What's new

Bikini or headscarf -- which offers more freedom?

Uniform Civil Code is India specific debate, so a little off-topic.

Indian constitution specifies or directive principles of state policy that some day differences in presonal laws would be quashed and uniform civil code would be adopted but this has to be done when we are sure that there are is no discrimination based on religion and we live in an equal society..until that day we can only work towards equality..that day is not upon us yet..all i'm saying is that let us as people be equal first then we can have equal laws..let each runner in a race be at the same starting point then we can say that the race should be fair


Yes. These very privileges are being questioned here.

Responsibility do not include shedding those very privileges as you mentioned, states gaurantees! And state GUARNTEES the basic religious rights to minorities!



Exactly right. But the other way! One group / community CAN NOT IMPOSE THIER WILL on other.
Truly said.. but you don't get the context here. We should not have a problem with the uniform civil code as it will promote tolerance and unity. Are you pointing at some specific community? Today religion aside, the situation is becoming more and more unsafe and you know that identities for security reasons are important.

For example, the woman can wear a headscarf fine but when asked to remove for identification, shouldn't hesitate and consider this as a part of her own eventual security, rather than raising hue and cry for discrimination.

Some observant Jains have face masks due to their religious perceptions but when asked to identify and temporarily unmask, I don't think they call it religious discrimination. No one is imposing anything on any specific community here in India. You're needlessly counter-arguing about this.

Responsibility do not include shedding those very privileges as you mentioned, states gaurantees! And state GUARNTEES the basic religious rights to minorities!

Dude what shedding of minority rights are you talking about? Today, concealment has become an ideal weapon used by militants and many of the burka/abaya/concealing garments are being banned because of mainly security and identification purposes rather than oppressing any religious community. Look what happened in the Lal Masjid case in Pakistan. I am surprised you have something to question after such an incident occuring live in front of the whole world's eyes.

You're talking as if you are being banned to worship.

When does our constitution religiously discriminate? We're also enlisted as minorities here and don't cry foul when the state makes some uniform rule. True that there might be some religious principles that we might have to curb down (in case) but it is not meant for pressing us out of the nation.

Don't blow this out of proportion.
 
Sir, I completely understand your argument about the French claiming themselves to be democratic and secular. The confusion here is the definition of democracy and secularism.

Even the two have their limits. If Catholics/Christians/Buddhists or Hindus desired to wear such attire I'm sure they would be declared unacceptable too.

Sir, Say e.g., how many christian states BANNED the dress code of Nuns? they also cover thier head and reveal NOTHING!


Your problem lies with the belief that the concerned nations call themselves secular but do not reflect it in their policies. To that, I can only say that you're being a little greedy.

Women can dress down as much as they like (as tolerated by the public) but they cannot dress up to the extreme.


Very strange logic indeed! You mean to say there is no restriction on nudeness but certain people will go mad on seeing a modestly dresses or even vieled women? If public is to JUDGE in every instant then why countries have state laws. Let PUBLIC run the show all the way! free for all as HE/SHE wishes!:cheesy:


I am impressed. Forced to strip down..your mask ?


By the same (perverted) logic "You should be impressed(actually feel harassed) as I show you the mirror when you UNDRESS!

No nation of the world should allow any attire that can mask an individuals identity.


The citizen can be asked to carry IDENTITY CARDS at all time, by the (terror stricken:azn:) state, if identifying every vieled woman become so important! They can be searched and asked to reveal themselves, case by case basis, rather having a blanket ban!

It violates national security and the person is impossible to identify by any security footage or witness. Criminals can wear the same clothing to evade detection.

And here you assume that EVERY VIELED woman is an LeT cadre carrying a suicide vest!
 
And to your so called a secular country is wrong because they are SECULAR AND DEMOCRATIC.
Not really.

Secularism means that the State must be ‘equidistant’ from all religion including agnosticism and atheism (I have shamelessly borrowed Prof. Amartya Sen’s explanation and his term – ‘equidistant’). This can be either inclusive or exclusive. India, like US and Britain follow inclusive secularism. It means that the State is indifferent to personal display of religious symbols and conventions. In case of exclusive secularism, like that of French one, State prohibits such personal display. As long as State chooses to apply this equally over all religion (and agnostics and atheists) the State is secular.

But then somebody is FORCED TO STRIP-DOWN (by the definition and feelings of the vieled person). It CAN NOT be right by any standard.
What is the need for encouraging irrational thoughts just because it would hurt someone’s feelings. Does that mean if someone believes that the Earth is flat, it is to be encouraged simply because it may hurt his feelings on being proved to be an idiot?

It appears though, it is either Burqa or bikini. There is nothing in between for a Muslim woman.

A secular and democratic society CAN NOT impose the view of a section of society to another group of people, in the same country on how to live, eat and dress !
Don’t know how secularism fits into what you are saying, but democracy is exactly what you think it is not.
 
Sir, Say e.g., how many christian states BANNED the dress code of Nuns? they also cover thier head and reveal NOTHING!
One is apple and the other one is orange. The dress of the nun, called Habit, is a symbol of monasticism. Only when a lady chooses to be monastic she is required to put that Habit on. Ordinary female adherents of Christianity is not required to put it on. In case of Burqa, it is applicable to all female adherents of Islam.
 
Sir, Say e.g., how many christian states BANNED the dress code of Nuns? they also cover thier head and reveal NOTHING!





Very strange logic indeed! You mean to say there is no restriction on nudeness but certain people will go mad on seeing a modestly dresses or even vieled women? If public is to JUDGE in every instant then why countries have state laws. Let PUBLIC run the show all the way! free for all as HE/SHE wishes!:cheesy:

Why is revealing face such a big deal ? A face has nothing to do with modesty..I never found a woman revealing her face immodest, infact I never even thought about it until now.


By the same (perverted) logic "You should be impressed(actually feel harassed) as I show you the mirror when you UNDRESS!

Me getting undressed and me looking at my face in the mirror are worlds apart. Anyways, I am confident that flashing mirror in the changing room does not qualify in your list of hobbies.



The citizen can be asked to carry IDENTITY CARDS at all time, by the (terror stricken:azn:) state, if identifying every vieled woman become so important! They can be searched and asked to reveal themselves, case by case basis, rather having a blanket ban!

Terror does not attack with a warning and if often unprecedented. All we can do is take the best measures and expect the unexpected. Identity cards can be faked/swapped easily.


And here you assume that EVERY VIELED woman is an LeT cadre carrying a suicide vest!

Not every vieled woman, but there is a possibility that it could be one person who looked like a veiled woman. Please understand that this has nothing to do with any religion, and is only a security measure.
When society evolves, so do the laws that sustain it.
 
None of your arguments look to me convincing enough, dear toxic_pus.

Better luck next time.
 
Why is revealing face such a big deal ? A face has nothing to do with modesty..I never found a woman revealing her face immodest, infact I never even thought about it until now.

By the same argument dear, veiled face shoud not be a big deal either. If you do not like to a vieled face then look other way. What a big deal? If tommorrow, some women started wrapping a big enough cloth around a bikni clad women, say on a beach, would it be justified because it hurts thier feelings?

Me getting undressed and me looking at my face in the mirror are worlds apart. Anyways, I am confident that flashing mirror in the changing room does not qualify in your list of hobbies.

The answer was to your quetion or sarcasm or hobby, and was in same vein as yours.


Terror does not attack with a warning and if often unprecedented. All we can do is take the best measures and expect the unexpected. Identity cards can be faked/swapped easily.

So is true with unvieled women as well. An unvieled women may be a suicide member. remeber LTTE cadres? So viel or no viel, a suicide bomber or terrorist would be on her mission any way.

Not every vieled woman, but there is a possibility that it could be one person who looked like a veiled woman. Please understand that this has nothing to do with any religion, and is only a security measure.
When society evolves, so do the laws that sustain it.

When you say that not every vieled women then you agree that any law CAN NOT BE ENFORCED ON EVERY WOMEN ?
 
None of your arguments look to me convincing enough, dear toxic_pus.
:lol:

None of my arguments were meant to convince you, dear Fighter488. They were meant to provide another point of view. Although in debating circle, 'not convincing enough' is deemed to be a convenient means to duck uncomfortable points.

I can already see that you prefer to respond to only those points which you are comfortable with.

Better luck next time.
Back at ya.
 
For the uninformed, exactly this sort of ghostly cloak that covers entire body was banned in France,the not those headscarf generally worn by Muslim women and the kid in the article .

Wrong.

The French law bans schoolgirls from wearing the headscarf. It allows schoolgirls to wear pendants with the cross or star of David. The weasel word in the law is "conspicuous". The Christian and Jewish religious symbols are not considered "conspicuous", so they are allowed, while the Muslims headscarf is banned.

By engaging in blatant religious bigotry under the guise of secularism, the French state is renegging in its duty to provide equal education opportunities to all its ctiizens.
 
The 'tapadas:' Latin America's veil-clad women

Europe's heated debate over the Islamic hijab has revived memories in Peru of its own tapadas, women from Lima who in centuries past wore long skirts and a face-covering veil.

The saya, an overskirt worn tightly at the waist and raised slightly to show ankles, and the manto, a thick shawl that covered shoulders, head and much of the face, inspired painters and writers for three centuries. And they were once considered a distinctively national attire.

A legacy of the Moors, or Muslims, who fled persecution in Spain, "las tapadas Limenas" were especially common among the Spanish elite when they first arrived in Peru after the Spanish colonization in the 16th century.

The attire "was clearly intended to serve as a cover, to protect women's virtue and ward off temptation," explained Alicia del Aguila, a sociologist who has studied and written about the subject.

Over time, the bourgeoisie and the middle class appropriated the saya and the manto, which became a way for women to hide from unwanted male attention, cover their faces and also conceal their social rank and skin color.

The modest clothes provided "more freedom to those who wore them than ordinary women," argued del Aguila.

Such an approach is a far cry from the controversy stirred by the veil throughout Europe, where it is seen as a sign of the perceived Muslim oppression of women.

The lower house of parliament in France, where rundown city suburbs are home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority, has voted overwhelming to ban full Islamic veils in public spaces, and similar laws are pending in Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities.

But in Lima, the tapada loosened the stranglehold on women, giving them greater freedom while protecting their honor.

"In the 18th century, a woman who went out alone into the street was either a women who lived and worked there or a bad woman," said Jesus Cosamalon, an historian at Lima's Catholic University.


-- Dark was considered dangerous, bad --

------------------------------------------


Especially prevalent in 19th century Lima, the tapadas made a big impression on European observers. Some reacted with admiration. Others were troubled by this new form of female self-assertion.

"There is no place on Earth were women have more freedom than in Lima," Franco-Peruvian socialist and feminist Flora Tristan said in 1837 as she enthused about the women who, while covered, were free to stroll in the streets, at amphitheaters and even in Congress.

They could also be subversive -- a man could flirt with an unknown woman who could pass as his wife -- and both the Catholic Church and the Spanish sovereigns tried several times, in vain, to ban the tapadas.

Romantic tales embellished the mysterious, seductive aspect of the attire. A tapada could cover a woman's entire face, leaving only a small triangle of light to shine through and exposing only a single eye. Others showed a tantalizing part of an arm. Or just a shoe or a heel would poke playfully from the saya.

Women thus dressed were often "playing the eternal game of concealing and exposing," according to Del Aguila.

In the end, changing fashions spelled the demise of the tapadas. The economic boom of the 1860s swept in new European elites attracted by the up and coming Parisian fashions.

As the 19th century drew to a close, social codes changed, and the tapadas disappeared amid a new desire to see clearly and control, explained Cosamalon, who drew a parallel to the advent of public lighting.

"What was dark was considered dangerous, bad," he said.

For del Aguila, the history of the tapadas shows that "how an attire is worn and its history is dependant on how people use it in the long term."

The future of the Islamic veil will "especially depend on what future generations will make of it. Perhaps they will be more secular and less bent on legislating the matter," she said.

As with the debate over the Islamic veil, "views and opinions for or against the tapadas came mainly from the outside, from the authorities or observers," said Casamalon.

"The only voice we didn't hear was from the wearer."
 
Now see through this angel :

It is "islam in danger" mentality that makes people to showcase their religion in every possible way even it embrasses other.

As explained earlier, it is simply not the case.it is a matter of abiding by the dictates of Allah. Purdahwas not so uncommon amongst the high class Hindu families pre partition.But this is besides the point. You eiyther abide by it or not. Frankly, i am not so impressed with the new found liberation oF the sub continent women.I would have been much more happier if this had only been the case of being enlightened(as a lot of our ladies are __) full of wisdom and knowledge, yet a picture of modesty so innate in the East. This is the woman that I admire and respect and indeed cherish.But then I am an old man with very traditional thoughts.
Regards
Araz
 
It depends how one interprets it.

There were great muslim like Akbar, Tipu Sultan, Ras Khan, Kabir....

But no one wants there islam.

They want Islam of Aurangeb, Ghari, ...

Because as Muslims go, they are poor examples of followers of islam. My ideal is Abu bakrSiddiq(RATU) Umer (RATU) Uthman(RATU) and Ali(RATU). the former two were great leaders, the last a great scholar, and the third a picutre of modesty and self sacrifice.
NB__RATU(translated to May Allah be pleased with them)
Araz
 
Indians will always complain about Pakistan simply because they are concerned about the mess India is in.

India has more Muslims than Pakistan and this thread has nothing to do with complaining about Pakistan or what a mess India is. You're simply repeating Zaid Hamid's words like a parrot.
 
Back
Top Bottom