Netherlands to propose burqa ban!!

[stats101]

The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.
The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.

Immigration minister Rita Verdonk is known for her tough policies, and has clashed with past coalition partners.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6159046.stm

[FractionMan]

Well, so you your civil liberties allow you to demonise a community by drawing horrid pictures of their prophet, but you civili liberties will not allow you to wear certain clothes.

Screw the dutch

[thaddeus]

Did some Dutchmen draw cartoons like the Danish ones?

[zara]

The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.
The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.

Immigration minister Rita Verdonk is known for her tough policies, and has clashed with past coalition partners.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6159046.stm



And legalising Marajana is the height of morality I suppose! :confused:

The only thing banning niqab "threatens" is freedom of expression and individualism! What hypocrites these non-Muslims are!

[watchthevideo]

And legalising Marajana is the height of morality I suppose! :confused:

The only thing banning niqab "threatens" is freedom of expression and individualism! What hypocrites these non-Muslims are!
........ :thumbup:

[John O Hart]

The only thing banning niqab "threatens" is freedom of expression and individualism! What hypocrites these non-Muslims are!

Whereas it's not hypocritical to demand freedom to wear the burqa while denying women the freedom to wear mini-skirts or bare their heads?
Furthermore, banning the burqa protects those women who don't want to wear it but are forced to by their men. Don't pretend there aren't any.

[big al]

Legal prostitution, porn cinemsa, sex shows... What morality they have.
Remember they have a pro paedophile part as well.

[zara]

Whereas it's not hypocritical to demand freedom to wear the burqa while denying women the freedom to wear mini-skirts or bare their heads?
Furthermore, banning the burqa protects those women who don't want to wear it but are forced to by their men. Don't pretend there aren't any.


Let's keep this in context! We are talking about Holland not a Muslim country(in most cases the Muslim country allows a woman to bear her head as you put it!)
I think you are missing the point. No Muslim is saying that a woman can't dress how she pleases, but that there are issues to be taken into account. This issue has been discussed many a time, but it seems that some non-Muslim elements still don't have the capacity to understand it!


It is NOT up to any country to impose its own "opinion" on a person's way of life! There are many Muslim women who wear Niqabs out of choice and are happy to dress in the way they see is modest!

Think Holland should be looking at ways to clean up its own morality before trying to appear pc!

[French toni]

Why would anybody wish to live in such an immoral country?

[French toni]

Think Holland should be looking at ways to clean up its own morality before trying to appear pc!

Wasn’t it Charles Voltaire who said "I have no morals yet I am a very moral person."

Sorry I know I’m digressing a bit, but I don’t often get the opportunity to slip that quote in.

[Muslimlarki]

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6159046.stm

And women in micro skirts with everything on show don't? Women in bikinis don't.

What utter hypocrisy from these two-faced Islam hating Muslimaphobes. :mad:

[Ali Abdullah]

Dispite the fact that hardly any Muslim women in the Netherlands wear it, it is an issue because there is a General Election next week!

[John O Hart]

No Muslim is saying that a woman can't dress how she pleases, but that there are issues to be taken into account.

Ah yes, that favourite word "but". Totally negates the first half of the sentence, doesn't it?

So presumably the government of Iran is not Muslim, nor are the Taliban. Or are we seeing the Henry Ford principle - you can have any colour you want as long as it's black?

[Ali Abdullah]

The Sun has got in quick:-

Holland bans burkas and veils

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor
November 18, 2006

WOMEN are to be banned from wearing burkas and veils in Holland.

The Dutch government last night confirmed plans to outlaw the wearing of traditional Muslim gowns in public places.

It declared that it was acting out of concerns for national security.

Immigration minister Rita Verdonk — dubbed Iron Rita for her tough stance on immigration — said: “We will act as soon as possible, banning burkas and other clothing that covers a person’s entire face in public places.

“The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing, including the burka, is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens.”

Holland’s move is bound to reopen the debate in Britain about the wearing of traditional Muslim dress.

Cabinet veteran Jack Straw sparked a row last month when he called for Muslim women to stop wearing veils.

He was backed by a string of ministers, all urging Muslim women not to cover their faces in public.

But it would be a breach of the Human Rights Act to outlaw the wearing of burkas in Britain. Schools in Norway’s capital Oslo aim to ban Muslim girls from wearing their burka and niqab head dresses.

And some Belgian cities are fining women £100 if they don them. Holland has one million Muslims — one 16th of the population.

It will become the first European country to ban the burka and veil.

Ministers based the move on security concerns to comply with Dutch laws which prevent religious discrimination. The controversial move will now go before the parliament in the New Year.

Dutch Premier Jan Peter Balkenende goes to the polls on Wednesday for the country’s second general election in nine months.

All parties have promised to introduce tough anti-immigration measures.

After France banned the wearing of headscarves in schools, the Dutch government decided to leave that question up to individual schools. Most allow headscarves.

But women who wear burkas to job interviews in Utrecht have had their welfare payouts axed.

Officials accuse them of being deliberately clad from head to foot knowing they will not be successful so they can carry on sponging off the state.

The Muslim Council of Great Britain reacted with horror at the burka decision.

Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “One of the most wonderful things about living in Britain is freedom of association.

“In the UK we have taken the approach that it is wrong to tell girls to cover themselves up — and also wrong to tell them to undress if they are covered up.

“We leave it up to the woman to decide whether they wear head gear or not.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006530667,00.html

[wajid2000]

It amazes me how these stupid countries work.......to think that there are 16million people there and of those there is about 100 women actually wearing the burga can cause such fuss......

they need to concentrate on more important agenda's......but then again it seems to be a point of concern for a western country at the moment to pick on muslims. :mad:

[Isaac]

To be honest, i expect nothing less from the kuffar and some non-muslims. We can sit here all day and complain about countries which have minoirty muslims, but yet fail to recognise the opression of muslims and Islam in countries such as Turkey and Tunisia. Countries which were at the glory of the Islamic Empire. Countries which ones ruled by the Law of Allah. We need to look into our selves and countries where muslims are in majority and bring about reform. Even if it means sacrificing our lives, being imprisoned for spreading the word of Allah or being humiliated by those that reject his word.

I was watching a programme about fashion desigining in Turkey, and by Allah I have never seen such dsgust in the muslim world in my life. I swear by Allah I have been ignorant and blind. Muslim men and women openly drinking and walking naked, while claiming to be not doing any injustice to Islam or their belief. Even older footage of leaders of these nations actually taking of hijaabs of women, as to bury the tradition and law of Allah. I fear the curse of Allah falling upon the muslims and muslim lands, when they openly commit sin and reject his law.

This is why I continiously pray for my mujahideen brothers, who are trying to bring about and make the worship of Allah as one, and in hope that they commit not transgression in the process and that it is in accordance of the sunnah of Muhammed [saw].

[termin8or]

I simply cannot grasp why you are all so concerned about the state of undress of people in Europe. Why do you all complain about it so much? This is Europe. Not Pakistan or the Middle East. Since the turn of the last century clothing has become more revealing with the mini skirt kicking off in the 60’s. Holland is what it is

Legal prostitution, porn cinemsa, sex shows... What morality they have.
Remember they have a pro paedophile part as well.

Holland is a Western liberal country. Porn is quite freely available on the Continent and accepted as such.


And legalising Marajana is the height of morality I suppose! :confused:

Again, Holland has been like this for over 30 years. It is a Western liberal country.

Remember not all Dutch people agree with how their country is and I am certainly not condoning some of the stuff that goes on there as I find it excessive, however they are what they are and good luck to them.

In the context of their liberalism and their morals and the way people dress in the West the burka is the weirdest form of dress imaginable and has as much of a place here as walking down Jeddah main street in a bikini.

[John O Hart]

I was watching a programme about fashion desigining in Turkey, and by Allah I have never seen such dsgust in the muslim world in my life. I swear by Allah I have been ignorant and blind. Muslim men and women openly drinking and walking naked, while claiming to be not doing any injustice to Islam or their belief. Even older footage of leaders of these nations actually taking of hijaabs of women, as to bury the tradition and law of Allah. I fear the curse of Allah falling upon the muslims and muslim lands, when they openly commit sin and reject his law.



I wouldn't worry too much about the curse of Allah, Isaac, since we haven't seen much evidence for it yet, have we? You'd be better off fearing for your eyesight, since I'm sure you didn't see any Turks walking naked. Dressed immodestly by your standards, maybe, but naked? I think not. Just get used to the fact that their beliefs aren't the same as yours, and learn to respect their right to their beliefs. Why are you so sure that your Islam is better than their Islam?

[BrotherNur]

I simply cannot grasp why you are all so concerned about the state of undress of people in Europe. Why do you all complain about it so much? This is Europe. Not Pakistan or the Middle East. Since the turn of the last century clothing has become more revealing with the mini skirt kicking off in the 60’s. Holland is what it is


Holland is a Western liberal country. Porn is quite freely available on the Continent and accepted as such.



Again, Holland has been like this for over 30 years. It is a Western liberal country.

Remember not all Dutch people agree with how their country is and I am certainly not condoning some of the stuff that goes on there as I find it excessive, however they are what they are and good luck to them.

In the context of their liberalism and their morals and the way people dress in the West the burka is the weirdest form of dress imaginable and has as much of a place here as walking down Jeddah main street in a bikini.


the reason why people are compaling here is because of the hypocrocy of the west, it boasts about its freedom, then goes and restricts a basic freedom, and this is from a country that has no morals!

the west has lost its morality, if it had some in the sirst place, you clearly stated that in one of your sentence:


the burka is the weirdest form of dress imaginable and has as much of a place here as walking down Jeddah main street in a bikini

modesty seems weired to you, yet running around naked is ok!

[termin8or]

the reason why people are compaling here is because of the hypocrocy of the west, it boasts about its freedom, then goes and restricts a basic freedom, and this is from a country that has no morals!

The people of Holland have morals. They are just different from yours and mine but I happily accept them for that.

modesty seems weired to you, yet running around naked is ok!
People, possibly apart from the occasional eccentric, do not run around naked, but they can often be scantily dressed. You should learn not to embellish what you write with inaccuracies

As far as I am aware morality can be achieved without covering yourself from head to foot in something that I would take camping.

You need to realise “the West” (where you live) is different from where your imagination takes you. Scantily clad women are odd, but acceptable. Covering yourself in a sack is also odd, but worries people, the Dutch more so it seems.

[Muslimlarki]

Furthermore, banning the burqa protects those women who don't want to wear it but are forced to by their men. Don't pretend there aren't any.

Don't deny there are women forced to wear micro skirts becuase some men force them too. Banning the Microskirt protects those women who don't want to wear it. The same can be said about every other piece of revealing clothing.

[zara]

Ah yes, that favourite word "but". Totally negates the first half of the sentence, doesn't it?

So presumably the government of Iran is not Muslim, nor are the Taliban. Or are we seeing the Henry Ford principle - you can have any colour you want as long as it's black?



That is not a very intellectual way of looking at an argument ! One has to take the whole of the sentence into context, not just nit-pick parts you don't take to!

As for Iran, actually I don't agree with their hijab-imposed policy. In the Quran it states there is "no compulsion in religion" and if countries like Iran claim to govern the country by the principles of Sharia then start with head covering! You can't force a woman to wear(or not wear) something that goes against her wishes!

Don't even get me started on the Taliban! :mad:

[zara]

Wasn’t it Charles Voltaire who said "I have no morals yet I am a very moral person."

Sorry I know I’m digressing a bit, but I don’t often get the opportunity to slip that quote in.


hmmm :confused:

Sounds like a contadiction in terms!

[Isaac]

John O Hart. Its not accroding to my own understanding or belief, its according to the quran and sunnah of Muahammed [saw] that if a women is not coverd as put forward by the sharia she is naked. In your eyes and the eyes of those that do not understand the islamic view on covering its hard for you to accept.

No not once did i say my islam is better than theres, and yes it has got something to do with my view and that i can openly say that i disagree with their view. The say that there is nothing wrong with dressing semi naked and drinkin, being a muslim and the other person being a muslim i say there is. i say they are wrong, and yes to an extent it does make my understanding better and my belief in terms of following the scripture. if it did not than there would be no criteria for right and wrong. But what they do yes you are right is at their own will and beleif. but than its mu duty to correct muslims where they are wrong, and like wise be corrected.

Just because people who are not muslim can accept immoralities in society it does not mean muslim have to.

[Isaac]

John O hart. Your understanding of women that wear the burqa are forced is pathetic and totally wrong. people like you use to say that about women who just wore a hijaab, but when more and more women started wearing the hijaab it put your silly comments into the bin. when more and more women came into the public spotlight and put your stupid comments into the bin by openly saying we CHOOSE to wear this, you were gobsmaked. Now the same is happening with women who wear burqa. Lets give you an example why is that the women in afghanistan still choose to wear burqa, now that the taliban are gone or out of poewer. Becasue they CHOOOSE TO. Gobsmaked?

There are a few muslim women on this forum that CHOOSE to wear the burqa, and im sure if they are reading they can come on here and tell you that they CHOOSE to wear the burqa and they are not forced as you so pathetically generalised. What do you have to say about it when w muslim women openly says i chose to wear i am not forced.

You cant say anything because you argument and appraoch is flawed.

[French toni]

"I have no morals yet I am a very moral person."

Sounds like a contadiction in terms!

Was Voltaire saying, I believe firmly in laws and rules because they help me to judge and weigh up other people.
I do not however live my own life by them.

Voltaire also said:-

“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

Sorry once again I know I’m digressing.

[zara]

"I have no morals yet I am a very moral person."

Sounds like a contadiction in terms!

Was Voltaire saying, I believe firmly in laws and rules because they help me to judge and weigh up other people.
I do not however live my own life by them.

Voltaire also said:-

“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

Sorry once again I know I’m digressing.




A little like hypocrisy..?!

[John O Hart]

John O Hart. Its not accroding to my own understanding or belief, its according to the quran and sunnah of Muahammed [saw] that if a women is not coverd as put forward by the sharia she is naked.

The quran and the sunnah were written in Arabic, so they can hardly be taken as a definition of the English word "naked". Any dictionary will tell you that "naked" means not wearing clothes. Just because some ancient Arabic texts regard being semi-naked as sinful as being naked is no excuse for you to misuse the English language. If you'd described the people you saw in the film as semi-naked there would have been no problem.

It's hardly a qualification for a legal system that they can't deifine their terms accurately, wouldn't you agree?

[John O Hart]

John O hart. Your understanding of women that wear the burqa are forced is pathetic and totally wrong. people like you use to say that about women who just wore a hijaab, but when more and more women started wearing the hijaab it put your silly comments into the bin. when more and more women came into the public spotlight and put your stupid comments into the bin by openly saying we CHOOSE to wear this, you were gobsmaked. Now the same is happening with women who wear burqa. Lets give you an example why is that the women in afghanistan still choose to wear burqa, now that the taliban are gone or out of poewer. Becasue they CHOOOSE TO. Gobsmaked?

There are a few muslim women on this forum that CHOOSE to wear the burqa, and im sure if they are reading they can come on here and tell you that they CHOOSE to wear the burqa and they are not forced as you so pathetically generalised. What do you have to say about it when w muslim women openly says i chose to wear i am not forced.

You cant say anything because you argument and appraoch is flawed.

If you check what I wrote, I never said that ALL women who wear the burqa are forced to do so, nor have I ever belonged to those people ("people like you" as you term them) who say that ALL women who wear the hijab are forced to. However, your quote from the quran and sunnah seems to imply that Islam does force women to wear at least the hijab, otherwise they are considered as naked, and, to judge from comments by so-called Muslim scholars, deserving of rape. Is that or is that not "forced"? You really can't tell whether people have chosen something unless you give them a truly free choice.

As for the burqa in Afghanistan, you might like to look at http://www.rawa.org/ and see whether ALL women in Afghanistan who wear the burqa do so voluntarily.

I accept that there may be women on this forum who choose to wear the burqa, though they're not very forthcoming. I would have the same regard for them as I would for someone wearing a swastika armband.

Your comment that I "can't say anything" seems flawed now, doesn't it?

[John O Hart]

That is not a very intellectual way of looking at an argument ! One has to take the whole of the sentence into context, not just nit-pick parts you don't take to!

As for Iran, actually I don't agree with their hijab-imposed policy. In the Quran it states there is "no compulsion in religion" and if countries like Iran claim to govern the country by the principles of Sharia then start with head covering! You can't force a woman to wear(or not wear) something that goes against her wishes!

Don't even get me started on the Taliban! :mad:

OK, let's be a little more intellectual. The full sentence you wrote was "No Muslim is saying that a woman can't dress how she pleases, but that there are issues to be taken into account." The point I was making was that the second half, after "but" is just an excuse/reason for ignoring the first half. The first half of your sentence is actually patent nonsense, since fundamentalists like Isaac clearly are saying how women should dress. But even if we take the first half as expressing your opinion, which I infer is something like "Women should dress how they please", you immediately contradict that by saying "but...". So the first half seems to me to be pointless, if not somewhat deceitful, window-dressing. Other examples would be "I believe in religious freedom, but not for Jews", or "I'm not an anti-Semite, but Israel should be wiped off the map". Now do you see my point about that weasel word "but"?

As for your bit about "no compulsion in religion" I confess to being confused. The quran seems so full of contradictions that it's hard to know who or what to believe. If truly "there is no compulsion in religion", most of the rest of the quran seems to become irrelevant. The earlier poll about killing apostates revealed that about a third of those voting agreed that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan apostate who recently fled to Italy, should be executed. Others probably didn't vote because they felt that religious doctrine was not something to vote about. It just had to be accepted. Why those in favour of execution can't accept the clause "there is no compulsion in religion" I don't understand. Maybe it sounds too soft, too western, too Christian for them to be able to accept it.

On a final intellectual (or perhaps pedantic) note, your last sentence is incorrect. As the Iranians show, you clearly CAN "force a woman to wear(or not wear) something that goes against her wishes". You and I might agree that you SHOULDN'T (at least in the case of the hijab), but many won't agree with us. The problem is that free choices are rarely available to us. We can only make limited choices in the face of the compulsions that are imposed upon us.

[ivbecs]

The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.
The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.

Immigration minister Rita Verdonk is known for her tough policies, and has clashed with past coalition partners.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6159046.stm

All women should be required to wear a burka. That is part of women knowing their place and keeping them in their place. It is part of being a good follower of Islam. It is the natural order of things.

[John O Hart]

All women should be required to wear a burka. That is part of women knowing their place and keeping them in their place. It is part of being a good follower of Islam. It is the natural order of things.

Don't trolls have an awful smell? Which sub-species do you think this one's from? Doesn't look subtle enough to be Mossad.

[ivbecs]

Don't trolls have an awful smell? Which sub-species do you think this one's from? Doesn't look subtle enough to be Mossad.

Are you saying that you disagree? What do you have against Islam and the customs associated with those that believe in Allah? It is people like you that post all sorts of anti-Islamic ideas that actually threaten the well-being of Muslims. Are you the one that runs the Target of Opportunity website? :mad:

[Isaac]

What has mossad got to do with anything? Your not one of those conspiracy guys are you John?

[Martel]

Personally I think people should wear whatever they like in almost all situations... exceptions being places where an open face is essential for security or communication. (airports, banks, teaching etc).

The burqa ban though is a reaction. It's a point where the Dutch are saying enough is enough. The line has to be drawn but for me this is the wrong place.

[ivbecs]

In order to understand John, you have to take a look at his website. There is a page that is disgusting and insulting. It is very anti-Islamic. The entire website is in bad taste, so view it with caution. I think it is him because I wrote them and they wrote back referring to me as a "sub-species". :mad:

www.targetofopportunity.com/islam.htm

[Theodore]

This is ridiculous, why is Europe becoming more and more like the Middle East every day? Countries like Saudi Arabia solve their problems by banning things, Europe should know better.

[zara]

OK, let's be a little more intellectual. The full sentence you wrote was "No Muslim is saying that a woman can't dress how she pleases, but that there are issues to be taken into account." The point I was making was that the second half, after "but" is just an excuse/reason for ignoring the first half. The first half of your sentence is actually patent nonsense, since fundamentalists like Isaac clearly are saying how women should dress. But even if we take the first half as expressing your opinion, which I infer is something like "Women should dress how they please", you immediately contradict that by saying "but...". So the first half seems to me to be pointless, if not somewhat deceitful, window-dressing. Other examples would be "I believe in religious freedom, but not for Jews", or "I'm not an anti-Semite, but Israel should be wiped off the map". Now do you see my point about that weasel word "but"?

As for your bit about "no compulsion in religion" I confess to being confused. The quran seems so full of contradictions that it's hard to know who or what to believe. If truly "there is no compulsion in religion", most of the rest of the quran seems to become irrelevant. The earlier poll about killing apostates revealed that about a third of those voting agreed that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan apostate who recently fled to Italy, should be executed. Others probably didn't vote because they felt that religious doctrine was not something to vote about. It just had to be accepted. Why those in favour of execution can't accept the clause "there is no compulsion in religion" I don't understand. Maybe it sounds too soft, too western, too Christian for them to be able to accept it.

On a final intellectual (or perhaps pedantic) note, your last sentence is incorrect. As the Iranians show, you clearly CAN "force a woman to wear(or not wear) something that goes against her wishes". You and I might agree that you SHOULDN'T (at least in the case of the hijab), but many won't agree with us. The problem is that free choices are rarely available to us. We can only make limited choices in the face of the compulsions that are imposed upon us.




Ok, let me re-phrase that sentence: using the word "but" does not mean it should NOT be allowed. It means that there are important points to be addressed when looking at the whole argument of modest dress and those who wish to dress more liberally(is that more PC for you? Lol!)

Iran is a country that enforces head covering,it is true. Though I, and I am sure many others(Muslims and non) disgaree with this state imposed policy, women in Iran are not forced to wear niqabs or even remotely strict hijab. In fact, there are more women who adorn very obvious make-up on the streets of Tehran, than British women over here!

Though it IS an article of faith, there is no compulsion for a woman to cover herself in the Islamic sense-she has the choice out of her own free will to wear it or not. In Holland they are not doing the reverse of the Tehran Government and banning a mode of Islamic covering that makes those Muslim women feel uncomfortable. This is wrong.


As for your reference to apostacy and there being "no compulsion in religion". This part of Quranic text points to the principle in Islamic law that an individual is free to become a Muslim or not and that it should be a matter of free will and individual choice. It is not talking about those who have accepted Islam(whether born into or converted) and then renounced his/her faith. Islam regards apostacy to be very serious in an Islamic state as it has damaging and harmful effects on the rest of that society. If one has accepted to become a Muslim,it is for life. There is no "chopping and changing". Religion is not a game. To openly submit Islam as your way of life, and then openly reject its very principles is sending out a message that it is acceptable and responsible for others in that society to convert and denouce as often as they please! Someone who has fled to another country would not be punished, as that person does not live under Islamic law. So, either throughly study, debate and question Islam and its principles BEFORE conversion, or leave the Muslim country you live in. Noone is going to go after you for converting to Christianity in a country that does not govern its nation by Sharia.


True Muslims are law-abiding citizens and respect British law. We are commanded to respect the laws of the land we inhabit (those INDIVIDUAL Muslims who have their own "ideas" and use violence to emphasise their frustrations are extremely mis-guided and do not understand their own religion, I am afraid to say!) Muslim countries also expect the same principle from those living under an Islamic state.

As for Issac being a "fundementalist", he has his own views and so do you. He may feel that you are loose in morality for believing that women can dress in a way that makes them sexual objects to every Tom, Dick or Harry!

This is why we debate on this forum to discuss the many issues and explore points of view that do not always match our own. It would be pretty boring if we all had the same point of view!

This is a good opportunity to engage in dialogue and appreciate the perspective of others, Muslim and non-Muslim!

[John O Hart]

In order to understand John, you have to take a look at his website. There is a page that is disgusting and insulting. It is very anti-Islamic. The entire website is in bad taste, so view it with caution. I think it is him because I wrote them and they wrote back referring to me as a "sub-species". :mad:

www.targetofopportunity.com/islam.htm

This is not "my website". I have never seen it before. I wouldn't have known about it if he hadn't referred to it.

The fact that Ivbecs refers to it makes it more likely that he is a troll, indeed it seems quite logical to me that he one of the people responsible for it. His remarks about "all women should wear a burqa", "put them in their place", "natural order of things" were so extreme, even for this forum, that it seems illogical for anyone holding those views to draw people's attention to such an extreme anti-Islamic web-site. He wouldn't say "view it with caution", he would say "don't view it". Interesting, don't you think, that his reaction to being called a troll was so violent?

I think we'd all be better off ignoring stuff like that. Remember, it's only designed to provoke.

[John O Hart]

As for your reference to apostacy and there being "no compulsion in religion". This part of Quranic text points to the principle in Islamic law that an individual is free to become a Muslim or not and that it should be a matter of free will and individual choice. It is not talking about those who have accepted Islam(whether born into or converted) and then renounced his/her faith. Islam regards apostacy to be very serious in an Islamic state as it has damaging and harmful effects on the rest of that society. If one has accepted to become a Muslim,it is for life. There is no "chopping and changing". Religion is not a game. To openly submit Islam as your way of life, and then openly reject its very principles is sending out a message that it is acceptable and responsible for others in that society to convert and denouce as often as they please! Someone who has fled to another country would not be punished, as that person does not live under Islamic law. So, either throughly study, debate and question Islam and its principles BEFORE conversion, or leave the Muslim country you live in. Noone is going to go after you for converting to Christianity in a country that does not govern its nation by Sharia.


Firstly, you imply that those "born into" Islam have accepted it, so they don't benefit from the "no compulsion in religion" clause. Is that right? Secondly, isn't the "message that it is acceptable and responsible for others in that society to convert" what freedom of religion is about? You seem to be implying that you don't believe in freedom of religion, only the freedom for non-Muslims to convert to Islam, not the other way round. Or have I misinterpreted what you wrote?

[big al]

Holland is a Western liberal country. Porn is quite freely available on the Continent and accepted as such.



Again, Holland has been like this for over 30 years. It is a Western liberal country.




So liberal that it has a paedophile "political" party, this where its going..

[termin8or]

So liberal that it has a paedophile "political" party, this where its going..

Yes, it has a party that wishes to reduce the age of consent from 16 to 12. Although challenged in the courts, it is free to stand in the forthcoming elections. That is the democratic system and people can vote on the party and its policies. We will see how well it does in the forthcoming elections.

As I said earlier in this thread the many Dutch do not agree with the wholesale liberalism of their country and around 82% of them have expressed a dislike of this group.

Never mind the Netherlands...

Out of curiosity, have you read this thread? It appears some here would be happy to see under 16’s married.

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=18987

[thaddeus]

Speaking of consent ages, in Canada it's only 14. I was pretty surprised when I found that out.

[zara]

Firstly, you imply that those "born into" Islam have accepted it, so they don't benefit from the "no compulsion in religion" clause. Is that right? Secondly, isn't the "message that it is acceptable and responsible for others in that society to convert" what freedom of religion is about? You seem to be implying that you don't believe in freedom of religion, only the freedom for non-Muslims to convert to Islam, not the other way round. Or have I misinterpreted what you wrote?



To be a Muslim implies that you follow and (usually) practice your faith according to Islamic teachings. If a Muslim has decided to leave his/her religion, that is something an apostate has decided for himself. However, the point I was trying to makes was that, a Muslim country, governed by Sharia ,has to take the rest of that society into consideration. In a secular state there are boundaries that are regarded as acceptable or not. Laws are passed that reflect the values of that country, whether, secular, or religious. Some agree with the laws of Britain, others do not. You can choose to live under those laws, or not.

In a Islamic country apostacy is seen as a form of rebellion. One that can have a deep impact on the rest of the Muslim communitity as a whole. If a person chooses not to be a Muslim any more he may reject his faith, but NOT publically. If secrecy is not something he/she feels comfortable with, the option is to leave the state.

The same could be said for any nation with elements of its society that feel at odds with the inforced regulations and authority. The citizen may not accept those laws for whatever reason, but should be abided by, or it becomes a criminal act.

[big al]

Speaking of consent ages, in Canada it's only 14. I was pretty surprised when I found that out.


I heard its 12 in Spain. :thumbsdn:

[French toni]

The age of consent is low in some countries, (too low). The older person can only be two or three years older. Any older and they can go to jail. (So they should).

[Shah Hussain]

The age of consent is low in some countries, (too low). The older person can only be two or three years older. Any older and they can go to jail. (So they should).

This is the country Apatheid came from do you really expect anything from Holland (Afrikaans)

[English Gentleman]

As for all the muslims who are disapproving of low age of consent, is it not the case that the Prophet (SAW) consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old? Surely the messenger of God knows what is and what isn't ok?

[zara]

As for all the muslims who are disapproving of low age of consent, is it not the case that the Prophet (SAW) consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old? Surely the messenger of God knows what is and what isn't ok?


From where do you base your evidence?

[Rehaam]

As for all the muslims who are disapproving of low age of consent, is it not the case that the Prophet (SAW) consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old? Surely the messenger of God knows what is and what isn't ok?

Theres lots of controversy around that...let me explain
...the Quran is unchangable..thats agreed by all muslims (apart from the numerologists amongst us - who feel that there has been additions to the last chapter - something like that .... very few and far in between and arnt taken seriously).

If you see the Quran as the guide then you have the Prophet (pbuh) who provides guidance - they are called Sunnah or Hadees. There are 2 types -
1) guidance as to how to fulfill Gods laws from he Quran - necessary to follow
2) guidance on how to conduct one self - we are seriously advised to follow what the Prophet (pbuh) did but it isn not a sin if you dont.

As I said muslims dont believe the Quran is able to be changed however Sunnah and hadees can......infact after 1400 years I would be surprised if they hadnt. There are a number of hadees/sunnah that are questionnable..so what you say is right hadees says 9 years ......but if you look at the wider picture you may see that this hadees may not be true..............know there is nothing to say which is true and which isnt.........but if someone knows anything about the nature of Islam and the Prophet(pbuh) they will find a marital relationship with a child (Aisha pbuh) also questionnable...................anyway there are threads on this refuting this particular hadees re age of consumation.....

however you have some muslims that will not hear of such a thing ie sunnah not being true - whereas others feel strongly otherwise.............ie their Prophet (pbuh) being slandered against..............

............of course am being ignorant when assuming that you dont know above!! Apologies if so!!

[da-da]

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.
]

Well with that critirior why not attack alcohol+drugs at the same time ?

[John O Hart]

In a Islamic country apostacy is seen as a form of rebellion. One that can have a deep impact on the rest of the Muslim communitity as a whole. If a person chooses not to be a Muslim any more he may reject his faith, but NOT publically. If secrecy is not something he/she feels comfortable with, the option is to leave the state.

The same could be said for any nation with elements of its society that feel at odds with the inforced regulations and authority. The citizen may not accept those laws for whatever reason, but should be abided by, or it becomes a criminal act.

What you are saying is that Sharia law does not support the western concept of freedom of religion, as expressed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am well aware that several Islamic countries do not subscribe to the UDHR.

In which case, the statement "there is no compulsion in religion" seems pretty hollow, doesn't it?

Moreover, if supporters of Sharia law do not support freedom of religion, what objection could they have to the British government banning Islam?

The idea expressed in your second sentence, that a Muslim society is so weak that it feels threatened by apostacy and personal freedoms, says more about the structure of Muslim society than about freedom as a concept. Islam then appears to be a dicatorship like Stalinist communism, retaining its apparent hold over the people by terror rather than force of argument and persuasion. Moreover, since converts have to keep quiet, we can never know how many there are. So if I were to suggest that most people in say Saudi Arabia or Iran are not believeing Muslims, how have you any way of proving the contrary? And is encouraging dishonesty, which you call secrecy, a sensible way to run a society?

Finally, you suggest that apostates who dislike secrecy can leave the state. When the BNP suggests that Muslims should be deported, isn't that what you call Islamophobia?

[big al]

From where do you base your evidence?



From numerous online mein kamphs.

[zara]

What you are saying is that Sharia law does not support the western concept of freedom of religion, as expressed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am well aware that several Islamic countries do not subscribe to the UDHR.

In which case, the statement "there is no compulsion in religion" seems pretty hollow, doesn't it?

Moreover, if supporters of Sharia law do not support freedom of religion, what objection could they have to the British government banning Islam?

The idea expressed in your second sentence, that a Muslim society is so weak that it feels threatened by apostacy and personal freedoms, says more about the structure of Muslim society than about freedom as a concept. Islam then appears to be a dicatorship like Stalinist communism, retaining its apparent hold over the people by terror rather than force of argument and persuasion. Moreover, since converts have to keep quiet, we can never know how many there are. So if I were to suggest that most people in say Saudi Arabia or Iran are not believeing Muslims, how have you any way of proving the contrary? And is encouraging dishonesty, which you call secrecy, a sensible way to run a society?

Finally, you suggest that apostates who dislike secrecy can leave the state. When the BNP suggests that Muslims should be deported, isn't that what you call Islamophobia?




John, you clearly have issues within Sharia that concern you. I would strongly urge you to discuss these(and any other points you would like to raise) with a Muslim cleric who has the time to go into the intracies of Islamic law with you.

If you like I can give you details of a learned cleric who is an expert on issues relating to non-muslims queries and has spent a vast amount of time exploring Muslim and non-Muslim perspective within Islam.

In the meantime the following is a link that gives a little more detail on apostacy:

http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostasy/5.htm

[French toni]

This is the country Apatheid came from do you really expect anything from Holland (Afrikaans)

I actually like Dutch. They are very laid back people. The ones I met are. I've always like the football team Ajax. :cool:

[zara]

From numerous online mein kamphs.

And in English that means??

[French toni]

Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was the name of the book written by Adolph Hitler whilst in prison. Some scholars believe most of it was actually written by Hermann Goering, Chief of the German Air Force (Luffwaffer ) who was in prison at the same time.

[zara]

Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was the name of the book written by Adolph Hitler whilst in prison. Some scholars believe most of it was actually written by Hermann Goering, Chief of the German Air Force (Luffwaffer ) who was in prison at the same time.

Thanks for that! :thumbup:

[big al]

And in English that means??


Numerous hate sites.

[zara]

THe following is post I sent in reply on the issue of the Burka ban in Holland(3 days ago)



John, you clearly have issues within Sharia that concern you. I would strongly urge you to discuss these(and any other points you would like to raise) with a Muslim cleric who has the time to go into the intracies of Islamic law with you.

If you like I can give you details of a learned cleric who is an expert on issues relating to non-muslims queries and has spent a vast amount of time exploring Muslim and non-Muslim perspective within Islam.

In the meantime the following is a link that gives a little more detail on apostacy:

http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostasy/5.htm


Still have not got a response, despite the fact he has been active here in the last 3 days!


Interesting that some non- Muslims only CLAIM to come on this forum for dialogue! I have offered to provide John with the chance to put any further questions on this, and any other issue with a Muslim sheikh, but has suddenly gone very quiet!

What's the matter, cat got your tounge?!



If these guys are sincere in their "open-mindedness" then this would have been a good way to prove it!

We have to be cautious in diferentiating between the non-Muslim who is genuine in his search for knowledge and understanding of Islam and those who clearly come on this Discussion Forum just to moan!

[John O Hart]

THe following is post I sent in reply on the issue of the Burka ban in Holland(3 days ago)

Still have not got a response, despite the fact he has been active here in the last 3 days!

Interesting that some non- Muslims only CLAIM to come on this forum for dialogue! I have offered to provide John with the chance to put any further questions on this, and any other issue with a Muslim sheikh, but has suddenly gone very quiet!

What's the matter, cat got your tounge?!

If these guys are sincere in their "open-mindedness" then this would have been a good way to prove it!

We have to be cautious in diferentiating between the non-Muslim who is genuine in his search for knowledge and understanding of Islam and those who clearly come on this Discussion Forum just to moan!

Sorry if my fading interest upset you, Zara. I did read the piece from www.al-islam.org you referred to, and must admit I wasn't impressed. If your Muslim sheikh is only offering more of the same I don't think it will get me (or us) very far.

Intriguingly, I tried to recover the site from memory, and typed in www.alislam.org instead (notice the missing hyphen). This gave a fairly detailed, quite theological argument as to why the death penalty for apostasy was not part of Islam. I find it hard to cope with a religion that claims to be perfect but doesn't know what it stands for. What do Muslims think is the way to resolve these disputes?