Straw asks Muslim women for veil rethink

303 posts / 0 new
Last post

Don't goths, and trannies traumatise your kids aswell, and ppl who walk around with piercings in every orifice you can think of? i'm sure kids are frightened of those ppl too, but i don't hear these liberals saying lets ban them all, it's let's ban the burqas!

ust speak the plain truth, at least then you'll be respected. You don't like the niqab coz you don't understand it, and even if you understood it plain and simple you wouldn't like it coz you don't want to see anyone in your part of the world wearing it.

You said it yourself in not so many words you'd prefer women to wear jeans and slacks. Well reality check whether you like it or not this is a multicultural society different ethnic minorities, and faith groups have their own dress codes, foods, languages, festivals and other customs if you don't like it, tough.

p.s im sure your child was scared but if you had the intelligence to explain why the lady wore that garment your childs fear would have been alleviated. But you "chose" to allow your child to harbour this "unnecessary" fear thus he/she never left your side for the rest of the shopping trip. I'm sure that child is still afraid of niqabis and will be into adulthood and consequently he/she could develop an irrational sort of hatred towards these ppl.

If you can explain sex, homosexuality, trannies, goths and all sorts of oddities to your child why not niqabies???? :roll:

Also trauma is a medical term, if your child was suffering from serious trauma you would have taken him/her to ER not continue shopping stop exaggerating :roll: :roll:

"Beast" wrote:
"stmark" wrote:
"Beast" wrote:
"stmark" wrote:
Theese articles deal with ethnic minorities more than with just muslims.


None of these articles deal with "Dhimmitude". They are about immigrants and ethnic minorities.

The story about the guy dressing in a "burqa" is not proven nor is it an example of any policy or rule initiated either by gov or by religious authorities.

Do you have any examples of "Dhimmitude"?

The religious hatred law was passed and now people are scared to critisize islam but it should be critisized as should every other faith.

They rebuilt some toilets in a jail to face away from mecca.

I just think they are too politically correct for their own good and they descriminate against other minoroties as well as the native population.

I'm sorry, I still don't see any examples of "Dhimmitude".

Some toilets had to be rebuilt. Hardly a supresion of Western laws and values.

The gov is trying to encourage museums to cater for [u]minority groups[/u]. This is not an "Islamic" law they are trying to impose or promote.

The religious hatred law is just that - a [u]religious[/u] hatred law. It applies to all religions. How many people have been prosecuted under this law so far?

You are using the facts to fit your preconcived ideas. You're clutching at straws - and no doubt are all the other people who complain about "Dhimmitude".

The toilets were rebuilt to appease the muslims at the expense of the taxpayers.
The media is too PC to mention muslims but minority groups include muslims. It isn't just muslims i'm talking about.
What is religious hatred,, a lot of brits think it's an attempt to stop constructive critisizm of islam. They can't even draw a cartoon of mohammed without you all getting mad. You might as well get used to it because it's going to happen and has happened since the riots.Maybe not in britann but somewhere.

"TEX" wrote:
Quote:
Depending on which scholor you listen to it might have been abrogated.

18/27 And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. [color=red]There is none who can abrogate His words[/color], [color=blue]and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.[/color]

If u take `refuge` besides that words of Allah, it is blatent shirk (idolatry), none can abrogate the word of Allah, and if they do they are commiting a grave sin, and anybody that listons to them is committing shirk, because these words are from `other then allah`, to claim mans law is divine law is blatent shirk, and i agree with u, it is horryfying why so-called Islamic scholers think that they can abrogate the word of allah, and whats even worse is that the masses seem to `let them off` and `believe what they say`. However there are many intellegent muslims that actually read the quran and put god's words before mans word, so dont assume they are all like that.

Quote:

beware of sites like thoseer

What's wrong with that site? Even if thhey're wrong about some things thwy are right abou the preachers. I saw on a lebanese forum somebody with a username of sheik somthing said it has been abrogated.

"stmark" wrote:
The toilets were rebuilt to appease the muslims at the expense of the taxpayers.
The media is too PC to mention muslims but minority groups include muslims. It isn't just muslims i'm talking about.
What is religious hatred,, a lot of brits think it's an attempt to stop constructive critisizm of islam. They can't even draw a cartoon of mohammed without you all getting mad. You might as well get used to it because it's going to happen and has happened since the riots.Maybe not in britann but somewhere.

So taxpayers' money was spent on rebuilding some toilets. Taxpayers' money is not spent solely to "appease" Muslims. It is a given that minority groups have to be catered for and be made to feel a part of society. In this respect taxpayers' money is spent all the time on many different minority groups - not just Muslims. That's policy based on Western liberal values of multiculturalism and pluralism not "Dhimmitude".

Besides, taxpayers' money is spent in questionable ways all the time. How much do you think one bomb costs? Are you in a huff and puff about that?

Ofcourse minority groups include Muslims. They also include Jews, Hindus, Buddists, blacks, gays and lesbians, the disabled, national minorities, linguistic minorities, transvestites, etc. I'm sure the gov would want to encourage many of these groups to visit museums and have the museums cater for them.

When has the media not mentioned Muslims? They are in the news all the time. Just have a look at another thread on here - Muslims were mentioned ad nuseum when two Muslims were suspected of having some sort of chemical device at their home but no mention was given of two non-Muslims who actually had a massive stash of chemicals and delivery systems at their home.

Again, how many people have been prosecuted under the religious hatred law? I'm sure many people in the UK have seen cartoons ridiculing the Prophet and have joined in, but has anyone been prosecuted?

Quote:
They can't even draw a cartoon of mohammed without you all getting mad.

When did "we all" go mad?

People have been drawing the Prophet for many many years. Sometimes in an offensive context sometimes not. The Danish cartoons issue was a "special case" in which legitimate complaint was ignored allowing hot-heads to "prevail".

BTW since when did cartoons become "constructive criticism"?

"TEX" wrote:
sorry admin i didn't intend to go off-topic.

Mark create another thread please.

So far it just looks like he's here to spew his hate on the forum.... :roll:

I'm trying to stay on topic it is you who keeps asking me unrelated questions and we go off. Why should I hate you I don't even know you? I don't particularly care for islam as an ideology but I don't hate muslims. I hate injustice and I believe all people should be treated fairly no matter who they are or what they believe.

Quote:
"stmark" wrote:

Quote:

beware of sites like thoseer

What's wrong with that site? Even if thhey're wrong about some things thwy are right abou the preachers. I saw on a lebanese forum somebody with a username of sheik somthing said it has been abrogated.

have u seen the sites about answering christainity?

these sites emphasise nut cases muslims commonly ignore

these sites r usually 99% of the tym incorrect

"yashmaki" wrote:

If you can explain sex, homosexuality, trannies, goths and all sorts of oddities to your child why not niqabies???? :roll:

ROFL! Lol

good point yash....

[color=red]"The best of people are those who live longest and excel in their deeds, whereas the worst of people are those who live longest and corrupt their deeds." [Tirmidhî, Sahîh] [/color]

[b][color=indigo]Any1 watch Islam Channel???

Jack Straw was being interviewed by Bhashart Ali, anyone catch the interview??? I Missed it![/color][/b]

"stmark" wrote:
"Admin" wrote:
All I am saying is that people should have the choice to wear it.

My point is not based on religion, religious prerogative, but simple civil rights.

Should you have the right to go around scaring their kids? The adults might just think it's creepy but the children get scared and traumatized. This is a post from one of the forums I visit.
The teacher refusing to remove veil? What a hipocrocy! Children need to see the whole person to understand body languages and expressions. Burkha clad teachers are unfit to teach the children.

My daughter was 6 years old. In a nearby shopping centre, she came across for the first time, a veiled burkha clad muslimmah.(I think it was a lady inside. I am not so sure though. The covering was black in colour.)

My daughter actually got scared. She was on her own in the toy section, and I was closeby, keeping an eye contact with her every often. On seeing this muslimmah, she got scared and came running back to me. She did nt leave my side for the rest of the shopping.

These veiled, burkha clad muslimmahs are actually putting our children under stress and trauma. Its bad enough in a shopping centre, but, to face it in class room? Terrible. And, the children will not learn much either.


mark this teacher's students are majority muslim, many of their mothers wear the niqab, so i doubt they would be 'terrified' and 'traumatised' by the veil. :roll:

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

[color=indigo][b]Why dont u listen to the interviewed conductd by the sister if you havnt already.[/b][/color]

"Noor...*" wrote:
[color=indigo][b]Why dont u listen to the interviewed conductd by the sister if you havnt already.[/b][/color]

yea:
[url= NEWS LINK[/url]
Smile

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

She should probably work at an islamic school. Over here that would not be allowed. It doesn't have to do with just islam but all religious stuff in the schools.

What is with the religious dress code freakout in Europe... Hijabs, Crucifixes - is this some bizarre permutation of the separation of Church and State or something?

Ya know, in a country where "Boho" is considered fashionable I would be curious what the response would be if a Muslim woman wore a Hijab under (ostensibly) fashion-only reasons.

[b][color=indigo]Whats the point??

I think everyone is well aware of what the british public think about the Niqaab[/color][/b].

It is all fearmongering mixed with prejudice and surprisingly, political correctness.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"stmark" wrote:
She should probably work at an islamic school. Over here that would not be allowed. It doesn't have to do with just islam but all religious stuff in the schools.

lol what do you mean by 'over here'?

[b]edit:[/b] i see you are from kansas, so forget the above Q, your comment makes sense now.

whats wrong with students or teachers manifesting their religious beliefs in school for goodness sake? i don't see the problem as long as they're not imposing it on others.

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

"stmark" wrote:
She should probably work at an islamic school. Over here that would not be allowed. It doesn't have to do with just islam but all religious stuff in the schools.

You can wear outward religious symbols, first amendment protects it. You may not lead a class in prayer (which is ridiculous) or teach about your religion unless it is part of the curriculum though.

I don't think the ACLU has completely eroded our right to religious expression just yet.

"*DUST*" wrote:

lol what do you mean by 'over here'?

He's from Kansas. You know, Wheat Fields, "Tornaders," Dorothy, Toto, super flatness et cetera. He's incorrect about the law though, you may wear a hijab, crucifix or a gold plated triangle of completeness should you desire, it is protected by the First Amendment.

In fact government employees that mess with you for trying to wear your religious symbols and clothing are subject to [url=.

"Odysseus" wrote:
"*DUST*" wrote:

lol what do you mean by 'over here'?

He's from Kansas. You know, Wheat Fields, "Tornaders," Dorothy, Toto, super flatness et cetera. He's incorrect about the law though, you may wear a hijab, crucifix or a gold plated triangle of completeness should you desire, it is protected by the First Amendment.

In fact government employees that mess with you for trying to wear your religious symbols and clothing are subject to [url=.


yea just noticed. i clearly haven't been on the forum for a while, thats probably a good thing though lol.

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

"yashmaki" wrote:
Don't goths, and trannies traumatise your kids aswell, and ppl who walk around with piercings in every orifice you can think of? i'm sure kids are frightened of those ppl too, but i don't hear these liberals saying lets ban them all, it's let's ban the burqas!

ust speak the plain truth, at least then you'll be respected. You don't like the niqab coz you don't understand it, and even if you understood it plain and simple you wouldn't like it coz you don't want to see anyone in your part of the world wearing it.

You said it yourself in not so many words you'd prefer women to wear jeans and slacks. Well reality check whether you like it or not this is a multicultural society different ethnic minorities, and faith groups have their own dress codes, foods, languages, festivals and other customs if you don't like it, tough.

p.s im sure your child was scared but if you had the intelligence to explain why the lady wore that garment your childs fear would have been alleviated. But you "chose" to allow your child to harbour this "unnecessary" fear thus he/she never left your side for the rest of the shopping trip. I'm sure that child is still afraid of niqabis and will be into adulthood and consequently he/she could develop an irrational sort of hatred towards these ppl.

If you can explain sex, homosexuality, trannies, goths and all sorts of oddities to your child why not niqabies???? :roll:

Also trauma is a medical term, if your child was suffering from serious trauma you would have taken him/her to ER not continue shopping stop exaggerating :roll: :roll:

I don't care what you wear I don't even live in england I'm just telling you what people are saying about it.

"stmark" wrote:
I don't care what you wear I don't even live in england I'm just telling you what people are saying about it.

[b][color=indigo]I think where all aware of what people are saying about the niqaab thankyou.[/color][/b]

"Beast" wrote:
"stmark" wrote:
The toilets were rebuilt to appease the muslims at the expense of the taxpayers.
The media is too PC to mention muslims but minority groups include muslims. It isn't just muslims i'm talking about.
What is religious hatred,, a lot of brits think it's an attempt to stop constructive critisizm of islam. They can't even draw a cartoon of mohammed without you all getting mad. You might as well get used to it because it's going to happen and has happened since the riots.Maybe not in britann but somewhere.

So taxpayers' money was spent on rebuilding some toilets. Taxpayers' money is not spent solely to "appease" Muslims. It is a given that minority groups have to be catered for and be made to feel a part of society. In this respect taxpayers' money is spent all the time on many different minority groups - not just Muslims. That's policy based on Western liberal values of multiculturalism and pluralism not "Dhimmitude".

Besides, taxpayers' money is spent in questionable ways all the time. How much do you think one bomb costs? Are you in a huff and puff about that?

Ofcourse minority groups include Muslims. They also include Jews, Hindus, Buddists, blacks, gays and lesbians, the disabled, national minorities, linguistic minorities, transvestites, etc. I'm sure the gov would want to encourage many of these groups to visit museums and have the museums cater for them.

When has the media not mentioned Muslims? They are in the news all the time. Just have a look at another thread on here - Muslims were mentioned ad nuseum when two Muslims were suspected of having some sort of chemical device at their home but no mention was given of two non-Muslims who actually had a massive stash of chemicals and delivery systems at their home.

Again, how many people have been prosecuted under the religious hatred law? I'm sure many people in the UK have seen cartoons ridiculing the Prophet and have joined in, but has anyone been prosecuted?

Quote:
They can't even draw a cartoon of mohammed without you all getting mad.

When did "we all" go mad?

People have been drawing the Prophet for many many years. Sometimes in an offensive context sometimes not. The Danish cartoons issue was a "special case" in which legitimate complaint was ignored allowing hot-heads to "prevail".

BTW since when did cartoons become "constructive criticism"?

Not all of you but some muslims rioted. The cartoons were not constructive and I didn't think they should have drawn them. It was stupid to make them but I disagreed with the rioting in several countries too. The cartoons were drawn because the danish felt like they were losing there freedom of expression. Somebody wrote a book and wanted to illustrate it. If they wanted to do that the oictures should have been respectful because the shias have been doing that for centuries. I disagreed with the cartoons but I disagreed with the muslim reaction.
I don't know if or how many people have been prosecuted under that law but people have been prosecuted for that. During the riots news papers in france were shut down for drawing mohammed.. The whole cartoon jihad made no sense and should not have happened or the cartoons that started it. There were three more that were added by the danish imam and brought to the middle east to get a big reaction. This whole thing should have beenn handledd in denmark.

"Odysseus" wrote:
What is with the religious dress code freakout in Europe... Hijabs, Crucifixes - is this some bizarre permutation of the separation of Church and State or something?

Britain doesn't have a separation of church and state. America does.

"*DUST*" wrote:
"stmark" wrote:
She should probably work at an islamic school. Over here that would not be allowed. It doesn't have to do with just islam but all religious stuff in the schools.

lol what do you mean by 'over here'?

[b]edit:[/b] i see you are from kansas, so forget the above Q, your comment makes sense now.

whats wrong with students or teachers manifesting their religious beliefs in school for goodness sake? i don't see the problem as long as they're not imposing it on others.

Nothing as long as it doesn't intterfere with their work but I think the ACLU is run by athiests and they want to stamp out religion altogether. I don't know if she could where it in school but if the school gets tax money it is not supposed to promote religion.

"Odysseus" wrote:
"stmark" wrote:
She should probably work at an islamic school. Over here that would not be allowed. It doesn't have to do with just islam but all religious stuff in the schools.

You can wear outward religious symbols, first amendment protects it. You may not lead a class in prayer (which is ridiculous) or teach about your religion unless it is part of the curriculum though.

I don't think the ACLU has completely eroded our right to religious expression just yet.

A lot of times they do more harm than good.

uff why does there always has to be a pain inthe neck of a person on ths forum. I come bak to visit the forum and on every topic, ders just arguments. i dnt knw who u are stmark but if u want to express how much u hate the veil or islam or whatever u think ur tring to achieve tihs isnt the forum to do it in.
the muslim brothers and sisters on the forum are nt goin to change their religious values and faith in the deen to live their life in ignorance like non-beleivers.

anywayz i knw i havent been posting lately, sorry everyone, i've just been so busy...
but just to let u knw, i totally thought what jack straw said was stupid, HE just made such a pointless remark. I had a lot of people coming up to me u knw after he made that comment and they were asking me how i felt about it and stuff. and i just said to strip us muslim women of our hijaab/niqaab is the equivelant to what u would feel walkin round topless.
i hate all this u knw, media is just creating all the non-believers to just misjudge us, i really hate it.
There are very few practising muslims at my college and i do feel its a struggle. people are just gettin so narrow minded these days...

anway take care everyone and do lots of dua for me in this holy month....

smile and be happy!!!

It's not a religious symbol according to an egyptian cleric and among other things it is discrimination against the deaf and hard of hearing who have to read lips to understand what is being said.

Cairo, 13 Oct. (AKI) - The niqab, a Muslim headdress that leaves only the eyes exposed, is not a religious object, Egypt's religion minister said Friday, entering the debate started by British ex-minister Jack Straw, who said he asked Muslim women visiting him to show their faces to facilitate dialogue. "Nor is the niqab a duty deriving from the Sharia" added Mohammad Hamdi Zaqzouq. "I know I will be criticised for my words but I think some Muslims are committing a fundamental error, focusing on external and superficial aspects, without exploring more relevant themes, and hence providing a distorted image of Islam" he said.

Straw last month triggered debate by inviting Muslim women in Britain to leave at home their veils, saying he would like to see their faces, "understand the expression of his constituents".

"I don't think he made an offensive request, especially as the Sharia requires that women cover their heads but not that they hide behind a mantle which makes them irrecognisable" Zaqzouq said.

Even if there was no explicit reference Zaqzouq's comments come one day after protests at Cairo University, following the decision by the president Abdel Hay Ebeid to ban female students from wearing the full veil in the dormitories of the institute, for security reasons.

Even the top theological authority of Al-Azhar University, the highest seat of Sunni learning, Sheikh Sayed Al Tantawi, has spoken out and accepted the decision explaining that as long as the univeristy obliges the female students to take off the niqab and not the headscarf they are not infringing the tenets of Islam.

In his speech, Zaqzouq explained the bill that his ministry had presented to the government, and which forbids demonstrations in mosques because they violate the sanctity of the place of worship. "The mosques are not a place for politics and it is unacceptable that imams discuss these issues in their preaching" he added.

"stmark" wrote:

In his speech, Zaqzouq explained the bill that his ministry had presented to the government, and which forbids demonstrations in mosques because they violate the sanctity of the place of worship. "The mosques are not a place for politics and it is unacceptable that imams discuss these issues in their preaching" he added.

I think that pretty much explains his other views.

Pages