With the rash of European countries rushing to ban burqas the comments in July from the conservative government in England were refreshing and reassuring.

The immigration minister Damian Green called such a move as ''rather un-British'' and running contrary to conventions of a ''tolerant and mutually respectful society''.

My fondness for our flag, already waning with my republican sentiments, had been quite battered after the images from Cronulla of it draped around the shoulders of booze soaked idiots.

Damian Green's comments caused me to look with a new appreciation and some reflection to the top left corner of our 'colours'.

I wondered at the time why it wasn't 'rather un-Australian' to contemplate a European style ban here and that perhaps the links to the 'old country', as tenuous as they have become, might be worth holding on to a little longer.

The recent comments by the National's leader Warren Truss that "Generally speaking, as a matter of principle, I believe people should be able to wear what they choose, so long as that does not in any way disadvantage the rights and privileges of other Australians," have given me cause to think we are heading in the right direction.

I do agree with Tony Abbott the many Australians would “find the burqa a particularly confronting form of attire”, and I too “very much wish that fewer Australians would choose it". But banning it speaks of a European sensibility that in my opinion is a echo of what led to one of the great human tragedies of modern times.

The statements by both Mr Green and Mr Truss may be old news by next Australia Day but I hope they are remembered by some and that like me, when our flag is run up the pole, will cause us to stand a little straighter with a renewed appreciation of its history and a pride in our values as a nation.

I dont like it.
It is a religious uniform of oppression and submission.

The logic behind it, that men cannot resist the "uncovered meat", as it was so crassly put by one of their leaders, is so offensive to men and so obviously ridiculous that any reasonable person could do nothing but dismiss it.
It is an authoritarian symbol of control and possession and like all other marital and religious artifacts of domination it should be removed from our society.

Having said that, it is not up to me or the government to stop the wearing of the Burqa. It is up the the individual and their beliefs and they are the ones who must make the change.
To force our views onto anyone is the same as what we would accuse islamists (and other godbotherers) of doing to us.

It will be interesting to compare the results of the ban in Europe as opposed to the refusal to ban it in the UK (although, strangely the UK has easily the lion's share of Islamist extremists on its shores, so it might be hard to gauge).

The one definite advantage of banning the burqa is that it makes the country that implemented it seem far less an appealing place to move to for fundamentalists abroad- which in itself is a gigantic benefit to the secular residents already there.

As for the UK- strangely enough, observed by most mainland Europeans who visit both the UK and Australia will tell us that we are culturally more like mainland Europe than like the British.

There is always strong social pressure on
people to conform in our society. We expect
people to wear a matching pair of shoes,
to keep their lawns mowed, to refrain
from picking their noses in public, to
show up on time for appointments and so on.
Those who don't conform to those and similar
conventions are considered peculiar and
eccentric. But they're not considered immoral
or depraved, nor do we ban their behaviour or
treat them as criminals.

A man who walks down the street wearing nothing
on the upper half of his body is violating a
convention; a man who walks down the street wearing
nothing on the lower half of his body is violating
one of our most important mores, the requirement
that people cover their genitals, and buttocks in
public.

Theft, drug abuse, murder, rape, desecration of the
national flag, and contemptuous use of religious
symbols all bring strong social reactions. People
believe that their mores are crucial for the maintenance
of a decent and orderly society.

Times change and what was frowned upon previously becomes
acceptable in our society today. Long hair for men and
youths was once acceptable and then - considered offensive.
By the early 1970s however, long hair on males had
become quite normal. In today's society people are allowed a
much wider personal choice in their hair, and choice
of clothing.

The choice of wearing a burqa should be left up to the
individual to make. It may be confronting to some people,
simply because it is not the norm in this country.
However, we have accepted other religious dress -
Buddhists, Hassidic Jews, Sisters of Mercy, Greek Orthodox,
Russian Orthodox garbs, all of whom are "different."
With time, the burqa will also become acceptable if we learn
to look beyond the burqa to the person wearing it.

Some may look at the statue of Michelangelo's "David" and
only see nudity. While others manage to look beyond the
nudity and see the work of art that the statue really is.

So now we have a Britain where an Anglo Saxon's application for a job at a council is refused, because they "have not filled their quota for Islamics, & africans yet"

You only to look at how long they left the last government in power, with it's tendency to convert the place to a police state to see a country that has slit it's wrists, after cutting it's throat, just to make sure.

Did you hear the one about the nurse who was fined 250 GB pounds, for putting her garbage bin out an hour early? No it's not a joke, it really happens, & the fact that she had to start a double shift before the permitted time is no excuse in that home of democracy.

Don't start quoting the UK if you are talking about justice today, or ever again, most probably.

Dear mikk,

Agreed, thank you.

Dear King Hazza,

You wrote; “As for the UK- strangely enough, observed by most mainland Europeans who visit both the UK and Australia will tell us that we are culturally more like mainland Europe than like the British.”

Not my experience but would be happy to look at any material you have.

Although I'm going to have to concede the Brits at least had an inquiry into their involvement in the Iraq war but there seems little chance of us doing the same nor I venture any European country.

Dear Foxy,

Again agreed. I was wondering if you had an opinion about something being 'un-British'. Perhaps it is my upbringing but I was surprised how much the notion resonated with me. It still would seem to have some currency.

Dear Hasbeen,

Did you hear the one about the State government who has agreed to hand over police files including the contents of officer's diaries to a multinational corporation building a de-sal plant? Who would you suggest I use to quote about justice?

Dear csteele,

You ask if I had an opinion about something being
"unBritish?"

The attitudes about Britain that my parents
found when they came to this country was that
everyone at that time thought of themselves as
British citizens, and they were told they were
part of an empire on which the sun never set.
Maps of the world were distributed to schools
apparently, with colours to show the British
Empire covered roughly a quarter of the world.

I grew up in an Australia that challenged authority
and established values. Mine was not the Menzies era
that my parents had loved, and lived through.
However, having said
that, I still feel that those values - self-reliance,
reward for effort, and social conservatism remain
deeply ingrained in the Australian character.

Foxy, very interesting observations, I would be interested to discuss many of the points:
-Morality of nudity vs garb
-Any political factors that would get one to differentiate various clerical garb with Islamic garb.
-Any discriminatory standards applied to other forms of dress for offensiveness (though as far as I'm aware they are not actually banned).

Sorry Csteele- I meant many Europeans I met personally in Australia and abroad telling me this. Nothing more substantial to show than that.

I do wish you'd include references, Hasbeen.

>>an Anglo Saxon's application for a job at a council is refused, because they "have not filled their quota for Islamics, & africans yet"... Did you hear the one about the nurse who was fined 250 GB pounds, for putting her garbage bin out an hour early?<<

I love stories like that, but can never find them - even using the keywords you provide.

So, where do I find these?

Weekend feet up I watched a story about the holy book of Muslims.
Like the Christian Bible maybe more so, this Austar doco seemed to say the book has been re written and has different interpretations.
Now Lets be fair, was it once the fashion for just one tribe to keep sun and sand out of the eyes?
Is it a way of keeping women in their place? hidden.
I do not like it, some wear it only to provoke, yes they have said this.
If I on holidays wandered around an Arab street in thongs and shorts would I be able to?
Brand me red neck, insult me, but I do not like or want it,do not except separation as a cultural advantage or some thing we should aim for.
PS
What brave Christian parson/minister would walk the streets of Saudi Arabia? in his /her Church's uniform? and would they live to talk of it.
OK to want to be fair but I doubt our concerns carry weight with some on the other side.

Dear Csteele

your comfort might be a bit misplaced mate.

//The immigration minister Damian Green called such a move as ''rather un-British'' and running contrary to conventions of a ''tolerant and mutually respectful society'//

Do you know much about the dynamics of UK politics ?

What you read was code for this:

a) "We depend heavily in the Muslim vote for our political survival"
b) "In order to even take the reins of government, we had to form a coalition with those who's ideas we despise (Lib Dems).

Now..the Lib Dems fielded at least 15 Muslim candidates in the last election.

Please.. catch up...and read between the lines.

Foxy...I believe you are in glaring error by conflating the Burqa with 'religious dress' of a more general kind. You completely gloss over the security aspects.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/06/2891505.htm

No one is trying to ban the Hijab.. why ? because the persons gender and identity can be seen. The Burqa is total concealment and is thus a danger to public safety as already demonstrated by a number of "men in burqa's" using the dress to mask identity during robberies.

Hijab...fine. Burqa...no way, not now, not ever...ever.

As much as I dislike the reasons why some Muslim women feel the need to wear a Burqa, I would not like to see a democratic society like Australia force them not to wear it, except perhaps in legal situations where a face needs to be seen.

As a predominantly Christian country, we cannot say what other people should or should not wear, except in the case of common decency.

We also cannot hold the moral high ground for trying to keep other religions from practicing what they like and condemning them for wanting to do so in our country.

Christianity has a history of trying to convert many other countries to Christianity for thousands of years, by marching into other places like India, China, Africa, and America and demanding they change their own ways for that of a Christian.

How can we now condemn others for trying to live their own religious beliefs in a foreign country, when Christians have been doing this for years?

A bit hypocritical really.

Let them wear their Burqa if they want, as long as I don't have to!

Unless the women wearing the Burqa ask for our help we should keep our sticky beaks to ourselves. However, I pray that some clown doesn't use a Burqa for a serious crime - bombing or whatever - because that will end the debate.

Hijab is a non-issue. Whoever raised that into the debate is just stirring.

Suze. Christians aren't the only ones who have issues with the Burqa. Move on.

Pericles, unfortunately a bug ate my computer, just recently, so I no longer have the direct references, which are mostly UK sights.

However, if you spend a bit of time going through "Grumpy Old Sod.com", you will find references to some articles on injustices in Britain. Have a look at the "Wankar of the Week" [after correcting the spelling], subject for many of them. With much of my stuff lost, that's the best I can do.

Another is GREENIE WATCH, John Ray's sight. Scroll down through the current days posts you will get to a list of his other sights. One of these is EYE ON BRITAIN, where much of these injustices are reported.

I have been quite horrified at what I have seen, where councils are employing people to go through rubbish bins, to enable them to fine residents for noncompliance with recycling regulations. The thought that we may follow their lead is really scary.

csteel, that idea worries me no less than what is going on in the UK.

How about some refference to it please.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your reply.

From the anti-slavery activists to Gandhi freeing India from colonial rule the evocation of something being un-British has been an effective rallying cry for those wanting change or the end to injustice.

For it to work there must be an innate sense of what it means to be British within the populace. So I would venture that there must be a little more to it than merely “self-reliance, reward for effort, and social conservatism”. Perhaps such initiatives as the vote for women in the colonies of New Zealand and Australia were the result of British sensibilities freed in part from the shackles of a rigid class system.

I think much of the Western world knew what Damien Green meant by the term un-British and my hope would be that if nurtured properly the term un-Australian might have a similar resonance.

Dear Pericles,

I would second that. I found no reference to a nurse and that amount nor a number of other combinations. We can only hope for a more definitive link.

Dear Belly,

Try walking down sections of Serbia dressed as an Imman. However Christian clergy generally can walk unmolested in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Dear AGIR,

Firstly an apology. I had promised to return to your thread on Glen Beck but I had been seriously busy with other commitments I had to set aside much of my recreational time including OLO. When I finally got a chance the thread had been archived.

Perhaps it is misplaced but I would appear to have a little more faith in a British ethic than your good self. What Wilberforce, the Quakers, and much of the British population did to destroy the moral legitimacy of slavery is part of the historical record as is the complicity of many European states in the Holocaust.

I get the sense you might prefer the Stars and Stripes in the corner of our flag however I'm happy with what we have until we are ready to become a republic.

Dear Hasbeen,

http://www.theage.com.au/national/secret-files-on-protesters-given-to-desal-consortium-20091204-kb29.html

Absolutely outrageous in my book.

Dear suzeonline,

Thank you. I will have to agree with StG though as I feel the Burqa offends secular sensibilities possibly even more than Christian ones and compared to somewhere like the US we are an extremely secular nation.

I wonder how many posters realize that
there is no standard "Islamic dress,"
for women, and different types of clothes
are worn in different parts of the Muslim
world. Some women wear blouses and skirts,
others wear shirts and slacks; still others
wear a gown-like garment, and so on.

The majority of Muslim women according to
Prof. Saeed, "Islam in Australia," believe
that covering the face is not a requirement,
as neither is covering the hair. It's a
choice. And, the women who choose to wear
the burqa, especially in Australia are a
relatively small minority.

Therefore if the percentage of women who are
going to be wearing the burqa in this country
will be so small as to be negligible, how are
they going to be problematic for the rest of us?
and to suggest that they are going to be some
sort of "security risk," is surely nonsense.

Has anyone robbed a bank or a store in this country
wearing a burqa? Not to my knowledge.
Why would anyone bother, running
in one would be rather difficult for a start.
A ski-mask would be a better alternative - and
easier to escape in, and remove.

To me all this sounds like a storm in a teacup.
Fear of the "unknown," and the potential "threat"
it poses to Australia, its society and values.
I would prefer to think that this country is
more tolerant than that - we have a solid foundation
built on the values of the rule of law, democracy,
human rights, equality, pluralism, and a fair go
for all. And we should remember that in fact,
one reason why many Muslims migrate to this country
is the very existence of these values.

I personally find Baseball caps a bit offensive.

They represent a foreign war-like culture and have no place in our society.

with my looks I should be wearing a burqa. If it's only purpose is to hide a female's face to prevent males from getting frisky then why not just use a brown paper bag ? No, that's not a good idea either, uses too many trees. Much simpler to accept those who are made in their God's image and look them in face. The exceptionally stylish & elegant muslim ladies who cover their head but not their face can still practice their faith so why do others have to cover their face. What have they got to hide ? Maybe it's because many of them aren't women.

We wouldn’t wear budgie-smugglers or a bikini down the main street of town. We can’t go naked on most beaches. We can’t walk into many establishments while wearing a singlet or having bare feet.

There are all sorts of clothing restrictions, both formalised in law and informal but upheld by peoples’ collective sense of decency.

Public attire that covers one’s face or whole head except for the eyes is just another of many affronts to our sensibilities or accepted norms when it comes to clothing.

We don’t even need to consider religious undertones or the female suppression undertones of something like the burqa. Just looking at it in the context of reasonable clothing standards should be well and truly enough for us to say no to it in this country.

If we were to accept the burqa, then we should also accept the right for people to dress pretty much as they wish anywhere in public, including wearing face-covering masks or the briefest of attire while walking down the street and into shops or going naked on public beaches everywhere, dependent only on the ambient temperature and not on what some people might think.

If we accept the burqa, then we should accept all manner of clothing in all manner of settings, just as long as it is not a safety or liability issue.

What a shame, Hasbeen.

>>unfortunately a bug ate my computer, just recently, so I no longer have the direct references<<

But thanks for the grumpyoldsod site. Material enough there for a lifetime of indulgent self-pity. Funny and well-written, though.

Google Chrome wouldn't let Yahoo search through the site for your original examples, for some reason, so they remain a mystery.

Your pessimism about the old Dart is fortunately belied by the experience of being there, which is still a cultural and intellectual treat compared to here. Thumb through the newspapers side-by-side with our own, and you'll see what I mean.

Don't spend too much time with the Daily Mail, though. It rots the brain.

And Boaz, Boaz, what are we to do with you?

>>The Burqa is total concealment and is thus a danger to public safety as already demonstrated by a number of "men in burqa's" using the dress to mask identity during robberies.<<

It has obviously escaped your notice that the burqa is female apparel.

So the example of men using them in the course of a robbery is no more significant than if they had worn balaclavas.

Personally, I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment – evidenced by the “please remove your motorcycle helmets” notices in places like Banks – should not be extended to any form of covering. Including balaclavas. This would take religion out of the equation, and leave the choice where it belongs: with the wearer.

But in the street, I find it no more or less significant than the motorcycle helmet.

And please, Boaz, stop trying to read “code” into everything. It didn't work when you tried to interpret French law, and it doesn't work here.

>>What you read was code for... "We depend heavily in the Muslim vote for our political survival"<<

Any political party that “depends heavily” on 3.4% of the population is doomed to fail anyway, wouldn't you think?

Particularly when they won't all vote the same way.

I have to say that I do not like the burqua. It is a symbol of repression. What worries me is that as a tolerant society, these sorts of things, once accepted, will encourage further abuse of our culture. It is deceptive and insidious. I am quite certain that this foray into our society will not stop with just a difference in attire. Before long sharia law will be demanded and that starts us down a slippery slope towards all sorts of social upheaval. It is the avowed intention of many Muslims to create Islamist states with their own culture and laws. If we visit countries that have certain dress rules and customs, and we are obliged to abide by them, they should respect ours in return.

That's quite an imagination you have there, snake.

>> the burqua... is a symbol of repression... will encourage further abuse of our culture... deceptive and insidious... Before long sharia law will be demanded... social upheaval<<

All that, from a piece of headgear that is employed by a tiny minority of a tiny minority in our society.

It may be a symbol of repression to you, but some women choose to wear it.

You fail to say how this is actually an abuse of our culture, let alone how it encourages "further abuse". From my own observation, we have an exceptionally tolerant culture here, which is one of its great attractions.

And in what way is a face-covering deceptive? Who is trying to deceive whom, about what?

Insidious? How?

And no-one can "demand" Sharia law. We have a democracy, one that does not become subservient to a tiny minority.

(Except where the Greens are concerned, of course. There's always an exception)

And social upheaval? I think you may be overstating the case, just a little.

Don't you?

Dear (poor) Pericles.. sometimes you totally amaze me... I'm tempted to hint at a *thickheadedness* on your part .. but I'll resist.

Here was your point:

**So the example of men using them in the course of a robbery is no more significant than if they had worn balaclavas.
Personally, I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment – evidenced by the “please remove your motorcycle helmets” notices in places like Banks – should not be extended to any form of covering. Including balaclavas. This would take religion out of the equation, and leave the choice where it belongs: with the wearer.**

and Here is MY point:

**So the example of men using them in the course of a robbery is no more significant than if they had worn balaclavas.
Personally, I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment – evidenced by the “please remove your motorcycle helmets” notices in places like Banks – should not be extended to any form of covering. Including balaclavas. This would take religion out of the equation, and leave the choice where it belongs: with the wearer.**

Do you see it ? I just pasted 'your' opion twice.. as it quite reflects my own.

That IS my point Pericles. "No more significant" than a balaclava ? of COURSE! for crying out loud. No "less" either.

Take religion out of the equation ? errr duh.. YE--esss.. I don't recall saying ANYthing about 'religion and the Burqa' in my last post.

Which part of the following did you not 'get' Pericles?

//Foxy...I believe you are in glaring error by conflating the Burqa with 'religious dress' of a more general kind. You completely gloss over the security aspects.//

I was sure you were a bright bloke Pericles.. please stop demolishing that rather favorable image by suggesting that Politicians don't take such things as segmental/communal/religious voting inclinations into account.

Dear Csteele.... thanx for noting that point re Glenn Beck and my other thread.

It will be most interesting to see how 8-28 pans out. It's coming soon.

I'm sure it will be a memorable day but remember the night before.. 27th Aug will also have a 'huge' event at the Kennedy Centre.. Beck is a bit coy on it but it has something to do with 'big' names in Faith.. not really sure what he is on about there. I think it's just pointing to the faith foundation (of any religious person) and the need to have a faith foundation in the nation.

With Beck being a Mormon, it's been a most interesting journey to see how his own 'theology' has been kind of put aside in favor of 'mainstream evangelicalism' for the purposes of these events.

The Liberal media are totally apoplectic :) I mean.. they are like trapped rats in a walled area into which a hungry cat has been placed.
Running this way and that.. wide bug eyed... overcome with fear and trembling...

Colbert is good on Beck though :)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006240022 very very funny.

And no-one can "demand" Sharia law. We have a democracy..
Pericles,
I am truly astonished at your faith & optimism despite all that is happening with our pseudo democracy.

You can call me rascist if you like, but I feel the Burqa is an offical part of the muslums dress and should be removed if they wish to live in Australia.

After all, we can't go live in thier country without doing as we are told, why should it be any different here for them.

It is our country and you are welcome so long as you want to become an Australian.

You can put it back on once you exit customs.

BTW, what about the muslum guy who was shot recently in Melbourne. He had a history of crime as long as your arm, yet, he was allowed to stay and re-offend, time and time again. What A joke!

Now, don't get too carried away, Boaz.

>>That IS my point Pericles. "No more significant" than a balaclava ? of COURSE! for crying out loud. No "less" either.<<

If that were indeed the point you were trying to get across, why did you spoil it all by stating...

>>The Burqa is total concealment and is thus a danger to public safety<<

Being consistent, this tells us that you believe a motorcycle helmet is "a danger to public safety", when it is worn while riding a motorcycle. A balaclava is "a danger to public safety" when it is worn while cross-country skiing. A hockey-mask is "a danger to public safety" when worn by the goalie. SCUBA gear is "a danger to public safety" when diving the Barrier Reef. A burqa is "a danger to public safety" when its owner is walking down the road to visit the mother-in-law...

I take leave to doubt that, Boaz. You're picking on Muslims again, aren't you?

And this is purely disingenuous:

>>I don't recall saying ANYthing about 'religion and the Burqa' in my last post.<<

I know of no other religion that wears the burqa. Few, if any, atheists either.

And you have the chutzpah to accuse Foxy of

>>conflating the Burqa with 'religious dress' of a more general kind. You completely gloss over the security aspects<<

And those "security aspects" are?

Da Capo.

Stop kidding yourself, Boaz.

You come across far more credibly when you own up to your implacable antipathy towards Muslims.

Pretending that you are just an average, easygoing, tolerant Joe is far less convincing.

A useful article "Australian burqa ban doomed to failure" by Ahmed Kilani from : http://muslimvillage.com/2010/08/17/australian-burqa-ban-doomed-to-failure/

A point which deserves more attention is the people pushing for such a ban are not people who have a history of concern for women's welfare.

Strange thing is Pericles, so many of these people making the NAY case are still trying to piggyback some kind of extreme-case-scenario or the 'freedom of women' case, as if it were never debunked before.

Oh well, we did try to stimulate some new debate, but this thread was nice while it lasted.
I think I'll resume avoiding any more Muslim, abortion, euthanasia debates save for a quick initial remark because they tend to go belly up quite quickly.

Which is a pity because there are lots of parts of these topics that would be good to talk about.

Dear Al,

Just picking up on Glenn Beck again.

I had a bit of a squizz at his show last week. I must admit he was highly entertaining, however, as far as I am concerned it's for all the wrong reasons.
The whole performance appeared to me to be a well rehearsed monologue, from the pensive silences to the all-knowing stares into nothingness.
Notwithstanding that any showman has the right to strut his stuff (I watched Swaggart back in the eighties and it has to be said that the man was a consumate entertainer).
But what am I to make of Beck implying that the arrest and torture of Obama's grandfather by the British colonialists in Kenya is the reason the President has come down so hard on BP?....unbelievable.

Pericles.. I'll grant you a minor point on my lack of clarity:

>>The Burqa is total concealment and is thus a danger to public safety<<

yes.. it is a danger to public safety if allowed in places where Identity is critical. That people in public places have EXPLOITED it for criminal activity should be adequate evidence to the rational and reasoned mind that what I said is fundamentally true.

Dear Poirot :)

glad you are taking a wait and see or (watch and see) approach to Beck.

He is definitely entertaining, and at times it can be difficult to know when he is using showmanship and when not.. but mostly I believe he is concerned with the points he is seeking to make, not to just be entertaining. Tonights show might have been a bit hard for you to view.. he contrasted a $25,000 donation toward the Wounded Warrior group with a letter he received containing a widows mite. a plastic bag with 8 pennies in it. He became very emotional, genuinely I believe, but probably deep down realizing it would be 'good' also for the focal point of 8-28 (and 27) With power and clout also comes a temptation to spin, manipulate, make use of, and generally exploit proven public attributes which touch the heart.

I'm not worried about Beck, I'm sure, being human he experiences them all. Please follow up over th enext few days where he will be 'unpacking' the civil rights movement... should be interesting.

Re Obama? hmmm it was not his treatment of BP which Beck made such a fuss about in connecting his Grandfathers treatment..it was his behavior toward the Brits in general returning a gift of a bust of Churchhill.. could one be more insulting to the British nation? I doubt it.

As for Swaggart ? *There but for the grace of God and the fickleness of man, go I, Beck and anyone else*

Has it ever occurred to anyone else that the biggest casualties occur are Muslim as the terrorists wreck havoc promoting their evil agenda.

Yes Richie it has.

In fact I read about this wayyyyyy back in the time just after Muhammad died.

There was a contention between his spiritual 'heirs' Abu Bakkar (Father of his child wife) and Umar.

Muslim_Book 001, Number_0029:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor , those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that Abu Bakr was right.

COMMENT
The point of contention from Umar was that he could not justify fighting against those who confessed Muhammad was the prophet, whereas Abu Bakkar insisted that if they confessed Muhammad as prophet but failed to pay the 'Zakat' tax, they were in fact apostates.

Then..they fall under the clear category echoed from Surah 9:29

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah" etc

So... from this haddith it can be seen that fighting against even Muslims who are regarded as 'apostates' for some minor infraction of Islamic law was thereupon justified for all time.

RICHIE

it's worth nothing about that particular hadith

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/001.smt.html

That the 'lesson' Umar learned there, was later applied exactly to the invasion of the Persians. In their case though, it was not about apostate Muslims, but simply 'infidels'. The same verse is quoted (9.29) to justify the invasion and enslavement and here is the relevant portion of that hadith.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

CONTEXT:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade."

PARTICULAR

The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

*KEY BIT*
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute);

and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.

COMMENT The last portion above, shows the clear support for 'suicide bombing' or dying while fighting in the way of Allah.

Infufficient attention is given by most commentators on the significance of these writings in seeking to understand the mindset of either Burqa or Bomber.

This thread has expired into the usual low-quality Muslim discussion- goodbye anyone that is actually going to stick around this thing

Sad to see that you have decided to get back on your favourite whack-a-mozzie hobbyhorse, Boaz. I thought that your foray into the world of conspiracy would be sufficient to keep you busy.

No matter.

It's the same-old, same-old, isn't it. Taking a view on someone else's religion, from the vantage point of your own. Given that yours is something of an extremist take on Christianity, this is to be expected.

But I'm not here to cover old ground, you manage that perfectly well on your own. But this deceitful piece of sleight-of-hand caught my eye.

>>Infufficient attention is given by most commentators on the significance of these writings in seeking to understand the mindset of either Burqa or Bomber.<<

By putting the two next to each other, you are equating the adoption of a piece of clothing, with terrorism.

Hardly subtle. And totally reprehensible.

OOPS.. "noting" not 'nothing'.

Pericles.. I am connecting the idea of 'purity of faith' to both burqa and bomber. I have shown from the hadith about Umar, and his understanding of the words of Muhammad, that there is a clear basis for self sacrificing attacks on non Muslims... you do see that ..don't you ? (I mean..you did study english?)

If you cannot see with the eyes God gave you (whether you admit that or not) the meaning of words on a page and in context.. that the foundation of both burqa and bomber are the same.. irrespective of whether the burqa wearer goes out and bombs, then poor you.

You are still trying to understand spiritual attitudes from a secular perspective, that's why you go so haywire in your outbursts.

My contributions on thread are in harmony with the topic and title.

There's no point in speaking about the Gore/Strong/Zoi/Democrat conspiracy here is there ?

Although there is a point of intersection...the Democrat side of american politics is supporting that tribute to Japanese bravery at Peal Harbour.. u know the shinto shrine with all the names of the pilots inside..and it will be opened on the anniversary of the attack..and oh..yes..it will be called 'The heavenly pearl' shrine.

Oh wait.. perhaps it's something else they are supporting ......

That's exactly what is so thoroughly objectionable, Boaz.

>>Pericles.. I am connecting the idea of 'purity of faith' to both burqa and bomber.<<

You do so totally unnecessarily, since the two - burqa and bomber - are not connected in any way.

The wearing of the burqa has absolutely nothing at all to do with "purity of faith".

If it were, why has Syria banned the burqa in schools? Why is it not mandatory wear in Pakistan? In Indonesia?

Face it Boaz, you are simply stirring again. Deliberately equating clothing choice with terrorism is pure dog-whistle.

>>You are still trying to understand spiritual attitudes from a secular perspective, that's why you go so haywire in your outbursts.<<

If yours is a "spiritual attitude", Boaz, it is a highly unpleasant, and thoroughly reprehensible one. Forgive me, if I don't find the need to "understand" it.

I have so far in my life managed to avoid understanding the mindset that indulges in murder, rape, arson or peeing against a wall. I think I can survive a little longer without having to understand what motivates you in your personal fear and loathing.

Just having to observe it is tough enough.

>>My contributions on thread are in harmony with the topic and title.<<

Yet you are the only poster to have stated that wearing a burqa is the equivalent of suicide bombing.

There's "harmony" for you.

Sadly Belly you don't get it do you. O.T. was the history of man. N.T. is supposed to be God living with man, no more winners and losers or good and evil but about doing what is right for the good of All. We are all in the same boat and when you have winners and losers All lose. this election is about winners and losers not providing services for the tax payers. While party politics keep people focused on goodies and badies we miss seeing what they are not doing for us with our taxes dollars which should be providing services for the good of ALL,not just the winners.

Sorry Pero...I did not say the Burqa is the equivalent of a Bomber.

I said..... just in case you didn't tweak to it..

<Infufficient attention is given by most commentators on the significance of these writings in seeking to understand the mindset of either Burqa or Bomber.>

The woman wearing the Burqa is doing so out of her perception of obedience to Allah and Sharia law. (mindset) She is not doing it as a "clothing choice" like "Hmm will I wear jeans or a skirt today" Nope.. the only context for a Burqa is "strict adherence to Islamic law".

The point I was making, is that anything which involved 'strict obedience' to any religous law suggests we jolly well ought to know 'what' that religious law and/or tradition is about.. we neglect it at our peril.

Funnily enough.. the PSI do actually consider such things.

Pericles, our police security intelligence has blokes and girls with PHD's studying this kind of stuff all the time.. and correlating behavior with belief, they do know how to connect the dots and the verses even if you don't.
Having had a very pleasant convo with a senior PSI detective on this, I rather appreciate what they do.

But.. you already know all this, you just don't 'perceive' it.

Don't 4get...watch the USA on 8-28... should be interesting.

Concerning “suicide bombers” the historical record is clear: suicide bombers do not have their roots in traditional Islam but is something introduced by Wahabbi movement: a modern day reformist movement (Bernard Lewis, below). Secondly, the Wahabbis themselves draw their inspiration form the West and deviate from the teaching and practice of traditional Islam (see Daniel Pipes below). Both statements both uncontroversial among those with some knowledge of Islam

To support the first statement i refer you to Bernard Lewis, who needs no introduction:

Look up page 217 to 218 of Bernard Lewis’s “Islam: the religion and the people” and read the entry under the heading “Suicide” (http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Religion-People-Bernard-Lewis/dp/0132230852#reader_0132230852)

<<At the present time suicide, and more specifically suicide terrorism, has come to be regarded as something characteristically and distinctly Islamic. In the past, for most of the recorded history of Islam and Islamic states and societies, the exact opposite was true. In some civilisations, such as ancient Rome and traditional Japan suicide is not only an acceptable choice; it is even, in certain situations an obligation of honor. In most Christian countries, suicide is classified as both a sin and a crime, but despite this, it was generally regarded as an acceptable choice in certain situations, and suicides are not infrequent in the history of Christendom....

In the Islamic world, for most of Islamic history, suicide is so rare as to be almost unknown. The classical view, as laid down and elaborated in both juristic and theological literature, is that suicide is a major sin, earning eternal damnation>>

Lewis goes on to say that <<it is ONLY under the “extremist view, adopted and expounded in the Salafi and Wahhabi literature that this (suicide bombing) is not only permissible, it is meritorious provided that he takes a number of infidels with him. The more TRADITIONAL view would be that anyone who dies by his own hand, in whatever circumstances, is guilty of the sin of suicide, and thereby earns eternal damnation. For the suicide bombers of today, must rests on a point of interpretation.>>{my emphasis}

Cont...1/2

cont...2/3

I would just add that for these extremists many Muslims would be regarded as infidels and many Muslims have been the target of suicide bombers.

As for the second statement, that Wahabbi’s draw their inspiration from radical movement of the West, i refer you to Daniel Pipes who should also not require any introduction.

Daniel Pipes argues that Islamic fundamentalists draw their inspiration from the West: The Western Mind of Radical Islam (http://www.danielpipes.org/273/the-western-mind-of-radical-islam)

Let me quote:

<<Fat'hi ash-Shiqaqi, a well-educated young Palestinian living in Damascus, recently boasted of his familiarity with European literature. He told an interviewer how he had read and enjoyed Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Sartre, and Eliot. He spoke of his particular passion for Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, a work he read ten times in English translation "and each time wept bitterly." Such acquaintance with world literature and such exquisite sensibility would not be of note except for two points-that Shiqaqi was, until his assassination in Malta a few weeks ago, an Islamist (or what is frequently called a "fundamentalist" Muslim) and that he headed Islamic Jihad, the arch-terrorist organization that has murdered dozens of Israelis over the last two years....

cont..

cont...3/3

Shiqaqi's familiarity with things Western fits a common pattern. The brother of Eyad Ismail, one of the World Trade Center bombers recently extradited from Jordan, said of him, "He loved everything American from cowboy movies to hamburgers." His sister recalled his love of U.S. television and his saying, "I want to live in America forever." The family, she commented, "always considered him a son of America." His mother confirmed that "he loves the United States."
.....
In contrast to this familiarity with Western ways, the Islamists are distant from their own culture. Turabi admitted to a French interviewer, "I know the history of France better than the history of Sudan; I love your culture, your painters, your musicians." Having found Islam on their own as adults, many Islamists are ignorant of their own history and traditions. Some of "the new generation," Martin Kramer notes, "are born-again Muslims, ill-acquainted with Islamic tradition." Tunisia's Minister of Religion Ali Chebbi goes further, saying that they "ignore the fundamental facts of Islam." Like Mawdudi, these autodidacts mix a bit of this and that, as Sayyed Vali Reza Nasr explains:

...

On reflection, this lack of knowledge should not be surprising. Islamists are individuals educated in modern ways who seek solutions to modern problems. The Prophet may inspire them, but they approach him through the filter of the late twentieth century. In the process, they unintentionally substitute Western ways for those of traditional Islam.

Traditional Islam - the immensely rewarding faith of nearly a billion adherents - developed a civilization that for over a millennium provided order to the lives of young and old, rich and poor, sophisticate and ignorant, Moroccan and Malaysian. Alienated from this tradition, Islamists seem willing to abandon it in a chimerical effort to return to the pure and simple ways of Muhammad. >>

Both Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes are no apologists for Islam

You can protest as much as you like, Boaz, but we both know the reality of what you write, and why you write it, don't we.

>>Sorry Pero...I did not say the Burqa is the equivalent of a Bomber... The woman wearing the Burqa is doing so out of her perception of obedience to Allah and Sharia law. (mindset)<<

OK, let's examine that for a moment, in the context of my earlier question to you, which was:

"why has Syria banned the burqa in schools? Why is it not mandatory wear in Pakistan? In Indonesia?"

These are Muslim countries. If wearing the burqa is mandatory, due to "obedience to Allah and Sharia law", as opposed to an option, why do they not insist on it? Why does Syria, of all countries, decide that it is inappropriate wear for schools?

If, as you say...

>>the only context for a Burqa is "strict adherence to Islamic law"<<

...we clearly can see that a great deal of Islam does not demand this "strict adherence".

Which you should bear in mind sometime, when you insist that this "strict adherence" is the very danger that you perceive, and fear, from Muslims. As your endless repetition of selected verses from the Qur'an informs us.

You won't allow yourself to understand this, of course. But it is necessary for me to remind you every so often.

I have a question...

If I can't enter a bank wearing a motor-cycle helmet, as it covers my face, and in the past, thieves have used them in order to rob banks, then in the burqa style that has the face covered as well, couldn't a bank refuse entry on the same basis?

Hi Grateful... you can woffle all you like about 'origins' and Wahabbis...but they probably didn't even have 'bombs' in those days.

However...they did have swords and catapults.

You waste everyone's time when you argue from sources POST Hadith.

It's like you are just coming up with an idea you like..then 'projecting' it back onto the foundation scriptures as if they didn't matter, or mean what they say.

@ Mindless...yes they could. and should.

Dear Pericles....you are arguing from modern history and anecdotally rather than from foundation principles.

I'm simply making the point that from my perspective the Burga is unacceptable in Australia because of the issues such as raised by Mindless.

I also point out that the Burqa is symbolic of something much deeper and that is.. if only in the mind of the person wearing it.."obedience to Allah" according to the Sharia.

It is that mindset which ALSO takes such things as I illustrated far more seriously than either you, I, or the vast majority of 'cultural' Muslims. Nevertheless..it is important to understand the mindset itself, as we have had significant attempts in the 'name' of that obedience to kill and maime 100s if not 1000s of Australians.

You can be sure of one thing.. those terrorist/Islamist attempts were nothing to do with obeying the flying spagetti monster we hear so much about but they were connected to "Allah" and "Islam"

Well thanks for the reminder.. you have your position and I have mine...not much point in trying to kick each other to death over it eh? I wasn't trying to persuade 'you' of the matter.. but for those who's minds are open.

@GRATEFUL. I think you need a refresher on "Islam101" :)

1/ Quran...
2/ Hadith
3/ Sunnah (includes the above 2 and the history/biographies)
4/ Schools of Jurisprudence..Hanafi, Hanbali,Maliki and Shaafi.

Get your info from the right place and it'll save you lots of typing.

I don't see any reason why not, MindlessCruelty.

>>in the burqa style that has the face covered as well, couldn't a bank refuse entry on the same basis?<<

I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment should not be extended to any form of covering. Crash helmets, balaclavas, hockey masks, the burka etc... This would take religion out of the equation entirely.

In the UK, a case was made that led to Sikhs being allowed to wear their turban instead of a crash helmet - the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act of 1976 - or a safety helmet on a building site (Section 11 of the UK's Employment Act 1989).

These were accepted as exceptions, on the basis that i) it was a substantial part of their religious belief, and ii) the only party at risk was the wearer.

The former argument (for the burqa) is weak, as it would appear that the vast majority of Muslim women do not feel it necessary to wear the garment. And the second reason for exemption clearly does not apply to security areas.

But an outright ban, at all times and in all places, seems just a little too unnecessarily big-brother, and overtly anti-Muslim.

Agree with your points, pericles.

A burqa covers the face, as do motorcycle helmets balaclavas etc. A turban only covers the hair - face is quite clear, so no issue at all.

Therefore any item of clothing that covers a person's face need be removed before entering places like banks or when presenting evidence in a court hearing.

The vast majority of Muslim women do not wear hijabs, let alone burqas, this talk is being taken to extremes, again. Just like the boat people debates - not a major issue, not a crisis.

Quite so, Pericles and JR. Indeed, I've repeatedly made precisely the same points in various discussions here at OLO.

Of course, that doesn't prevent the Islamophobic contingent from repeatedly expressing their bigotry. Such is the nature of many discussions here, it seems.

Fortunately, the weight of public opinion in the real Australian society still tends towards mutual tolerance, notwithstanding the nonsense expressed by a vocal and bigoted minority.

CJ Morgan

"Fortunately, the weight of public opinion in the real Australian society still tends towards mutual tolerance, notwithstanding the nonsense expressed by a vocal and bigoted minority."

In case we were in any doubt, I think the Federal Poll just proved your assertion.

A little more concentration on real issues like infrastructure, environment, public education and less with the fear mongering could've achieved a different result for Labor. While the likes of Abbott leads the Libs there is no hope for them getting off the fear bandwagon.

AGIR:<<Hi Grateful... you can woffle all you like about 'origins' and Wahabbis...but they probably didn't even have 'bombs' in those days.
>>

The words are not mine but those of Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. Both belong to the neocon camp and so not exactly apologists for Islam. Of course Bernard Lewis is recognised as the leading scholar in Islam (certainly the most read in and out of academia).

Reflect a bit: if the only way to support your agenda is through denying quite basic facts then what does this say about your agenda?

Your behaviour really does look like sour grapes. The grapes are not sour AGIR, you just cann't reach them from where you are standing.

salaams

Pericles:
<<I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment should not be extended to any form of covering. Crash helmets, balaclavas, hockey masks, the burka etc... This would take religion out of the equation entirely.>>

I understand where you're coming from, but then the lady would be exposed to everyone in the bank.

Perhaps, if she were to show her face to the security guard only and provide her drivers licence which she could then collect on the way.

Would that be a reasonable compromise?

grateful, "I understand where you're coming from, but then the lady would be exposed to everyone in the bank."

So what, don't you imagine that there are men and women in the general community who wouldn't also prefer to remain incognito but have always had to comply?

Taking the example where people are visiting schools, it is not adequate to have a furtive showing of identity under special circumstances and then roam free without anybody being able to identify the person.

cornflower
<<So what, don't you imagine that there are men and women in the general community who wouldn't also prefer to remain incognito but have always had to comply?>>

Comply with what? Your wishes?

I imagine there are many women who would like to escape the harrassment that they are subjected to in the workplace and out (don't you read the papers?).

I knew one such woman, long before i became Muslim. She was abused by her father and boyfriends of her elder sister. Once she had left home, she wanted to cover and did so with loose clothing.

If a woman wants to cover partially or completely, whether it be for intimacy with her Creator or just to feel more secure from abuse, i think she has every right to do so. People like yourself have no right to demand otherwise.

As I said, if there is an issue of security in places like banks, then such concerns can easily be accomodated without imposing an unnecessary burden on such woman.

Please do not give me any shallow speaches about how woman are respected and have equal rights in this society. I grew up in the burbs and i saw what teenage girls had to endure. This was and is wrong and is not something Australians should be proud of. But most never notice it because it is, as you youself suggest, the NORM.

grateful

You are spinning wildly off the subject. I gave the example of children in schools where the expectation is and quite rightly so, that anyone admitted would be readily and easily identifiable while on the grounds. That is a normal requirement of security.

There is no discrimination, anyone with sufficient legitimate reason to enter the grounds is admitted, however the very reasonable proviso is that they be readily identifiable and describable while on the grounds.

There are other circumstances where similar rules are reasonable and the interior of a bank is one, although it would not be unreasonable to also intercept persons whose faces are covered in the vicinity of a bank (given that example). Similarly there may be circumstances where minimum or particular dress codes might be decided for public areas. An example could be for the public appearance of a visiting dignitary.

There is nothing discriminatory in applying the rules for security. If surveillance cannot easily identify, there is always an increased risk.

Could anyone tell me if honor killings have any place in this debate. As they are part of sharia law.

That's an aggressive stance, grateful.

>>If a woman wants to cover partially or completely, whether it be for intimacy with her Creator or just to feel more secure from abuse, i think she has every right to do so. People like yourself have no right to demand otherwise.<<

Equally, when we have a need to insist that the face needs to be uncovered for security reasons, we have every right to do so. "People like yourself have no right to demand otherwise."

We operate an extremely tolerant society when it come to the individual's private life. It is not at all unreasonable to request a consistent standard of behaviour in public, especially when that standard is socially totally acceptable and inoffensive.

I'm afraid that the need to "feel more secure from abuse" is subservient, in this situation, to the safety and comfort of others.

If the pressure and strain of exposure is too great, perhaps it would be wiser for the individual to compromise by finding alternatives to physically visiting a bank etc., rather than expect the rest of the world to fall into line.

@ Grateful

You said:

"Reflect a bit: if the only way to support your agenda is through denying quite basic facts then what does this say about your agenda?"

May I remind you that the 'facts' is exactly what my argument is based on.. remember ? "Islam 101"

Quran...
hadith..
Sunnah...
Jurisprudence...

If you want to argue with those 'facts'.. I suggest it says more about 'your' agenda :)

I hope Pericles and CJ and ilk have noticed how you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any kind of conformity with the issue of Burga's in Banks... good grief.. "Show her face to the security guard"? if she can show her face to some infidel at the door.. it seems a tad inconsistent to then decline to expose her face to others.

Mate..its...a....bank..... not Fitzroy st St Kilda.

So...no, it's not ok.

Personally.. if people want to wear that crazy getup..and suffer in it.. fine, but fit in with Aussie law ok? Further.. if people wish to have such an "in your face" attitude about their religion.. then they can expect some social consequences just like 'we' do.

No Burqa in

Banks..
Courts...
Licence photo's
Passport photo's

and any other place relevant ..or deemed relevant by Australian Authorities.

"Show her face to the security guard" would become "in a booth affording privacy", which would then become "however the guard would have to be a woman", which would become "and the woman would have to be Muslim" and on and on it goes.

The Americans call it 'being nickeled and dimed to death'.

HI Cornflower... we have had our disagreements for sure..but on this one, you absolutely summed it up... no one has done a better job of it.

Well done.

You are on a roll there Cornflower.. your other earlier point:

//There is nothing discriminatory in applying the rules for security. If surveillance cannot easily identify, there is always an increased risk.//

Is also very relevant to street level surveillance, specially in the light of the potential for Islamist terrorists to use such disguise to prevent legitimate security records as they might be 'casing' a particular target or.. trial running a journey.

I absolutely believe that people who normally wear Bike helmets must remove them as soon as they get off the bike..and that no such equipment should be allowed on any person walking down the street.

So.. you have strengthened the case against the Burqa in public places forcefully and persuasively.

I find your reasoning irresistable. Let's hope bigotry does not cloud other minds from the same clear thinking.

@ Grateful, you said:

"I understand where you're (@ cornflower) coming from, but then the lady would be exposed to everyone in the bank."

well...duhhhh.. of COURSE she would be so exposed..and rightly so.
We don't bend our rules for the sake of a misplaced idea of 'religious obedience'..sorry but no.

Our wishes ? damn straight YES 'our' wishes as a democratic society and through our elected representatives where we have the rule of law.

Grateful.. why not fess up and clarify one matter.. DO you believe the Quran/Hadith etc require the full covering of the face ?

You do..or you don't. If you do...then we know where you are coming from.. if you DON'T ? then why would you support a Burqa on 'religious' grounds at all?

Well? Do you believe it is a requirement?

Rich 10: <<Could anyone tell me if honor killings have any place in this debate. As they are part of sharia law.>>

The "debate" is really about another opportunity to stoke the flames of hatred with lies, such as the above, and distortions. Look at the people who initiatiated the debate. It is initiated and perpetuated not by those with a concern for the welfare of woman, nor even by those concerned with security, but those who want to make trouble and cause conflict.

If people are really concerned with the welfare of Muslim women then they should follow the advice of Naomi Wolf:

<<These women are exactly the kind of leaders that everyone should be cultivating and supporting, rather than overlooking because of a belief that they cannot exist in the Middle East. We would do better to find out more about them than to waste our time on superficial debates about how they -- and many others who are just as accomplished -- should dress.>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/what-do-muslim-women-want_b_309979.html

Pericles,

Perhaps you missed my earlier suggestion: that they be required to show themselves to security (male or female) and provide an ID which they would collect on the way out. Shariah law would not require security to be of one particular gender.

Cornflower,
You need to be a bit more accomodating. The women who cover with a niqab are not seeking to operate in cognito. They are simply giving a clear message that they are off limits to men other than their husband and close relatives...a part of their worship of their God. Otherwise they mix with family and friends and are quite social. They can be house-wives or graduates. Other than the security issue (just in case the robber gets an idea of wearing a niqab to work), there is no harm to society that would justify imposing a blanket ban on the niqab.

AGIR

<<.. "Show her face to the security guard"? if she can show her face to some infidel at the door.. it seems a tad inconsistent to then decline to expose her face to others. >>

No, its matter of the public interest taking precedance over the interests of the woman if this form of dress is considered to pose a security risk (has anyone for the police or banks expressed these concerns?).I'm in agreement with Pericles on this point.

I'm simply arguing that it is a fair and just solution which minimises the disruption to the woman's life. Hence, the proposal above.

Finally,

Let's put our cards on the table. Who here can say that they have expressed concern about the sexual harrassment of woman in the workplace or domestic violence at home. Surely there is enough of it about to be concerned.

Why do i ask? Obviously i'm very sceptical about the motives of those who purport to be concerned with the welfare of Muslim women or the threat that they pose to bank and national security by donning the niqab.

AGIR
<<@ Grateful, you said:

"I understand where you're (@ cornflower) coming from, but then the lady would be exposed to everyone in the bank."

well...duhhhh.. of COURSE she would be so exposed..and rightly so.
We don't bend our rules for the sake of a misplaced idea of 'religious obedience'..sorry but no.>>

A verse for one who seeks to dictate what is and what is not appropriate 'religious observence':

<<Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command.Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.>> (Qur'aan 2:109)

And the Qur'aan continues

<<Establish worship, and pay the poor-due; and whatever of good ye send before (you) for your souls, ye will find it with Allah.
Lo! Allah is Seer of what ye do. >>(Qur'aan 2:110)

You say the grapes are sour (their 'religious obedience' is misplaced), but the reality is that you are the one who is bitter.

Let the women pratice their religion as they see fit, for they are doing no-one any harm, but rather providing a timely reminder for us all to reflect on our purpose in this life and what is and what is not important.

Richie 10: <<Could anyone tell me if honor killings have any place in this debate. As they are part of sharia law.>>

Bernard Lewis in "Islam: the Religion and its People" writes

"At a time when European opinion and comment were predominantly hostile to Islam, the great Hungarian Jewish orientalist Ignaz Goldzilher devoted much time and effort to defendign Islamic practice and achievements against detractors. A particularly important point he made was that Islam as a religion and as a culture should not be blamed for the tribal customs of some of the peoples who adopt it. A good example is genital mutilation of young females, widely practiced in Africa and, to a lesser extent, in some other places, but without any foundation whatsoever in Islamic scripture, tradition, or law. Another example is the practice of honor killing.
Islamic legislation in the Koran and in the Sharia is designed to protect women from abuse of this kind, but in many parts of the Islamic world today, even the rules of law designed to protect women are used to abuse them..."

As i have said above Bernard Lewis is among the most eminent of Islamic historians, which you can confirm for yourself, and certainly not an apologist for Islam. Yet, you will not find a more unequivocal rebuttal of the assertion that honor killings are a part of the Shari'a.

The burqa predates Islam, also a tribal relic, and not a requirement of Islam. The most
populace Muslim countries do not impose it.

Overseas, the burqa has proven to be a disguise par excellence for criminals; obviously, in areas of security there should be some method of ascertaining the wearer.

Current wearers should have the choice of whether to wear it or not - and this is a bit rubbery as it also depends upon the decision of their menfolk.

The next generation of potential wearers should not be wearing burqa, nor any other type of shroud. This is the responsibility of Islamic leaders/teachers in this country. They need to teach a pure Islam, devoid of accressions of primitive practices and horrors, in fact, out-law these from their faithful.

Whether it is due to the media or not, we seem to have unfortunate PR from the Islamic community ... 'cat-meat'? ... outrage that Muslim rapists received appropriate sentences!Islamic teachers/leaders/media, instead of trying to soften/justify messages like this, need to come out loudly and condemn them.

Muslims want to be accepted within our community, and G-d knows, we want to accept them. But when Islamic spokespeople try "to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds" instead of coming out clearly with their beliefs about certain practices, the wider community become confused ... and unfortunately, suspicious.

Islam is not new in this country. Afghanis opened the inland, bringing Islam with them, and building mosques. These people were no less devout than the current wave of Muslim arrivals. These earlier Muslims are an important part of our history, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude; their Muslim descendents, an important part of our current landscape. No distinction is made between them and any other groups within Australia. Perhaps this is due to the fact that they practice their Islamc faith, as it was intended.

Danielle, it is obvious that your heart is in the right place, but please don't contribute to the scaremongering.

>>Overseas, the burqa has proven to be a disguise par excellence for criminals<<

This is an utter and complete fabrication. The burqa is in fact a most inappropriate garment for the vast majority of criminal enterprises. I'd be amazed if you were to find that any form of Muslim female attire has become "proven" as a criminal disguise.

A ski mask is so much more practical.

One avenue that hasn't been explored is the fact that if we, a particularly non-Muslim country, advocate banning the burqa, we are effectively endorsing the notion that it is the role of government to mandate female attire.

Seen from the perspective of religious leaders overseas, this provides third-party reinforcement to their own position, and supports their stance that they are right to insist on a particular form of covering for their female population.

This would, I suspect, be something of setback for women in Muslim countries who believe they should have a choice.

And grateful, I think you are clutching at straws here:

>>Perhaps you missed my earlier suggestion: that they be required to show themselves to security (male or female) and provide an ID which they would collect on the way out. Shariah law would not require security to be of one particular gender.<<

Personally, I strongly doubt the last sentence. But anyway.

You, equally, must have missed mine.

"If the pressure and strain of exposure is too great, perhaps it would be wiser for the individual to compromise by finding alternatives to physically visiting a bank etc., rather than expect the rest of the world to fall into line."

Pericles,

I suggest you do some research on the web before making this statement.

Pericles,

Just a few sites from online.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html#ixzz0nMF3YHkB

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209006/Jewellers-robbery-Oxfordshire

http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim

Arab sympathy for burqa ban
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/egypt/100601/arab-burqa-ban-muslim-freedom

The primitive Burqa might have had some benefit in a desert environment and sand storms, but is quite inappropriate for Australia's modern envirnoment. I also suspect it is highly unhygenic. A western woman visiting family in the middle east described wearing her sister-in-law's Burqa. Apart from the fact that it was cumbersome and suffocating, it was noisome - the inside of the mask was encrusted with dried spital and mucous. Obviously, these garments are not cleaned very often.

Doctors are also concerned about the Burqa's more serious health risks
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272307

I stand corrected on the issue of criminal use, Danielle.

But I still believe that the security issue does not need to be addressed with a blanket ban. It is entirely appropriate that the security men at the door of the premises applies the same "house rules" for any form of face covering, be it burka, ski mask or balaclava.

But involving the government, and making it an issue of public policy, is to my mind giving our lawmakers far too much influence over our personal lives.

Security is not achieved by a one-off identify check at the door, it is fundamentally about ensuring that all persons on the site and if necessary, in the surrounding area, are readily identifiable at all times.

In such cases there is no discrimination because individuals can choose what fashion accessories they wear and where they want to go. In that, Mt Abbott has the same choices in his budgie smugglers as the skull and crossbones veiled outlaw motorcyclist has in his helmet and colours. The outside bar maybe, not the lounge.

I don't support banning the burqa or niqab where women voluntarily choose the fashion because in a free society everyone should dress as they please, excepting that dress standards do apply in some circumstances such as for security or to avoid affront.

Importantly, a ban should be avoided because could create a cause célèbre for activists to foment civil strife and put pressure on even more unfortunate women to don the chaff bag (and head first!).

However, none of that should be taken to imply any support for these outrageous fashions, which arguably could have a worse physical and psychological impact on the wearer than the emaciated conditions of fashion models so staunchly criticised by the medical fraternity and the women's movement. Plainly, such self-harming fashions should be discouraged rather than encouraged and that has implications for girls and young women who could be at risk.

What needs to be recognised is that the burqa and niqab do cause affront to many people, especially women and such feelings are legitimate and should be taken into account. These fashions are symbols of oppression and are downright unhealthy and there is no disputing that. In fact, where likelihood to cause community affront is concerned, it is only the swap of gender of the wearer, and victim for oppressor, that set the burqa and niqab apart from the Klansman's outfit. It is a sobering thought that if the men wore the head concealing cloth instead and their treatment of women was the same, wearing a burqa in public would be an offence.

Pericles.

I do apologise if I sounded curt.

The Burqa should not be an issue for the wider public to have to debate.

The Burqa is an antiquated relic of tribal mores from an horrendous environment. Hardly suitable for modern Australian cities.

Also, one is reminded that masking the face has profound meaning ... Traditionally, those to be executed were masked/or their eyes covered; masking is significant in traditional ritual. Without access to expression and body language, the individual becomes depersonalised.

The argument that the Burqa would prevent women from unwelcome advances or rape, sinks without trace. In such a case, the woman would be even further victimised within her community.

I agree that it shouldn't be banned. Others have argued more cogently regarding this.

It is up to Muslim leaders, themselves, to bring some leadership, erudition, commonsense and compassion to this issue

Yes Danielle, I agree it should be banned.
I think the comment of the Moslem man in Italy whose wife was fined for
wearing the burqua is an opener for some.

He said, "I cannot allow other men to see my wife" !
That is why it is worn and all the waffle to the contrary is nonsense.

Actually when a women is found wearing that monstrosity her husband
should be sentenced to a course of counselling.

Danielle, "It is up to Muslim leaders, themselves, to bring some leadership, erudition, commonsense and compassion to this issue"

As a society we should go further than that to discourage the fashion by not making unnecessary concessions. The responsibility is to the children and young women more so than the adults - whose traditions and rituals are more likely rusted on. It is as much a body image issue as scrawny fashion models is it not?

@ Pericles....

"I stand corrected on the issue of criminal use, Danielle."

Stone the crows and the ducks Pericles..you were corrected on that issue errr light years ago.... during the 'Kirpan' debate or thereabouts... over and over.. but the words of Jesus are very appropriate here "Have I been with you this long and yet you do not know me"..in your case it's not about knowing Him but the issues which are paraded in front of your seeing but unperceiving eyes on a regular basis.

Danielle.. you go girl !

Just to keep you slightly honest, Boazy - do you have any evidence of the Sikh kirpan being used to commit any crimes anywhere?

I suspect that writers here would like to see rational thought and commonsense by the Islamic leaders brought to the subject of wearing the Burqa.

I also suspect that writers here would expect this stance whether the Burqa (or same garment) was a artifact of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or any other religious groups. Writers would make identical observations about it. Muslims should not see criticism as anti-Islamic; but criticism of the garment being worn in 21st century Australia.

As for the woman who felt closer to G-d wearing the Burqa, I think she needs spiritual advice for a religious leader.

Sorry, Boaz. But you cannot rewrite history. Especially when the evidence remains on the interwebs forever.

>>Stone the crows and the ducks Pericles..you were corrected on that issue errr light years ago.... during the 'Kirpan' debate or thereabouts... over and over.<<

If you care to go back and check, you'll find that your argument simply disintegrated under the weight of its own self-indulgent portentousness.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1343

You were asked then the exact same question as CJ now asks, by FrankGol, as it happens

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1343#24306

>>Can you tell us how many Australian Sikhs have used a kirpan as an assault weapon:
(a) in Australian schools?
(b) on the streets in Australia?
(c) in any other public place in Australia?
(d) anywhere in the world?
Can you point to any evidence, anytime, anywhere where Sikhs have used the kirpan for non-defensive purposes?<<

You chose not to respond at the time. I doubt whether you will be able to do so this time either.

Talk about failing to comprehend "the issues which are paraded in front of your seeing but unperceiving eyes on a regular basis."

Or even remembering them.