.
I have often wanted to live abroad and relocate and so I admire that in a person who has done it. But, tell me, is there anything you like about America? Is everything about America bad? I used to think I knew how Americans think and then I got an email from my sister asking me to ban a children’s movie because it promoted atheism. Then, I realized that I am in a completely different universe from her. Not all Americans think the same. Not all people in one country think the same.
Peace with you.
Dear Tip,
Yes, I have enjoyed them as well — we are more alike than we give ourselves credit for; it just seems that we have different perspectives about our country at large.
I never actually thought to lump you in one category like a “radical Christian” or even “anti-Islam”. The strength you showed me stemmed from my comment that America never really fought for anything on its soil — and I did not mean that quite so literally. We didn’t fight hard for anything, is what I meant. Sure, many people perished in the American Revolution and thousands of Europeans came over seasick in boats to live in the free land, but we have only grown in stability and power since then for the better and the worse. The USA does not know how it feels to be Rwanda or Somalia.
I choose to defend my Muslim brothers and sisters, because some cannot defend themselves, especially in America (the ‘secular’ land of the free). If a Muslim says “I’m not a terrorist,” nobody will believe her. If a non-Muslim says “not all Muslims are terrorists and I’ve searched long and hard to find out that Islam is not a religion of war but peace,” it might perk up some ears. In my opinion, Christians do not need the comfort and compassion in American and British communities the way Muslims do. In India, for example, it is a different story and I fully respect those who go out of their way to protect their Christian brothers and sisters, no matter their own religion or race. Something needs to change the face of Islam into an equally acknowledged and cherished religion.
I, too, cannot simply be called a carefree, ignorant, hippie who thinks America is nothing but bombs and guns. America has certain corruptions where other governments don’t (such as the economy and social care systems of Scandinavia and Denmark) and lacks corruption where others have many. It is not my time to thrive in America, where the attitudes I’ve encountered since childhood are stale. Like I know how Americans think and their interests and prejudices, just as well as you, but I thrive knowing what other people have to say and how they live and feel. America is good for raising a family, in a safe kind of way, where there is a slim chance a child will go hungry because of our wealth; she will go to a world-renowned university, an easily recognizable accomplishment from anywhere in the world. This is the strength of America.
I do wholeheartedly believe that to experience the world, one must travel within it — not just read about it or watch television programs. My comments about National Geographic and CNN were not directed at you specifically, but were more general statements that would be familiar to America at large. I think I’ve watched CNN a total of 5 minutes in my whole life and hope to create a magazine similar to National Geographic rather than read it. Haha.
So, now you tell me, what draws you to America and makes you stay, Well-Traveled One? If you’ve been abroad and always come back, there have to be good reasons for this. I am looking forward to hearing on your opinions and what you have to say.
Peace with you, too!
Wearelittlespinozas,
What draws me to America is that it is my home. I suppose maybe I am not worldly enough or unhappy enough to relocate to another country. I like it here. It is the familiar. It is home.
I admire Shirin Ebadi, the human rights activist in Iran and her quest to fix her nation from within rather than emigrate as so many of her fellows did after the revolution of ’79. She steadfastly believed the citizens of Iran should fix their problems and did not welcome outside interference. In the recent few years she has had to emigrate because of threats to her life but along with many other things I admire about her I admire her desire to stay home and fight for what is right.
Maybe vote by vote and dollar by dollar I can influence what my government becomes or doesn’t become. With conscientious decisions about who I elect and where I spend money maybe I can make a difference. And in the mean time I’ll keep traveling and reading. I don’t want or need to stay away for good.
When I come upon immigrants, as I often do, in my job as a health care provider who have come to the US and left their children in Guatemala or Ukraine or Micronesia or Laos to try and carve out a life here until they can join them in the US I always think to myself, “What kind of life is it that would drive a mother or father to leave their children?” and I empathize with that plight. I am fortunate in that I am not in that situation and I know this. I’m not blind to how good I have it here. And when I went to Haiti with a medical group to help survivors of the recent earthquake I again took stock of my good fortune. I couldn’t fix the buildings or bring back someone’s parent or child but I could care for the living and bring them whatever respite was possible. So, because I am American and am fortunate I can do those little things. And maybe those little things will add up. Hope so, anyway.
So, in short why I keep coming home is that I like it here. Many improvements need to be made but no government is perfect. My own is the one I would like to endeavor to change.
This is all about religious freedom. Sure many outside of the culture think the burkha is sexist, but it’s still someone’s idea of religion, and I feel we should honor it. Great article!
http://www.denwrites.com
My knowledge of British Isles history is spotty to say the least. But, weren’t the “Kilts were worn by treacherous, murderous insurgents who brought death and terror to large parts of England as far south as Derby….” part of an effort to push back when England terrorized Ireland and Scotland with its feudal system? I’m glad efpefp pointed out the origin of the burkha. Banning the burkha seems like a back-door approach at best in the aim to resist Muslim extremism and its violence toward “The West.”
Thanks for this well-researched post! Congratulations on Fresh Pressed.:)
This is such a complicated issue, since the burkha’s roots had nothing to do with religion. It was created not because of the word of the Koran, but in order to solidify male dominance in society. And, like other forms of oppression (female circumcision), the opressed quickly learned to embrace the dictate as a way to survive in society (i.e.: secure a good marriage). Today, the burhka has morphed into a political statement for many, whether for or against.
Not directly about the burkha, but a comment from Canada on using culture as an excuse to tolerate oppression of women:
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Women%20rights%20will%20first%20casualty%20surrender%20Afghanistan/3169695/story.html
As the burkha is an expression of a culture that oppresses women, and as it did not originate as an expression of the religion, I have a hard time defending it in countries where the stated goal is equality of the sexes. At the same time, I agree with the comment further on about Canada’s stance specifically against wearing it in certain places, like in a courthouse.
The comparison between the kilt and burka is slightly inappropriate. Whereas the first is just a piece of clothing, the second is meant as a covering for the whole body. The kilt is traditionally worn by men, the burka by women. The kilt is a cultural thing whereas the burka is a religious thing, or so you would believe.
Let’s say that it’s a religious thing. So why don’t men wear similar pieces of covering? Why is it that in Muslim countries the men are allowed to walk around in muscle shirts and jeans? If it’s a religious thing, then what does that say about Islam’s views on women?
Now, let’s say that it’s a cultural thing. The Arab peninsula is where Islam originated. Prior to the encapsulation of the mid-east by Islam, it was a center of culture. It’s in the Arab peninsula that women wore burkas (something that started due to Islam), when Arab Muslims spread to the rest of the world they took the burka with them.
If everyone is expected to assimilate into society at large in how they walk, talk, eat, etc then why are Muslims exempt from this? Liberalism is all good and fine, but there should be a self-imposed constraint on it’s limits.
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone” – John 8:1 – 11
Come to India and see what the Hindu bigots have done to the multi cultural ethos of India. Women cannot wear jeans and T’s and must wear that huge colored powder across their foreheads and must wear saffron bands. Now we have a fanatic trained in RSS antics to preach how muslims should or shouldnt dress.
Yes, please go to India and see the kinds of freedom that women have. I went to India in the summer of 2009, I saw plenty of women wearing jeans and tracks. Don’t try lie to these people.
That “huge colored powder” is a privelege allowed for married women. It’s something they wear with pride. What is this saffron band you’re talking about? I’ve never seen it..
My opinions are my own, the RSS has nothing to do with it. Speaking of the RSS, what do you have against it?
What about you? Aren’t you a evangelist
missionary trained in misleading people? What about the stories found on this link?
http://www.christianaggression.org/
Observant Muslim men traditionally wear a thobe, though kaftans and beduin-style robes are not tremendously uncommon either. Islam commands modest dress on the part of both men and women.
That the dress for women is regulated by law is, I’d say, wrong – especially when there isn’t a similar regulation for men!
But does that mean that women who believe that it is immodest and shameful not to wear the burka or the hijab should be forced to?
To me, that smacks of a terrible law against freedom of choice and of religious freedom. I think that to demand education and freedom for women is only right, but to demand they sacrifice something that the women I know who wear traditional dress believe is right and proper and correct before God is unkind.
I am Indian too (by birth and by love) and I laugh at your comment Arjun. Look up the rates of female child abortions, dowry deaths, etc etc. Women wearing jeans and tracks are NOT an indication of how much a culture values its women!
I hope you think carefully about that quote at the beginning of bhadravathi’s comment.
Because simply, none of us in the world has got it perfect re: treatment of our women. NONE of us. In some parts we’ve got sexual exploitation, sex slavery, severe body image issues, in others we have dowry deaths, female infanticide, and then there’s domestic abuse, honor killings etc, etc. In this list, a woman CHOOSING to wear a burkha is the least of our worries.
(And though I do not like burkhas at all and actually get annoyed when I see them, every woman I’ve ever met [and I've met at least 30] who wears one, does so out of their choice.)
My point is: don’t seize an issue that a group other than the one you “belong” to is experiencing, and vault yourself above “their” exclusive backwardness.
Sadly, we all got some advancing to do.
bang on the nail sbg, well said
I agree with you about Muslim men.
If all Muslims want to cover up for modesty and religious reasons, I don’t see why they shouldn’t. It’s a free world.
But I was really shocked to see some Muslim women on an Aussie beach on a stinking hot summer day a couple of years ago in full attire.
Beads of sweat collected on what was visible of their red faces. Totally dressed from head to toe in black, the hottest of colours, they had no ability to go for a cooling dip in the ocean like everyone else around them …
Meanwhile their men strolled nonchalantly in shortie shorts, rubber sandals, singlets and baseball caps, totally unidentifiable as one religion or another, and no doubt free to swim if they felt like it …
How unfair!
Hi! I wrote an article talking about the ban on the veil a while back. If your interested you can read it at: http://tinyurl.com/34dv9eo
I think it is an aggressive attack on freedom of expression by a society cautious of change or any threat to ‘national identity’ (whatever that is…).
Fascinating article. As for now, I myself can’t seem to have a strong opinion regarding this issue, and it’s nice to read yours. Thank you.
Great piece, and very thought-provoking. It’s always a sticky issue. I for one think the Daily Express is little more than propaganda. Strangely, it was yesterday’s headlines that got me: “1 in 5 Britons will be Ethnics!” which again makes me wonder how they got 99% of English people to say they didn’t approve of the burqa.
Still, the burqa (and the niqab) are choices many muslim women make out of their own free choice. I don’t think we can just say it’s because of persecution. I live in Bolton at the moment, in a very Islamic area, and the women I know who wear the niqab are free-thinking, 2nd or 3rd generation women. Shabz next door to me wears a niqab when she hasn’t put make-up on.
And, contrary to popular belief, it’s more to do with not showing off than it is to do with men hiding women. It’s kind of the polar opposite of the ‘Jordan/Katie Price’ thing. And I disapprove more of the way young girls dress like hookers these days than I do of muslim women wearing full face covering. It’s the same way a muslim with strong beliefs won’t carry a bag with a shop name on it, or wear a logo, or have a big fancy car: Mohammed’s thoughts were that it encourages envy and covetousness, as well as rubbing it in beggars’ faces that they’re poor and you’re not. The jellabah and kaftan are similar ideas. More, it’s the integral veil that’s the problem, rather than the burqa per se.
That’s not to say I approve of a religion where women can’t pray in a temple, though!! Especially when Mohammed’s wife, Khadijah, was such support, comfort and inspiration to him!
Lady Justine, what you described about burkhaed Muslim women is exactly what I’ve experienced.
The problem is not Islam’s view of women. The real problem is the West’s view of Islam. Unfortunatly, the majority of human beings judge the standards of other cultures and religions, relative to thier own societally imposed standard of values. They fail to realize that the nature of the application of values is subjective.
For example, everyone possesses the value of morality – that part is objective. Morality, in and of itself is a very absolute value. But the question is, how is morality practiced? That is the subjective part. The answer you recieve from a Westerner, an Asian, a Jew, a Chrisitan, a hindu, and a Muslim will all be different.
Likewise, the value of modesty is practiced differently in Islam. And if as a society, we are too ignorant to realize that, than we are turning into exactly the type of people we despise. The type of people who segregated the black kids from the white kids in schools in the U.S. just under 70 years ago, the type of people who were racists against new groups of immigrants as they arrived, and the type of people who to possess the neo-Nazi superiority complex.
And because of this and much more, I say, it is not the right of any majority group to tell a minority group how they should live and choose to practice thier religion – even if they don’t understand it! Living in a pluralistic society, that is especially true!
But Farham will these bigots who are hell bent to raise false alarms listen to reason and logic. I doubt. Hatred blinds and clouds reason and you have plenty of Hindu fanatics and Christian bigots roaming the streets preaching people what to wear.
The way I see it, when a group of people moves on the land of other group of people, they’re the ones who should be changing their ways. They can wear the burka in their home countries, if they want to. Just like I don’t feel like Saudis should let me run around nude through their country.
Also, the comparison you made is bogus. The kilt was worn in the traditional place where it was the traditional dress. The burka isn’t an European outfit and doesn’t belong in Europe. To be honest, as someone who read the Qu’ran, I have no idea why Mein Kampf is illegal while the Qu’ran isn’t.
RV,
” They can wear the burka in their home countries, if they want to. Just like I don’t feel like Saudis should let me run around nude through their country.”…
Hmmmm. Not so easy. It’s the law that YOU can’t be naked in Saudi Arabia; it’s NOT the law that you can’t wear a burqa.
And… lots of Europe is and was Islamic: Spain for one, Albania for another, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia all have sizeable religious communities.
I think the whole point is freedom and tolerance is what we like to think of as ‘enlightened’ concepts of more developed civilisations. I know there’s a lot of anti-burqa material about that suggests it hides identities and robberies/murders etc could result, but, then, robbers used to use tights as a face mask, and we’re not prohibiting those. There’s a bigger problem with hoodies than burqas!
I haven’t read either Mein Kampf or the Q’uran, but I’ve also never met a nazi that preached peace, love, and tolerance, where that is the fundamental message behind Islam — as it is behind all of the world’s major religions. The fact that a few people pervert the words into something hateful (which happens in every religion) does not make the religion itself hateful.
I agree totally with rebelliousvanilla. When Muslims move to another country, they should not expect their culture to be accepted as norm.
It is the same thing as when you go to a foreign country, you do not expect them to speak your language, you must learn theirs, and become accustomed to their culture.
The burka is a way of controlling women, and should not be allowed in non-Arab countries.
If they don’t like that, then they can move back from where they came from.
but it doesn’t mean that culture should be banned in another country.
Just because it’s not the norm in that country doesn’t mean it should be gotten rid of altogether.
and has it ever occurred to you that many people don’t move to other countries by choice? some of them don’t have one. they don’t go “i quite like french beaches, let’s go live in france.”
It’s not like they can just move wherever they want whenever they want.
On these comments I’ve seen so many people say “if they don’t like the ban then they should just go back to their original country.”
But it’s not as simple as moving to another street, or another city.
I think you’ll agree with me that france is pretty far away from the middle east.
There are many things to think about, it’s not as simple as just “i don’t like the laws so let’s leave.”
Hi Trishothinks,
Why you believe that banning a piece of clothing will get rid of any of Britain’s problems is beyond me.
Firstly, “go back to where they came from” is an unenlightened statement because many of Britain’s Muslims were born in… Britain. “The burka is a way of controlling women, and should not be allowed in non-Arab countries.” As I have just pointed out, many who wear the burka are BRITISH, so where do they go? It is not simply enough to say it is controlling Arabic dress.
Do you have any Indian friends? Chinese? Russian? Zimbabwean? Israeli? If you live in Britain, then you probably do. They ALL have different customs that do not fully integrate into British society, so should we send them back “home”, too?
Do you think that where you were born should dictate your life? Do YOU plan to stay in Britain forever, bound to the chains of your society? If you have EVER traveled then you would have one ounce of experience and empathy on this subject.
By the way, the burka was created out of environmental necessity for protection from sandstorms, and actually cools the body down rather than overheats it as is commonly assumed.
The fact Muslims wear burkas in a free society clearly shows that they are not being controlled by anyone else, though you are trying to control a whole population. Think again.
Rebellious Vanilla, re: banning the Quran, it’s apparent you haven’t read the Bible or the Old Testament. They’d have to be banned too.
And, like Lady Justine says, Europe has had Muslims/Muslim roots for years. Perhaps a little history brushing up is necessary: look up Spain, Italy, the Renaissance…
PS seriously Britian? The lesser nazi empire? the one that colonized, pillaged, raped, set genocidal ploys in affect which are still unravelling societies in countries like India for their own benefit? The same one which indignantly protects its own borders from outsiders coming in and ruining it’s economy and society? Sure it’s the ideal society, compared to say Saudi Arabia, but then again that’s not a hard thing to achieve. We still have a long way to go humanity, and if what comes around goes around, Britain sure has a lot to make of for.
Too true.
Great post – so glad that only the loony fringe is suggesting we BTB here in Oz.
It’s just a shame it’s being suggested anywhere. Sigh.
Oh, and congratulations to you from a fellow Freshly Pressed-er…
dewriter, your understanding of British history is hilarious. While everybody has slave and slave master ancestors, the British empire abolished the international slave trade, piracy, it abolished cannibalism in Africa(now it’s resurfacing in some places), it taught some African tribes how to plant a seed or how to use the wheel(yes, some didn’t know what that is in the middle to late 19th century) or taught the aborigines in Australia that pregnancy is a consequence of sex. And any real country should protect its borders – last time I checked, Britain isn’t doing it effectively at all.
efarha, how other cultures are irrelevant in my country. If you want to be in your own culture, move back to your own country. What’s not right is a group of people moving to another group’s country and acting uppity like the Muslims do. If you don’t like the way the British do things, you’re free to leave that country. It’s that simple – go back home and enjoy how ‘rich’ your culture is.
Oh, and another thing. You’re either British, or you’re not. You can’t be British and be ‘ethnic’.
thomthumb, society not allowing me to dress like a Nazi SS officer is hindering my freedom of expression too. And I would also like to go nude in public and not be fined. I can go on with examples like these.
RV:
I’ve got … hmmm, let’s see… Celtic blood, Irish blood, German blood, Danish blood, Italian blood, Huguenot blood, Belgian blood. And I’ve got 10 generations of ‘British-living residents. Like it or not, England is a nation of immigrants from one place or another. The Angles and the Saxons did a good job of destroying the language and the last vestiges of indigenous people, followed by the Romans and in-fighting tribes. I don’t think there’s ever been a ‘British’ person these last two millennia (and I don’t, personally, like that term, as I know Scottish and Welsh people don’t) We don’t even have any ‘English’ words of our own. Not a one. Not even place names. If it weren’t for the Normans and the Vikings and the Romans, well, frankly, we’d be the ones who need teaching what a wheel is.
Yes Britain abolished the African slave trade — hundreds of years after they created it. For a good understanding of how advanced African Muslims were before the slave trade, read Lawrence Hill’s The Book of Negroes.
Also, the notion that ethnicity is specific to certain groups is incorrect. We all have ethnicity, which simply refers to the fact that we belong to a particular group of people who share certain cultural and/or racial characteristics. You share ethnic characteristics with other white Britons, therefore you are ethnic British — and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, therefore also celt, norman, saxon, angle, viking, etc.
RV. I think you misunderstand. I don’t think I said anywhere that you shouldn’t be allowed to dress as a Nazi. If you have the desire to dress in such a fashion, or wear nothing at all for that matter, that should be up to you. I am a strong advocate of freedom of expression and social liberalism. That is why I believe this ban is wrong.
Personally, I cannot imagine a situation where I would wish to dress as a member of one of the most disgusting regimes to ever exist. Nor do I picture a time when I would want to walk around naked.
Some people do though and good for them. You should be able to if you want to. But I should also be able to think your a twat for doing it.
Wow. Fascinating comments.
In anyone is interested, Canada has its own take on this issue: not banning the burka or niqab outright, but whether or not it can be worn in certain public spaces (ie: while giving testimony in court).
http://atomicrobot.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/the-niqab/
I think the main points of this article are twofold. First that both the burka and the kilt are or have been seen as symbols of something to be feared, whether rightly or wrongly. If you were English in the times of the Jacobite rebellion, probably rightly, especially if the kilt were worn by someone south of the Scottish border. As is pointed out here, the ban completely failed to eradicate a mode of dress, but rather made it a symbol of national pride. Who knows, if the ban had not been decreed, it may well have passed into the history books as being a draughty and impractical mode of dress for what is after all, a damp and chilly part of the British Isles.
Secondly that the Daily Express is merely stirring up fears of anyone with different clothes. The agenda here is as cheap as all the snide references to any of the enemies Britain has cultivated over the years, whether they be “frogs” “argies” “krauts”, or whatever which are trotted out every time we are about to get thrashed at football. Personally, I think someone would be more inclined to remove their burka if you were to smile and offer them a cup of tea
Toasted Garlic you are a star.
Totally. p.s. Great blog. Shame the ‘burqa’ issue got in the way of the great critique of the Daily Express for some people (including me!) I literally DID nearly choke to death in Spar yesterday over their increasingly more fascist headlines.
Can you do a run on things the Daily Mail say give you cancer? Going to the toilet in the middle of the night was my favourite this year!
You’ve just got to laugh. I liked your point about the one in five Britons being ethnic and the 99 per cent in favour of a burkha ban. That one slipped under my radar.
Toasted Garlic, you are definitely a star.
Great observation,
No non-Muslim would support wearing the burka, but now that it’s being banned in places, loads of non-Muslims will come out of the woodwork to defend the right of people to dress how they want. Non-Muslims may even wear burka just to make a point.
Plus, how do you write a law against this that doesn’t (1) make you seem like a prejudices jerk or (2) make it criminal to wear fancy dress to a party?
As a side note, there is a hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) clearly stated that the face is not “oarah” (required to be covered), so to many of us (Muslims) wearing burka is exactly like wearing fancy dress.
“I see you’re wearing your Arab costume today.”
“I always dress like this.”
“OK.”
“Phil Bathurst added: “A ban over here would benefit everyone. Burkhas create a barrier between people.”
Yeah right. We know what happens when u wear mini-skirts and break this barrier. The statistics of America and Britain proved it. child-pregnency, The amount of rape each day, prostitution and all. Good for us, aha? Cool!
“Actually the burkha was created by men to enslave women and to protect the mans property.”
Seriously, what are the westerners doing? They are treating women like society butterflies, enslaved them to a group of pleasure seekers. nudity is allowed in those countries, but u can’t cover ur body and be modest? That’s what I call justice. Hands up!
Kilts= burhkas
Muslims=Jacobittes
No.
Not at all.
You blame Britan and France for racism and intolernace and not a mention of Islamic intolerance and racism?
Silly boy, too busy looking at history through your PC glasses to see the world as it is.
I agree with Bill, your analogy is totally irrelevant.
Fantastic post, really shines a light on the issue – and on an issue such as this, with newspapers such as the ones you have pointed out, that is a very rare thing.
Something which I think it’s important to consider in these debates is how important context and history are in considering the current controversy over the Burkha. Firstly, the kilt wasn’t actually a traditional Scottish garb when the English tried to eradicate Scottish culture; the kilt was actually invented as a piece of work clothing in the 1800′s (if my memory serves me right, see “Exploring the world of the Celts” by Simon James). The kilt was then romanticised…but that quibble aside, what actually happened is truly important. After the final Jacobite rebellion of 1745 , (where the Scots could quite possibly have conquered London and altered history as we know it), the English then banned the wearing of clan tartans. During this period the English set out not to ban clothing as such, but to destroy the clan structure. It was the clans who chose to support (or not) the rebellion, with those belonging to the clan following the decision of their leaders and joing en masse or not at all. With the clans broken up, the potential for succesfully organising a large body of people in such a wild and sparsely populated landscape would be low.
The relevance is that it was a decision biased by prejudice and based upon ‘fear’ (real or exaggerated). The unsuccessful rebellion gave the English ample excuse to rape, pillage and execute. Lands belonging to clans which supported the rebellion could be given to Englishmen, with whole villages razed or abandoned.
My fear here is that in Europe, those in power are highlighting negative actions by a minority in order to support their own prejudice. I am currently reading Muhammed Ali’s 1976 autobiography, and the hatred he experienced once he became a Muslim is something that appears to bother him more than the rascism for being black. In the USA and Europe, the terrorist attacks have provided the ‘fear’, both real and exagerrated, which has then allowed those with a prejudice to speak up without fear of condemnation. Like those in the notoriously hideous Daily Express and Daily Mail (even as a 14 year old paperboy I could see the Daily Mail for the hate-mongering tosh it was).
Considering France, it’s not always realised that it has a history of prejudice-I can’t quote directly, but I remember being shocked when my history teacher pointed out that Jews and Gypsies had been hounded in France before the Nazi’s took power. In the 1900′s the French Government even went to lengths to quash the ‘Celtic’ language in the Breton region; these were French people! And what about the race riots in Paris a few years back? As France have not been subject to terrorist attacks and didn’t back the war on Iraq (remember the stories about French youths trashing British war cemeteries?) then the decision to ban the burkha without true provocation troubles me greatly.
As for Britain, where we have had terrorist attacks, terrorist plots, burglars wearing burkhas and post-attack ‘stop and search’ emergency power issues (now hopefully being cleared up), I am genuinely concerned. Whatever the origin of the Burkha, and people’s opinions on it, if we ban it, we will simply be passing an act that says ‘prejudice is ok’. Political correctness has gone quite mad enough (and that includes banning Christians from wearing crosses and other such nonsense). I am not religious or of an ethnic minority but I am concerned about the potential of our mass-media fed population walking into a ’1984′ esque nightmare, where campaigns based on lies and prejudice by the media can fundamentally alter the opinions of the ignorant. Let’s not forget that even the author of this article said above:
“Kilts were worn by treacherous, murderous insurgents who brought death and terror to large parts of England as far south as Derby in their attempt to conquer London and seize power” ; that’s basically a sensationalist English view of the Scottish rebellion. The English then went right back up there and did the same thing but worse (and I’d better point out here, I am English…)
What I’m trying to say is, before I ramble anymore, that kind of biased, sensationalist view is exactly what the media are trying to produce right now, with their half-truths, made up statistics and one-sided viewpoint. If it is so easy for such a falsified notion of the ‘kilt-wearing’ Scottish barbarian to worm its way into a fairly intelligent debate about burkha’s, then we are never going to be able to, as a nation, collectively brand an item of clothing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Those in positions of power realise that; therefore any such ban would either represent the prejudice of those at “the top”, or an attempt to curry favour with the core voting public. Phew.
So in making it illegal to wear the burka, they make women who wear them unable to leave their homes? Yeah, that helps the situation.
No, they are helping them to begin to shake off the restrictive and degrading shackles of fundamentalist Islam.
But Dave, this is not done by banning something. It is done by giving people the oppurtunity to decide whether they want to do it or not. The emphasis should be on autonomy – giving women the right to choose whether they do it or not.
Banning it just exacerbates the situation. And as Stroogie says the autonomy of some of these women will be further limited by the state because they no longer feel they can participate in society because thye cannot go out in public without this garment. They can’t go to work, school, they cannot broaden their horizons and make their own decisions. That is a real problem.
Thank you for your courage to write something that may or may not receive a lot of controversial responses. I am a dual citizen (UK and US) and I’ve worked for the Scottish Parliament in the past. I cannot imagine anything like this being embraced and, if it is eventually embraced, it will be a sad day for Brits everywhere.
The problem is that the UK, and Europe in general, is committing cultural suicide by letting in all the Muslims in to begin with. How ridiculous.
Thank you Dave, not very many realize that. And even less will admit it.
For a humorous view on Kilts, read my blog, THOU SHALT NOT KILT (Not a typo). Remember, it is humor only!
Many of the women I met who wear Burka are not ordered to wear it. They say that they feel secured while wearing it. I am most comfortable with my Hijab and I do not see any need for the Burka. Also, if the Burka is not so long, I do not see it hindering the women from doing their outside activities. In fact, those women find the freedom in wearing the Burka. Muslim immigrants should go back to their home countries since their religious and cultural practices are being under criticism and attack. People must not be judged by the acts of a few.
Pingback: All Around the World News
This is a very refreshing article in terms of all the anti burka, anti islamic talk going around….I won’t say much in favour of burka or Islam here, cuz the argument has no end to it. those who hate/are offended by islam, will continue to do so….and trying to change their minds is simply foolish. I just want to say that with everyone so in favour of all kinds of freedoms and liberties, why not give muslim women a chance to dress as they want to, and let them cover up? as u said, they mostly keep to themselves…so whats the problem? if it is a security issue, then i must tell you that women who wear face veils never object to lifting their face veils, at hospitals, at airports, or other places where face identification is necessary. and tell me one thing, if all muslim women opted for a health mask instead of a veil, will that be a security threat too? a bill will be passed to ban health masks too, i suppose. just a note in the end to all the ppl and all the commentors …..muslims are not half as bad as portrayed by the media. if u dont believe me, just go and get to know a few of them. not all of them are terrorists, and those who are terrorist have no right whatsoever to call themselves muslims. ask someone who has traveled the world. they’ll tell u about the hospitality and the kindness of muslims. plz do not judge ppl with their burkas and beards. and yes one more thing. muslim men do NOT force their women to wear burkas. in fact their is a prohibition in islam for men/elders/parents, NOT to force their children/wives/youngsters to follow/ perform any kind of rule in Islam. everyone does what they do of their own free will. AND muslim men are supposed to lower their gazes so they may be among the pious ones. this, if u are less of a racist and more of a thinker then u will realize, is a very smart step to prevent the ills that can form in a society. look at the world today….dont u think its is chaos in every meaning of the word? from social ills to personal dilemmas, to the collapse of the family structure??? I hope there are some of u who might want to reflect. just give muslims a chance and think outside the frenzy and the atmosphere created by some who are against the muslims and against islam. u’ll be happy that u did.
Giving freedom to women on the stake of their Modesty..ahh.
An interesting and well-presented post.
In terms of fundamentalism, the Daily Express is the ranting ayatollah of the red tops, and we should put this pernicious rag of a newspaper in purdah!
Awesome and interesting post.
Cheers, Niconica
http://niconica.wordpress.com
I don’t understand why the governments don’t let a woman decide what she wants to do with herself! its her body, her face she can show it or hide it the way she wants. I ask you who is the extremist here: Afghanistan who doesn’t let a woman wear jeans n skirts
or
Europe, that is banning the brukha n doesnt let a woman decide it for herself.
For those who think burkha is oppression: ask the woman who wears it if she feels oppressed? if she feels comforted from it then y r u fining her to wear it?
Did muslims not exist before 9/11? Do ppl not understand the contious propoganda by the media. And Dear Arjun P., I would like to tell you something about pakistan, you see the white in in the flag of pakistan, it represents equality to the minority of pakistan, including hindus, temples gurdwaras n churches are built in pakistan.
and i shouldn’t fail to mention the butchering of muslims in gujrat that happened some years ago, but guess what , i don’t generalize that to the whole hindu population because I believe the only difference between a human is the good n the bad. nothing more.
overall a nice post
Muslims did exist before 9/11, and even then they were on their jihadi mission. The only difference now is that the public is finally aware of the potential threat they pose, due to media attention.
For all I care, the white on the flag symbolizes snow. If equality to the minority is such a big thing in Pakistan, then what happened to all the Hindus? In 1951 the Hindu population was 22% and by 1998 it was down to 1.7%. Did they all get abducted by aliens? Psh, abducted by Muslims is more like it. Then they were forcibly converted, married, and then raped.
http://wp.me/pzviK-3sN
Go visit this site to clear up your media induced hallucinations on the events of Gujarat 2001.
http://www.gujaratriots.com/
Your analogy fails in two very major points.
One, the Scots and the Brits are ethnically and racially related. Their disagreements, though valid, hinge on faulty approaches to the same religion- Christianity. Living in a nation that proposes to call herself historically Christian, such an oversight is not only bad journalism it is intentional defaming of the dead- My dead Scottish ancestors!
Secondly, the burkha may be a ‘simple little veil’ but cartoon after demonstration, after train bombing, after calls to Islamicize the entire European continent, make it nothing more than a screen to hide the fifth column of the Islamic Jihad- the wombs of Muslim women.
As long as Muslims are allowed to even LIVE in European, Christian countries, they will, because of the West’s antichrist policies on a ‘woman’s right to choose’, overwhelm a nation and a continent in less than 50 years…. and your pissing on Scottish culture is a pretty shoddy way of being complicit in that takeover.
So Islam is protecting women and honoring with the burka.
At the same time it says:
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.” (Dawood’s version 4:34)
Yeah, full equal rights being looked out for there,LOL !
SShaikh – if you believe the Afghan’s are right to ban mini skirts then you are applying double standards when you withhold the right of other countries to apply their own values.
But then consistency and logic don’t apply when you are dealing with jihadists.
What the refusal to accept a host countries values says is that I reject your country though I chose to live here.
I’m the son of an immigrant in the UK, but I feel anger when I see examples of self-ghetto-isation when the Islamic people decide to isolate themselves from everyone. If I was a member of the host community I’d want this type of community repatriated as soon as possible.
Sorry, I completely disagree with you. If one is going to move to a different country, with a different culture and different attitudes, then one can either assimilate –at least in the public sphere, or one can go home. If you want to bring your culture with you, then why bother moving? Oh, you say, it’s because there is more freedom and more opportunities! Well, there’s a reason for that…people were either assimilated or left. Period.
I have spent more than a few years learning the language, trying to understand the culture and customs of the Middle East. I used to spend a fair amount of time with Middle Eastern people, both because they were my friends and because they were teaching me the above things.
The hijab (for a previous commenter),or the headscarf, is NOT the same as the burkha. One is meant to cover the hair, to promote modesty. One is meant to damage a woman’s ability to walk around and to do work by virtue of the fact that it makes it difficult to see, and to remind her continually of her duty to be subservient to men, as in this view that promotes the burkha, a woman is a sexual creature who will only promote evil thoughts in the mind of weak men.
The hijab is spoken of highly of in the Koran. The burkha as far as I can tell is nowhere to be found.
As a matter of fact, the hijab is common to more than just Islam — it is a custom practiced by the more conservative sects of Judaism as well as in the Christian religion.
The people who are emigrating who want to keep this custom don’t send their children to public school; they tend to send their daughters back to their own country for arranged (some might even say forced) marriages at rather young ages, and they also tend to be (not all, but many) the ones who keep up the customs of sewing closed the vagina, and female circumcision. These people have no intention of fitting in with their new country’s customs or culture in any way. It seems to me that they come to their new country only for the monetary benefits is gives them, not for anything else.
One cannot, and should not control someone else’s religious practices. But to say that the burkha is a religious practice is a controversial statement even among Islamic religious experts. However. If one is going to emigrate to a country where the public sphere is so different, and the way of life is so different, one should make the attempt to meet the host culture part way at LEAST in the public sphere. Otherwise, stay home.
The burqa is a symbol of female oppression and it is out of step with Western values. Muslims are living in our secular, democratic, and egalitarian societies, into which they must integrate themselves. This cannot be done when hundreds of thousands of females wrap themselves in schmattes. They have every right to their religion but they do not have the right to endanger public safety so they can pretend they live in the 7th century.
I think if societies like the UK are stepping forward with discrimination against people of faith – there really isn’t much left to debate about is there?
I am a Muslim though I do not believe in this concept of burka etc – however I do believe in freedom to profess one’s faith and I think the comparison to Saudi Arabia is hardly appropriate. They claim they discriminate on the basis of religion. UK says it doesn’t. But if UK and other countries in the “West” are ending up doing the same thing then maybe the “East” and the “West” aren’t so different after all.
Minerva – muslims are defending their right to have their values imposed in their own countries but do not want to allow infidel countries to do the same.
That is the crux of the matter.
So how is that right?
Another piece of Muslim denial: every single pakistani will profess they are of arab origin, they refuse to acknowledge they are simply descendants of converts.
Look I didn’t say what was happening in KSA is justified. I believe in freedom which is why I do not condone KSA’s prohibition of other religious minorities to step into their holy land. That’s my premise.
Two wrongs don’t make a right either now do they?
I’ll tell you right here right now that I am a Pakistani – a Muslim – and I do not consider myself an Arab. Even though some families have proud genealogies claiming that. I believe our identities are more part of the subcontinent than the Arab world.
I will have you meet many Pakistanis who feel the same way.
We’re not all that bad, you see.
Bull’s eye! Absolutely spot on, Alen.
A very complicated issue for so many reasons. I do enjoy wearing my kilt whenever I can, but my bank has put up signs asking me to remove my sunglasses upon entering – most bad decisions are born from those who are scared in one way or another.
This is a very well written blog and the arguments are well put. I congratulate you sir for this piece of writing. I hope the powers that be do take heed of such views and reverse such one-sided bans borne out of sheer ignorance or worst ability to make political mileage out of such incidences.
Frankly, I find your comparison offensive. The kilt is and always has been a symbol of Scottish pride and freedom of identity. The burkha is a symbol of female oppression that in its very nature hides identity. There is no comparison there, only unrelated symbols of completely contrary ideals.
Ray, the burkha has a long cultural history as well. It can also be seen as a symbol of cultural or religious pride and freedom of identity. The fact that it is so commonly depicted as oppressive to women does not necessarily imply that the women who wear it feel that this is the case. As a number of people have said here many choose to wear it just for the reasons you have mentioned about the kilt.
Thomthumb,
You are more or less the most balanced, fair, and tolerant commentator on this post. I agree with you wholeheartedly when the issue arises for “freedom of expression” whether you want to walk around in a bikini or wear a dress past your knees.
You have spawned an important point in my mind: a country’s laws should not and often do not represent the attitudes of the people. I am living in China at the moment and I am more than sure that something I do is bound to offend and shock somebody, but I am not doing this purposefully. China sure as hell does not have all the laws protecting freedom that Britain or America do, for example, yet I feel as free as a newborn tadpole because I have brought my identity along with me and that’s all that matters.
Asking a women to not protect her modesty is just as enlightening as asking every woman to quit her day job and move to a strip club.
I think part of the problem is that the burkha hides a person’s identity. In a nation that had a lot of problems with terrorists (the IRA) who always hide their faces so they couldn’t be identified, i too would be wary of a large group of people who went around with their faces covered. As an expression of religion, i have no issue with it, but you have to look at the surrounding circumstances involved.
In regards to the association of kilts with Scottish history I believe the English were aggressors to the Scottish people. They went in to another society’s place of living and outlawed their normal cultural garb. To compare the banning of the kilt to the banning of a burka you would have to walk in to Afghanistan, for instance, and outlaw it there. That would be an insanely preposterous thing to do.
Muslims, on the other hand, have migrated willingly into a country and culture different than their own. Why move to a free world and not integrate yourself with the free world? It’s like being invited to tea but not talking or communicating with your host.
I also believe that a large number of women who long for their own freedoms in the west would be further hindered by their family’s insistence on veiling. I don’t think it should be illegal but I do believe that when one moves to another culture he or she should expect to assimilate to an extent. If a woman wants to voluntarily remain covered from head to toe can’t she do that in her own country? Do we all have to bow down and cave to Muslim sensitivities at every single turn? I for one am a little tired of fearing someone might offend Muslims. Nobody cares too much for the sensitivities of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, etc. No, you’re in our land now and you can do as we do. I would never dare move to Saudi Arabia and push lawmakers in to allowing me to wear a tank top. That’s just rude.
The kilt comparison is apples to oranges – IMHO.
My opinion may be wrong, but let’s speak up!
Burkha has nothing to do with religion while hijab is. I have also heard that Burkha is worn by the people in the Land of Sand to protect them from the sand flying around. The question is why only women? perhaps it is to lower the case or rape. When people who wear Burkha move to other countries and still wear Burkha; there are always two opposites opinions; they are used to it, and feel save somehow or they really think it is a part of their religion practice.
I am a muslim myself and live in a country where Islam is the majority. I sometimes see women wear Burkha. When I see them I always say ” Why should they wear Burkha here? they should go to the Land of Sand if they want to wear it.”
Seeing this from the anthropology side ( I only learned a bit about it in high school, but I liked this field of study a lot, so I remember) ; that CLOTHES is in one aspect of seven things in CULTURE. And clothes are actually depending on the geographical location. It is not possible if one is wearing tank-top in Alaska?? It is not possible if one is wearing Eskimo dress in a tropical country ( I know it depends on people’s preferences, but we see it from the general point of view.)
So there are always two things in Burkha case like I told you above.
Why can’t westerners see this in the point of view of Anthropology ? perhaps believe it or not there are some Islamophobia.
Just my two cents!
If they are wearing the burka to protect them from the “sand”….that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard regarding the burka. Islamophobia? Rightly so…they want to destroy the “infidels”, and their ultimate goal is for Islam to be the ONLY religion in the world. They are taught that anyone who doesn’t believe their faith is to be killed (if you don’t convert).
You naive people who think that you are being so “fair” to the Muslims…….you really do not know what you are dealing with.
It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard as well, but perhaps you can google?:P
and true I don’t know what I am dealing with, because it’s complicated. Period!
The burkha was primarily designed to protect women from desert sand storms –
See? You need to browse more info Madam!
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/helenmartin/Helen-Martin-What-not-to.5409509.jp
So, I was commenting this from the point of view of Anthropology instead of religion itself. WHy?? because religion is complicated to be debatable especially if one thinks “my religion is the best.” so I was not touching this religion thing. Instead I was touching on the culture, and have you browsed seven aspects of cultures? where CLOTHES is one of them.
perhaps you can google ” Burkha to protect from the sand storms primarily” and let me know what you think.
Peace
Great post.I’m agree it.
I think they shouldn’t be banned. No matter what the burka started off as,whether it’s a male oppression of women or an expression of religion, it’s become an essential part of muslim culture, and who are we to take that freedom away from the women?
I thought western countries were all about democracy, equality and freedom. But if the burka is what women choose to wear, why can’t they? Why can’t western people embrace different cultures and religions?
Well put. Of course, being an American, I don’t know that my opinion on British matters counts all that much. However, if those who where a burkha do so out of choice rather than from oppression (as Ray Daniels points out) I think banning the headwear is discriminatory. Thank you for a bit of history and some enlightenment on yet another issue of discrimination brought to someone across the pond.
because there’s a lot of moslems everywhere and there’s a lot of moslems commited to the islam religion.
i dont mind if there are a lot of nuns wearing the veils or jews wearing their special hat on the head..
If burquas are banned, then isn’t there a risk that the women who wear them will be even further marginalised by the majority because they will no longer go out into public?
Hm
Very interesting…good read
Check Us Out! A Little Place For Some Internet Traffic Road Rage!
Road Rage with A & A
I can’t believe that some of us English man and women are defending muslims. You only have to go to a muslim country to see what they will bring to England if they get their hands on power. If you think the Nazi where bad the Muslims are 10 times worse.
Rico, speaking as someone who HAS been to a Muslim country, I can tell you on good authority that what they would bring here would be mostly good.
You must be out of your mind. What good will they bring?
@Arjun Pandava: Racist much?
@ wertified
Not racist much, I’m asking that question based on Muslim history.
This is the second discussion on a WordPress blog where race has been equated to religion. Frankly, how you all do it well beyond me since religion is supposed to be above race.
I stand corrected.
But there really isn’t a word for discrimination based on religion is there.
Religionist?
Religionist refers to someone who is overly religious, or full of religious zeal. Fundamentalists could also be called religionists. To my knowledge, there is no word in the English language that can be used as a replacement for the phrase “religious discrimination.”
Take a look at India’s history under Islamic rule. Not only were place of worship and learning destroyed, but people were forcibly converted on pain of death. If things like tandoori cooking (in the tandoor oven) outweigh these larger issues, then you can keep calling me racist or accuse me for unreasonably being biased against Islam.
You are right.
I n burkha we can recognize who is in there actually.
“Day of hell for two young Danes dressed as Muslim women”
COPENHAGEN, March 22 (AFP) -
Two young Danish women who spent a day out and about dressed as Iranian Muslims were shocked by their compatriots’ reactions of hatred and contempt, the Politiken newspaper reported Wednesday.
The two women told the paper that they suffered a day of “hell” and “the intolerable prejudice of the Danes” when they donned the Iranian chador, a traditional black head-to-toe wrap, to go about their day in the capital and its suburbs.
Dorte Magnussen and Lene Iwerse, both 26, undertook the experiment as part of their studies on pedagogy and minorities at Copenhagen University.
“I was shocked at the numerous disgraceful comments and the huge wall of hostility we were confronted by when we were walking on the street. People went beyond all the norms of respect and good behaviour,” said Magnussen.
“Our only crime was to be very different,” she added.
The degree of tolerance, or rather the lack of it, and the hateful looks of passers-by were overwhelming, the women said.
“It was shocking to see people behaving in such a shameful way. It was worse than I had imagined. I wanted to go straight home and change. Confronting so much hatred was unbearable.” said Iwersen.
The most venomous and degrading comments came from elderly people, the two women found.
Magnussen said she had been terrified by the fact that adults could react so violently.
“Our theory is that they are frightened by things which are unknown to them. Surveys show that 80 percent of Danes have had no personal contact with ethnic minorities,” she said.
The only highpoint of their day as Iranians was on a bus in the Copenhagen suburbs, when a group of children called their friends to come and have a look at the “two Ninjas” after the popular cartoon characters.
The children looked at them but returned to their seats without reacting.
“The experience on the bus shows that hostility and the creation of enemies are things which learned, not something people are born with,” the two women said.
Hostility towards immigrants, and especially towards those from Muslim countries who make up nearly half of Denmark’s immigrant population, is actively encouraged by extreme rightwing organisations such as the Danish People’s Party and the Progress Party.
In their campaigns, they have accused Muslims of invading the country and threatening its culture and religion.
To bring insight of Quran and Hadith and Iman to the ignorant verdict of lifeintheboomerlane and all those who claim that the Burkha is a sign of oppression and finds no roots in the Quran or Hadith. If you want to know real oppression go read your own history,” Aristotle in his writings argued that women were not full human beings and that the nature of woman was not that of a full human person.” Huh to be honest you can find no grounds to argue with Islam interms of how Islam has elevated the status of Women or any other socio-economic grounds.
Taken from University of Essex ISOC
An Act of Obedience
The hijaab is an act of obedience to Allah and to his prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Allah says in the Qur’an:
‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His messenger have decreed a matter that they should have an option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, has indeed strayed in a plain error.’ (S33:36).
Allah also said: ‘And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things) and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc) and not to show off their adornment except what must (ordinarily) appear thereof, that they should draw their veils over their Juyubihinna.’ (S24:31).
Juyubihinna: The respected scholars from As-Salaf As-Saleh (righteous predecessors) differed whether the veil cover of the body must include the hands and face or not. Today, respected scholars say that the hands and face must be covered. Other respected scholars say it is preferable for women to cover their whole bodies.
The Hijaab is IFFAH (Modesty)
Allah (subhana wa’atala) made the adherence to the hijaab a manifestation for chastity and modesty. Allah says:
‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when outdoors). That is most convenient that they should be known and not molested.’ (S33:59).
In the above Ayaah there is an evidence that the recognition of the apparent beauty of the woman is harmful to her. When the cause of attraction ends, the restriction is removed. This is illustrated in the case of elderly women who may have lost every aspect of attraction. Allah (swt) made it permissible for them to lay aside their outer garments and expose their faces and hands reminding, however, that is still better for them to keep their modesty.
The Hijaab is Tahara (Purity)
Allah (swt) had shown us the hikma (wisdom) behind the legislation of the hijaab:
‘And when you ask them (the Prophet’s wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen, that is purer for your hearts and their hearts.’ (S33:53).
The hijaab makes for greater purity for the hearts of believing men and women because it screens against the desire of the heart. Without the hijaab, the heart may or may not desire. That is why the heart is more pure when the sight is blocked (by hijaab) and thus the prevention of fitna (evil actions is very much manifested. The hijaab cuts off the ill thoughts and the greed of the sick hearts:
‘Be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease (of hypocrisy or evil desire for adultery, etc) should be moved with desire, but speak in an honourable manner.’ (S33:32)
The Hijaab is a Shield
The prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “Allah, Most High, is Heaven, is Ha’yeii (Bashful), Sit’teer (Shielder). He loves Haya’ (Bashfulness) and Sitr (Shielding; Covering).” The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said: “Any woman who takes off her clothes in other than her husband’s house (to show off for unlawful purposes), has broken Allah’s shield upon her.” The Hadeeth demonstrates that depending upon the kind of action committed there will be either reward (if good) or punishment (if bad).
The Hijaab is Taqwah (Righteousness)
Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
‘O children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover yourselves (screen your private parts, etc) and as an adornment. But the raiment of righteousness, that is better.’ (S7:26).
The widespread forms of dresses in the world today are mostly for show off and hardly taken as a cover and shield of the woman’s body. To the believing women, however the purpose is to safeguard their bodies and cover their private parts as a manifestation of the order of Allah. It is an act of Taqwah (righteousness).
The Hijaab is Eeman (Belief or Faith)
Allah (swt) did not address His words about the hijaab except to the believing women, Al-Mo’minat. In many cases in the Qur’an Allah refers to the “the believing women”. Aisha (RA), the wife of the prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, addressed some women from the tribe of Banu Tameem who came to visit her and had light clothes on them, they were improperly dressed: “If indeed you are believing women, then truly this is not the dress of the believing women, and if you are not believing women, then enjoy it.”
The Hijaab is Haya’ (Bashfulness)
There are two authentic Hadeeth which state: “Each religion has a morality and the morality of Islam is haya.” AND “Bashfulness is from belief, and belief is in Al-Jannah (paradise).” The hijaab fits the natural bashfulness which is a part of the nature of women.
The Hijaab is Gheerah
The hijab fits the natural feeling of Gheerah, which is intrinsic in the straight man who does not like people to look at his wife or daughters. Gheerah is a driving emotion that drives the straight man to safeguard women who are related to him from strangers. The straight MUSLIM man has Gheerah for ALL MUSLIM women In response to lust and desire, men look (with desire) at other women while they do not mind that other men do the same to their wives or daughters. The mixing of sexes and absence of hijaab destroys the Gheera in men. Islam considers Gheerah an integral part of faith. The dignity of the wife or daughter or any other Muslim woman must be highly respected and defended.
Hassanadnan,
AMEN! Finally someone has come forward to defend in the beliefs of the Holy Qu’ran, and his fellow Muslims, and finally his knowledge. Perhaps the most telling entry from the Qu’ran is as follows:
‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when outdoors). That is most convenient that they should be known and not molested.’ (S33:59).
“…to draw their cloaks over their BODIES…” could quite clearly point to the burka as the most modest and significant means of covering up, and it should be as respected as the hijab in Islam.
Women who are forced to take off their clothes in public are not only more vulnerable in the eyes of her fellow man, but she loses her dignity in the site of the Creator who brought her life and has given her these wise words; it should not be up to a public government to dictate these words.
It is selfish and hateful to take away the basic, most passive, freedom of Muslim women in this way.
Thank you for your enlightening article. Have you published it yet?
Peace.
I hear the argument on banning burkhas- and I do see where they are coming from- up to a point- but if a woman wants to wear one- no one should have the right to say they can’t.
damn right. and the point should be that it is their decision. The state should be looking into those situations where women are FORCED to wear the veil through coercion etc. An outright ban is not the way to go..
Very interesting article. It’s unfortunate the usual suspects : far right and far left fanatics, with a Hindu nutter(Arjun Pandawa) and a Zionist whacko(DJ Soloman) job up are trying to poison discussion with half truths and outright lies.
I am an Indian Christian and fully support the right of Muslim women to dress according to their faith. Europeans have no business dictating to minorities how to dress. Mind your own business and quit stirring up racism(tied to immigration of non-whites). If your culture is so strong and resilient then a few thousand women in burqas shouldnt affect it, now should it? Stop ignorant comparisons to Saudi Arabia(which was created by the British and then an American puppet client regime masquerading as an Islamic nation, but that’s a whole discussion) as if your citizens are Saudis. Are these puppet regimes your standard now?
Arjun Pandawa is a Hindu fanatic in the style of the RSS, VHP terrorist outfits operating openly in India and who kill Christians and Muslims on a regular basis. These groups model themselves after Hitler and Mussolini. In their minds every Indian Christian is an agent of the Pope and every Indian Muslim is an Arab infiltrator. They want to turn India into a Hindu ONLY state with forcible reconversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism. What Arjun won’t say is that India has anti-conversion laws to prevent Hindus from freely choosing a different path. Violence is often used. These Hindu fanatics went on rampage raped and murdered Christian women in the Indian state of Orissa earlier this year after Maoists killed a local Hindu extremist leader. The Hindu fanatics lied and blamed local Christians. They even raped a Hindu woman who had given refuge to a nun. My own grandfather was rescued by a Muslim neighbor in the 1970s from Hindu street thugs belonging to the Shiv Sena who accused him of missionary activity when in fact he was simply having a conversation about comparative religion with a pundit.
The lot of Indian Muslims isn’t much better, facing everything from job discrimination to pogrums, like in Gujurat. Arjun is a vicious liar, and part of the Brahmin diaspora mafia trying to link with similar minded extremists in Europe promoting Islamophobia.
You sir, are slandering. I will deal with your charges on my character after I get back from work.
I agree with Raymond ! He is correct about the extremism hindus practices in India. Couple of years ago I even heard that when there was a match between India and Pakistan these extremists hindus threatened the muslims in Gujrat that if India loses then they are going to kill, rape and will do other tortures to them. What Indian Muslims have to do with this match?!!! Aren’t they Indian if they are Muslim?!!!
Did Hindus torture Muslims less in India that you some Pandava is not ashamed to loud your voice about Muslim women’s modesty?!!! Go and see how weak and filthy ur Hindu culture and spirituality is where those pandits (religious scholars) in your mandir keeps women/mistress to serve him in name of ‘devdasi’ (well, I wonder y do they need young women to ”serve” them and how special the ‘serve’ is !) , how illogical it is that it doesn’t allow any marriage or lawful relationship between cousins when the attraction is natural between them as they are not blood siblings (!!!), how idiotic, cruel and ignorant it is that it says widows should be burnt after their husbands die (WOW ! What a religion where a law had to made to prevent the cruelty shown against the women !!!) !!! Yuck! Hinduism sucks!
Also, doesn’t your religion spreads racism in culture in name of cast (i.e. brahman, shudra etc) ??? How filthy it is to say that a specific tribe was like the feet of human beings! Doesn’t your hinduism promotes that human being can marry animals to ignore some dangers (ooo! scarry!) coming in life?!!! Eeew ! What a superstitious belief! You should be ashamed of your religion that in name of your religion how many millions of people you have tortured by allocating them to different tribes (who are hindus still) and sucking every penny out of them by giving different reasons (eg. that shudra’s cow entered that brahman’s garden and then later on the brahman takes the whole cow as a punishment which was the only way for that shudra to earn his livelihood ! Look what non-sense is that that when brahman took away the cow it didn’t bring any evil to him but when it entered his garden it brought evil to him because it was entitled to the poor shudra!!! Yuck! You people are sick! ).
Stop misrepresenting Islam when you should be ashamed of your religion that spreads nothing but inhumanity and which gives no rights to women whatsoever (I am not talking about the Indian law but Hindu law doesn’t give any right to wives in their husbands wealth when they become widows! What a religion which doesn’t give any right to the mother!!! I saw a ‘Mahabharat’s serial once but then I was SO disgusted to see a hindu god there was throwing his mother in the floor angrily! What A RELIGION !!!! In Islam mother has the most right over his son’s attention and care. Its in an authentic hadeeth where prophet (pbuh) said that children’s heaven is under their mothers feet! Our religion also teaches us to bring up the daughters with all due care, education and affection and as a result paradise is guaranteed unlike hinduism where still through out india daughters are killed because its a shame to them that GIRLS were born! If you go through the research they take the abortion if they come to know its a girl!!! How cruel is that?!!! ). I know SO MANY disgraces of hinduism as I used to read their novels and a renowned writer named Sharat Chattergy (from Calcutta) was my favourite as he used to portrait these filth so nicely and used to attack the filth so funny yet strongly that was amazing!
Be ashamed to be of that filthy religion which only promotes how to enjoy women but do not provide any shelter or safety for them!
And you, are ignorant.
I don’t know anything about this first claim of yours, give me some links or solid facts.
Devadasis were once women who gave their lives in service of a temple. This was before the Islamic invasions began, because after that kings did not have enough money to pay the temple that kept the Devadasis for their services. And what services? These women considered themselves married to the deity enshrined in the temple, that’s why they are called devadasi (deva=god, dasi=servant). Last I heard Muslim scholars did not abstain from sexual pleasures themselves.
It’s illogical for Hindus to marry cousins? Cruel even? They are still related by blood, it doesn’t matter if it isn’t directly. Why does the US ban marriage to first cousins? Because constant in-marriage will result in genetic malformations. Nowhere in our texts will you find mention that a woman should be burnt after her husband’s death. Again, this was something that came about due to Muslims invading into India. A widow does not have protection against marauding Muslim armies who will rape her, torture her, and finally kill her.
Again, discrimination against women is not advocated in our texts. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/women_in_vedic_culture.htm
The caste issue is something I’ve already addressed to some degree in a previous post:
http://wp.me/pIWfF-1F and http://wp.me/pIWfF-2A
I’ve never heard of this cow/brahman story, again I’d be glad if you gave me a link to it.
I had a good laugh while reading your last two paragraphs. Go and see what Islam has done..
http://agniveer.com/
I agree with you Raymond. See my reply to the hindu extremist.
May God guide us to the best! Ameen.
This is the best post I’ve read in some time. Well written, well researched. I also happen to agree with you. I’m in Spain where we seem to be following the French way: In Catalonia it’s already been banned; “liberal” Madrid newspaper El País keeps pushing for it, arguying that it is against the rights of women and that the majority of Spaniards want to see nothing but burkha-free faces. Ill understanding of both feminism and democracy.
Many muslims make a valid point: in “western” society we condemn burkhas but accept semi-naked women on billboards. Which one is the symbol of female oppresion, you tell me.
I would have to disagree. I think the comparison made between the kilt and the burkha is brilliant. It looks at this issue in a different way, something the majority of people tied up in this issue are unable to do.
I found the following to be quite interesting:
“I don’t know about you out there, but my Britain isn’t divided. Nor do I hear calls for a ban. Just the ones I read in papers such as the Express and from one or two insignificant politicians.”
In Australia there is a huge uproar over this issue and Brittain/France/Belgium are used as examples of what we should do by those who are arguing for a ban. Personally I think it’s absurd. If they are to ban burkhas on the principle that they cover the face then they should also ban scarves, hoodies, large sunglasses, beards… But we all know that this reason isn’t the real one. It’s actually about keeping the country christian. “Not in my backyard…”
Have you ever worn a burkah? I have; it is heavy, you see almost nothing, and the thing on the head to keep it positioned is painful. The burkah is not a veil it is a piece of clothing designed to keep a woman harnessed.
The use of burkah is not a choice and lots of women would actually be killed if they took it off. How you can make a connection between the kilt and burkah is beyond me. That is the essence of ignorance.
Now, I am with you in freedom of rights; moslem women who choose to wear veils (and I know plenty who CHOOSE this) should have the right to do so. As well as any people who have specific head-dresses. Apropos a Sikh in Sweden who was fired because he wore a turban instead of a cap.
I believe in freedom and I believe in choice. Burkah is not a choice. Go and get yourself into one, wear it for an entire summers day and then write your ideas again!
wait, you’re contradicting yourself a bit.
so, some people CHOOSE to wear a burka. But wearing one isn’t a choice.
what?
Wertified is right ! You are non-sensically contradicting yourself lol !
Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean nobody else likes it ! Personally I just LoVe it ! Again, LOLZZ at your funny statement that niqab is heavy . Just like there are heavy niqabs at the market God willingly you will also find MANY niqabs which are light (PLEASE for God’s sake DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT hijack our religion ! Can’t respect other’s belief? LEAVE it but do not misrepresent our religion ! Mind your own business just like we mind ours ! ) . It depends on the material of the niqab you see .
You said if you wear niqab you won’t be able to see almost nothing . Well, again I don’t know whether I should cry at your ignorance or laugh at your too funny to reply type of comment ! I wore that many times as I LoVe it and it didn’t prevent me from seeing anything (probably you need a eye specialist to check your ability to see things properly) . Also, you see many women in UK wearing niqab even old ones but they can manage to see everything … THANK GOD ! LOL !
No disrespect but please do not make such ignorant comments about people’s belief. Burka / Niqab IS a choice and you don’t know many muslim women want to wear it but can’t because their families/parents do not allow them to do so as they fear the racists will harm their daughters ! May God guide you to the best of this life and the next ! Ameen.
Thanks a lot to the kind author to shed light to this matter.
Btw, we are NOT ‘moslem’ , we are ‘Muslim’ lol !
Two thoughts:
I wonder what percentage of the British population feel depressed by The Express? (or the Daily Mail).
I am a white foreign resident of Britain (with a resident visa). Am I ethnic? What am I if not ethnic? Are white native-born Britain’s not ethinic?
Good information.tThank you.
I have read the arguments for and against the burka and it now has my head swimming as I can see arguments both ways. While I haven’t read every single posting here, I have yet to read anyone putting forward the argument by wearers of the burka who say it stops men from leering at them. Once while working as a supply teacher in a school, I had a conversation with the school secretary who was in full burka. My impression was that she didn’t seem oppressed, but she was a devout follower of her faith. However, the whole time we talked, I found myself wondering what she actually looked like as I could only see her eyes.
Other religions also have rules and guidelines for how a woman should dress. Christianity’s argument is that modest dress keeps men from “lusting after a woman.” Having been a mormon, I know there is a guideline for women that their dresses should touch the gournd when they kneel. Furthermore, a town in the US Bible belt made it a criminal offence for a woman to have her underwear showing above her trousers.
These were all done in the name of preventing lust. If a woman feels comfortable wearing a burka, who are we to complain, it shouldn’t be compulsory one way or another. It’s about choice.
Regardless of what women wear, it’s never right and never unremarked. Dress in burqua, you’re feared, dress in jeans and a t-shirt you’re not feminine enough, dress in a dress you’re too feminine. ( See the story about a woman sacked for being too good looking) Women are too bare, too modest, too revealing, to macho, too young, too old, too made up, not made up enough, hair is too long, too short, too grey, to thin, not blonde enough. With bodies that are too short, too tall, too thin, too fat, too old. For the love of Goddess, Allah, Vishnu and Buddha stop JUDGING WOMEN BY THEIR APPEARANCE. When does half the world’s population earn the right to attire themselves as they will, for themselves, without fear, self-loathing, mistrust and blame, and without having to be constantly AWARE?
damn right (:
Absolutely right, writingbec. And while we are on the subject, can we please stop judging men by how much money they make?
As a muslim woman I thank the author of the post for an open-minded, impartial post and those commentators who are not Muslim yet defended the honour of Muslims and tried to portrait the real Muslim community . I am really grateful to you all .
Actually to say that ‘burka’ / ‘niqab’ is not from Islam rather from ‘culture’ is WRONG , IGNORANT view because wives of our beloved prophet Muhammad (saw) used to wear that. Moreover, many muslim women wear it as they believe it is obligatory for women to cover their face (as it is the centre of beauty) and they follow many well-known scholars view. So, for those women it is obligatory to wear niqab and banning it will be prohibiting them from practising their religion. Isn’t it against their human right ??? How can you say you are ‘freeing’ women when in actuality you are not even listening to their plea ??!!! Who are you to free them from their RELIGION ??!!! and HOW are you ”freeing” them when they ARE PROTESTING to give them the right to wear whatever they choose???
How cruel and non-sense a government can be to do that really !
that adult people in France ought to be afraid of clothes? Why not go all the way and be naked?!!!No clothes = total nakedness!!
Whilst I firmly believe that we all have a right to our own faith & to follow our own course, I can see some real down sides to the burkha.
I used to work with a Muslim woman, who told me that the burkha is worn as a matter of choice by women. She also explained that it is meant to be a protection to them, to protect their modesty from men, who might be tempted to look at them in an improper way.
Well, for one thing, not all men are letches. And I do feel that to teach such a thing or to encourage such a viewpoint, to make women feel that vulnerable that they need such “protection” is somewhat demeaning to womankind.
From what my Muslim work colleague explained to me, I am of the personal opinion that whether it is a choice for women to wear the burkha or not, the reasoning behind why they would feel the need to wear it is oppressive, sexist and de-humanising, to say the least.
The burkha, to me, is more a symbol of oppression. It’s just the same as some Christian religions, who compel their womenfolk to where a head covering in front of a man. And for these reasons, I would agree that wearing of the burkha should be discouraged.
That having been said, I also feel that a complete ban would be as extremist and de-humanising as any of the aforementioned teachings that have encouraged the wearing of the burkha.
In short, a ban is too extreme. Encouraging Muslim women to NOT wear the burkha – as a statement of their equality to malekind – is more appropriate.
Jason, we know not ALL men are letches and proper covering is there to help those ‘good’ men not to become letches ! It covers a woman’s beauty and Islam also tells men to lower their gaze (Exception: he is ready to marry that woman) if they happen to see any woman who is NOT lawful for him . Now, tell me if this is the case will any man look at anyone else’s wife? Will not this thing protect the society from adultery, cheating spouses, more fatherless kids (who will be brought up without any care of their father and you can ask a child how does without a father) being born? Also, how will you know your wife/daughter is not exposed to characterless men who will later on would like to take advantage of her beauty? If she covers up it will protect the woman from being exposed to those evil men as well.
Covering uplifts a woman’s status as it shows she is not there for other’s delight, it gives her a sense of dignity, it strengthen’s her personality. When I wasn’t used to wear hijab/jilbab or any covering men used to look at me from head to toe – knowingly or unknowingly . I used to get SO upset when I would come home as I used to feel a dog has licked me head to toe ! I used to feel vomiting you know. Mind you none of my parents were really strict about me wearing coverings neither my family is very practising ! No one actually reminded me to cover up properly. …but then oneday I made up my mind and started wearing hijab/jilbab with niqab and……..I can’t tell how good I felt inside! All praise is due to God ! I felt my body is mine, I am going to choose who is going to enjoy my beauty and who is not !
Aren’t the men who don’t like sluts as their wives? Then why does it bother them if women want to be modest ?!!!
Reading all of the comments in this blog has set my mind back to when I was living in 80s Regan America. I got out of the marines in 1983 and as a result of being forced to wear a crew cut and dress like everyone else for four years, I wanted to look a little different, okay a lot different. Therefore, I committed such “vile” acts as growing my hair long, getting an ear ring and wearing Native American moccasin boots. The intolerance I suffered for these acts was apalling. I was teased, called names, shunned and harassed by the police on the grounds that looking the way I did, I must be a drug dealer.
Fortunately, I came to Britain in 1986 where my appearance was much more tolerated and even accepted. Sure, there were some culture facists, but nothing on the scale I encounted across the pond. In my view, the British should hold their heads high for being so tolerant.
This is why I don’t think the burka should be banned. We are demonising a few people on the way they dress, especially if they choose to dress this way.
Sorry Mceff the only thing to come out of the sandy waste of the world is oil. Not cutting hands off or beating on the streets or heads being cut off with a sword islam is a religion that has stayed in the 6 century.the west see islam as hell on earth if you are free in the west you can look at islam as a cancer that is trying to devour the whole world. Lets stop this cancer now. The only people talk well of islam are liberals and muslims. God help us. yes the one god ( arjun pandava) a racist shame on you wertfied. labour has gone now do we still have to worry about what we say or are we just call a racist because it seems to fit one word fits all. if you want a racist call Gordon brown late of number 10 thank god
It’s hard to make a clear decision on this, seeing as I can, in some ways, see both sides of the story. The traditional muslim veil is a personal choice for many women, and in modern western society, has become more a choice of modesty, as opposed to an oppression. However, I can see how it would be a problem if a man wore a burqa as a disguise in order to commit a crime.
But look at the whole thing in context – there have been many cases of white men dressing in drag in order to conceal their identities whilst committing crimes…should we ban women from having long hair or wearing make-up. Ultimately as long as a woman chooses herself to wear the burqa, I think it should not be banned. Just because a religion has different customs does not mean that it is evil, or wrong.
THIS IS WHAT ISLAM DID: HISTORY CHANNEL.
this is islam!! now plz stop watching cnn and bbc n fox news otherwise ull become intolerant to muslims. and trust me, the govts r gna b really happy.
recession hasnt happend coz of immigrants in the uk!!! its because of all the wars the govnts keep funding billions of pounds! u c immigrants have strengthened uk/usa economy, all the foods, restaurants businesses, healthcare, sciences, engineers…?
writingbec: i love ur comment
No Arjun, I am not “slandering,” just exposing your Hindu supremacist mindset and the lies that come with it. Just because most westerners have no clue what sort of criminality Hindu extremists get away with India doesn’t mean I’m going to stay silent.
You Hindutva types makes the Taliban look like the Peace corps.
First, I’m not Indian and never was. I don’t care if you’re an Indian Christian, Muslim, or even Hindu.
Europeans made it their business to tell your ancestors what religion to believe in, I think they can tell people in their own countries what to wear..
Who told you that my beliefs derive from the RSS or VHP? And if they do, then what wrong have those groups done? Go see the series that begins with this video to see what the RSS has done and continues to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hxQcWhfYY0
Whenever there is a national tragedy, the RSS and it’s affiliated organizations are on the scene to help the people recover. Is that so evil, is that fanatic? The RSS welcomes Muslims and Christians to it’s meetings, go to one.
There claim that these groups model themselves on the Nazis is pure bulls**t. More propaganda. Well since the topic of this post was not conversion, I didn’t mention it. But since you’ve brought it up, I’ll make sure to tell everyone about how missionaries convert foolish locals using money and other tricky methods. Why don’t you tell them of the evangelist Christians who come to India solely to convert people so that they can make up for the Christians being lost in Europe and the US.
Guess what? I’m not a brahmin, my ancestors were shudras by definition. But my name is that of a kshatriya (soldier) because I’ve taken the burden on myself to fight against people like you, people who misinform others.
If you’re so interested in maligning me, I think you should go and write a blog. Send me a trackback, and I’ll make sure to write a reply.
Hhmm, plenty of comments saying that the burqa is a personal choice for the woman involved and they should be free to make that choice. However, are we sure that choice is completely free? Are we sure that her husband or family have not suggested or encouraged her to wear the burqa in some way? It is worth noting that you never see a woman who is not a Muslim voluntarily choosing to wear a Burqa…
I’m pretty certain the women aren’t wearing burkas to “protect them from the sand”. That may have been an issue from where they are from….but then, why don’t men wear them?
That is a poor defense for them wearing them in European nations or in the United States,unless they plan to live in the desert area of the Southwest…but still…it is not necessary to wear such a thing.
I still believe it is a way for men to “control” women.
I like this post. While I disagree that most Muslim women wouldn’t say boo to a goose (as it seems to imply that they are by nature homogenous and timid, something which I don’t think you consciously meant to imply given the rest of the article), I do think using the kilt as an example of this occurring at another time in history was very clever. Another point worth noting is that nothing is made of the more or less head to toe traditional garment of nuns, yet the burkha is seen as inherently oppressive. The garment itself is hardly the problem. The issue at hand should be NOT be the style of (cultural) dress a person wears, but whether it is in their power to choose to wear it. A banning of a garment that makes some women feel safe/comfortable, or is part of their cultural identity, is just as oppressive as the forced wearing of any given thing.
Interesting that most people who commented on this article tended towards arguments for or against the burka. Not much reaction to blatant hate-mongering by a national newspaper
Taliban: “Wear the Burka!”
The French: “Don’t wear the Burka!”
Brits: “We’d really rather you didn’t wear it…”
Muslim woman: “Can y’all get the heck out of my wardrobe?!
Thank you Minaretmuse for that ray of sunshine.
Brilliant! Salaam!
Someone had to say it
Oddly enough, the kilt vs burka comparison had crossed my mind too – so I chuckled when I saw your entire blogpost devoted to it. Jolly good show ol’ chap.
Thank you. Jolly good of you to say so.
Do you know I love my country, do I want it filled with a load of immigrants no .why do I have to put up with them the land is full of them .if we went over where it do you think we would be welcome. Christens in muslin countries, like hell we would, so why do we English have to put up with it. This land we call England will be gone at the end of the century it will be a muslim country and look at how any muslin country is run and you can see hell on earth so stop going on about how they dress and think about your bloody country and what it will become .stop it now or your children will be muslims. do you want that, I don’t
Richard,
How can you say such things? That is an outright racist rant similar to the desire for a pure Germany / Austria / Poland. Did you know that “Muslim” and “English” are synonymous just as “Christian” and “English” or “Jewish” and “English”? ‘Englishness’ will not and should not get rid of anybody’s religion.
Who cares if England becomes a Muslim country? England’s official religion, Christianity, has just as brutal and bloody a history as Islam or Judaism or any other major religion you can name, so why single out the Muslims? The numbers of criminal Muslims PALE IN COMPARISON to the sheer number of peaceful, God-loving, abiding citizens who contribute to society just as any other.
You are speaking out of fear and hatred, my friend, and will not get far hiding in your house because Muslim men and women are walking outside your door.
Long live Islam and its people.
Richard,
By now you are becoming aware of the real dangers of Muslims. It is not a religion and should be treated as a political entity and should be dealt with as such. Their so called religion tells them to smile at our faces and tell us what we would like to hear but hate us in their hearts and destroy us when they can. They wish to destroy us. “wearelittlespinozas” is obviously a radical who would behead you in a heartbeat.
That last bit of commentary was completely unnecessary and was conjured out of hostility and hate. What we need on this earth is understanding. Try reading about the politics and history of the Arabic world and you will quickly learn that the governments or men in charge used Islam as a scapegoat to MAKE ITS PEOPLE do as they pleased. So it is often seen as an oppressive religion, when it is not; the Taliban is a modern example of medieval Islam still in action but is still a MINORITY and does not make it right.
Islam blatantly teaches that suicide and murder are never acceptable in God’s eyes, so the minority that make performances out of these use the Quran as an excuse and a TOOL — it does not represent the real Islam at all.
I am not a Muslim but at least I have spent long, hard, hours researching, reading, and most importantly talking to men and women who make the choice to be Muslim in this day and age which is not threatening in the least.
Ask your peaceful brothers and sisters of Islam who’ve commented on this post what the Quran teaches and what their values are.
Christo Terrorist factions are now rampant in once secular European countries. Now, in France, the muslim women will have the freedom not to wear the burkha! After all, it is FREEDOM, isn’t it?!!!!
Now there is only one country left in the world that is truly secular, ie: no favoritism to any religion, but freedom to all to believe in any religion. It is a Hindu Majority country – India!
And I’m proud to be a Indian Muslim.
On the one hand it is an item of clothing and a dangerous path to follow if it is banned – where do we draw the line?
But.. when we talk about an inclusive society I would suggest this is a barrier – it’s not a kilt or a scarf, its a barrier to language and communication especially as it is not a religous garment but one worn out of choice.
Dear Friend,
I am absolutely disgusted by the antics of the French government as well as the following of the British right-wing and some of its nationalist citizens.
The truth of the matter is that Muslim women in Britain have much more freedom than Muslim women in Afghanistan, say, so they are exercising their freedom to dress and behave how they want (which is what Britain stands for). I am native to America but live in London door-to-door with dozens of Muslims, Hindus, and Jews — none of which should be singled out as suspects, terrorists, or threats. I am sure you’ve heard of the French concept of “laïcité” which is France’s special version of nationalism which singles out anyone who isn’t “French enough” under which the burka ban is defended.
I have read several books and written several articles on this exact subject of the burka ban and find it helpful that another is taking action by communicating with the world about it; because you just got 146 people to speak out about it.
I recommend two books to you:
-The Politics of the Veil by Joan Wallach Scott
-Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito
~Shannon
May I ask who are you? What right do you have to question the policies of the French or the British governments? Are you a citizen of those countries?
When you move into a society that, should you not adopt their ways and customs? You expect the country to adopt your ways? If someone moves into a Muslim country, they must behave according to their laws and customs.
Yes, you may ask who I am. My name is Shannon and I am an expat living in Britain – London to be exact. I am American by birth and live and breathe in Britain, so you bet I am going to have something to say about it. No society is perfect, and until one is, we as people are allowed to question its government’s motives until we are satisfied.
If you question what ‘right’ I have as an expat to question another country’s government, then you have to ask what every volunteer’s motives are in a time of crisis when they come from halfway around the world to help after the Tangshan Earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, or Indian Ocean Tsunami to do the work a government is too powerless to perform alone. People are people and land is land.
We are reformers and we need to see radical change for the WORLD, not just our countries.
Now -may I ask- who are YOU to say who can travel where, wearing what, with what withholding values, to which societies, and when? Society is a changing entitiy that adapts with its people, thus laws change. Furthermore, laws do not usually represent the values of the people and are enforced by a hard-headed government (give me one that isn’t) who wants to see ITSELF in power – not its people.
So if you want change, you’ve got to speak for yourself, not your “country”, a plot of land named by a man. Be that man.
to shannon, the two books you recommend.
the politics of the evil sorry veil and who speaks for islam? I think about 1m mullers and the rest follow, like sheep
How is it productive to discourage compassion?
to wearelittlespinzas
yes the christian world of the 6th C was brutal.but it has moved on as time does but in islam only time has moved on. islam is still I the 6thC..90% of muslims are peacefull all the time there numbers are low..look at france at the riots in paris muslins.
so true.
to lynnemel
I think the africans started the slave trade. shall I sell him or stick him in the pot must have been a hard one
compassion save it for the christians being killed around the world by yes you’ve got it in one m/s/i/s
Mr Sarkozy you are my hero. I wish England had someone like you. Que vive la France.
Interesting conversations going on here. Very interesting indeed. Lots of folks on both sides missing the points the others are making. Lots of folks ignoring points being made. All because most folks have no interest in changing their minds, as usual.
go to a muslim country and see if they have any interest of changing their minds .I hear blackberry has been banned in some.freedom is not a word that is liked under a country controlled by muslins. Genghis Khan in the 12c had more compassion then some muslins today in the 21c
Back in journalism class our ex-hack tutor gave us a tip on checking our writing for inadvertent racism or bigotry. You simply replace the people in question with either ‘Jews’ or ‘Black people’ and read it out loud. If you sound like a Nazi or the KKK then re-write.
Applying that test to some of the comments on here (“XXXX come to other nations to destroy them from within”; “The UK is committing cultural suicide by letting in all the XXXX” and “Go and see how weak and filthy ur XXXX culture and spirituality is” ) reveals the nasty jingoistic, xenophobic drivel for what it is. Tsk.
The ‘one in 5 Britons will be ethnics’ headline has been one of my favourites since I first saw it; it seems to be implying that the other 4 people will have no ethnicity at all. O_O
Sharia law is here in the UK it starts small and will only get bigger and if you think that muslins are not that bad just think of something that you really hate with all your being and you will kill then you have what the quran said that muslims will think about you a non muslim..See the site islam in Europe you will see how bad it really is .In London where are 1.5m muslims out of 7.5m check that in 5 years time it will be 3.2m in England it will be 26m best you start reading the quran or make a stand now .
Don’t think of Islamic Sharia as a caricature of en slavery or bloodshed. Do you know that Islamic Sharia promotes a welfare society where even the non Muslims have identity and freedom, read how the Muslims ruled over Spain. The Jews rather celebrated when Muslims liberated Spain from the Christians. In Islamic sharia there is equal distribution of wealth, which is the biggest biggest biggest problem in the world. In Islamic Sharia everybody is equal before law Muslim, non Muslims anybody, everybody is accountable for his acts. Islamic Sharia liberates Women if you understand, it removes uncontrollable vices like adultery, pornography, rapes, robbery. It brings the fruit of life to every individual. It assures them of the basic necessities of life. Please don’t draw your conclusions just like that, study Islam with open mind and heart and you will understand the true nature . Islam denounces oppression on anybody.
Don’t think of Islamic Sharia as a caricature of en slavery or bloodshed. Do you know that Islamic Sharia promotes a welfare society where even the non Muslims have identity and freedom, read how the Muslims ruled over Spain. The Jews rather celebrated when Muslims liberated Spain from the Christians. In Islamic sharia there is equal distribution of wealth, which is the biggest biggest biggest problem in the world. Islamic Sharia promotes an environment of charity.In Islamic Sharia everybody is equal before law Muslim, non Muslims anybody, everybody is accountable for his acts. Islamic Sharia liberates Women if you understand, it removes uncontrollable vices like adultery, pornography, rapes, robbery. It brings the fruit of life to every individual. It assures them of the basic necessities of life. Please don’t draw your conclusions just like that, study Islam with open mind and heart and you will understand the true nature . Islam denounces oppression on anybody.
UK is committing cultural suicide by letting in all the muslims
and that islam is out destroy the west
I believe in God I also believe that all that threaten England should be kicked out or put to the sword
Sorry Hassan but islam is like the Old Testament the world has moved on so has Christianity we love and care. we don’t wish to kill all non believes, like islam I have read parts of the quran
(allah to whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And woe to the disbelievers from a severe punishment) perhaps you can explain that. oh and what are surplus women
Muslims are taught to hate all non believers and will kill them. christens if they don’t convert to islam have their heads cut off
Muslims minds live in the 6 century. This is the 21 century
Spain that was in the 12 century. The west is not the best but that or islam I’ll take the west
If you like islam that much move to Islamic country and leave England to the ones that love it and don’t wish to change it
oh and the world is round
Lets get to the statistics. Get logic to work please, and contemplate.
1) More than a million Muslims were killed / displaced by Spanish and other European extremists during the rebellion against the Ottoman Empire.
2) More than 3 million Muslims were killed / displaced by the European colonial powers during and after the occupation of Muslim countries after World War I and II.
3) More than 5 million Muslims were killed / displaced by Tsars of Russia
4) More than a million Muslims were killed / displaced by Communist Government of Russia
5) More than 1.5 million Muslims have been killed in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other Far East countries since the world war II
6) More than half million Muslims have been killed / displaced in Burma since World War II
7) More than half million Muslims have been killed in India and Kashmir since 1947
8) More than half million Muslims were killed by Serbs and Croats in Bosnia during early 90s.
9) More than 100,000 Muslims were killed in Kosovo and Albania during mid 90s.
10) More than 5 million Muslims have been killed / displaced in Palestine since 1948
11) More than 5 million Muslims were killed / displaced by the Russian occupation of Afghanistan
12) More than one million Muslims children died from malnutrition in Iraq during the US/UN embargo on Iraq during 1990s.
And this is only the registered deaths. Do you not see that we are the Victim of oppression throughout 19-21st Century. It rather delusional if you persist that we are waging a war. We are the victims ourselves, and not just victims the worst victims, who are even denied of a right to humanity. And the tragedy is the Media wont let you hear this reality. They have altered your perception and mind so much by feeding you lies up to your brains, that now you are ready to drop reason .
http://www.iraqoccupationfocus.org.uk/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21389
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/Palestine.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21364
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21232
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
We are mutilated, I don’t want to show you much because you will have nightmares. This is the ground reality. Now coming to how you have generalized Islam by reading some of the Quran. The problem is you have the terror verse list already prepared with you guys, all you do is go and confirm it, and then you herald oh I have read the Quran and it talks nasty about us. Please call on your logic, Quran is a miraculous book that calls to logic and reasoning. Islam is the most logical Religion, and it has never rationalized killing in the name of Islam, rather Allah SWT says in the Quran who has killed one innocent man is just like he has killed all of humanity. Can you compare this reality to anything, open up you brain. Your Govt. has been playing these physiological war with you and have masterminded this hatred and this gap between us. See the documentary Century of Self by BBC, I can’t believe that BBC can produce such a piece but they have definitely produced the most outstanding truth in what is going on, how our minds are captured by propaganda and controlled in any direction the Govt. wants. And let me also clarify this thing, Praise be to the Lord I have read my Religion in depths, those of the Muslims who have rationalized unjust and innocent killing have nothing to do with Islam. But now let me also enlighten you only 6 percent of terrorists are Muslim(who try to rationalize the idea of killing of innocent:this concept is alien to Islam). The remaining percentage of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory includes: Latinos at 42 percent, extreme Left Wing groups at 24 percent, Jewish extremists at 7 percent, Communists at 5 percent, and other terrorist organizations at 16 percent. Source is the fbi.gov files. Now please please ponder on all the figures and facts. If a Muslims is in UK or US he is as much as a British or American as he would be a Pakistani in Pakistan or any other Muslim Country. Muslims today are serving greatly your countries with true hearts. Look around you they are your doctors, your engineers, your taxi drivers. And at the end I just want you to think over things with an open mind, without pre-existing bias. Past is something that is always connected with us humans, you cant analyze future without your past, you cant perceive without your past, and the Past of Islam has been the most remarkable one, in which the Christians and the Jews and all others enjoyed the fruit of Islam and we continue to do so.
http://www.muslimheritage.com
http://www.1001inventions.com
Thankyou.
Reference for the top statistics :
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/holocausts.htm
To criticise fundamentalism in all its forms is the moral obligation of all who believe in democracy,
Islamism is a totalitarian, imperialistic religious and political doctrine which is incompatible with western civilisation. To combat its spread is to defend liberal democracy, secular society, gender equality and the individual freedoms of Christians and pagans
Now you have really given a form to your stand and to all those who think like you by speaking your heart out. And this only depicts that you have a problem with Islam, Islam actually has no problem with you. Now coming to the fact that you are beating the drums of Liberalism and Secular Society, I hope you have done your homework, and you also know the effects liberalism or secularism has had on your own society.
Liberalism’s political values have affected the way UK society treats women. According to Women’s Resource Centre and Women’s Aid,
Domestic Violence
• 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence.
• Two women are murdered every week by a current or a former partner.
• In any one year, there are 13 million separate incidents of physical violence or threats of violence against women from partners or former partners.
• 1 in 5 young men and 1 in 10 young women think that abuse or violence against women is acceptable.
Empowerment and Self-esteem
• 66 % of women in the UK would consider plastic surgery because of concerns about their looks.
• 63 % of young women aspire to be glamour models or lap dancers.
• 54 % of women became aware of the ‘need’ to be attractive between 6 – 17 years of age.
Unequal Pay & Employment
• In 2006, female graduates earned, on average, 15% less than their male counterparts at the age of 24; with this gender pay gap widening with age increasing to 40.5% for women graduates aged 41-45.
Prostitution
• There are estimated to be around 80,000 people involved in prostitution in the UK.
However, many people believe that this figure is an underestimation.
• A 2002 study found that 74% of women involved in prostitution cited poverty, the need to pay household expenses and support their children, as a primary motivator for entering sex work.
Mental Health
• The NHS reported in 2009 that more than one in five of the adult female population experiences depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts.
Poverty
• Many older people, especially women over 75, experience severe poverty due to institutional failure, as levels of state pensions are determined according to years of employment.
• One in five single women pensioners live in poverty. In 2004, almost 1.3 million older women lived below the poverty line and suffered significant financial disadvantage -
compared with men of the same age.
Safety
• Research published in 2006 identified that women aged 16 or over are 5 times as likely
as men to feel very unsafe walking alone in their area after dark.
Child Abuse
• An NSPCC prevalence study in 2000 found that around 21% of girls surveyed experienced some form of child sexual abuse. The majority of children who experienced sexual abuse had more than one sexually abusive experience.
• The UK is not alone in its maltreatment of women, in the US a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds.
http://www.hittininstitute.com/~/..%5Cresources%5Cpublications%5C7_Liberalism1.0.pdf
I hope you can explain your gender equality after this…
These are just the byproduct of your secular minds. And mind you, all of the references are from the studies conducted by your Sociologists, psychologists etc. Read this paper for a full argument (Because this would be your first paper on what Islam is all about coming first hand from the Muslims themselves and not broken-up, mis-mash, half true half mambo jumbo lie report of your media or your journalists) and how Islam provides a solution to all of these social, political and economical problems.
http://www.hittininstitute.com/~/..%5Cresources%5Cpublications%5C7_Liberalism1.0.pdf
And d0 read the section on A Note on Minorities, Kindness & Liberty of Islam, Tolerance and Popular Rule, Justice, Distribution of Resources.
Also Watch the debate on Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion? http://www.thebigdebates.com/can_we_live_better_lives_without_religion.html
Or look forward for watching this debate “Is a Secular Society a Better Society?”
With Dr. Ed Buckner, director of the Clarity Institute Saleem Chagtai, Senior philosophy lecturer Stephen Law and international lecturer and historian Adnan Rashid.
Now the lectures or philosopher in these debates can be found in your famous universities. So you can go and personally meet them also.
Few more products of your Secular and Liberal minds: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21399
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21430
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21424
This is islam to day
Thailand/ Islamises murder a bank teller riding a motorcycle on his way to work.
Somalia/ Pregnant women and children are killed when hizbul islam militants open fire on a group protesting about them beating their teenage children.
Iraq/ four people killed when Islamic terrorists attempt to kill a member of parliament.
Thailand/ A man is shot to death by Islamic insurgents while walking home.
Pakistan/ Three tribal elders are assassinated by religious hardliners.
Nigeria/ Islamises assassinate a police officer guarding a private house.
Pakistan/ Rape of Christian girls “part of daily life”
Sudan/ Archbishop escapes assassination attempt by muslim Mohamed Abdurrahman.
The Monthly figures for September 2010
Jihad attacks 172
Counties 23
Dead bodies 703
Critically injured 1454
This is islam today, in the real world. I don’t know what world you muslims live in who say that islam is good and great but to my eyes they are the sickest people that live.I thing muslims hate muslims more then anyone else.
Hi Richard,
“Thailand/ Islamises murder a bank teller riding a motorcycle on his way to work.”
Yes, and I read in the London Evening Standard today that a group of motorcyclists raided an Ernest Jones jewelry store armed with sludge hammers, ready to pound the life out of any Briton who tried to stop them.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23887863-crowd-foils-rolex-raid-by-ganging-up-on-robbers.do
“Somalia/ Pregnant women and children are killed when hizbul islam militants open fire on a group protesting about them beating their teenage children.” Did you hear the one about the pregnant American mother who strangled her daughter and then stabbed her own baby in her abdomen to kill it, too?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/US-Pregnant-Woman-Kills-Young-Daughter-And-Stabs-Herself-In-Abdomen-Unborn-Child-Dies/Article/200904315264213
I think by now you see what I’m getting at. Every single one of your analogies (which lack sources) might have been committed by a ______ <– insert general religious or ethnic term here. Do you not realize that the media's portrayal of Islam is always negative, therefore impounding reverse racism (or 'religionism', in this case) into the cells of your brain which is actually a type of conditioning? You no longer have control of your own judgment for individuals, but lump them altogether and blame a whole body of people – something that Hitler was very good at promoting! Remember Pavlov and his drooling dog? Yes, it's very similar.
All you're doing is spewing out your own statistics that portray one set of violence while leaving out all the other sets of violence perpetrated by over-the-top nationalists or religionists. If you'd read Hassan's statistics at all obtained by proper government websites, then you'd soon come to realize that yours are only a small portion (6% perhaps?) of the total acts of violence caused worldwide by PEOPLE, not Muslims!
I think you forgot that "6 percent of terrorists are Muslim (who try to rationalize the idea of killing of innocent: this concept is alien to Islam). The remaining percentage of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory includes: Latinos at 42 percent, extreme Left Wing groups at 24 percent, Jewish extremists at 7 percent, Communists at 5 percent, and other terrorist organizations at 16 percent."
…Every time that Pavlov rings his bell, said dogs snare and show their teeth, thirsty for discrimination.
this is how islam became successful,
Typically, the enemy’s (the west) trust would be gained by non-intrusive measures in which the muslims would insert themselves into the foreign community while professing their respect for local traditions and political structures. As they began to gain power, however they would divide loyalties and exercies violence to to acquire local hegemony.
the more I read I see that muhammad the pagan made thinks up to suit himself
I just hope I am not talking to a 8th Grader here. Have you forgotten all the Christian-Christian wars right from the 15th-20th Century. Specially WWI you killed between yourself 37 million people. WWII 55 million. I don’t want to quote anything else now, you must be blind or real dumb not to know how many of you killed between yourselves (Christians). And the biggest problem is, you didn’t end there, you killed Jews, natives, Muslims everybody. The colonial rule is the bloodiest of all rules, of hegemony and imposition. I must invent a new trillion folded definition of hatred now just to fit these facts. Believe me you are weak in every context of life, morality, social structure, economy, purpose of life. On your second comment, it is based on the most weak premise and exists without evidence, its like one the Alex Jones or David Icke talks. Don’t just Google stuff, bring solid undeniable universally accepted facts. Please contact me personally, we can talk more with an open heart … hazn139@gmail.com
I wish you knew that no Muslim is a Muslim until he accepts Jesus PBUH as the Messenger of God, accepts what was revealed to him, and loves him. That makes us better Christians then you are. It is utterly saddening how you addressed Prophet Muhammad PBUH in your comment. Do remember this now all your life, you hate us, we don’t hate you.
Hassan are you muslim or a christian ? //as soon as a christian church is build in arabia I may start to believe that you are tolerant and care about others,, but reading the quran and looking on other sites all I see is hate towards anybody that is not a muslim // this is taken from the quran with just one word changed// muslims are the vilest of animals//show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to muslims//how perverse are muslims //strike off the heads of muslims as well as their fingertips//fight those muslims who are near to you// muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified//the word muslim was put in where christian or disbelieves should have gone.// I have also read that a good muslim always does as the quran tell him to. and why do muslims alway bring up things that happend years ago I’m talking today, not the crusades where a muslims mind must be..be free not yoked to a pagon like muhammad..the west is not the best but it is million times better then islam. turn to christ and be free
something else I just seen. this is to show how good muslims are to the wife ( cleric sa’d arafat said), the prophet muhammad said don’t beat her in the face, and don’t make her ugly .” see how she is honored ” if the husband beats his wife, he must not beat her in the face even when he beats her he must not curse her ,he beats her in order to discipline her, in addition, there must not be more then ten beatings, and he must not break her bones,injure her break her teeth or poke her in the eye ..There is a beating etiquette, if he beats to discipline her he must not raise his hand high, he must beat her from chest level down . all these things honor the woman she is in need of discipline he can use a short rod to help with the beatings,,don’t want him to hurt himself,, these guys need the men in white coats..” still looking for something good to say about islam maybe next time”
Is this hatefest still going on? Time for an interval methinks. For your delight, dismay or discombobulation I present you with… a Muslim-in-a-kilt!
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/tagged/muslims_wearing_plaid
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/10/video-us-military-doesnt-want-you-see
I’m so tired of this bs. Also, I’m tired of you so-called liberals, and your political correctness.
Take a look at what the religion of peace has been up to lately: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The whole world needs a leader like this!
Prime Minister Julia Gillard – Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote:
‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. ‘
‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’
‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’
‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’
‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’
‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’
‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves in the UK , WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths.
If you agree please SEND THIS ON and ON, to as many people as you know.
The above hoax-email began circulating back in 2005. It became popular in 2008 and was attributed to Prime Minister Howard.
.
There is a grain a truth to the context, in that Muslim looking to practice Sharia Law should leave was uttered by by no Prime Minister but a government cabinet member back in ’05.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/thisisamerica.asp
I hope you could distinguish between a news and a hoax. Nonetheless it says the post says everything you wanted to say anyhow. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/thisisamerica.asp
I hope you could distinguish between a news and a hoax. Nonetheless the post says everything you wanted to say anyhow. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/thisisamerica.asp
I just wish someone in the west had the balls to say it because it should be said, you can push the English so far