The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Only ban the burqa if it is not worn freely > Comments

Only ban the burqa if it is not worn freely : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 27/8/2010

Burqas should be banned only if the women who wear them do so out of a sense of compulsion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
<< At this stage, the bigger threat to our social cohesion is not the burqa, but the calls to ditch it. Once the overblown sensitivities of others start constituting a basis for curtailing our freedoms, liberty in many forms will be lost. >>
What "social cohesion"? Our "freedoms" and "liberty" are delusional; they are the freedom and liberty of the exercise yard. Naturally we hold them dear. We have to experience freedom before we can talk about preserving or defending it. The burqa is only a threat to our ideology.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 28 August 2010 4:20:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Origin of Islamic Hijab:

.

Prior to the Hijab, women used to cover their heads with the "khimar" throwing its ends over their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts too:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts from sin and not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent, and draw their headcovers over their necks and bosoms and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, …"
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

.

Origin of the Islamic Burqa & Niqab:

.

There is no trace of either the burqa or the niqab in the Qur'an. The only text which may possibly refer (if the english translator's indication in brackets at the end of the text is correct) is to be found in the book called Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam, considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an. Here is the reference:

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).

The translator,M. Muhsin Khan of the Centre for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at the University of Southern Caligornia, presents the last sentence in brackets as forming part of the text.

This must be confirmed before concluding that this is, indeed, a reference to the burqa and the niqab.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 28 August 2010 9:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Contnued ...

.

What the Sahih al-Bukhari text does reveal, however, is that not only did the wives of "Allah's Apostle", Mohammad, not wear head scarfs, but he was loath to oblige them to do so.

One of the prophet's fathers-in-law, Umar, suggested he should oblige them to wear head scarfs. Mohammad refused.

It was only when Umar, on another occasion, informed Mohammad he had recognised one of his wives, Sauda bint Zam'a, who was very tall, going outside in the dark of the night to satisfy a natural need, that (by a strange coincidence) "Allah revealed the verses of Al-Hijab".

This seems to indicate that the "Islamic veil" was initially prompted by the necessity to protect the prophet's wives from being exposed to the view of passers-by, in the absence of enclosed toilettes, whilst satisfying their natural needs.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 28 August 2010 11:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bad new for burqa lovers;

Italy: Islam denied income tax revenue.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.1.880028077

Robbers and those who are about to commit a crime cover their faces.

Who's behind the covering is anyone's guess; but this we know, that the person in there is up to no good.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812378.htm?section=justin

Syria a predominantly Muslim country has banned the burqa, so the burqa was never a part of Islam until recent times. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145208/SYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKA/SYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKASYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKASYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKA
Posted by Philip Tang, Sunday, 29 August 2010 4:17:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanx Phillip Tang for that interesting link to the Italian job :)

"The head of COREIS, one of Italy's largest Muslim groups, Yahya Pallavicini, said he was bitter that Islam had been denied the revenue from Italian income tax."

And dear Pericles, totally oblivious of the standing command/call in Islam(Quran 9:29) to bring into subjection all non Muslims of the world and tax them with the humiliating disgraceful "Jizya" tax whether they like it or not...... probably thinks they SHOULD receive a share.

Well Pero... how about it?

Tell ya what...when the Mufti of Rome/Italy stands up in public and says "I condemn the call to violent overthrowing of non Muslim governments as outlined in the Quran" hey..I'll send him a donation myself.. he will need it for his new security detail.

Still treading that well beaten liberal/progressive path of seeing religious things through atheist/secular binoculars...

Mate...I have to tell you..that is like drinking Bertrand Russell (Or Obama) brand ideological cool aide...same poison as Jim Johnsons..but takes a bit longer to destroy the soul.

If you don't know how religious values and ideas impact the heart..why bother trying to unravel it? There are little neurons in your head which simply don't connect in the way they do for a faith oriented person.. seriously...that's not abuse..it's a physiological fact.

So... while I disagree with your viewpoint.. at least I understand why the condition exists.

Just a final thought...the Burqa is not about 'clothing' it's about religion... let's start connecting some of those neuron paths.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 29 August 2010 7:35:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume (post #1) and Pericles (post #6) have best expressed the values by which Australia remains a free country.

But only Pericles detected the stealth attack in Mirko Bagaric's lip service to the principle of personal freedom.

When Bagaric refers to "some of the most progressive and culturally sensitive nations in the world, including France and Denmark" ... these are states which presume to make personal decisions on behalf of the individual. Australian law is built on different principles.

Imagine you are a criminology student working part time as a shop detective in a department store. You see a woman from an ethnic minority exiting the store with a $2000 coat under her arm, the label still attached. You might ask yourself all sorts of questions about culture, religion, poverty, unemployment, or whom the coat is for.

But this is all academic. As a store detective, only one question matters: Has she paid for the coat?

The reasons women do or do not cover their face may well be interesting questions, for social scientists.

But as far as the law is concerned there is only one question that matters: Whose face is it anyway?

If burqas are, as some argue, in some cases evidence of women being enslaved within their families, then the answer is not to hide the evidence of the alleged enslavement, but to strengthen the legal protection available to ALL women against being enslaved in domestic situations. It is acts of enslavement that are criminal, rather than what may or may not be acts of submission.
Posted by federalist, Sunday, 29 August 2010 11:49:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy