|
the war on the hijab shows the hypocrisy of the western world (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
So if that's the case you would agree that walking around naked is also acceptable? After all, people should be able to wear or not wear whatever they like on their own time no? But you probably aren't OK with nudity in public. Why? Because of what it represents. Nudity itself is not inherently wrong, as is wearing a hijab, but what being nude represents is deem to be wrong in a public setting. Why can't it be the same with an article of clothing that represents something undesirable? |
The desirable level of accepted amounts of clothing is somewhere in the middle of a situation where too much is better than too little. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
The desirable level of accepted amounts of clothing is somewhere in the middle of a situation where too much is better than too little. |
That still does not answer the why? You're just trying to evade answering by saying "oh, but that's different!". |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Wow, I'm surprised by the conformist attitude displayed here. First of all, a hijab is not a burqa. Secondly, so ing what if it's a statement saying "I'm different"!!! Does law require us to conform to the same cultural norms too now? Yeah, you guys are very tolerant. :rolleyes:
+ 1 SpaceyOrange for pointing out this hypocrisy. |
You want too pick nits its not even a 'muslim thing' its an 'arab thing'.
No where in the Koran does it say that women have too wear head too toe clothing or anything on their head, all it says is that they must not be dressed lasciviously in public.
Hardliners, ultraconservatives and extremists from other countries use it too keep in the good books with the same said types over in the middle east. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
You want too pick nits its not even a 'muslim thing' its an 'arab thing'. |
No, I'm not "picking nits." There's a world of a difference between a hijab (which only covers the hair/head) and a burkkah (which is like dressing up in a tent). The two are not the same. Shows how much you guys know.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
No where in the Koran does it say that women have too wear head too toe clothing or anything on their head, all it says is that they must not be dressed lasciviously in public.
Hardliners, ultraconservatives and extremists from other countries use it too keep in the good books with the same said types over in the middle east. |
I'm well aware of that, and, being Muslim, am far more familiar with the Quran (not "Koran") than you. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lilith |
It's a valid transliteration as is Qu'ran or Al-Quran and Quoran. I'm well aware of the difference between the two forms of cultural dress but I'd hardly refer too it as a 'tent' which reeks of cultural insensitivity.
Might be time too start wearing those feelings a little less on your sleeve and keep them too yourself before you come across as the archtypical 'ugly american' stereotype.
It's a valid enough cultural dress as is wearing a kimono or sari, its not a damn tent.
ed-
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I'm well aware of that, and, being Muslim, am far more familiar with the Quran (not "Koran") than you. :rolleyes: |
Well forgive me for at least trying not too be at least interested enough in other people beliefs too learn a little about them even if its not in depth... |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
There "full blown" burqa, with the full body and faced covered is excessive and reminiscent of the oppression it was developed in.
[...]
Hence i agree with the banning of the more traditional version as means to shun the values that underlay it. |
Regardless of the context "it was developed in", it boils down as to whether the wearing of the burqa (in the west at least) is a free, personal choice or not. They may be oppressive, they may be the result of edicts handed down by a subjugating patriarchy, but to the extent that the wearing of the burqa is a choice that muslim women have freely made, then I fail to see what the problem is.
The wearing of the burqa could be no more oppressive or uncomfortable than, say, the wearing of high-heels and it is no more the result of patriarchal, religious subjugation than the wearing of the habit by nuns. I can understand mandating the removal of the burqa for entry into banks or for driver's licence photos, for instance, but to ban its use beyond that is really nothing more than the suppression of religious expression, as the OP has quite rightly pointed out. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
It's a valid transliteration as is Qu'ran or Al-Quran and Quoran. I'm well aware of the difference between the two forms of cultural dress but I'd hardly refer too it as a 'tent' which reeks of cultural insensitivity.
Might be time too start wearing those feelings a little less on your sleeve and keep them too yourself before you come across as the archtypical 'ugly american' stereotype.
It's a valid enough cultural dress as is wearing a kimono or sari, its not a damn tent.
ed-
Well forgive me for at least trying not too be at least interested enough in other people beliefs too learn a little about them even if its not in depth... |
shaolin_Z, you realize you're being told off by a cat right? :clown: :p |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Regardless of the context "it was developed in", it boils down as to whether the wearing of the burqa (in the west at least) is a free, personal choice or not. They may be oppressive, they may be the result of edicts handed down by a subjugating patriarchy, but to the extent that the wearing of the burqa is a choice that muslim women have freely made, then I fail to see what the problem is.
The wearing of the burqa could be no more oppressive or uncomfortable than, say, the wearing of high-heels and it is no more the result of patriarchal, religious subjugation than the wearing of the habit by nuns. I can understand mandating the removal of the burqa for entry into banks or for driver's licence photos, for instance, but to ban its use beyond that is really nothing more than the suppression of religious expression, as the OP has quite rightly pointed out. |
It is a valid point, and in principle I would agree with everyone wearing what they please, but because of the particular circumstances that involve this piece of clothing I do not. You see, in our mind nuns habits and high heels already have certain social connotations. The burqa has another one, in my opinion mostly a negative one. Is it warranted? Probably not, but it still there. Now, those social connotations can be changed, usually by exposing people to it (in which case the banning would be counterproductive) and by creating positive role models that are willing to use it. It's a social process that takes time and the people that wear the burqa would need to get involved in the process. The problem is i doubt that people that have traditional enough views that they wish to wear the burqa would desire to engage in all the social processes that would be required to reverse the already present social connotations of the burqa. Due to this lack of interest from the those persons, I doubt the connotations would ever be reversed and in the long run is probably more beneficial to their social integration to just ban the burqa. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
It's a valid transliteration as is Qu'ran or Al-Quran and Quoran. |
Fair enough, I'll give you that. The "not Koran" comment was more of a relfection of being annoyed for being accused of picking nits after having made a valid disctinction between hijab and burkkah and then having someone else educate me on my own religious teachings. So calm down, no need to get so defensive.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
I'm well aware of the difference between the two forms of cultural dress but I'd hardly refer too it as a 'tent' which reeks of cultural insensitivity. |
Yeah, other that the US, I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (I'm a mut btw. Arab + Persian + Iraqi + Afghani + Pakistani + Aryan and other stuff I'm not even sure of), so I think it's ok if I'm "cuturally insensitive" to what is in a sense my own culture too (keeping my ethnic origin in mind). I guess you didn't understand the the context of it, which makes sense since you haven't lived there and seen how ridiculous certain things are, the burkkah and the reasons for wearing one being one of them. That doesn't mean I think goverments have a right to tell you to not wear one.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Might be time too start wearing those feelings a little less on your sleeve and keep them too yourself before you come across as the archtypical 'ugly american' stereotype.
It's a valid enough cultural dress as is wearing a kimono or sari, its not a damn tent.
Well forgive me for at least trying not too be at least interested enough in other people beliefs too learn a little about them even if its not in depth... |
Forgive me for getting annoyed when people don't read the entire thread (and it's not hard to infer from my previous post that I'm probably Muslim) and then try to educate me on Islam. I'm just not fond of people making baseless assumptions, and then acting on those.
-an 'ugly American' |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
So if that's the case you would agree that walking around naked is also acceptable? After all, people should be able to wear or not wear whatever they like on their own time no? But you probably aren't OK with nudity in public. Why? Because of what it represents. Nudity itself is not inherently wrong, as is wearing a hijab, but what being nude represents is deem to be wrong in a public setting. Why can't it be the same with an article of clothing that represents something undesirable? |
but the wearing (or not) of women's traditional dress is not an affront to public decency. i think youre reading too much into the "undesirable" nature of the muslim dress. as renegade notes, yes, it might represent patriarchal dominance, but the fact is in the western world women arent punished (by the state) for not wearing it, thus its a "free" choice. and as such it shouldnt be interfered with by a government. its an infringement on freedom of expression and i think its a stupid knee-jerk reaction.
in this, we (the western world) are no better than the theistic dogmatists of some middle-eastern countries we (or at least i) criticise.
as long as the wearing of traditional dress doesn't compromise the functions of the public sphere, i see no grounds whatsoever for its banning. |
|
|
| Lilith |
Pakistan, been there in 1994, Saudi, been there in 1998, Iran 1989, Egypt in 1999, UAE in 2000 x2 and 2001, Lebanon in 1999, Turkey 1999, Qatar in 1999.
The fact some arabs treat women like dogs in some cases has a lot more too do with simply what they wear which is often more the focus than the other 'civil rights' abuses and often is not a result of the government in office's laws.
Some have just always been like that, others like Iran it only came about when extremists got into power.
I can understand the security reasons for it, but in most cases its really not the ladies you have too worry about and I'd be hesitant too label it as a symbol of oppression. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but the wearing (or not) of women's traditional dress is not an affront to public decency. i think youre reading too much into the "undesirable" nature of the muslim dress. as renegade notes, yes, it might represent patriarchal dominance, but the fact is in the western world women arent punished (by the state) for not wearing it, thus its a "free" choice. |
So if someone or something other than the state is punishing them for not wearing it, then it's a "free choice" for them to wear it? |
|
|
|
|
