Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Del Boy]

I totally agree with them trying to get it banned, I think if they don't like it then they should bugger off back to there islamic origin so then they won't have a problem wearing it then will they.

[STMO999]

I think the burka should be compulsory. I dont like a moustache on a woman.

[jereboam]

"The UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab — the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face — claiming they affront British values. The policy, which a number of European countries are also debating, is an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6990402.ece

I happen to agree with this proposal. What I find discomforting, though, is the The Times' reporter words: an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters. It assumes that if you disagree with the burka and the niqab, you must be a) white and b) working class.

I wonder what a member of the black middle class would make of such a patronising comment?

 

a correct and necessary ban.. in the last years I started to see another form of it more frequently

and the requirement of white and working class is more ridiculous than the dress itself..

I really do know what “proscribed” mean.  I substituted words like “prohibited” and “forbidden” into your sentence and then I couldn’t understand what you were trying to say.  I didn’t think the issue was what the Koran forbids women to wear, but more what it actually commands them to wear.  But it doesn’t matter.

I used to work with a fairly devout turban-wearing Sikh.  He told me that the wearing of the turban was customary because that was the common headwear in the region from which many Sikhs originated.  The religious element was the covering of the head (or hair), not what it was covered with.  This means that the turban is essentially a cultural item.  Similarly, the arcane clothing of the Hasidic Jews has nothing whatsoever to do with their religion – the ringlets in the hair and unshaven beard may have religious origins, but the hats don’t.   

So I can’t see much difference between the burka and these other forms of dress. 

The security issue is a bit more difficult.  Quite honestly, a full beard and a large silly hat will adequately disguise most people.  The burka doesn’t cover up significantly more that a nun’s cowl or a Christian monk’s hooded robe.  None of these should get past high security unchallenged.

[Dishevelled Den]

What is meant by "Their Ornaments"- Jewellery? - or ,er,um, you know,their lady bits?

eddie

thats where all the debate starts.. some say(translate) , actually its their gold jewellery, some say their body parts , some say complete body etc etc..

original arabic sentence not that clear.. however a simple sentence written 2K years ago turned the life of women into hell

 

Very true Cem .. and not helped by  2 simple facts ...

1)  Language changes over time, so the"meaning" of a word will change, sometimes with serious consequences ... (think of the english word "gay" and what has happened to that in 30 years) ... So modern "interpretations" may actually be very wrong.

2) Arabic to "English" translations have always been problematic, as many words have different meanings depending on the context.

AFAIK there is actully no "recognised" formal translation of the Qu'ran in existence ... just many "versions" all of which differ at times.Still gives the academics and mullahs something to argue about ..

let aside translation to my language or English,

even the mullahs cant agree on which one is the most correct interpretation -explanation on its own language..

some may not accept but actually all things inside the "book" is related to some series of events in these days .. And the "book" covers solutions , determinations,conclusions to those events and normal daily life.. and also refers to historical events and other sacred "books"..

I've read the accepted "best" interpration of "book" in 6 volumes..and my conclusion is that its exagerated and changed in the hand of whom want to abuse it politically and socially.. However, the "book" also  tries to manipulate social life (justice,marriage, relations, money subjects,community problems etc) in such a way that it can be considered as a political approach..

and for those who didnt read it, says that from whatever religion you came from as "its the last book" you need to accept being ........ or you have no place in heaven  :-? briefly!

you need to accept being ........ or you have no place in heaven  :-? briefly!

You are quite right to emphasise that point cem

[cem_devecioglu]

What is meant by "Their Ornaments"- Jewellery? - or ,er,um, you know,their lady bits?

eddie

thats where all the debate starts.. some say(translate) , actually its their gold jewellery, some say their body parts , some say complete body etc etc..

original arabic sentence not that clear.. however a simple sentence written 2K years ago turned the life of women into hell

 

Very true Cem .. and not helped by  2 simple facts ...

1)  Language changes over time, so the"meaning" of a word will change, sometimes with serious consequences ... (think of the english word "gay" and what has happened to that in 30 years) ... So modern "interpretations" may actually be very wrong.

2) Arabic to "English" translations have always been problematic, as many words have different meanings depending on the context.

AFAIK there is actully no "recognised" formal translation of the Qu'ran in existence ... just many "versions" all of which differ at times.Still gives the academics and mullahs something to argue about ..

let aside translation to my language or English,

even the mullahs cant agree on which one is the most correct interpretation -explanation on its own language..

some may not accept but actually all things inside the "book" is related to some series of events in these days .. And the "book" covers solutions , determinations,conclusions to those events and normal daily life.. and also refers to historical events and other sacred "books"..

I've read the accepted "best" interpration of "book" in 6 volumes..and my conclusion is that its exagerated and changed in the hand of whom want to abuse it politically and socially.. However, the "book" also  tries to manipulate social life (justice,marriage, relations, money subjects,community problems etc) in such a way that it can be considered as a political approach..

and for those who didnt read it, says that from whatever religion you came from as "its the last book" you need to accept being ........ or you have no place in heaven  :-? briefly!

you need to accept being ........ or you have no place in heaven  :-? briefly!

You are quite right to emphasise that point cem

 

[cem_devecioglu]

"The UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab — the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face — claiming they affront British values. The policy, which a number of European countries are also debating, is an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6990402.ece

I happen to agree with this proposal. What I find discomforting, though, is the The Times' reporter words: an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters. It assumes that if you disagree with the burka and the niqab, you must be a) white and b) working class.

I wonder what a member of the black middle class would make of such a patronising comment?

 

a correct and necessary ban.. in the last years I started to see another form of it more frequently

and the requirement of white and working class is more ridiculous than the dress itself..

I really do know what “proscribed” mean.  I substituted words like “prohibited” and “forbidden” into your sentence and then I couldn’t understand what you were trying to say.  I didn’t think the issue was what the Koran forbids women to wear, but more what it actually commands them to wear.  But it doesn’t matter.

I used to work with a fairly devout turban-wearing Sikh.  He told me that the wearing of the turban was customary because that was the common headwear in the region from which many Sikhs originated.  The religious element was the covering of the head (or hair), not what it was covered with.  This means that the turban is essentially a cultural item.  Similarly, the arcane clothing of the Hasidic Jews has nothing whatsoever to do with their religion – the ringlets in the hair and unshaven beard may have religious origins, but the hats don’t.   

So I can’t see much difference between the burka and these other forms of dress. 

The security issue is a bit more difficult.  Quite honestly, a full beard and a large silly hat will adequately disguise most people.  The burka doesn’t cover up significantly more that a nun’s cowl or a Christian monk’s hooded robe.  None of these should get past high security unchallenged.

problem is not the people wearing a simple piece of cotton or someting else whatever name it has..

in fact its a politic and religious symbol where it divides community and results to push people under pressure ..

many elites didnt see the fact or ignore it.. but that simple fact cause many people to die! or at least punishment! 

[jerry]

Dont see why you would have to ban any form of dress tbh (apart from chavwear of course ). Surely the point is that you can wear what you like provided that if there is a need for visual identification (eg legitimate security situations) any clothing that inhibits this can be legally removed, and that any such clothing must be either adapted or else removed to suit health and safety requirements. Or am I being stupid here? Of course some clothing may be seen as offensive (KKK hood or a Nazi swastika eg)but if these can be deemed as being deliberatly provocative and likely to lead to harm then these too should be removed. Bit like wearing a Wolves shirt in the home supporters end at a Baggies game

[Entwood]

Dont see why you would have to ban any form of dress tbh (apart from chavwear of course ). Surely the point is that you can wear what you like provided that if there is a need for visual identification (eg legitimate security situations) any clothing that inhibits this can be legally removed, and that any such clothing must be either adapted or else removed to suit health and safety requirements. Or am I being stupid here? Of course some clothing may be seen as offensive (KKK hood or a Nazi swastika eg)but if these can be deemed as being deliberatly provocative and likely to lead to harm then these too should be removed. Bit like wearing a Wolves shirt in the home supporters end at a Baggies game

That is the whole point .. many of these people are FORCED to wear this clothing by social, religous or family pressures .. it is not a "free choice" thing

[jerry]

I appreciate that Mr E and you make a good point (as usual)because too many anti-muslims assume that the women want to wear such clothing as a badge of their faith and are somehow being provocative in doing so. Though Ive known and worked with a few muslims in my time I cant profess to too much Knowledge about their faith and culture (tho of course these are as varied as the different "christian" cultures) but if books such as "A Thousand Splendid Suns" are much to go by there seems a lot of repression involved. Religion eh, the root of all evil