Burquas banned in Egypt University

[toxic_pus]

Nobody's taking refuge behind anything.
Most of us stick to the religion into which we are born but, as adults, we caliberate our degree of adherence to its tenets. The face covering is an optional tenet in Islam and many women chose to abide by it of their own volition. This fact may not suit your simplistic view of the "oppressed Muslim woman", but the reality is far more complicated than the media stereotype. In fact, some of the most ardent hijab wearers are Western converts to Islam.

First it was, ‘face covering’ is a matter of choice. When pointed out that since the so called ‘choice’ is not independent of religion, that ‘choice’ is simply an illusion, then comes the argument that religion itself is a matter of ‘choice’. When pointed out that, religion is never a ‘choice’, except in some rare cases, you merrily revert to the same old ‘face-covering-is-a-matter-of-choice’ argument. I understand that you have nothing else to add to refute my stance. And since we have already gone over this, I’ll stop here, unless you come up with something new.

As with my ‘simplistic view of the "oppressed Muslim woman"’, you can carry on with your strawman and shifting of goal post.

By your logic, Bernie Madoff justifies the stereotype of Jews as money-grubbing swindlers, and OJ Simpson justifies stereotypes of blacks as criminals.

Once is accident, twice is coincidence, thrice is incidence. When there is an identifiable pattern in repeated acts, it leaves the realms of ‘happenstance’ and enters the realms of – you like it or you don’t – ‘deliberation’.

A stereotype takes the actions of a few individuals to make a sweeping generalization about an entire group. The Western media has perpetuated this stereotype as part of its deliberate campaign to demonize all Muslims and Islam.

When these ‘few individuals’ within ‘an entire group’ are more visible, vocal and wield more power and authority, than the silent rest, then ‘a stereotype’ is probably not the one to be blamed.

Blaming everything to media stereotype and some conspiracy theory is a convenient way to side step a deep introspection, and in doing so even you are contributing to the stereotype.

 

[rubyjackass]

@REO: Everyone is talking only about the veil dude. Burqa or Niqab. I am particular about this.

 

[Developereo]

@REO: Everyone is talking only about the veil dude. Burqa or Niqab. I am particular about this.

I, personally, don't like the veil but it is a conscious choice by the women. The state shouldn't make laws against it but should try to phase out the custom by educating the clerics.

The particular case in Egypt seems to have more to do with curbing Islamic political opposition parties than any genuine security concerns.

First it was, ‘face covering’ is a matter of choice. When pointed out that since the so called ‘choice’ is not independent of religion, that ‘choice’ is simply an illusion, then comes the argument that religion itself is a matter of ‘choice’. When pointed out that, religion is never a ‘choice’, except in some rare cases, you merrily revert to the same old ‘face-covering-is-a-matter-of-choice’ argument. I understand that you have nothing else to add to refute my stance. And since we have already gone over this, I’ll stop here, unless you come up with something new.

It's really not complicated if you park your preconceived notions and use straightforward logic. Since you seem unwilling to spend the effort, allow me to spell it out:

- We are all born into a religion which we mostly keep for the rest of our life.
- As adults, we chose which aspects of the religion we follow, and which we ignore. The degree of conformance is affected by many factors, but adults do exercise a lot of control over their actions.
- The veil is an optional tenet in Islam, so the women who wear it do so by conscious choice.
- Most of them are really not interested in being "saved" from their "oppression" by deluded, sanctimonious do-gooders.

Perhaps you should give your self-righteous attitude a reality check instead of carrying water for the white man's burden and trying to save women who are asking you to please, please, leave them alone.

Really.

If, like me, you find the veil unappealing, the solution is not to stigmatize those women in the media, or to criminalize them by passing laws, but to educate them (through their clerics) to phase out the custom.

Once is accident, twice is coincidence, thrice is incidence. When there is an identifiable pattern in repeated acts, it leaves the realms of ‘happenstance’ and enters the realms of – you like it or you don’t – ‘deliberation’.

This is the oldest argument in the racist's handbook. You can always find the patterns you look for. It's called selective sampling, and deception by omission.

People have used exactly this logic against Jews: from medieval Italian money lenders, to Baron de Rothschild, to George Soros, to Bernie Madoff.

Blaming everything to media stereotype and some conspiracy theory is a convenient way to side step a deep introspection, and in doing so even you are contributing to the stereotype.

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

The particular subject of Western media's war on Islam has already been discussed on a number of threads. Feel free to continue the discussion there and I will be happy to join you. But do me a favor and read the entire thread before posting, since I really don't want to rehash old posts.

 

[rubyjackass]

I, personally, don't like the veil but it is a conscious choice by the women. The state shouldn't make laws against it but should try to phase out the custom by educating the clerics.

How many people you know are ready to be 'educated'?
I dont car about what reasons the governement has in mind. As long as good happens. Do you think UPA governemnt in India did one single thing not for political gain? But still when they take an admirable action, I am with them.

 

[Developereo]

How many people you know are ready to be 'educated'?

Almost by the very fact that these people wear the veil, it is a good guess that they are religious (not fundamentalist) and listen to their cleric. If the cleric advises them not to engage in certain activities, I think they would listen.

Controlling clerics is a task that, I think, all Muslim governments will have to do sooner or later. This is the only way to control extremism and promote cohesion within society.

 

[toxic_pus]

- We are all born into a religion which we mostly keep for the rest of our life.

So much for religion is a 'matter of choice'. Good. Some progress here.

- As adults, we chose which aspects of the religion we follow, and which we ignore. The degree of conformance is affected by many factors, but adults do exercise a lot of control over their actions.
- The veil is an optional tenet in Islam, so the women who wear it do so by conscious choice.

Religion has its own way of leading one to the 'conscious choice'.

- Most of them are really not interested in being "saved" from their "oppression" by deluded, sanctimonious do-gooders.

And you are the spokesperson for 'most of them'.

Perhaps you should give your self-righteous attitude a reality check instead of carrying water for the white man's burden and trying to save women who are asking you to please, please, leave them alone.

Really.

Your assumptions are your problem not mine. And I really don't think I give a rodent's tushi to your assumptions.

Really.

If, like me, you find the veil unappealing, the solution is not to stigmatize those women in the media, or to criminalize them by passing laws, but to educate them (through their clerics) to phase out the custom.

I see. A 1500 year old tradition can be abolished via so called education through clerics, the same people who would rather 'stigmatize' and 'criminalize' women for not wearing hijab/burqua. Yes, I am convinced.

This is the oldest argument in the racist's handbook. You can always find the patterns you look for. It's called selective sampling, and deception by omission.

Patterns that are practically carved in stone, don't need to be selectively sampled or omitted to deceive. In any case, while accusing media for being 'stereotypical' through 'selective sampling' and 'deception by omission', you are yourself stereotyping the entire western media through those very tools. But I guess thats all right.

People have used exactly this logic against Jews: from medieval Italian money lenders, to Baron de Rothschild, to George Soros, to Bernie Madoff.

Not really. Racism against Jews originated from somewhere else, and you already know that. Don't you?

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Nothing wrong there as long as you are not calling screwdriver, a spade.

The particular subject of Western media's war on Islam has already been discussed on a number of threads. Feel free to continue the discussion there and I will be happy to join you. But do me a favor and read the entire thread before posting, since I really don't want to rehash old posts.

Thanks for the invitation, but well, couldn't care less.

 

[toxic_pus]

Almost by the very fact that these people wear the veil, it is a good guess that they are religious (not fundamentalist) and listen to their cleric. If the cleric advises them not to engage in certain activities, I think they would listen.

Controlling clerics is a task that, I think, all Muslim governments will have to do sooner or later. This is the only way to control extremism and promote cohesion within society.

How do you propose to control the clerics. By making laws that certain 'aspects' are illegal and hence can't be preached, or by giving them popsicles, expecting them to be too distracted with their sucking, to preach about those 'aspects'?

 

[fhassan]

First it was, ‘face covering’ is a matter of choice. When pointed out that since the so called ‘choice’ is not independent of religion, that ‘choice’ is simply an illusion, then comes the argument that religion itself is a matter of ‘choice’.

The two are not in a chemical state of equilibrium, rather one is a prerequisite for the other to follow; a paint beyond your comprehension.

“There is no compulsion in religion” comes first, and then comes all the particulars of the religion.

Once an individual chooses to follow a religion, they choose to be bound by its particulars. The choice is there.

For example – you choose to sign a contract and all the particulars of that contract follow. Only a simpleton would say he had no choice but to follow the particulars, which is what you are doing.

Have a nice day.

 

[toxic_pus]

The two are not in a chemical state of equilibrium, rather one is a prerequisite for the other to follow; a paint beyond your comprehension.

“There is no compulsion in religion” comes first, and then comes all the particulars of the religion.

Once an individual chooses to follow a religion, they choose to be bound by its particulars. The choice is there.

For example – you choose to sign a contract and all the particulars of that contract follow. Only a simpleton would say he had no choice but to follow the particulars, which is what you are doing.

Have a nice day.

Excellent metaphor. Now, the question is, did you choose your religion the same way as choosing 'to sign a contract'?

The answer is big NO - we do not choose our religion. We are all born into our religion. We are reared and brought up within the mores of that religion. And when we are finally adult enough to make our decision, regarding our religion, we are already brainwashed into accepting all its irrationalities unflinchingly. Only few can call the bluff. So unless, you have converted from one religion to another, on your own volition, under no influence, you haven't really chosen your religion. Your parents had done the job for you and their parents did it for them and so on.

That, religion is a matter of choice, is a convenient myth.

Hope the above is not 'a paint beyond your comprehension'.

 

[fhassan]

Excellent metaphor. Now, the question is, did you choose your religion the same way as choosing 'to sign a contract'?

No I did not.

However - there is nothing stopping me from not praying 5 times a day, not fasting during Ramadan, giving to charity etc so in effect, the contract metaphor is too strong.

Similarly, there is nothing stopping the women from not wearing burkah, heck even the Hijab in almost every country. In fact, here we have the opposite problem of women being banned from wearing burkah.

We believe that God has given us free will to do whatever we want - Life is a test. Will we do what God has asked us to do, or will we do something else?

Simple.

 

[toxic_pus]

No I did not.

Case closed. But I will humour you a bit.

However - there is nothing stopping me from not praying 5 times a day, not fasting during Ramadan, giving to charity etc so in effect, the contract metaphor is too strong.

Similarly, there is nothing stopping the women from not wearing burkah, heck even the Hijab in almost every country. In fact, here we have the opposite problem of women being banned from wearing burkah.

The problem is not of 'NOT choosing' but of 'CHOOSING'. The never ending debate is, how much of that CHOOSING, apparently voluntary, is influenced by strictly religious factor and if that CHOOSING would have at all occurred if those religious factors were absent.

We believe that God has given us free will to do whatever we want - Life is a test. Will we do what God has asked us to do, or will we do something else?

Simple.

That is faith talking and I have no beef with personal faith, as long as it doesn't spill into the public arena.

 

[Developereo]

How do you propose to control the clerics. By making laws that certain 'aspects' are illegal and hence can't be preached.

I was thinking more along the lines of ongoing mandatory certification of clerics -- like teachers. The material to be preached would be sanctioned by a council of religious scholars in conjunction with state authorities.

, or by giving them popsicles, expecting them to be too distracted with their sucking, to preach about those 'aspects'?

Interesting idea. While I doubt this technique would work on most clerics, it certainly gives us valuable insight into why you have been unable to focus on straighforward logic in this thread.

So much for religion is a 'matter of choice'. Good. Some progress here.

Allegiance to a religion implies adherence to at least some of its tenets; otherwise it's an empty, ceremonial assertion. Therefore, to say that religion is a 'matter of choice' means that adherence to its tenets is a 'matter of choice'.

That has been the assertion all along. No change.

It's unfortunate that you have to resort to word play when running out of arguments.

Religion has its own way of leading one to the 'conscious choice'.

Women are very much capable of making their own decisions, as incredible as it may seem to you. Especially modern, educated women.

And you are the spokesperson for 'most of them'.

Given the opportunity, Muslim women overwhelmingly defend their decision to wear the veil. Many of them are extremely adamant about their right to chose their own dress code.

The only people harping on about the evils of veils tend to be some men and non-Muslim women.

I rather think I will take the Muslim women's own word over their detractors'.

Your assumptions are your problem not mine. And I really don't think I give a rodent's tushi to your assumptions.

Really.

Predictable response.
Self-righteous blowhards always deflate when pricked by common sense.

Really.

I see. A 1500 year old tradition can be abolished via so called education through clerics,

Any code of conduct must evolve with the times or it will become irrelevant and go extinct.

the same people who would rather 'stigmatize' and 'criminalize' women for not wearing hijab/burqua.

As stated above, despite your self-serving low opinion of Muslim women's intelligence and fortitude, most of them are not forced by anyone. For those cases in which there is coersion by clerics, the solution is not to take it out on the women, but to confront the clerics themselves. Fighting coersion by coersion is inhuman, to say the least.

Freedom of choice is really not a difficult concept, if you will just shelve your preconceived prejudices and sanctimonious charade for a while.

Patterns that are practically carved in stone, don't need to be selectively sampled or omitted to deceive.

Uh huh. So, no refutation, then?

In any case, while accusing media for being 'stereotypical' through 'selective sampling' and 'deception by omission', you are yourself stereotyping the entire western media through those very tools. But I guess thats all right.

Once again, you are struggling with elementary logic. The word 'media' is a plural word which, by definition, is a generalization. In any case, since you have opted not to discuss this topic (as you write below), so I will let it go.

Racism against Jews originated from somewhere else, and you already know that. Don't you?

I was thinking maybe the Christians over Jesus' death...
Or perhaps the Romans who sacked Jerusalem in AD70...
Or maybe it was the Pharoahs who forced the exodus...
But feel free to give us your opinion. I am sure your historical knowledge is equally as impressive as your logical faculties.

Thanks for the invitation, but well, couldn't care less.

No worries. Maybe you can reconsider when you are feeling less 'distracted'

 

[toxic_pus]

It is now my word versus yours. I will just respond to two points. You can, however, carry on with your strawmen (about my ‘opinion’ of muslim women or how I am ‘carrying’ the white man’s burden etc.) and incessant goal post shifting.

I was thinking more along the lines of ongoing mandatory certification of clerics -- like teachers. The material to be preached would be sanctioned by a council of religious scholars in conjunction with state authorities.

You want state, in consultation and conjunction with ‘council of religious scholars’ to ‘sanction’ material to be preached. Fair enough. But what is it if it is not (a) State’s interference in religion, (b) State’s attempt to declare some aspects of religion, as illegal (the unsanctioned part would automatically be deemed illegal). In a way, you accept that some aspects of religion can be declared illegal – or if you so please ‘unsanctionable’ - by the State. So why would Egypt government’s decision to ‘not sanction’ burqua/hijab, is ‘buying into the Western media stereotype’?

Allegiance to a religion implies adherence to at least some of its tenets; otherwise it's an empty, ceremonial assertion. Therefore, to say that religion is a 'matter of choice' means that adherence to its tenets is a 'matter of choice'.

That has been the assertion all along. No change.

It's unfortunate that you have to resort to word play when running out of arguments.

Earlier, in your post (#45), you wanted me to refer to another member’s post:

umairp already answered that: religion is also a choice, at least for adults.

What that member had asserted was:

Following any specific religion is one own choice... No one forcing you to follow Islam.

Since you had referred to that member’s post as your reply, without expanding what you really meant by it, it implied that you subscribed to his point of view. And by no stretch of imagination, did the member imply, ‘that religion is a 'matter of choice' means that adherence to its tenets is a 'matter of choice'’.

A case of miscommunication or ex post facto wisdom?

Anyway, what you have already accepted as self-evident axiom, is what we, ‘deluded, sanctimonious do-gooder’ ‘men and non-muslim women’ are skeptical of – whether a purportedly ‘voluntary’ religious choice made under the direct or indirect coercive influence of religion, peer and society, can truly be called ‘voluntary’. It has nothing to do - I am sure you will find it difficult look beyond your favourite strawman - with my 'self-serving low opinion of Muslim women's intelligence and fortitude'.

 

[hembo]

@ Niaz and emo_girl

I agree completely that the choice should be left to the individual under normal circumstances. However, if some legislation is passed for the sake of genuine security issue, it should be accepted. It's like not allowing pillion riding in motorcycles where there is a chance of the rider to carry out anti-social activities, or not allowing to wear full masked helmets for bike riders in a insurgency hit areas.

 

[dvk1982]

whats your problem if someone WANTS to hide her face? why are you so eager to see whats inside?

well u recognize a person based on his/her face... for me Face is the only part that can convey varied emotions without saying anything....

and answering ur satirical question, who r we to dictate women sud cover their face but not men ? covering face isn't a part of nature !! its neither a private part to hide.