Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

[Gnostic Bishop]

[

First, the Koran explicitly protects Christians and Jews, and even ISIS has avoided unleashing its strange variety of religious persecution on Christians and Jews.
.

In my web travels the other day I listened to an imam showing this policy you elude to.

Unfortunately I did not save it.

This imam talked of how Islam is to deal with those you name. They are to be offered life if they submit to paying a tax to Islam. I have forgotten the name they called that tax. If those asked refuse to pay that tax, they are to be offered war and death for their refusal.

Perhaps someone here has seen that video. It was a sub titled one and perhaps that is why I did not save it. Anyone?

Further, one need not seek hard to find where Muslims have definitely targeted and killed many people of the book.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

In my thinking I look at their rape law, their child bride law and their female genital mutilation laws, just to name a few.

For these reasons I am anti-Islam.

Just to set the record straight, female genital mutilation predates Islam by millennia. It is a practice based in the Nile Valley which has spread to other areas (the same can be said of circumcision, or MGM as one might call it). Currently many Christian and animist societies practice some form of FGM, and I am not aware of any law requiring it. When asked pointedly, many imams have been clear that it has no basis in the Koran or Islam.

Indeed. While many other imams on the right wing encourage it.

Regards
DL

[mlmooney89]

I'm not on my desktop anymore so it's hard to read this but I apologize for saying you said certain things that you did not. I will fix that tomorrow on the computer. Despite my phone being too big for my hand it's still a lot to read on this screen.

Understood.

No need to fix anything though. Your statement is good enough for me.

Respect grows as most posters would just ignore and carry on.

I do not mind you thinking me evil for my position but I just wanted to have people know that I did not earn the names you had applied to something I did not wright.

Of course you wouldn't! It would be in bad form to not admit my mistake and accuse you of something wrongly. I know you said it wasn't needed but it was a simple edit so I went ahead and did that for future readers to not be misled. I do love a good debate with those that disagree with me.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm not on my desktop anymore so it's hard to read this but I apologize for saying you said certain things that you did not. I will fix that tomorrow on the computer. Despite my phone being too big for my hand it's still a lot to read on this screen.

Understood.

No need to fix anything though. Your statement is good enough for me.

Respect grows as most posters would just ignore and carry on.

I do not mind you thinking me evil for my position but I just wanted to have people know that I did not earn the names you had applied to something I did not wright.

Of course you wouldn't! It would be in bad form to not admit my mistake and accuse you of something wrongly. I know you said it wasn't needed but it was a simple edit so I went ahead and did that for future readers to not be misled. I do love a good debate with those that disagree with me.

Ditto.

That is how we learn.

I get no pleasure from winning a debate as then I only give the other one of the greatest pleasures of life. Learning something new.

I debate to gain the pleasure of losing it and the giving a loss or pleasure of learning to the other is secondary to me. In that I show a bit of greed but only because I love to learn new ways of thought. This scholar says it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8 ... e=youtu.be

Regards
DL

[mlmooney89]

So since we brought up banks... I actually work in one in Texas. We have a very strict policy on clothing but this is because it is a private building so we can make our own rules. Posted on the front doors and at every station there is a sign that says we request all hats, headwear, and sunglasses to be removed. We have the right to ask the customer to remove them so as to be able to see their face. I have multiple cameras on me at all times while at work and as an employee I have to follow the handbook which says no headwear nor guns. The odd thing is that we do not have a 30.06 sign which makes it illegal to carry guns in the building. That means any joe with a CHL (concealed handgun license) can walk in with their gun legally. I as an employee can not which I find very strange. But I digress the point is that hoodys and hats are not illegal but people use them to rob banks with cameras every day. Making them take off their choice of attire for something else because they simply can't be identified in certain places seems petty. With that logic we should outlaw all hats, hoods, sunglasses, etc. Instead we should allow them their freedom to wear what they please except in certain places that legally have the right to ask for removal of the garb. Places that do have a 30.06 up make it clear before I ever go in that I can't bring my gun. Then I have the freedom of decision to either leave it behind or not go in. These women should have the right to make that same decision. Why ban them from wearing it while walking down the street to their neighbor's house? Banning them outright is just vindictive.

[mlmooney89]

Ditto.

That is how we learn.

I get no pleasure from winning a debate as then I only give the other one of the greatest pleasures of life. Learning something new.

I debate to gain the pleasure of losing it and the giving a loss or pleasure of learning to the other is secondary to me. In that I show a bit of greed but only because I love to learn new ways of thought. This scholar says it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8 ... e=youtu.be

Exactly! I always tell people I am never set in my ways. I invite everyone to try and change my mind. Now that isn't to say I won't be aggressive on my side and really go rounds

[Gnostic Bishop]

Ditto.

That is how we learn.

I get no pleasure from winning a debate as then I only give the other one of the greatest pleasures of life. Learning something new.

I debate to gain the pleasure of losing it and the giving a loss or pleasure of learning to the other is secondary to me. In that I show a bit of greed but only because I love to learn new ways of thought. This scholar says it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8 ... e=youtu.be

Exactly! I always tell people I am never set in my ways. I invite everyone to try and change my mind. Now that isn't to say I won't be aggressive on my side and really go rounds

Ditto again.

To your other post.

I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.

I see nothing vindictive in this. Unfortunate for the few, yes. Vindictive, no.

Regards
DL

[Harry Marks]

I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.
I see nothing vindictive in this. Unfortunate for the few, yes. Vindictive, no.

So if there is any compulsion exercised to restrict people's freedom of choice, then the required thing must be outlawed to protect other potential victims? If many men compel their wives to stay home and not get a job, then all women must have jobs? Unfortunate for those who don't want to, of course, but just the way the cookie crumbles?

I find this reasoning to be hard to follow.

[Harry Marks]

Unfortunately I did not save it.

The policy to which you refer is well known. You can find in explained Wikipedia as jizya. It appears to be much higher than the zaqat paid by Muslims.

Further, one need not seek hard to find where Muslims have definitely targeted and killed many people of the book.

True, but not forced conversions or enslavement as the Yazidis faced. Presumably opposing them makes you subject to punishment whatever your background.

[Harry Marks]

Was it Sheiks who at one time wanted their custom of children wearing daggers in schools to be permitted?

Sikh men are supposed to carry a dagger, though it is often merely ceremonial, i.e. not sharp or long. It is part of their tradition that one is obligated to oppose bullying or other victimization of the weak. Many Sikhs have put their kids in private schools because of the policy.