Will Europe soon have a total ban on niqab & burka?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by shawn

Having seen a picture of you in uniform I think you look far too young to have been around at the beginning when this practice was first implemented, which was my point.

I posted a few of the hadith regarding niqab above, showing that some Muslim women were veiled and some not during the first years of Islam ... to me that suggests a matter of choice at that stage. Of course much had to do with status but making a blanket statement saying women was forced seems a little unfair.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Western democracies have long fought against expressions of female control and domination, and are still doing so - and the burka itself does not appear as something religiously required, but instead, is forced upon according to cultural values from domineering patriarchal societies.

This is perhaps the most important point iBrian. Are we, as Western societies deciding what is religiously required? I do not accept, or support oppression and would fight to stop the oppression of women in any form but I would want to initially establish the facts, by talking to the women, of whether they feel oppressed.

I'll give you an example, my husbands neice ... she is unmarried but chose to wear niqab because when she was studying Islam she felt there was overwhelming evidence to support niqab as being fard. Her parents were in fact oppossed to her wearing it but the more she studied the topic the more convinced she became it was a requirement.

In the same way I would fight for her if her father tried to force her to wear it, I would, knowing her beliefs, fight for her right to choose to wear it. So to me, unless we engage in discussion with women who wear burka or niqab in Europe we are trying to bring in laws that make huge assumptions about these women and why they dress the way they do.

Originally Posted by Dream

I even think that some Muslim countries will also consider bans on all kinds of masks.

This has already begun, in Egypt they have recently banned women in niqab working in government buildings (schools, hospitals, etc), largely driven by trying to appease Western allies.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

nobody's saying you can't - what is being disputed is a common understanding of the operational definition of "keep myself to myself", which you are assuming and about which i am saying there's an important semantic gap.

I gave a lot of thought to this after my last post. I thought about the communities I have seen in UK where Muslims live entirely within a bubble and the online conversations I have read where young Muslims equate being friends with a non-Muslim as nothing short of the road to hell. I also remembered living in Golders Green in my twenties among the Jewish community and how it made me feel 'out of place' and at times a little uncomfortable. So yes, I can see why people would want such communities to integrate and to be honest I haven't yet come up with an idea that would allow total integration while keeping true to your faith ... I shall continue to ponder.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i mean, 70% of communication is facial expression, everyone knows that:

and yet people communicate on a daily basis without facial expression .. are we not doing so now?

The problem with such arguments is there is a study to disprove or prove everything. In the military we were taught to remove sunglasses when talking with civilians because the eyes are such an important non-threatening part of communication but now people are arguing that niqab (even where the eyes are visible) is threatening and hinders communication.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

effectively, it is saying "i can't really talk to you" - that has to be a problem, surely?

Why is that a problem? We have all sorts of groups in society that don't want to mix with the general public.

so are we going to force skinheads to grow their hair and remove their swastika tattoo's? Their choice of haircut and body art is regarded as typical of racists and nazi's, isn't this of form of saying "I don't want to talk to you" or be a part of general society?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

really, to be fair, the law *ought* to say not just if anyone wants to identify you, you have to unveil but if anyone wants to talk to you, you have to unveil.

That is one of the more extreme opinions I have heard for a while. Personally I feel it is my choice who I speak to or even if I choose not to speak to anyone.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the same way as people are uncomfortable around hoodie teenagers, when the kids in question may be perfectly inoffensive.

So far you have equated wearing niqab with the health implications of passive smoking and now you seem to be equating it with gangs of hoodies causing trouble in shopping centres .. which is why the first hoodie ban in a shopping centre came in, it was about violent behaviour and not identification. Yes I am sure there are plenty of decent young people who wear hoodies but statistics showed hoodie wearing yobs were a problem, can we say the same for niqab wearing women?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

seriously? how about tax laws for the super-rich? how about disability access building regs? it's about the same percentage. in fact, there are a vast number of regulations that only apply in extremely rare circumstances; that is the definition of what constitutes a loophole.

I would rather like a similar example. Tax runs on a sliding scale for everyone and disability building regs are to ensure access for disabled people, not to restrict them. Banning niqab is not about the individual wearing it but to placate the public.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would say that selective enforcement might be in breach of discrimination legislation, wouldn't you? either it's discriminatory, or it ain't.

I doubt very much that an appeal would find it discriminatory based on "national defence" legislation, which is a brilliant get out clause for just about anything.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i thought you'd mention sikh motorcyclists! again, the point here is not about *safety* strictly speaking, the point is about *the effect of hiding the face*, not the *meaning of religious symbols*. the sikhs were able to successfully argue it in some case, but in some places they weren't

This is taken from the page you linked to:

"The turban doesn't represent anything except complete commitment. When you choose to stand out by tying your turban, you stand fearlessly as one single person standing out from six billion people. It is a most outstanding act."

and this is why I mentioned Sikh's, the cases are very simalar. A woman who chooses niqab tends to do so for the same reasons, to show complete commitment to Allah (swt) and to stand fearlessly and say I am a Muslim. Where do you see a difference?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

if there is no risk to others, then i've got no issue with it.

As I said S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. A Sikh killed on a construction site because he was not wearing a safety helmet would probably lead to a manslaughter case.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

we *always* defer to the "law of the land" where risk to human health is involved

what risk to human health does wearing niqab pose? and please don't talk about Vit C deficiency or we'll have to have a conservation about the health risks of alcohol and smoking - also self inflicted choices.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

while we're on the subject, there's also a medical issue here:

Middle Eastern women may have vitamin D deficiency | Reuters

It is interesting and something I have thought about myself but I would need to see the stats for how many women covered their faces and hands and how many didn't, simply saying "many" could mean anything. But to be fair I have worried about it and should get round to looking up foods high in vitD.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you and i both know that a lot of people believe things are fard when in fact they are not entirely au fait with the actual rules.

To be honest I have met women who wear niqab for many different reasons .. there is the kaffir brigade, the holier than thou brigade, the fashionista's and of course the tarts hoping their families won't recognise them going to off to meet a man. However, the majority of women I have spoken to who wear niqab do so for the right reasons, they can site chapter and verse for why niqab is or is not fard and those who feel it is not fard wear it because it is "better" for you .. those who believe it is fard have quite compelling arguments from hadith. These are the women I feel for in this problem because trust me, niqab is not an easy committment to make or easy to wear.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hah, you're not wrong. for me, the problem is not people like you that think the way you do, but people who are doing it to express their distaste for "kaafir" society.

Of course I agree with your thoughts here, I too am always angered when I see young women in niqab holding offensive banners in London or wherever but to deal with that we need to deal with education and politics, not simply ban niqab because those girls will still hold such thoughts and banners even when they can't wear niqab.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

quite - so you can rely on me to be fair about islam per se, but i won't stand idly by while islamist sects attempt to subvert liberal democracy and turn us into suckers - including muslims who know better, which is why they moved here in the first place, where they could actually overcome these restrictive practices.

I think you will find most devout Muslims that move to the West do so for purely economic reasons. If they wanted to simply overcome restrictive practices there are a number of less restrictive Muslim countries to go to live in.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It's hard to see how banning head scarves, minarets, and burkhas either prevents the ghettoization of immigrants are improves public safety in any measurable way. What it does result in is pushback on one hand, and racial fear mongering on the other. That's my take anyway.

Hi Chris. You have expressed my thoughts exactly. I would love to see a less ghetto attitude among immigrant communities here and of course I am offended by the racial fear mongering. I really believe we have to find better ways to encourage these communities to integrate but to me these bans are simply pushing the divide even wider, actually fuelling the fires of the younger generations.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

in Egypt they have recently banned women in niqab working in government buildings (schools, hospitals, etc), largely driven by trying to appease Western allies.

really? where's it been reported in the press of the "western allies"? isn't it more likely that they're banning it in order to crack down on the ikhwaan?

I thought about the communities I have seen in UK where Muslims live entirely within a bubble and the online conversations I have read where young Muslims equate being friends with a non-Muslim as nothing short of the road to hell. I also remembered living in Golders Green in my twenties among the Jewish community and how it made me feel 'out of place' and at times a little uncomfortable.

for all that we jews are supposed to be this iconic example of how a minority can integrate productively whilst still maintaining our identity, i can tell you that this attitude to being friends with non-members of the "in group" is shared in many parts of our community as well. as for your experience in golders green, sometimes the people there make outsiders feel like they're from outer space. i've felt the same on occasion - and i'm a religious jew!

and yet people communicate on a daily basis without facial expression .. are we not doing so now?

it's hardly as immediate, as nuanced or as rewarding as the evolved ability to mirror almost instantaneously the facial expressions of others. we learn this as babies, babies who don't learn this are not able to function in society - would you accept a restriction of your interaction to the internet alone? i know i wouldn't.

The problem with such arguments is there is a study to disprove or prove everything. In the military we were taught to remove sunglasses when talking with civilians because the eyes are such an important non-threatening part of communication but now people are arguing that niqab (even where the eyes are visible) is threatening and hinders communication.

because the eyes are important in reading *intention*, they are the primary signals, as you know, in fundamental fight-flight situations which are far more likely to be the military issue. once you get past that, being able to see the rest of the face is what gets you to the next level. your eyes may convey threat, but your eyebrows, mouth, chin, teeth, all the rest - these all convey other things. are you familiar with the field of "neuro-linguistic programming"?

Why is that a problem? We have all sorts of groups in society that don't want to mix with the general public.

i believe this was a point the architects of apartheid were trying to make: "separate but equal". there was one small problem: it was bollocks. look, i could accept that if we were talking about the plymouth brethren, a couple of hundred of them, maybe they could be sustained as "free riders". when you're talking about 2m muslims - or, to give an appropriate comparison, the number of ultra-orthodox inhabitants of israel - the scale reveals its lack of sustainability.

so are we going to force skinheads to grow their hair and remove their swastika tattoo's? Their choice of haircut and body art is regarded as typical of racists and nazi's, isn't this of form of saying "I don't want to talk to you" or be a part of general society?

i can still see their face. i can still see if one is smiling at me or not. there are plenty of skinheads who aren't racist.

Personally I feel it is my choice who I speak to or even if I choose not to speak to anyone.

in social situations, sure. in work situations, expect it to affect your career prospects. in legal or security situations, expect it to be cause for inconvenience. if some policeman stops my car, i probably don't want to talk to him, but it's going to be a big problem if i to avoid contact.

and this is why I mentioned Sikh's, the cases are very simalar. A woman who chooses niqab tends to do so for the same reasons, to show complete commitment to Allah (swt) and to stand fearlessly and say I am a Muslim. Where do you see a difference?

in the universal human need to communicate using facial expression and the 70% of non-verbal communication. a sikh's turban does not prevent this. a niqab does. so does a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet. this is why i don't have a problem with a hijab or even a jilbab or chador from this point of view. it's perfectly possible to show you're a muslim without hiding your face, after all the men seem to manage it, so i don't think that's a good argument.

what risk to human health does wearing niqab pose? and please don't talk about Vit C deficiency or we'll have to have a conservation about the health risks of alcohol and smoking - also self inflicted choices.

aha, but i am perfectly happy to state that one should be within one's rights to drink oneself into a coma, snort as much coke as you like or smoke yourself into emphysema, as long as you can do so without harming others. we can already see that people who insist on smoking end up corralled away from others. yes, it's their choice and they can reflect on it at their leisure whilst they stand outside the pub by themselves in the rain trying to get their fag lit.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

really? where's it been reported in the press of the "western allies"? isn't it more likely that they're banning it in order to crack down on the ikhwaan?

To be fair it's probably a mixture of the two. They certainly don't want Salafism to become more popular but there is also a great desire to Westernise the country, whether the people like it or not, or we wouldn't see two Egyptian tv presenters banned from state tv when they decided to don hijab.

The role of a government is to represent the people, not dictate to them and Egypt is a 90+ percent Muslim country so I doubt if this issue has been raised by the Egyptian people.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

would you accept a restriction of your interaction to the internet alone? i know i wouldn't.

No I wouldn't but I am also perfectly capable of communicating with people without removing my niqab.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

are you familiar with the field of "neuro-linguistic programming"?

No I am not, I shall look it up later.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

maybe they could be sustained as "free riders".

That sounds awfully like racism BB, considering we are discussing women in niqab. So if a Muslim woman in niqab is a stay at home mum then she is a free rider (riding public transport without paying the fare) (ie using more public resources than other women and contributing less to society) ... I have never heard you refer to other stay at home mums as free riders.

Of course if she's a stay at home mum then her communication abilities in niqab are really a non issue!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i can still see their face. i can still see if one is smiling at me or not.

This just seems like such a non issue BB. Women who wear niqab don't want to stop and have a natter with you or smile at you. If they come to your place of work it is for a specific purpose, which doesn't include passing the time of day, smiling or creating friendships. By virtue of your gender they don't want to mix with you, it really isn't a huge problem or certainly shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

there are plenty of skinheads who aren't racist.

Absolutely, there are indeed black skinheads but the white power skinheads have the same dress codes ... could you tell the difference if one was walking toward you? Should we ban their "identity dress" because some are racist nutters?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in social situations, sure. in work situations, expect it to affect your career prospects. in legal or security situations, expect it to be cause for inconvenience. if some policeman stops my car, i probably don't want to talk to him, but it's going to be a big problem if i to avoid contact.

The only niqabi's I have heard of working in UK do so in Islamic schools, mosques or family business, I doubt they would want to work outside these environments. In security situations identity can be established by removing the niqab or refusing access if she refuses to be identified. If the police stop a niqabi while she is driving the police have a right to check her identity. Problems solved.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in the universal human need to communicate using facial expression and the 70% of non-verbal communication.

I have sat in restaurants with a group of women, some in niqab and some hijab ... ALL of us were able to communicate well, we know when we are smiling at each other by watching the eyes and listening to tones of voice (remember the old smile on the phone trick). It is only a problem to communication if you want it to be.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as long as you can do so without harming others.

So we are back to the harm to public health that niqab wearing brings and you still have not provided any evidence or even a suggestion of how niqab is a danger to the health of the public at large. We know that there is no evidence that niqabi's are more likely to be terrorists or commit a crime .. so rather than keep stating they are a danger to public health please explain to me HOW they are?

[Muslimwoman]

There is an interesting article on Legal Frontiers website discussing the proposed niqab ban in Canada.

What’s wrong with banning the niqab? — Legal Frontiers: McGill's Blog on International Law

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

This has already begun, in Egypt they have recently banned women in niqab working in government buildings (schools, hospitals, etc), largely driven by trying to appease Western allies.

Proof that this is the reason? Or are you merely swallowing extremist propaganda?

As I said S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. A Sikh killed on a construction site because he was not wearing a safety helmet would probably lead to a manslaughter case.

Why? If the Sikhs want to take the risk, then they assume all the consequences of the risk.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Proof that this is the reason? Or are you merely swallowing extremist propaganda?

Whatever the reason behind the ruling, the government is still denying the "freedom of religion" and that is also tyranny. So are you against this action, yes or no?

If you say no, then you are a hypocrite who is only against tyranny under the guise of religion and not tyranny itself.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by c0de

Whatever the reason behind the ruling, the government is still denying the "freedom of religion" and that is also tyranny. So are you against this action, yes or no?

I am completely against any government ban on the wearing of specific items of clothing for religious purposes. Women who wish to wear the niqab and burka should have no government interference in this practice.

If you say no, then you are a hypocrite who is only against tyranny under the guise of religion and not tyranny itself.

Sorry, you lose. I'm not the one who is refusing to denounce ALL government meddling in religious affairs, regardless of what the religion in question might be and regardless of the direction the meddling is taking.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Sorry, you lose.

???

"Lose" what, exactly? I asked you a question and you answered it (to my liking akshully)

I'm not the one who is refusing to denounce ALL government meddling in religious affairs, regardless of what the religion in question might be and regardless of the direction the meddling is taking.

Neda's story - What did she die for?

^^ sounds like a pretty clear denunciation to me.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

No I wouldn't but I am also perfectly capable of communicating with people without removing my niqab.

look, communication requires the ability to recognise facial expression, not just eye expression. i think you're being terribly obtuse about this. there are reams of studies which tell us that both peripheral vision and a sort of feedback called "mirroring", as well as many other factors to do with mouth, nose, lines, forehead etc are all crucial to human communication. you and i are communicating now, but the richness of our communication is hugely, hugely restricted by the medium and our inability to hear the tone of each other's voice, or see the other's face. in the same way that yr brn fls n th blnks n ths sntnce, it fills in the blanks in visual spaces as well. our brains work by pattern matching - removing part of the pattern causes heuristics to fire in order to make up for the lacuna. this does *not* occur for the hijab, turban or with facial hair. just google "facial recognition" "communication" and "studies" and you'll see what i mean.

That sounds awfully like racism BB, considering we are discussing women in niqab.

even if i were prejudiced against muslims - which i'm not - it wouldn't be "racism" - it would be islamophobic bigotry. which it isn't.

So if a Muslim woman in niqab is a stay at home mum then she is a free rider (riding public transport without paying the fare) (ie using more public resources than other women and contributing less to society) ... I have never heard you refer to other stay at home mums as free riders.

if you look at what i wrote, i referred to the plymouth brethren, a christian group, as well as the [anti-zionist] ultra-orthodox inhabitants of israel, this has nothing to do with stay-at-home mums, who are providing a valuable (and largely unpaid) social role as carers and domestic managers. *socially* (and, in the case of the ultra-orthodox, economically), however, any group which refuses to interact with a society in which they benefit from public spending consists of free riders. i'm making a point about scalability here: Free rider problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - a few free riders are supportable by a group, but not a huge number. this is a big problem, as i have already said, in israeli society right now.

This just seems like such a non issue BB. Women who wear niqab don't want to stop and have a natter with you or smile at you. If they come to your place of work it is for a specific purpose, which doesn't include passing the time of day, smiling or creating friendships. By virtue of your gender they don't want to mix with you, it really isn't a huge problem or certainly shouldn't be.

you can't be serious. this is a BIG issue for me, i am amazed you are dismissing it so blithely. most people make many friends in the workplace and many meet their partners that way. it would be a pretty unpleasant place to work if nobody smiled or was friendly or passed the time of day, let alone gave the reason that it was because of your gender. haven't you ever made friends at work? how about if someone didn't want to mix with you because you were a woman, or a muslim, or white? i think you'd be pretty fecking offended. if this is really what you think, then i have to inform you that you are painting a pretty unpleasant picture of islamic society which, moreover, is not borne out by the muslims i know, many of whom are pretty darn religious.

In security situations identity can be established by removing the niqab or refusing access if she refuses to be identified. If the police stop a niqabi while she is driving the police have a right to check her identity. Problems solved.

no - it solves the security problem, not the social problem.

I have sat in restaurants with a group of women, some in niqab and some hijab ... ALL of us were able to communicate well, we know when we are smiling at each other by watching the eyes and listening to tones of voice (remember the old smile on the phone trick).

i dare say i could do the same with my friends, but i'm not talking about my friends.

It is only a problem to communication if you want it to be.

nonsense. you are trying to airily dismiss a serious, serious concern which i am trying to raise as impartially and calmly as i can; the arguments you have offered do not reassure me; they do the opposite. this bothers me greatly, because i already know you to be a nice, intelligent, ethical, sensible, socially conscious individual. it seems to me that your niqab is giving you a blind spot.

So we are back to the harm to public health that niqab wearing brings and you still have not provided any evidence or even a suggestion of how niqab is a danger to the health of the public at large.

it is dangerous for someone to drive wearing one of these things - unless they have signed the waiver i mentioned above (not, incidentally, necessary in the case of a sikh turban because it doesn't obscure the face) and therefore a danger to other drivers. it is dangerous for someone to walk in the streets wearing one due to peripheral vision and therefore increases the risk to other road users. it restricts the ability of women to participate in the economy (contrary to your point about islamic organisations, as we have had at least one case where a niqabi wanted to be allowed to teach in a primary school) or operate equipment of any kind. arguably, it is a danger to your health due to vitamin d restriction. most seriously, it is a danger to social *cohesion*. it is, by your own arguments, likely to cause serious social rifts.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

look, communication requires the ability to recognise facial expression, not just eye expression. i think you're being terribly obtuse about this.

This could go round in circles forever. Yes communication is made easier without niqab but for those wearing niqab they are perfectly able to communicate in public with those they WANT to communicate with and who accept them as they have chosen to be.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

however, any group which refuses to interact with a society in which they benefit from public spending consists of free riders.

BB you brought free riding into a conversation about women wearing niqab so to say you just happened to mentioned a Christian group is not really adding anything to the conservation.

So let's say a niqabi is married and doesn't have children, her husband works and pays taxes and national insurance. He makes friends at work, they shop at the local stores and like so many families spend their wages back into our economy .... are you suggesting she is a free rider because she doesn't want to make friends outside her own circle?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you can't be serious. this is a BIG issue for me, i am amazed you are dismissing it so blithely.

You mentioned on another post that visiting Golders Green was sometimes like visiting another planet for you and you are a religious Jew. Now, you may find the attitude (of not wanting to mix) among some orthodox Jews in that area just as annoying as you find niqabi's who do not want to mix with you but personally I respect their right not to want to mix with me. I don't want to make friends with people who do not like mixing with me but I don't lose any sleep over them not wanting to even walk on the same side of the street as me. I don't care if they think I am satan's spawn, I accept they have a right not to mix with me. Of course I would love them to sit and meet me, to discuss views and hopefully learn about each others beliefs and lives but if they don't want to no big deal.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

nonsense. you are trying to airily dismiss a serious, serious concern which i am trying to raise as impartially and calmly as i can; ... your niqab is giving you a blind spot.

I am not trying to dismiss anything airily, I just cannot comprehend why this is such a big problem for you. A vast majority of Muslim women in this country do not wear niqab and of the small number who do many are active in their communities. Why should such a small number of women who do not want to mix with men, even Muslim men outside their family, cause such a problem for you?

The part in bold is such an important issue here which I don't think we have discussed yet. I belive if a woman doesn't want to mix with men outside her immediately family this is her choice and I will fight for her right to do so. Those same women will happily sit with your wife and her friends, remove her niqab and have a good old chin wag. Sorry but I don't understand why that gets you so riled.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it is dangerous for someone to drive wearing one of these things.

Personally I don't agree with women driving in niqab, although I have never tried it. This was made illegal in Kuwait although has never been inforced. Liberals there are also calling for men to be banned from driving in their traditional head covers. I wonder where this could lead, perhaps people with long hair would have to tie it into a pony tail to drive?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it is dangerous for someone to walk in the streets wearing one due to peripheral vision and therefore increases the risk to other road users.

Would you like to borrow my niqab and walk in the street for 5 minutes and then repeat that?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it restricts the ability of women to participate in the economy

So you believe that all women should work?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

arguably, it is a danger to your health due to vitamin d restriction.

Vitamin D Deficiency | Health | Patient UK

"Vitamin D deficiency is a very common problem - more than half of the UK population has insufficient levels of vitamin D."

How many of those people do you think wear niqab?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

most seriously, it is a danger to social *cohesion*. it is, by your own arguments, likely to cause serious social rifts.

We are never going to see total social cohesion among all communities. Of course it is important for Muslims to get involved with society, particularly these days, but this can and is being achieved among those that want to get involved.

The other side of the coin is that if you want these women to get involved in society you are actually working against that if you insist they must remove their niqab in order to do so. Surely a better strategy would be to include them as they are, to show them that shirk is not the inevitable outcome in mixing and then perhaps in time they would make different choices?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Yes communication is made easier without niqab but for those wearing niqab they are perfectly able to communicate in public with those they WANT to communicate with and who accept them as they have chosen to be.

i'm sorry, but this feels like a statement of pure and simple separatism. i don't accept it in my community and i can't accept it in another. it has the unmistakable whiff of chauvinism about it.

BB you brought free riding into a conversation about women wearing niqab so to say you just happened to mentioned a Christian group is not really adding anything to the conservation.

then you haven't understood what i was saying. i'll try again.

So let's say a niqabi is married and doesn't have children, her husband works and pays taxes and national insurance. He makes friends at work, they shop at the local stores and like so many families spend their wages back into our economy .... are you suggesting she is a free rider because she doesn't want to make friends outside her own circle?

she is not a free rider in economic terms. she is a free rider in *social* terms. now that is all very well in small numbers, but when the scale of people acting in this way becomes large, it is unsustainable, as the israelis have discovered with the ultra-orthodox, but the british have not discovered with the plymouth brethren. as you know, however, this is not my main objection to the niqab.

You mentioned on another post that visiting Golders Green was sometimes like visiting another planet for you and you are a religious Jew. Now, you may find the attitude (of not wanting to mix) among some orthodox Jews in that area just as annoying as you find niqabi's who do not want to mix with you but personally I respect their right not to want to mix with me.

i don't. i know what it's based on and it offends me to my core. same with other chauvinist, exclusivist crap.

Of course I would love them to sit and meet me, to discuss views and hopefully learn about each others beliefs and lives but if they don't want to no big deal.

look, i can understand why you'd think that, but i have been round and round this issue (not just with niqab, i mean the separatism issue) and i have concluded that mainstream society has been taken advantage of.

I am not trying to dismiss anything airily, I just cannot comprehend why this is such a big problem for you. A vast majority of Muslim women in this country do not wear niqab and of the small number who do many are active in their communities. Why should such a small number of women who do not want to mix with men, even Muslim men outside their family, cause such a problem for you?

it is symptomatic of an attitude which i cannot approve of. that attitude has become entrenched in certain sections of the community and the niqab is a symptom of it. look - you yourself just said that you think it's OK for someone to not talk to me because i'm a man. i don't think that's OK. i don't think it's OK for someone to not talk to me because i'm jewish, or to not talk to someone else because they're black, or hindu, or disabled. it is NOT FECKING ON. it is DISCRIMINATION. aside from being illegal, it is a serious, serious social problem that we have spent decades if not centuries trying to solve and here we go bringing it back in again under the guise of cultural exceptionalism.

The part in bold is such an important issue here which I don't think we have discussed yet.

in my opinion, it is the result of total neurosis and hysteria about sex. i think the same about extreme dress codes. we need to have some sense of proportion about these things. niqab is the precise opposite of this.

Liberals there are also calling for men to be banned from driving in their traditional head covers. I wonder where this could lead, perhaps people with long hair would have to tie it into a pony tail to drive?

if the evidence is there that it's dangerous, i agree.

So you believe that all women should work?

that's not what i said. i said that if you can't go to work except in a niqab, you're excluded from large parts of the economy.

"Vitamin D deficiency is a very common problem - more than half of the UK population has insufficient levels of vitamin D."

How many of those people do you think wear niqab?

from the site you linked to:

Situations where the body is unable to make enough vitamin D
People who get very little sunlight on their skin are also at risk of vitamin D deficiency. This is more of a problem in the most northern parts of the world where there is less sun.

This might occur in the following groups of people:.

•People who stay inside a lot - for example, those in hospital for a long time or housebound people.
•People who cover up a lot of their body when outside - for example, wearing conservative Muslim veils such as the niqab or burqa.
•People with pigmented (coloured) skins. This includes black and Asian people. Caucasian (white) people are less at risk.
•Strict sunscreen use can potentially lead to vitamin D deficiency, particularly if high SPF creams (factor 15 or above) are used. Nevertheless, children especially should always be protected from the harmful effect of the sun's rays and should never be allowed to burn or be exposed to the strongest midday sun.

i would also point out, of course, that the majority of muslims in the uk (although by no means all) also fall into the darker-skinned category, thus increasing the risk.

We are never going to see total social cohesion among all communities. Of course it is important for Muslims to get involved with society, particularly these days, but this can and is being achieved among those that want to get involved.

from everything i have seen and heard, i think niqab does nothing but drive a big fat cart and horses through those efforts, in a way that hijab definitely doesn't, because of the cultural and biological significance of showing your face, which you have completely avoided in favour of anecdotal "well, i'm fine with it" statements.

The other side of the coin is that if you want these women to get involved in society you are actually working against that if you insist they must remove their niqab in order to do so. Surely a better strategy would be to include them as they are, to show them that shirk is not the inevitable outcome in mixing and then perhaps in time they would make different choices?

they've had plenty of opportunity to do so. i am out of patience with this as an issue.

it feels like we have exhausted this issue and have reached the "agree to disagree" stage. i'd just like to say that if i objected to the niqab before, my objections have been strengthened, not weakened, by this discussion, which i dare say was not your intention.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by c0de

???

"Lose" what, exactly? I asked you a question and you answered it (to my liking akshully)


Neda's story - What did she die for?

^^ sounds like a pretty clear denunciation to me.

Read further down. She refuses to reject any and all state sponsorship of religion and insists that Shari'a is the ideal law code.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i don't think it's OK for someone to not talk to me because i'm jewish, or to not talk to someone else because they're black, or hindu, or disabled. it is NOT FECKING ON. it is DISCRIMINATION. aside from being illegal,

And the hunting fishing brigade don't want to go out socializing with chavs or vice versa and mods don't want to socialise with rockers and football fans don't want to socialise with the ballet crowd and the fox hunting lot won't pass the time of day with the anti hunt lobby ... it's not racism, it's not discrimination, it's not illegal ..... IT'S LIFE. We socialise with people we have shared interests with .. you cannot force any of these groups to wake up tomorrow and like each other.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

if the evidence is there that it's dangerous, i agree.

Is there evidence that driving in niqab (without an eye mesh) is dangerous? I've googled but can't find any studies. If there is evidence then I would agree with such a law but so far all I can find on the net is speculation.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would also point out, of course, that the majority of muslims in the uk (although by no means all) also fall into the darker-skinned category, thus increasing the risk.

but you still have not explained how this issue is a danger to public health.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it feels like we have exhausted this issue and have reached the "agree to disagree" stage.

Agreed.

[bananabrain]

And the hunting fishing brigade don't want to go out socializing with chavs or vice versa and mods don't want to socialise with rockers and football fans don't want to socialise with the ballet crowd and the fox hunting lot won't pass the time of day with the anti hunt lobby ... it's not racism, it's not discrimination, it's not illegal ..... IT'S LIFE. We socialise with people we have shared interests with .. you cannot force any of these groups to wake up tomorrow and like each other.

in a work context, this kind of behaviour would end up with the lawyers quicker than usain bolt on his way to the bog.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in a work context, this kind of behaviour would end up with the lawyers quicker than usain bolt on his way to the bog.

I hope it would go to court and not just result in a financial settlement. Niqabi's can't pick and choose which religious instructions to adhere to, to suit themselves. I remember in Egypt when an Al-Azhar Mufti decreed that a woman can work with non-family males if the male suckles the woman. This is stupid and dangerous manipulation. Indeed if a male is suckled by a female he cannot ever marry her, so strictly speaking the Mufti was right but who in their right mind would accept that the faith intended this instruction for grown adults who want to work together? What man would allow his wife to be suckled by strangers so they could work together ... it's a nonesense.

If you are conservative enough to wear the niqab then you should be conservative enough to follow the instructions of Allah (swt)
“And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance…” [Quran 33: 33]


this is how I would argue against such a court case. If niqabi's want to work then start an all female, all niqabi business or work in Islamic schools or a womans Islamic hospital. For niqabi's to work in a general office of mixed faiths or no faith they would be open to breaking so many Islamic principles that the wearing of niqab in such a situation would be futile imo.

Of course I have no objection to women working, I very much support it and have an interview next week (cross your fingers for me) but this is not a one way street where Muslim women should demand everything change to suit them.

My objection to the proposed ban is for the women who do follow Allah (swt) completely and not selectively, they abide in their homes and go out when they need to (taking kids to school, shopping, doctor, etc). Such bans would simply isolate these women totally and I object.