What's new

Xinjiang Province: News & Discussions

[B]how do you see this particular news of ban of burqa and beard in a city of Yining situated in Xinjiang region ? isn't it wrong for the city authorities curb the freedom of dressing ?How should the Muslims in there strive for their rights and self respect ? sure it's internal matter of China but I am sure you all will have an opinion about it and suggestions for the betterment of people there.


Thank you for the invite, I am persuaded that fashion sensibility has absolutely nothing to do with faith in God, but some want to insist that God is a fashion conscious God -- and I personally do not have respect for clothing such as Burkha but short of security concerns, that is to say knew the faces of people can not be seen, I don't see how it is the business of government, any government at any level, to tell people how to dress Look, we do not see God as fashion conscious and short of security concerns we as government should not be in the business of fashion.

But some Muslims who insist on wearing their religiosity on their sleeves are not going to be convinced that God is not fashion conscious, to them, to their understanding of religion, God is very much fashion conscious, Arabian fashion, please - If only faith in God was about facial hair and fashion sensibility.

So how should Muslims respond ? -- Well, certainly it must be brought to the attention of authorities that in the action they have taken, while their intention was to De-legitimize ideas of religiosity wherein adherents are invited to wear their religiosity on their sleeves, their actions have had the opposite effect -- Also those who are persuaded that Islam is about fashion and it is their religious duty to further their arabian fashion sense, these people I fear may be prepared for violently promoting their ideas about religion and the role of fashion and facial hair, these people I fear will bring much shame and harm to the majority of Muslims.
 
Zhou Enlai, who started China's intelligence agencies, explicitly forbid the practice of political assasination and sex as tools for intelligence activites. Since he was a paramount figure in China, the rule is set in stone.

Are you sure Chinese intelligence is still following that?
 
De-legitimize ideas of religiosity wherein adherents are invited to wear their religiosity on their sleeves

Why stop at religion?

Why not outlaw people who wear their culture on their sleeve?
How dare people use chopsticks, or their hands, or cutlery when it is not the mainstream norm?

While we are at it, let's outlaw showcasing the marital status on one's fingers?

The government should issue red/green/saffron overalls to each citizen so people's sensibilities won't be taxed by the personal freedoms on display with all this diversity being "worn on sleeves".
 
Why stop at religion?

Why not outlaw people who wear their culture on their sleeve?
How dare people use chopsticks, or their hands, or cutlery when it is not the mainstream norm? While we are at it, let's outlaw showcasing the marital status on one's fingers?

The government should issue red/green/saffron overalls to each citizen so people's sensibilities won't be taxed by the personal freedoms on display with all this diversity being "worn on sleeves".

It's more important to make sense than expressing your indignation at outward expressions of religiosity associated with a culture of terrorism and intolerance --
 
And you people think that USA is going to teach bad China a lesson on your behalf.;)

Not going to happen buddy.

why bring india? U.S is after china not for the reasons of india :rofl:

Your paranoia does not over wrt india. and now u will say that U.S came in A-stan for india :omghaha:
 
It's more important to make sense than expressing your indignation at outward expressions of religiosity associated with a culture of terrorism and intolerance --

My post makes perfect sense to people who understand that simply having a beard is not a sign of terrorism or intolerance.

The intolerance comes from people who make that false association in the first place and who, while claiming to be "liberal", miss the fundamental concept of personal freedom.
 
My post makes perfect sense to people who understand that simply having a beard is not a sign of terrorism or intolerance.

The intolerance comes from people who make that false association in the first place and who, while claiming to be "liberal", miss the fundamental concept of personal freedom.

I think you misunderstand - I do not support government being a fashion nanny, what I did say and have said over and over, is that the sudden appearance of a fashion sense that makes the claim of being "religion" is associated with terrorism and and intolerance. There continue to be some who think that "Liberal" means that we have to tolerate the intolerant (see paradox of tolerance) - and I do agree that it is genuine problem that in our effort to deny space to those who argue that it is their religious duty to dress in a particular (and deny others, for instance think of the point of view of those who wear their religion on their sleeves in the Pakistan woman squash champion thread), that we do not become intolerant as well, and we have said that fashion sense is not a government function, other than from a security perspective.
 
There continue to be some who think that "Liberal" means that we have to tolerate the intolerant

Not at all.

The problem stems from the false premise -- the generalization -- that, just because some bearded men are intolerant, therefore all bearded men are intolerant.

It is an unwarranted generalization, and sweeping generalizations are the bread and butter of illiberal intolerance.

P.S. Just in case I wasn't clear, my issue goes well beyond fashion sense, and is more about unwarranted generalizations that impinge on personal freedoms.
 
A city in western China is trying
reduce religious fervor by prohibiting
people from wearing veils, traditional
Arab dress, or growing long beards,
Associated Press reports.
"Dilute religious consciousness,
advocate a civilized healthy life style,"
the notice in the Dunmaili district of
Yining in China's heavily Muslim
western reaches read.
The notice added the campaign's
objective was "to completely get rid
of the abnormal phenomenon in the
entire community of minority ethnic
women and youth wearing Arabian
dress, growing beards and covering
their faces in veils."
The notice also called for stubborn
individuals who refuse to give up their
veils, Arab dress, or long beards to
be educated, and "diehards" turned
over to judicial departments.

Yining is in Xinjiang, a region home to
the traditionally Muslim Uighur ethnic
group. The region has occasionally
seen religiously-motivated violent
unrest.
Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims
and other minority faiths are generally
allowed to wear their traditional dress.
However, both groups have been
targeted in political re-education
campaigns following anti-government
violence related to complaints over
the lack of religious freedom in China.
Xinjiang regional spokeswoman Hou
Hanmin told AP by telephone that she
was unaware of the campaign.
"This is not consistent with the reality
here," Hou said of the campaign,
adding that it sounded "unrealistic."
The notice from the Dunmaili district
of Yining disappeared from the Yining
government website Thursday after
Western press inquiries, but remained
available on a state-run news website.
Bans of face coverings and other
forms of hijab are increasingly taking
hold in Western countries where a
failure to assimilate large numbers of
Muslim immigrants has resulted in
societal divisions and calls to
supplant the indigineous mainstream
Western culture and laws with the
growing minorities' Islamic Sharia law.
Both Tunisia and Turkey have bans on
hijab in public schools, universities,
and government buildings. Morocco
has no official ban, but actively
encourages women to eschew hijab.
In all three countries hijab is seen as
a symbol of political Islam rather than
mere religious expression.



Chinese City Seeks Burqa Ban - Israel National News

I would like to seek comments from learned members like @Awesome, @Aeronaut, @Thorough Pro, @JonAsad
@Raja.Pakistani @ChineseTiger1986


@muse @Safriz
@Developereo
etc that how do you see this particular news of ban of burqa and beard in a city of Yining situated in Xinjiang region ? isn't it wrong for the city authorities curb the freedom of dressing ?How should the Muslims in there strive for their rights and self respect ? sure it's internal matter of China but I am sure you all will have an opinion about it and suggestions for the betterment of people there.


China isnt the torch bearer of basic human rights and never claimed to be one. This act of banning veil and beard is against basic human rights and condemnable,but France beinbg torch bearer of human rights can be proud that they are in line with china now in Forcing women to remove their religious clothing in public,against their wish...
But the thing is that if people want to act upon their religion,they will do it no matter how illegal it is made by muslim and islam haters (Govt of xinjiang included).
I was in Guangdong in 1997 (Had a cute chinese GF there) and did use to go to local mosque in Guangzou for Friday prayer....Even back then Muslims were under chinese radar..The mosque had Spies attending every prayer and the Imam called Mr.Ibrahim was always scared of being arrested..
But then again chinese society is based on Strict scrutiny and keeping people under fear
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zhou Enlai, who started China's intelligence agencies, explicitly forbid the practice of political assasination and sex as tools for intelligence activites. Since he was a paramount figure in China, the rule is set in stone.

I cannot comment on assassination, but there have been a few cases in which sex/honey trap has been used against US personnel in China. This is verifiable.
 
Not at all.

The problem stems from the false premise -- the generalization -- that, just because some bearded men are intolerant, therefore all bearded men are intolerant.

It is an unwarranted generalization, and sweeping generalizations are the bread and butter of illiberal intolerance.

Honestly I thought about this very seriously, I do take your point about the generalization, and I think we can dismiss it not because it is methodologically incorrect, because it is correct, however, we have seen this over and over, this rise in outward display of "Islamic" religiosity and a CULTURE of terrorism and intolerance, so if we are to be responsible (as opposed to methodologically correct) we must view such development with great suspicion and prepare for and preempt a CULTURE of terrorism and intolerance.

I want you to personally know that I have been all over this position in a methodological sense, but I am persuaded that while I cannot assert that there are no "pink elephants", that I can operate as if there weren't

No aspect of FAITH IN GOD requires facial hair or a fashion sense, so we are on solid ground in that we are not acting against religion, and we are being responsible when we seek to preempt and prepare, when we see expression in society of CULTURAL aspects associated with terrorism and intolerance.

You will recall we have argued for long that the greatest loser after this has all died down, is going to be Islam the religion of FAITH IN GOD, but perhaps this eventuality may be just the impetus that Muslims need for the rebirth of the idea of Faith in God.
 
this rise in outward display of "Islamic" religiosity and a CULTURE of terrorism and intolerance,

There are many groups within the Muslim world who have had outward display of religiosity, and have managed to avoid terrorism all these years.

Again, we come to unwarranted generalizations. The 9/11 bombers are not outwardly religious at all. Neither was the shoe bomber.

No aspect of FAITH IN GOD requires facial hair or a fashion sense, so we are on solid ground in that we are not acting against religion

That's treading on thin ice. I don't want us to get in the business of dictating to other Muslims what is and isn't in Islam (as long as no human rights are being broken). The last thing we want to do is to go around defining "true Islam".

I would restrict such debates about "true Islam" to cases where people invoke Islam to perpetrate human rights violations or crimes. For everything else, let people practice their version of Islam.

You will recall we have argued for long that the greatest loser after this has all died down, is going to be Islam the religion of FAITH IN GOD, but perhaps this eventuality may be just the impetus that Muslims need for the rebirth of the idea of Faith in God.

I absolutely agree with you and, as noted before, my concern is that if we push it too hard and are perceived to be attacking people's traditions and beliefs, it will backfire on us and help the extremists claim the banner of "saviors of Islam".

Once again, let's restrict our criticisms to real problems of intolerance (in the name of Islam), not waste time on silly distractions of appearance or rituals.
 
I absolutely agree with you and, as noted before, my concern is that if we push it too hard and are perceived to be attacking people's traditions and beliefs, it will backfire on us and help the extremists claim the banner of "saviors of Islam".

Once again, let's restrict our criticisms to real problems of intolerance (in the name of Islam), not waste time on silly distractions of appearance or rituals.

I'm with you in this, appearance and ritual are important to those who use Islam as a tool of terrorism and we should not be scared to look this monster in the eyes nor allow the supporters of this monster to build itself in society -- we have the example of Pakistan and Pakistanis, where after 49,000 deaths at the hands of Islamist terrorism, people, otherwise reasonable and patriotic, are "not sure" whether to want or reject Shariah law - Who in their right mind and in good conscience would want such a state of mind and behavior to infect others??
 
Anyway, to bring this discussion back to topic, I think the City's actions are misguided and will backfire. Law abiding citizens, who had no connection with extremists but are now forced to give up their personal rights, will become fodder for extremist views.
 
I see many brainless posters here, and why don't you do a little search on the inetrnet using simple phrases such as Uyghur man, Uyghur dress.

For Muslims here, muslims killing other muslims are happening all over the world! In China Uyghurs also brought violence to Hui, Tajik as well as other Chinese muslims. Don't make Xinjiang a Han vs Muslim issue.
 

Back
Top Bottom