Banning Muslim Garb

[Tirisilex]

France is putting out a law so that Islamic women can no longer wear the full robe and veil which covers them.. Only exposing their eyes.. Their reasoning is that it represents women inequality. Now I know without a doubt that there are woman muslims out there who really don't mind dressing this way. I personally believe that people should be allowed to dress in anyway they wish..
I mean do you see any laws being passed for the opposite? What do I mean by the opposite? I mean String tiny Bikinis.. We allow woman at beaches to be in public dressed like this..

[Ekanta]

I have thought of this...
Banning the wearing of "full robe and veil which covers them.. Only exposing their eyes" [Niqab/Burqa] I would think is ok. It has no good purpose. Instead what it does is so you cant see who it is, you cant see the expression on the face.

Do you recognize this person:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_burka_bandit_071018_ssh.jpg

But I would not agree that it is ok to ban a normal veil [Hijab] as its not my business to look at a persons hair. We can still see who it is and better understand that person.

On the other hand I can agree on the "String tiny Bikinis". Its the other side of the coin. Its too much.

All in all, there shouldnt be an absolute freedom in clothing as it affects other people.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste: These issues are certainly made tougher in today's climate of terrorism. I believe the French government's reasoning is male terrorists could use clothing as a disguise to roam about the airports and the like. I think it amounts to racial profiling, yet I would be more prone to agree, if there was actually several incidents of this type of cloak and dagger terrorism actually happening.

It reminds me of the Sikh turban issue in Canada. A veterans support group called the Royal Canadian Legion banned hats out of respect for the British pomp. Turbans were interpreted as hats. Court battles ensued. Again, it was veiled racism.

Social norms of countries vary widely. Germany has many nude beaches whilst it would be basically totally unheard of in many countries including the Islamic world and the Hindi world. I just hope it doesn't increase an already volatile relationship between cultures.

Aum Namasivaya

[sanjaya]

France and other European governments are cracking down on Islamic ways of life for several reasons. Some of them are legitimate. On the one hand, we have to face the fact that Islam is a contentious religion which seeks to impose itself on the rest of the culture (e.g. they demand sharia law in Muslim neighborhoods). Most other religious people are capable of coexisting, but Muslims often seek to create Islamic states out of secular republics. Banning hijabs, minarets (spires on mosques) and other such things is probably based on the belief that preventing public expressions of Islam will retard its encroachment upon Western culture.

But there are also more dubious reasons at work here. As EM pointed out, there's a layer of racism here. Muslims represent racial heterogeny, which is undesirable to many Western peoples. In America, racism is starting to go away. But Europe never had the racial clashes that America did, and maybe this is why there is still an underlying racism there. Let's not be too quick to cheer as Europe sticks it to Islam.

What if, all of a sudden, Western countries decided to stop allowing the construction of Hindu temples and restricted our religious practice to our private homes, citing reasons of cultural encroachment. Would this be acceptable to us? It's important for us to protect the rights of the most unpopular people, so that things like this don't happen to us. Jewish people have learned this lesson, and maybe that's why you'll find the ACLU protecting the rights of distasteful groups like the KKK. I think that mainstream Islam is a terrible religion, but I don't think it's in our best interest to support Muslim oppression.

[Explorer]

France is putting out a law so that Islamic women can no longer wear the full robe and veil which covers them

About time, if I can't wear a full mask in banks and airports, them being allowed to do so is a discrimination against all of us. They should be allowed to wear masks in public places when I too can enter a bank dressed like this :D

http://www.holidayforeveryday.com/wp-content/vendetta_07.jpg

I'm sure nobody will be able to ban anything beyond the face mask, because it's highly debatable what constitutes a Muslim head veil, as opposed to a regular one.

The security issues come from the mask, not from covering the hair.

[NetiNeti]

My bank went nuts when I walked in without taking my motorcycle helmet off yet. The security guard stopped me and made me take it off. These women should dress how they want but also understand that limitations come with that expression, such as going into places where they must be seen. Freedom comes with responsibility.

[wcrow]

I think that anything that breaks security regulations for banks and other public places should be banned full stop, no matter if it is for religious or other reasons. So, that includes the muslim veil and face coverings when entering banks.
However, if this is about stopping oppression or extremism, ultimately it will achieve nothing. If muslim women aren't allowed to wear the headscarf outside, then thier abusive husbands will just keep them inside. The very few women in western countires that wear the veil/men who make thier wives wear the veil, for whatever reason, will not be stopped with a ban. It goes much deeper than can be solved by a ban.

[MahaHrada]

I think that anything that breaks security regulations for banks and other public places should be banned full stop, no matter if it is for religious or other reasons. So, that includes the muslim veil and face coverings when entering banks.
However, if this is about stopping oppression or extremism, ultimately it will achieve nothing. If muslim women aren't allowed to wear the headscarf outside, then thier abusive husbands will just keep them inside. The very few women in western countires that wear the veil/men who make thier wives wear the veil, for whatever reason, will not be stopped with a ban. It goes much deeper than can be solved by a ban.

If one allows woman to wear a veil there will be a cleft in society, between good and bad woman from the viewpoint of the average muslim male. Woman without veil in the public, in regions or parts of a city with high percentage of muslim population, will be harrassed and intimidated some muslim men even belive that it is allowed to rape a woman that wears no veil and has no male company in public. Thats why if the burqa or veil is allowed non muslim woman will also be forced to wear a veil to avoid violence, harassment, groping, intimidation and other problems, including rape. Thats why a ban is a must.

[wcrow]

If one allows woman to wear a veil there will be a cleft in society, between good and bad woman from the viewpoint of the average muslim male. Woman without veil in the public, in regions or parts of a city with high percentage of muslim population, will be harrassed and intimidated some muslim men even belive that it is allowed to rape a woman that wears no veil and has no male company in public. Thats why if the burqa or veil is allowed non muslim woman will also be forced to wear a veil to avoid violence, harassment, groping, intimidation and other problems, including rape. Thats why a ban is a must.

Perhaps this is true, and I agree that something must be done. I just don't think a ban will help. What are these men going to do - give up because it is not allowed? Rape ect is already banned by the government.
No, they will carry on, oppress thier wives further, and they will also hate the state for banning something they feel is neccessary to being a muslim.
The problem is with those who teach oppressive islam - not the veil itself.
If the women and men felt their was no need for a veil, then there wouldn't be a problem. And since it does not say this in the quran, or other islamic religious texts (the veil is fairly recent, adopted after the expansion of islam), it must be coming from somewhere else.

[MahaHrada]

Perhaps this is true, and I agree that something must be done. I just don't think a ban will help. What are these men going to do - give up because it is not allowed? Rape ect is already banned by the government.
No, they will carry on, oppress thier wives further, and they will also hate the state for banning something they feel is neccessary to being a muslim.
The problem is with those who teach oppressive islam - not the veil itself.
If the women and men felt their was no need for a veil, then there wouldn't be a problem. And since it does not say this in the quran, or other islamic religious texts (the veil is fairly recent, adopted after the expansion of islam), it must be coming from somewhere else.

Banning the Veil will send a definite signal to these men that they are living in a country were woman without a veil are normal and respected and not whores that can be legally raped.

It is not only about muslim woman, it is also about the rest of society. We have to restrict the influence of barbaric customs, If that is not done the society will change.
Muslim woman will be mistreated whether the veil is allowed or banned, allowing the veil will not change anything substantiall immediately for them. Probably in a few generations, but if nothing is done these customs will eventually grow stroonger and evcen spread to non muslim as well, due to harassment.
Muslims will always hate kuffars whether they allow them to wear the veil or not so you can be always shure of muslim hate, it is part of their culture and religion, nothing you do, except converting to islam will change that.

Rape and harrasiing woman is still forbiden by the law but for how long? There has already been a ruling in a german court about a muslim man who beat his wife severly, were he was not sentenced because he was a muslim. The reason the (female!) judge gave for this was that beating his wife is naturally for a muslim and part of his culture and that the woman when marrying the man should have known that,thereforee it is her own fault, case closed.

In Britain there is already a part implementation of sharia law going on, muslims can go to special sharia courts to settle their legal matters. It is only a matter of time and they will be given extra legal status regarding cases of honour killings and harassment and rape of (unveiled) woman, like in muslim country. There is a lot of pressure from wealthy and inflential muslim lobby groups and muslims are already a huge vote bloc, this poses a danger for human rights and liberty in democracies.

[wcrow]

I agree that "barbaric" cultures should not be allowed to practice barbarism in a country that is not thier own, if it upsets the sensibilities of the people of that country. Perhaps you are right, and the veil should be banned. But where next - a total ban on muslim face coverings like the headscarf? Will muslims not be allowed to practice thier religion? Where do you think this should end?
To my mind, muslims have just as much right as anybody else to practice thier religion and settle financial and legal matters in the way that they wish, as long as it does not break the law of the country they are in.
Will this ban not foster extremism, hate for non-muslims, ect?
I admit, I am no expert on the matter.

[MahaHrada]

I agree that "barbaric" cultures should not be allowed to practice barbarism in a country that is not thier own, if it upsets the sensibilities of the people of that country. Perhaps you are right, and the veil should be banned. But where next - a total ban on muslim face coverings like the headscarf? Will muslims not be allowed to practice thier religion? Where do you think this should end?
To my mind, muslims have just as much right as anybody else to practice thier religion and settle financial and legal matters in the way that they wish, as long as it does not break the law of the country they are in.
Will this ban not foster extremism, hate for non-muslims, ect?
I admit, I am no expert on the matter.

These are important Questions, where is the limit? I don´t have a ready answer for all of them. There is now already a new generation of converts to islam that are not coming from immigrant background, but nonetheless became terrorist or fight as white mujahideen, due to fanatical imams that where allowed to convert and preach in european and american mosques and therefore could convert the local population. This shows us the danger of the religion as such not only of barbaric customs.

When trying to understand Islam one should look at it as both a political and religious movement. The religious and political aim of Islam is a world government under the rule of Islam. There is no way to change that aim, it is an essential part of Islam.
In Islam therefore there is not even a theoretical possibility of a lasting cooperation or mutual acceptance between a muslim state and a non muslim state or government or society. Cooperation or acceptance is allowed only to last temporarly, if the muslim forces are too weak to conquer the enemy, ultimately the fight against or the conquering of all the kuffar states and govermnets remains the aim and must be taken up at a later stage when the muslims have become strong enough to do so. Therefore the religion as such is already posing a danger for any non muslim government because it teaches supremacy and violent opposition to all non muslim governments, societal norms and institutions, It must therefore be limited in its expression and kept under more strict control if it is allowed at all to gain influence by allowing active conversion efforts or propagation among non muslims. Further restrictions on free expression of Islam than only banning the garb would shurely help to avoid civil war and terrorism. I also think the minaret ban in switzerland is a step in the right direction.There are some moderate muslims, mostly those that are not religiously inclined, but moderate Islam is a myth, it does not exist.
Like i said there is no way to avoid the hate of muslims or their extremism by whatever accomodations or acceptance, except conversion. Even fellow muslims are persecuted and hated already for very little reason as heretics and unbelivers, like the ahmadiyya, when thy differ only slighthly from offical Islamic mainstream schools, This is probably hard to belive when one has never been exposed to a muslim majority as an outsider but there is no way to avoid extremism or hate by allowances, on the contrary you are only considered a weak and unworthy person if you give in to demands and therefore attract even more hostility, violence and disrespect.

The whole muslim world laughs at Obamas new muslim policies, because of his apparent weakness, from the muslim viewpoint a strong person fights, only a weak needs to negotiate and give in to demands, and therefore they will double their attacks and demands. Nothing is gained by accomodating speech or acts, because of this cultural difference in the understanding of negotiation and diplomacy.

[wcrow]

what a load of BS

What are you referring to?

"When trying to understand Islam one should look at it as both a political and religious movement. The religious and political aim of Islam is a world government under the rule of Islam. There is no way to change that aim, it is an essential part of Islam."

I don't understand how this can be true, when the first muslims (muhammad era) saw it as a religion just for arabs, and even discouraged conversion from anything other than arab paganism. It was not until later that the religion became missionary, and was spread by the sword and conversions. Granted, I am not an expert on early islam, or islam at all for that matter, but this just seems like anti-islamic propaganda.

As for banning garb and minarets - out of sight, out of mind. It does nothing to get to the root of the problem, which is fundamentalist, fanatical imams, and the fact that muslims are having to cling onto thier culture - people often turn to extremism when they are being blamed for terrorism and are having thier homes invaded.

[MahaHrada]

What are you referring to?

"When trying to understand Islam one should look at it as both a political and religious movement. The religious and political aim of Islam is a world government under the rule of Islam. There is no way to change that aim, it is an essential part of Islam."

I don't understand how this can be true, when the first muslims (muhammad era) saw it as a religion just for arabs, and even discouraged conversion from anything other than arab paganism. It was not until later that the religion became missionary, and was spread by the sword and conversions. Granted, I am not an expert on early islam, or islam at all for that matter, but this just seems like anti-islamic propaganda.

As for banning garb and minarets - out of sight, out of mind. It does nothing to get to the root of the problem, which is fundamentalist, fanatical imams, and the fact that muslims are having to cling onto thier culture - people often turn to extremism when they are being blamed for terrorism and are having thier homes invaded.

There is no Islam that is moderate, mainstream islam is always extremist and supremacist, moderate islam is a fabrication of western media and politicians. It does not exist. It is a myth.

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

I do believe, and as Muslims, we do believe, that there is a clash between two civilizations today. One civilization is based upon Man - that believes that Man is sovereign, and they believe they have the right to legislate - and one civilization that believes that sovereignty and supremacy belongs to God.
[...]
The people in the past used to worship the idols which they used to make with their hands. Nowadays, people worship idols which are more intellectual - like democracy, liberalism, freedom, and so on. So these need to be destroyed as well, and replaced with worshipping and obeying Allah....

British Islamist Anjem Choudary: Freedom and Democracy Are Idols That Must Be Destroyed and Replaced with Obedience to Allah.

Viewpoint on cooperation mutual acceptance and negotiation between muslims and non muslims:

"O Believers, do not take the Jews nor the Christians as your friends, they are one another's friends only. If anyone of you takes them as friends, surely he shall be counted among them. Indeed, Allah deprives the wrongdoers of His Guidance."

Qur'an 5:51.

"Have you not seen those who have taken as friends a people who are under Allah's wrath. They are neither of you or of them, and they swear to a falsehood knowingly. Allah has prepared a severe torment for them. Evil are the deeds they are doing. They have made their oaths a covering under which they debar others from the Way of Allah. For this they shall have a disgraceful torment. Neither shall their riches avail them anything to protect them from Allah nor their children. They are the fellows of Hell in which they shall live forever.

The Day Allah raises them up, they shall swear to Him as they swear to you, thinking that their oaths will avail them something. Know it well that they are liars," the Quranic verse continues. "Satan has over-powered them and has caused them to forget God's remembrance. They are of Satan's party. Know it well that those of Satan's party are indeed the real losers. Surely the most abject of the creatures are those who resist Allah and His Messenger."...

Quran 58:14-20.

the so called sword verses :

Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way.
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" by Emile Tyan states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that "jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community." And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.

[sanjaya]

There is no Islam that is moderate, mainstream islam is always extremist and supremacist, moderate islam is a fabrication of western media and politicians. It does not exist. It is a myth.

Yes, I agree with this. The problem with Islam is that it's a terrorist religion. "Moderate" Muslims, which may include some Sufis in India, are so far and few inbetween as to not be very noticable in the grand scheme of things. And they have such heterodox beliefs that they can't really even be called Muslims. In a sense, you could say that only the extremists in Islam are peaceful. The rest of the population is violent.

In order to curb terrorism in India and Western nations, it may help to ban the visible symbols of Islam. This will reduce its ability to propagate. But let's beware of what we Western Indians allow to happen in our respective nations. A lot of people in the West want to ban Islam not because it is terroristic, but because it disagrees with their Christian beliefs. Many of the same people who are out to ban minarets and headscarves in America are also protesting when Hindus propose to build temples. The neighborhood church is seen as added property value. But somehow a Hindu temple in the same area is seen as a negative and a strike against family values, because we Hindus are regarded by the West as demon worshipers. Don't feed the mouth that bites you by supporting Christian tyrants in the West.

So what do we do? I really don't know for sure. There must be a way to balance a crackdown on Islam and a possible rise of Christian tyrrany.

[MahaHrada]

Yes, I agree with this. The problem with Islam is that it's a terrorist religion. "Moderate" Muslims, which may include some Sufis in India, are so far and few inbetween as to not be very noticable in the grand scheme of things. And they have such heterodox beliefs that they can't really even be called Muslims. In a sense, you could say that only the extremists in Islam are peaceful. The rest of the population is violent.

In order to curb terrorism in India and Western nations, it may help to ban the visible symbols of Islam. This will reduce its ability to propagate. But let's beware of what we Western Indians allow to happen in our respective nations. A lot of people in the West want to ban Islam not because it is terroristic, but because it disagrees with their Christian beliefs. Many of the same people who are out to ban minarets and headscarves in America are also protesting when Hindus propose to build temples. The neighborhood church is seen as added property value. But somehow a Hindu temple in the same area is seen as a negative and a strike against family values, because we Hindus are regarded by the West as demon worshipers. Don't feed the mouth that bites you by supporting Christian tyrants in the West.

So what do we do? I really don't know for sure. There must be a way to balance a crackdown on Islam and a possible rise of Christian tyrrany.

Yes that is true there are many extremist political factions, who instrumentalise criticism of Islam and misuse it for their own agenda, like racists and white supremacists, zionist and christian fundamentalists.

But there are also many people, and their number is rising, among the critics of Islam who are concernend about westerrn societies loss of humanist values, free speech, human rights, equality of men and woman, fredom to choose your sexual orientation, lack of protection against immigrant gang violence and the general rise of rape, groping and other cases of public intimidation and violence, lack of protection of minorities like hindus or jews that are especially threatened by the rise of Islam.
We can only hope that the resistance among the more liberal factions of the western society against islamic supremacy will rise. The only thing we can do is inform our friends about the true face of Islam and how imminent the danger is it poses to human rights , more so in europe, because of the sudden rise of the percentage of muslim Immigrants, then in the USA with a small percentage of muslims.

I guess therefore the resistance against Islam in europe is already slowly developing a broader support among more liberal minded people of all ethnic and religious and political backgrounds, inspite of the politicians and media propaganda and disinformation, favouring the appeasement of Islamists and the vilification of criticism of Islam.
The more the muslims become educated about their religion by religious teachers the more dangeous they become, the best and most harmless muslim is one who is wholly uneducated about the doctrines of his religion and only knows a prayer or two (like many of the muslims in India). Therefore effort should be taken to restrict establishment of quranic schools and restrict Imams and scholars from preaching in mosques or publishing books on islamic doctrines and sharia law. The less that is known among muslim about Islam and the content of the quran the better it is for the world.

[sanjaya]

Yes that is true there are many extremist political factions, who instrumentalise criticism of Islam and misuse it for their own agenda, like racists and white supremacists, zionist and christian fundamentalists.

But there are also many people, and their number is rising, among the critics of Islam who are concernend about westerrn societies loss of humanist values, free speech, human rights, equality of men and woman, fredom to choose your sexual orientation, lack of protection against immigrant gang violence and the general rise of rape, groping and other cases of public intimidation and violence, lack of protection of minorities like hindus or jews that are especially threatened by the rise of Islam.
We can only hope that the resistance among the more liberal factions of the western society against islamic supremacy will rise. The only thing we can do is inform our friends about the true face of Islam and how imminent the danger is it poses to human rights , more so in europe, because of the sudden rise of the percentage of muslim Immigrants, then in the USA with a small percentage of muslims.

I guess therefore the resistance against Islam in europe is already slowly developing a broader support among more liberal minded people of all ethnic and religious and political backgrounds, inspite of the politicians and media propaganda and disinformation, favouring the appeasement of Islamists and the vilification of criticism of Islam.
The more the muslims become educated about their religion by religious teachers the more dangeous they become, the best and most harmless muslim is one who is wholly uneducated about the doctrines of his religion and only knows a prayer or two (like many of the muslims in India). Therefore effort should be taken to restrict establishment of quranic schools and restrict Imams and scholars from preaching in mosques or publishing books on islamic doctrines and sharia law. The less that is known among muslim about Islam and the content of the quran the better it is for the world.

Agreed. In general I'm not against non-Hindu religious education in India. In fact I'm not even against Muslims themselves. My favorite Hindu saint, Shirdi Sai Baba, was raised by Muslims and even worshiped by some of them. However, the Quran is a terrorist training manual. This distinguishes Islam from every other religion. The Bible also contains much violent and hateful material. But there are many Catholic schools in India, and for all the other bad things Christians do in India, you don't see them blowing up trains or committing other such acts of violence. Perhaps the Quran simply just doesn't contain any redeeming material. I'm no psychologist, and I really am not sure why it has this effect on people. But as you say, the more devout a Muslim is, the more dangerous he is.

I wouldn't suggest banning Islam outright, since this would entail quite a few human rights violations. What we're stuck with here is the dilemma that all free societies face. Freedom of speech and thought is worthless if you don't grant freedom to unpopular ideas, even things like communism and Islam. Perhaps Europe does have the right idea after all. Ban the visible images of Islam like the headscarf and minaret. Keeping kids out of Islamic schools would also go a long way in curbing terrorism. What we can't do is allow Islam to grow unchecked. Muslims tend to multiply very rapidly via reproduction, so this isn't just some problem that will disappear if ignored.

[ScottMalaysia]

Banning hijabs, minarets (spires on mosques) and other such things is probably based on the belief that preventing public expressions of Islam will retard its encroachment upon Western culture.I think there is a far more practical reason for banning minarets. Muslims are required to pray five times a day, and the time for each of those prayers is announced by a loud call to prayer called an adhan (azan in Egyptian Arabic). This call to prayer is delivered from the mosque's minaret (now usually by loudspeakers mounted on the minaret) so that everyone in the surrounding area can hear it. Couple this with the fact that the first prayer is before sunrise, and you've got yourself a problem with waking up the neighbours (in the morning) and being a general nuisance (during the day and evening).

I lived in Malaysia, a majority Muslim country for two years, and the office I worked in the most was right next to a mosque. We would hear the call to prayer very loudly most times. So I think that's why minarets are banned - because they are a public nuisance.


Yes, I agree with this. The problem with Islam is that it's a terrorist religion. "Moderate" Muslims, which may include some Sufis in India, are so far and few inbetween as to not be very noticable in the grand scheme of things. And they have such heterodox beliefs that they can't really even be called Muslims. In a sense, you could say that only the extremists in Islam are peaceful. The rest of the population is violent.None of the Muslims I ever met in Malaysia had any terrorist tendencies, as far as I know. They were what you called "moderate" Muslims. Yes, they might pray 5 times a day, but the ones I met seemed very nice people and I find it hard to imagine any of the Muslims I met being terrorists or killing people. Many would be too lazy to be extremists (there is a stereotype in Malaysia which seems true in a lot of cases that Malay people are lazy). Yes, there are extremists in Malaysia - when a court ruled that a Malay-language Catholic newspaper could use the word 'Allah', there were protests from Muslims who believed that 'Allah' should only be used by Muslims.


However, the Quran is a terrorist training manual. "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Qur'an 9:29)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (Qur'an 5:33)

Muhammad's own words quite clearly state what his objective (and the objective of Islam) is:

"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

For the real deal on Islam, check out www.prophetofdoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net)

[MahaHrada]

Agreed. In general I'm not against non-Hindu religious education in India. In fact I'm not even against Muslims themselves. My favorite Hindu saint, Shirdi Sai Baba, was raised by Muslims and even worshiped by some of them. However, the Quran is a terrorist training manual. This distinguishes Islam from every other religion. The Bible also contains much violent and hateful material. But there are many Catholic schools in India, and for all the other bad things Christians do in India, you don't see them blowing up trains or committing other such acts of violence. Perhaps the Quran simply just doesn't contain any redeeming material. I'm no psychologist, and I really am not sure why it has this effect on people. But as you say, the more devout a Muslim is, the more dangerous he is.

I wouldn't suggest banning Islam outright, since this would entail quite a few human rights violations. What we're stuck with here is the dilemma that all free societies face. Freedom of speech and thought is worthless if you don't grant freedom to unpopular ideas, even things like communism and Islam. Perhaps Europe does have the right idea after all. Ban the visible images of Islam like the headscarf and minaret. Keeping kids out of Islamic schools would also go a long way in curbing terrorism. What we can't do is allow Islam to grow unchecked. Muslims tend to multiply very rapidly via reproduction, so this isn't just some problem that will disappear if ignored.

I agree with you it is not about individual muslims at all, it is about the danger of islam and its doctrines, but not only the quran but also the hadith and the works of scholars of islamic law that define and circumscribe the doctrines in a very rigid manner, leaving no room for other than the offical interpretations are to be blamend.


They were what you called "moderate" Muslims. Yes, they might pray 5 times a day, but the ones I met seemed very nice people and I find it hard to imagine any of the Muslims I met being terrorists or killing people. Many would be too lazy to be extremists


That depends one what one considers moderate, i don´t think only terrorists are extremists. I think it is not "moderate" if people are caned in public or thrown into jail for drinking alkohol or having premarital sex. Also when non muslims are not allowed the to use the word allah this is not really what i consider "moderate".

Kuala Lumpur: Non-Muslims in Malaysia's Selangor state have been asked to refrain from using 35 Islamic terms and references, including the word "Allah", either orally or in writing to propagate their religion.If a formal complaint is lodged, the violator could be charged in a court under Selangor Shariah Criminal Offences Enactment 1995 and can be fined upto RM3,000
(about 35,000 rupees) or face two years' in jail or both.The list of terms not to be used by non-Muslims include Allah, Firman Allah (Allah's decree), solat (daily prayers), Rasul (prophet), mubaligh (missionary), mufti, iman (faith), Kaabah (the Holy cubicle), Qiblat (direction in which the Muslims pray), and Haji (Muslims who have done his pilgrimage), Selangor Islamic
Religious Department (Jais) director Mohammed Khusrin Munawi said.
PTI

You will be punished and caned in public even for trying to have sex in Malaysia:

A Malaysian Islamic court has sentenced a young unmarried Muslim couple to six strokes each of the cane after they were caught trying to have sex in a car, a report said Friday.
AFP

The following is also not a very moderate behaviour:

SHAH ALAM, Aug 28 -- A group of Malay-Muslim protesters claiming to be residents of Section 23 have threatened bloodshed unless the state government stopped the construction of a Hindu Temple.Amid chants of "Allahuakbar," the group also left the severed head of a cow at the entrance of the State Secretariat here as a warning to Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.
[..]
I challenge YB Khalid, YB Rodziah and Xavier Jeyakumar to go on with the temple construction. I guarantee bloodshed and racial tension will happen if this goes on, and the state will be held responsible," shouted Ibrahim Haji Sabri amid strong chants of "Allahu Akbar!"...
Malaysian inside

I can go on and on like that foreign musicians are banned from performing because of dress code, people are caned and jailed for sexual relations and for having a drink in a bar, non muslims places of worship are desecrated or firebombed etc. all happening in Malaysia

[NayaSurya]

About time, if I can't wear a full mask in banks and airports, them being allowed to do so is a discrimination against all of us. They should be allowed to wear masks in public places when I too can enter a bank dressed like this :D

http://www.holidayforeveryday.com/wp-content/vendetta_07.jpg

I'm sure nobody will be able to ban anything beyond the face mask, because it's highly debatable what constitutes a Muslim head veil, as opposed to a regular one.

The security issues come from the mask, not from covering the hair.


Explorer you have a very logical and practical point which is ultimately the answer to this problem.


Ski masks were banned here not too long ago. It's completely understandible with the rash of armed bank robberies.

Let's take the religious aspects out of this..because as we know...this is subjective depending on the individual.

Masks- coverings...all the same. They should be banned for the protection and security of the citizens.

If those who wish to wear a mask or covering don't like it...they can go to a country where this is acceptable.

Now for the religious practicality of the non religious laws.

The brain grows tired of those that come to a country willingly then complain about the social customs when they get there. It would be like an anglo, blond haired woman moving to Pakistan and expecting to go around without burqah. She would have to respect that country's rules. It would involve covering...honestly she would probably be killed within the day she arrived...but that's another topic altogether:P

The hajib scarf and abaya would allow for modesty and still give others a way to identify the person. Most moderate muslim countries do not force burqah or niqab/khimar onto their women anyway. Even Iran allow the hajib.

This heart loves the movie V for Vendetta. (just have to add this)

[Surya Deva]

The traditional hijab is a symbol of oppression and in addition it breeds mistrust. If I cannot see the face of a person in public, I am going to suspect that person. It would be just like people walking around in masks.

The Iranian modern hijab is far more acceptable. It accomplishes the aim of covering up most of the body and at the same time we can see the face of the person. In addition it isn't an eye sore :D

[kallol]

A few points to ponder :

1. Islam is a political religion where religion and politics are from the same person. The Mosques are used fro political speeches and political movements.

2. As mentioned earlier, why should a liberal country allow themselves to be pulled backward (after painstakinly built up the secular society). The same liberalism is an outcast in muslim countries. It is big burden on the society

3. Muslims are the only religious people who needs different rules for living in a society (they cannot live with other religions under a common code). Often they cite religious books for bypassing the country and society rules. Create space for themselves and them change the demography and fight for seperate state.

4. In the world where terrorism is perpetuated by muslims majorly, the reactions to prevent and monitor will include many of these measures which might be benefiacial for both the parties. The main objective is to prevent terrorism.

5. Where from the veil has come as tradition ? Though there were some instances of veil prior to Islam, but it was a forced as a way of life to protect the women folks from the predator nomads who were also muslims many a times. This has been the way of life for all muslim invadors. Look in the Hadith and Quran - many examples are there.

6. Today's world is vulnerable to the aggresive, fanatic and political Islam. There will be lots of jerky reactions right across the globe. These are the resistances building up in bits and pieces. Coming 100 - 200 years will be a crucial time for the spaces of the religions (which includes communism religion also).

Love and best wishes

[sanjaya]

Well, there has been a lot of news from the Islamic world since this thread was first started! On an issue tangentially related to the Hijab problem...

My earlier comments (on not letting the Christian tyrants win) notwithstanding, I have to say that these Muslims in America are starting to go too far. I'm fine with letting Muslims go about their business, despite that their religion is (in my opinion) fundamentally terroristic. But now I'm starting to see Muslims in America complain about not being given breaks at work for their five daily prayers. In my old high school back in my home town, the Muslims successfully lobbied for their own prayer room!

Here is why this demand for accommodation disturbs me. As Americans we all agree to tolerate each other, but we don't have the right to impose on one another. Muslims aren't the only ones with difficulties. Growing up Hindu in America is not without its share of hurdles as well. Most of us are vegetarians, but you don't see us demanding that the rest of the country convert in order to accommodate us. When I was in high school, I never demanded that the cafeteria clean the meat juices off their utensils or serve special vegetarian meals. I found some way to practice my religious beliefs without getting in anyone else's way. At work I've never asked for days off on Divali or Holi or anything else. Nor do I ask for time off every full moon day to perform Satyanarayana puja. I just recognize that I'm in a Western society, and I work around everyone else. But now we have Muslims not only asking for tolerance, but for everyone else to bend to their religious needs. Next thing you know, they'll be asking for Sharia to be enforced in Muslim neighborhoods, as they have in part of Europe.

As I said earlier, I'm fine with letting Muslims build mosques, and I don't want to crack down on Islam by allowing the Christian tyrants to have their way. But I think that many Muslims in America have gone quite too far.