you can find clerics to support any view you hold so what's your point? The fact remains the vast majority of the traditional islamic scholars do say the niqab is a part of islam. Whether it is obligatory, or just a tradition of our prophet is what is open to interpretation and "personal choice". But it's very rare to find clerics who claim it's not a part of islam at all. Most of them agree it's a part of Islam.

So you references don't really sway me in any way. That country has major problems they're trying to westnerise their country without "appearing" to lose their islamic beliefs. But the fact that they ban muslim women from wearing niqabs says a lot about where their priorities lie. In a muslim country security issues could be easily solved if female security guards checked niqabi women's faces against their id cards. No law was required to ban the niqab. This country is just as pathetic as Turkey where they claim to be muslim but ban women from entering institutions with hijabs on. No muslim can claim the basic hijab is not a part of Islam. I frankly don't give a tuppence for the views of those who exchange their religion for the material gifts of this world.

This argument that it's discrimnatory to the deaf is really lame. What all of a sudden the world has a great sense of compassion towards the rights of disabled ppl? I'd be willing to remove my veil if i had to communicate with a deaf person who needed to lip read. But if i'm honest those sort of situations are rare. It would present a problem if i worked in a specialist school for kids, but other than that i don't really meet deaf ppl. Not coz i dislike them, just none have come into my life. If they did i'd deal with it appropriately and fairly.

Muslims who don't wear the veil and non muslims whose lips are clearly visible to deaf ppl still fail to deal with deaf and other disabled ppl as human beings. When i used to work ,in the wkends groups of adults with disabilities used to come in store to shop and many of the staff i worked with didn't seem to have the time of day to assist them. They were talked at, as if they weren't "normal". There were very few facilities to help with their mobility i.e no escalators/lifts in store. The cash desk way too high up. Staff failing to make basic eye to eye contact. So who says veiled women are discriminating agaisnt deaf and disabled ppl, non veiled women and non muslims are just as guilty or more so, get off your high horse before you make pathetic jabs at us.

[size=18]How not to have a debate[/size]

Jack Straw and John Reid have launched public challenges to sections of the Muslim community. The gauntlets they have thrown down have fed into a series of stridently anti-Muslim stories. Ministers have publicly disagreed about the wisdom of debating veils in this way. However genuine Straw and Reid may be, recent history suggests this isn’t the way to go.

In spring 2001, the BBC Today programme claimed that Asians in Oldham had set up ‘no-go areas’ for whites. The story was repeated by the tabloids and vicious but unconnected acts of violence were used to ‘stand up’ the story. Later that summer, Oldham exploded with some of the worst communal violence Britain has seen.

But the story wasn’t true. The independent Ritchie inquiry concluded ‘the claims of no go areas are not born out on the ground… it will always be possible to find a few young hotheads who will make such claims, but they are certainly not speaking for majority opinion in their own communities.’

That’s a cautionary message as John Reid and his ministers set out to take the anti-terrorist message into Muslim communities. As in Oldham, there aren’t any no go areas. While extremists certainly exist, we Labour MPs can discuss these issues frankly in any part of our constituencies. But, by the time the Ministers have finished, it may look as though they are for real. A couple of people shouting, or brandishing incendiary banners is all it will need. Scary images broadcast into homes of millions with little personal knowledge of Muslims would fuel the polarisation the extremists’ desire.

And Jack Straw’s intervention may widen those divisions further. His original article is measured and reasoned, but wasn’t the Daily Express’ campaign to ‘Ban the Veil’ as likely as to follow as an informed debate about cultural and religious identity in a diverse society?

Five years ago, the Ritchie report warned ‘in a sensitive situation….it is particularly important to make sure that people interviewed reflect a cross section of opinion which is truly representative’. Britain is probably more polarised than five years ago, yet that lesson has not been learned. Did the recent Today interview with the extremist Abu Izzadeen emphasise how unrepresentative he is, or did your non Muslim friends, work mates and family shake their heads and sigh, that’s the trouble with Muslims? In how many homes will Jack Straw’s remarks affirm the belief that the problem with Muslims is, well, that they are Muslims? Will John Reid’s careful distinction between the majority and the minority in the Muslim community not be lost on some viewers?

We do live in insecure times. Tough measures to face challenge those we fear are popular and serve a number of political purposes. Reassuring the majority that all real problems are caused by the minority is popular too. But ultimately we won’t be thanked if we make ourselves more scared and no safer or more comfortable with our neighbours.

It’s not that we shouldn’t discuss these issues. Muslims including Baroness Uddin and Sahid Malik MP acknowledge questions about veils. But how we have the debate does matter. Three weeks ago I joined 200 Muslims and non-Muslims brought together by Southampton’s local Council of Mosques. . It was an illuminating four hours of sometimes passionate discussion. It was an event organised by the type of serious committed devote Muslims whose virtues are often extolled by politicians. They are the ones who are prepared to take extremist ideas everyday; in mosques and in the community they are challenging bad theology and poor politics. But their frustration that the Government’s handling of events so often makes their job more difficult was tangible. Across Britain the arguments are being lost too often for comfort.

If we had responded better to the northern riots Britain today could have been very different. We might have improved the level of understanding and solidarity between different communities in Britain which do live all to separate lives. We might have learned how to discuss issues about identity, observance and dress without reinforcing the very divide we are trying to overcome.

So while I’m pleased that Ministers are going round the country it can’t be to grandstand to the scared majority. We must never resile from making clear the limits of acceptable behaviour and argument, but we need Ministers to listen and understand every bit as much as lecture and lay down the law. And we need Ministers who will go back again and again long after the cameras have lost interest.

There’s a key test in front of us with the new Terrorism Bill. Last year’s Terrorism Bill contained controversial measures against the glorification of terrorism. Rushed through Parliament, it left many feeling it was aimed at Muslims in general. Had the time been taken to take the proposal up and down the country it could have provided the focus for real debate about the acceptable limits of free speech, and created some consensus on what to do. But Government was anxious to prove its toughness and the chance was lost. Last year it was, perhaps, understandable in the wake of 7/7. This year there would be no excuse.

[url=http://www.johndenham.org.uk/Muslim%20debate.htm]John Denham MP[/url]

You can do what you want but if nothing else it's discrimination against the deaf and hearing tmpaired because they have to read your lips to understand you which is one reason why it should not be allowed in schools for the teacher to wear it.

"stmark" wrote:

You can do what you want but if nothing else it's discrimination against the deaf and hearing tmpaired because they have to read your lips to understand you which is one reason why it should not be allowed in schools for the teacher to wear it.

If there were any deaf and hearing impared children in the class then, OK, you'd have a point.

But seeing as there weren't any, and you have no proof that there were any, you are just desperately looking for reasons to find something wong with a teacher in a niqaab.

I'm a trainee teacher...whilst I don't wear the Niqaab or the Jilbaab, there's quite a few people on my course who do.

Our tutors or mentors have never passed a comment regarding it....the only thing we reg get lectured about is the importance of covering up when in school as too much flesh on display distracts kids and as a result you easily lose their attention.... headteachers reg sent trainee teachers home who have too much flesh on display.

This shows that its the LACK of clothing that is more of an issue in schools then excess covering, so how come this issue is never raised?

"MuslimSister" wrote:

I'm a trainee teacher...whilst I don't wear the Niqaab or the Jilbaab, there's quite a few people on my course who do.

Our tutors or mentors have never passed a comment regarding it....the only thing we reg get lectured about is the importance of covering up when in school as too much flesh on display distracts kids and as a result you easily lose their attention.... headteachers reg sent trainee teachers home who have too much flesh on display.

This shows that its the LACK of clothing that is more of an issue in schools then excess covering, so how come this issue is never raised?

Yes showing too much flesh is not right! but so is covering up altogether! Yes maybe it's good that the teacher is wearing a scarf and jlbaab, but I think that is as far as it should go.

"Beast" wrote:

"stmark" wrote:

You can do what you want but if nothing else it's discrimination against the deaf and hearing tmpaired because they have to read your lips to understand you which is one reason why it should not be allowed in schools for the teacher to wear it.

If there were any deaf and hearing impared children in the class then, OK, you'd have a point.

But seeing as there weren't any, and you have no proof that there were any, you are just desperately looking for reasons to find something wong with a teacher in a niqaab.

Actually I was just saying something I saw on a forum and aplying it to kids. I imagine it was an adult that said it but apparently 10 percent of the brits are hjearing impaired and he said he read lips as well as listening. If the kids are that way too it would be a reason not to wear it. One article said the kids were having difficulty understanding her so maybe they were hearing impaired.

"MuslimSister" wrote:

I'm a trainee teacher...whilst I don't wear the Niqaab or the Jilbaab, there's quite a few people on my course who do.

Our tutors or mentors have never passed a comment regarding it....the only thing we reg get lectured about is the importance of covering up when in school as too much flesh on display distracts kids and as a result you easily lose their attention.... headteachers reg sent trainee teachers home who have too much flesh on display.

This shows that its the LACK of clothing that is more of an issue in schools then excess covering, so how come this issue is never raised?

If that is the case that issue should be raised. Something that covers a teachers mouth is too excess, I doubt if the children are used to your foreign accents anyway and something that covers your mouth would just make it that much harder to understand you.

"stmark" wrote:

One article said the kids were having difficulty understanding her so maybe they were hearing impaired.

I wouldn't make such assumptions based on "one article" in this "debate".

"stmark" wrote:

"MuslimSister" wrote:

I'm a trainee teacher...whilst I don't wear the Niqaab or the Jilbaab, there's quite a few people on my course who do.

Our tutors or mentors have never passed a comment regarding it....the only thing we reg get lectured about is the importance of covering up when in school as too much flesh on display distracts kids and as a result you easily lose their attention.... headteachers reg sent trainee teachers home who have too much flesh on display.

This shows that its the LACK of clothing that is more of an issue in schools then excess covering, so how come this issue is never raised?

If that is the case that issue should be raised. Something that covers a teachers mouth is too excess, [b]I doubt if the children are used to your foreign accents anyway and something that covers your mouth would just make it that much harder to understand you[/b].

That was quite funny.

I often find it hard to understand the northern accent, vail or no vail.

Mr Mark, did it occur to you that the teacher in question was British born? Most British Muslims were born here or have lived here for a long time. They aren't "foreigners".

"stmark" wrote:

I doubt if the children are used to [b]your[/b] foreign accents anyway and something that covers [b]your[/b] mouth would just make it that much harder to understand [b]you[/b].

You WHAT!?!

Do define who you are referring to.

The colour of someones skin or the religion they follow doesn't make someone a foreigner or automatically give someone a foreign accent. I am not foreign - I am British. If I have an accent, it is not foreign - it is of the region in which I live in the UK.

I hate to break this to you, but despite your 'white' appearance (based on assumption) you would be the one classed as a foreigner in the UK.

"stmark" wrote:

"MuslimSister" wrote:

I'm a trainee teacher...whilst I don't wear the Niqaab or the Jilbaab, there's quite a few people on my course who do.

Our tutors or mentors have never passed a comment regarding it....the only thing we reg get lectured about is the importance of covering up when in school as too much flesh on display distracts kids and as a result you easily lose their attention.... headteachers reg sent trainee teachers home who have too much flesh on display.

This shows that its the LACK of clothing that is more of an issue in schools then excess covering, so how come this issue is never raised?

If that is the case that issue should be raised. Something that covers a teachers mouth is too excess, I doubt if the children are used to your foreign accents anyway and something that covers your mouth would just make it that much harder to understand you.

Lol. My "foreign" cockney accent or my slight brummie accent?

Point is, if the teachers/mentors/parents and kids don't have a problem with the veil till date, whats its gotta do with the govenment?

All teacher trainee insitutes here in the UK, nit pick when it comes to assessing the standards of trainee teachers....they dont hesitate to kick people off the course for the slightest reason, if they felt that a trainee is not a "effective teacher" they wouldnt allow him/her to qualify.

If they believed that the veil hinders the learning process of young children, they wouldnt allow Muslim women to wear the veil.

And for your info, the veil does not muffle speech.

If the issue is regarding lip reading then this is a totally different issue altogether. I worked for a year as a Special Needs Assistant, in over 30 schools for the past year....nearly all kids with a hearing impairment know how to use sign language, and only a few knew how to lip read (and those, who CAN lip read would have learnt how to use sign langauge first).

So wait a min..i have an English accent, i was born in England but coz i wear a veil i'm "foreign" and therefore have an alien accent. Am i missing something does the veil incorporate some sort of modern technology to distort and disguise my voice so that i sound like an arab for example?

"yashmaki" wrote:

So wait a min..i have an English accent, i was born in England but coz i wear a veil i'm "foreign" and therefore have an alien accent. Am i missing something does the veil incorporate some sort of modern technology to distort and disguise my voice so that i sound like an arab for example?

I was talking about the people who come from foreign counties or are of forein ancestry. In oher words if they have a foreign accent it is hard enough for the kids to understand them.

"stmark" wrote:

I was talking about the people who come from foreign counties or are of forein ancestry.

Well that isn't what you wrote........

"stmark" wrote:

I doubt if the children are used to [b]your[/b] foreign accents anyway and something that covers [b]your[/b] mouth would just make it that much harder to understand [b]you[/b].

"Foreign ancestry".......people like myself? (My parents are of Pakistani nationality.)

"Imaani" wrote:

"Foreign ancestry".......people like myself? (My parents are of Pakistani nationality.)

ROFL

everyone in this country is from a `foreign ancestry`

including the so-called "white English People", study histroy bro!

Now Mark i am gonna stoop down to ur level. :twisted:

Mark your people murdered in excess of 20 million native Americans while stealing their land and falsely claiming that America was "discovered" (as if the 25 million ppl did not even exist!) :evil: :evil:

lol Mark you seem obsessed with this subject

its a UK issue and not an american issue, it really has nothing to do wid u, it dont effect u

i was on da phone to my jewish mates in New York and they were surprised at jack straws comments, they sed they were against the ban, they showed more concern about the issue then i did, i am fairly indifferent to the subject but i do hope it will not get banned since only a small minority of muslimah`s where it, i was surprised to hear thier views, i assumed they wud find it `scary` and to be frank i thought they would be the last ppl on earth to defend the womens right to where the niqab!

there are certain subjects in schools where it is VITAL for the teacher not to have her face covered

in such cases a teacher shouldnt wear the niqaab

i was helping my lil sister with her english homework last night-helping her with her phonics-i couldnt do that if my face was covered

I have been with my partner now for nearly 10 yrs who is muslim and im not and dont consider myself racist towards any religon..colour ect but in reply to

Quote:

((The issue is not about Remove your veil so i can see your facial expressions, it is now: GET RID OF THAT NIQAB BECAUSE IT IS ANTI-BRITISH, UNCOMFORTABLE, CREATES DIVISION, ISOLATION.....IF YOU WANT TO LIVE HERE THEN RESPECT OUR CULTURE AND VALUES OTHERWISE GO TO A MUSLIM COUNTRY!!!!!
this is how most non muslims feel about this issue now...

before we know it attempts will be made by MP's to ban it!))

The comment i think is unfair and not true. Thinking about it it would be a lot more of a bigger deal if we western women went to islamic countries and wore what ever we wanted to eg a bikini or mini skirts. That i think is probably banned and against the law anywy. So even if that was true (which is not)..so what? Islamic countries have their code of dress which applies to everyone so other countries should be able to do the same.
Also i think SOME muslim ppl are just as racist as SOME non-muslims.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

last night on The Lets Talk Show Shaykh Salim Ghisa had that view, and he said he has spoken personally to Shaykh Nuh Keller who strongly holds this view that Muslim women should not wear the niqab in the West. He also quoted Shaykh Hamza Yusuf aswell.

interesting.

Our women mean more to us than u can ever imagine, if u wana start attacking them i assure u ill be the first to rise against any1 who does so.

think twice before u act fools, you've crossed too many lines.

I think it has got to a point where the major political parties want to steal votes from the bnp by fighting for "British values" and totally disregarding what british values are for e.g Britain is a christian country jesus is part of there beliefs yet they let companies use the name of there "lord" to make money but than they say they want to place british values? what a farce!

err yes wen i say "our" i mean our women, like muslims women, and no i dnt own nobody, sadly. im only 16 but i think uve just proved to me that im quite intellectually advanced because if u didnt know wat i meant by that and decided to bring up all that "u mean u own them" idiotic defensive reply then.. well u know, grow up.

haha wow, u picked out an innocent mistake, but ill give it to ye, i know that any woman in my family would be more than proud of me to be talking like this, so its more traditional than anything else. thats wat we do as MEN whether u personally like it or not because at the end of the day we're the protectors of this religion and we'll never cease to be.

but dont get me wrong im not undermining womens role in this religion, why i wudnt even be here had it not been for a woman, i simply am shocked to see that you wud like to dissociate yourself from the "our" term which seems strange seeing as any1 wud use that to refer to some1 from their culture or faith, hence "my people", "our men" etc.

This is a very old topic, and the issue has long passed at least for the time being.

Admin, ftr, headcoverings are not an issue. The issue that was under discussion was face coverings. It is natural to insist that for official identification and for medical reasons if necessary the face be at least sometimes visible. There are also arguments that courts and employers should be allowed to make this demand. Straw was not proposing to ban the niqab. He made clear that not being able to see a visitor's face was discomfiting to him, and he said so not to cause offence but because he felt it was a reasonable opinion worth expressing. I'm inclined to agree very strongly. Not being able to see someone's expression while they can see yours can greatly inhibit a frank discussion - I would not like to disagree with someone who hid their face.

laabah has a point. This country hasn't banned any particular item of religious dress. Whereas the Muslim countries - primarily Saudi Arabia - who are first to lodge complaints against any suggestion of any such thing, are nothing like as accommodating. I doubt I would last 10 minutes there in Jewish garb, I wouldn't even be allowed a bible. That is no excuse for Britain to follow suit, but it is a fair comeback to the argument that this country has discriminatory policies. Britain is exceedingly fair.