Macj Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Tell that to 1.3 billion muslims .They have minorities too who happen to be citizens. Do you want me to list out some of the discriminatory laws in their countries including India ! But then its their country and if Islamic Law applies then it applies to all, if you are a deemed a dhimmi then a dhimmi you are. Just as long as its not a Western thing then the modalities of comparison go through the roof!
triam Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Tell that to 1.3 billion muslims .They have minorities too who happen to be citizens. Do you want me to list out some of the discriminatory laws in their countries including India ! KR, you are pretty smart and eloquent, that is why I am surprised why you take up this line of argument, when you pretty well know "two wrongs dont make a right" and also that your argument is classic strawman. Just cos the middle east countries and other Islamic countries live in the 17th century, do you want the other countries to also go back to the 17th century?
fineleg Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Gunner, Citizens of a country cannot be just told to "go elsewhere" just because they are a minority
kumble_rocks Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 KR, you are pretty smart and eloquent, that is why I am surprised why you take up this line of argument, when you pretty well know "two wrongs dont make a right" and also that your argument is classic strawman. Just cos the middle east countries and other Islamic countries live in the 17th century, do you want the other countries to also go back to the 17th century? Are you suggesting that Malaysia , Indonesia , India etc live in the 17 th century . Just the other day Malaysia banned trousers for women , Indonesia tried to ban yoga , I don't see any outcry from Muslims worldwide. How come it conveniently slipped the liberal radar here ? Prudence tells me , it is foolhardy to extend the courtesy of tolerance towards subjects who are intolerant . What next from you guys , Let Ku klux Khan wander the streets in their hoods. Why ban Nazi Swastika ? Burqa is nothing but an extension of the mindset of the bigoted mullah crowd. UK tried encouraging that minset and failed. They allowed British mullahs to openly spew hatred against their own country in the name of freedom of speech . The result was catastrophic as can be seen from london bombing. Bottom line is , infinitesimal discrimination in the west versus infinite discrimination every where else . You guys choose to comment only the former. Also , I trust the judgment of french citizens who are against discrimination, you want to trust the judgment of mullah brigade who encourage discrimination ! May I suggest you guys live in Saudi ! End of discussion .
Macj Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 KR, you are pretty smart and eloquent, that is why I am surprised why you take up this line of argument, when you pretty well know "two wrongs dont make a right" and also that your argument is classic strawman. Just cos the middle east countries and other Islamic countries live in the 17th century, do you want the other countries to also go back to the 17th century? "We are better than that " has a limit, that limit is when they start changing your society to resemble theirs. What youve totally missed is the main crux of the argument, that these Islamic societies push their agenda in the West, so now vast areas of the liberal West have been transformed to resemble Islamic societies in Islamic countries. Slowly even your personal freedoms will perish and maybe one day you wont be allowed to remain atheist or polytheist. An example of such a transformation is the city of Hamtramck near Detroit, minarets that sound the adhan 5 times a day have now become a norm, and the Islamic garb is mandatory. So much so that as a non -Muslim you go into those areas at your own peril.
suraj Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 I have realized that the member who reflects his chosen handle most appropiately on ICF is Kumble_Rocks :hatsoff::hatsoff: to you buddy for not giving in to the fundllementalists and the apologists at the same time
Guest Gunner Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Gunner, Citizens of a country cannot be just told to "go elsewhere" just because they are a minority Yes, but if they choose to live in another country they have to follow the rules of that country. You and I live in another country, don't we follow the rules of the other country? Btw, my previous comment about going back to SA was not directed at you but at people who say that rules of another country are discriminatory when they themselves come from countries which are highly discriminatory. I have the feeling that my comment was taken as an insult to you, but that is not the case. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
suraj Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Some of the Muslim women I know have really hot bodies we can work out a compromise with them maybe if they only wear a burqa and nothing else..... just a thought !!
triam Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 "We are better than that " has a limit, that limit is when they start changing your society to resemble theirs. What youve totally missed is the main crux of the argument, that these Islamic societies push their agenda in the West, so now vast areas of the liberal West have been transformed to resemble Islamic societies in Islamic countries. Slowly even your personal freedoms will perish and maybe one day you wont be allowed to remain atheist or polytheist. An example of such a transformation is the city of Hamtramck near Detroit, minarets that sound the adhan 5 times a day have now become a norm, and the Islamic garb is mandatory. So much so that as a non -Muslim you go into those areas at your own peril. No, my argument is for individual freedom, and either way every religion, push their agenda.
triam Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 kumble_rocks;732360]Are you suggesting that Malaysia ' date=' Indonesia , India etc live in the 17 th century . Just the other day Malaysia banned trousers for women , Indonesia tried to ban yoga , I don't see any outcry from Muslims worldwide. How come it conveniently slipped the liberal radar here ? [/b'] Prudence tells me , it is foolhardy to extend the courtesy of tolerance towards subjects who are intolerant . What next from you guys , Let Ku klux Khan wander the streets in their hoods. Why ban Nazi Swastika ? Burqa is nothing but an extension of the mindset of the bigoted mullah crowd. UK tried encouraging that minset and failed. They allowed British mullahs to openly spew hatred against their own country in the name of freedom of speech . The result was catastrophic as can be seen from london bombing. Bottom line is , infinitesimal discrimination in the west versus infinite discrimination every where else . You guys choose to comment only the former. Also , I trust the judgment of french citizens who are against discrimination, you want to trust the judgment of mullah brigade who encourage discrimination ! May I suggest you guys live in Saudi ! End of discussion . KKK is not banned, and neither should Nazi Swastikas (dont know if they are banned) be in the US. India maybe is in the 18th century definitely behind so many other countries. Again, start a thread about Indonesia or Malaysia or explicitly ask me if I support those things and you will know if I do or not.
gs Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Some of the Muslim women I know have really hot bodies we can work out a compromise with them maybe if they only wear a burqa and nothing else..... just a thought !! Nice thought!! B->
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 How so ? After all France wants women to follow their law of banning burqa ! Does such a law already exist? If so, I am with you. Don't wear it until you can change the law; if it is SO important, then move to another country. Regardless, I think a blanket ban on the burqa is overkill. If a woman wants to wear a burqa because she wants to or because her family said she had to do so, just let her - it is an internal matter. But, she can't keep it on for ID pictures/DL pictures/passport pictures etc., and has to reveal her face if a law enforcement officer asks for her to do so (or if a store clerk wants to check her ID). But, a blanket ban? Your comparison with Digambars is invalid because nudity laws are not specifically targeted at the Jains - in other words, you cannot be nude in public even if you are Christian/Jewish/Hindu. But, the anti-burqa law is targeted against one group of people. If it were an anti-facecovering-headgear-law (that is - you cannot wear a monkey cap in the cold), then I would be in complete agreement.
kumble_rocks Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 ^ I think enough has been said already about this topic , but I will extend myself the courtesy of a parting shot ! Whether you guys want to believe it or not, in my opinion and more importantly in the opinion of majority french/europe , the burka is identified with, and is an instrument of, a form of cultural self-isolation based on religious ideology that is at odds with liberal-democratic ideals and laws. I seriously suggest to the naysayers here to read the origin of burqa first. The significance of burqa is more of the essence here. Defending the burqa, as an extension of cultural sensitivity toward Muslims, is akin to encouraging subservience of women. Admit it that some of these women who even if they wear burqa on their choice are culturally lobotomized. That people would visibly identify with an ideology that spurns the very liberty in which they flourish is perverse and outright dangerous. Some of you naysayers here want to tolerate this in the name of individual liberty fully aware that it signifies quite the opposite. Welcome to the origin of Islamic Ghetto governed by medieval sharia wherein widespread rejection of a society's core liberal values would become the norm rather than the exception . And in that norm , choice of wearing will not a choice anymore. And your freedom to voice objection will no longer be their ....
kumble_rocks Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I have realized that the member who reflects his chosen handle most appropiately on ICF is Kumble_Rocks :hatsoff::hatsoff: to you buddy for not giving in to the fundllementalists and the apologists at the same time Cheers !:two_thumbs_up:
riya Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Face is an identity of a person.It should not be covered.And there are so many security threats related to that dress.Women can cover all the parts except face.
yoda Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 ^ I think enough has been said already about this topic , but I will extend myself the courtesy of a parting shot ! Whether you guys want to believe it or not, in my opinion and more importantly in the opinion of majority french/europe , the burka is identified with, and is an instrument of, a form of cultural self-isolation based on religious ideology that is at odds with liberal-democratic ideals and laws. I seriously suggest to the naysayers here to read the origin of burqa first. The significance of burqa is more of the essence here. Defending the burqa, as an extension of cultural sensitivity toward Muslims, is akin to encouraging subservience of women. Admit it that some of these women who even if they wear burqa on their choice are culturally lobotomized. That people would visibly identify with an ideology that spurns the very liberty in which they flourish is perverse and outright dangerous. Some of you naysayers here want to tolerate this in the name of individual liberty fully aware that it signifies quite the opposite. Welcome to the origin of Islamic Ghetto governed by medieval sharia wherein widespread rejection of a society's core liberal values would become the norm rather than the exception . And in that norm , choice of wearing will not a choice anymore. And your freedom to voice objection will no longer be their .... So, the french/eurpoe is the cultural authority on the entire world now is it? Tomorrow, if another western country declares that Indian arranged marriages are llegal as it curbs the right of the individual to freely chose his/her own life, I suppose you would be in agreement as well?
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Face is an identity of a person.It should not be covered.And there are so many security threats related to that dress.Women can cover all the parts except face. Gulzar begs to differ : Naam ghum jaayega, chehra ye badal jaayega Meri aawaaz hi pehchaan hai, gar yaad rahe. :two_thumbs_up:
fineleg Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 So, the french/eurpoe is the cultural authority on the entire world now is it? Tomorrow, if another western country declares that Indian arranged marriages are llegal as it curbs the right of the individual to freely chose his/her own life, I suppose you would be in agreement as well? Good question to Kumble rocks. I agree that for security reason face should be revealed to law enforcement officers when required. But if people are otherwise choosing to wear certain clothes accessories or be willing to arranged marriage etc, that is their own decision.
kumble_rocks Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 ^ I think I have spoken enough in this matter. You guys need to quit deluding yourself. Heck , they didn't even ban hijab and you guys wanna talk about them banning arranged marriage in the future ! If you guys feel that West does not provide individual liberty , freedom etc then I suggest you move to Islamic countries. Probably you will enjoy more freedom there !:hysterical:
yoda Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 ^ I think I have spoken enough in this matter. You guys need to quit deluding yourself. Heck ' date=' they didn't even ban hijab and you guys wanna talk about them banning arranged marriage in the future ! If you guys feel that West does not provide individual liberty , freedom etc then I suggest you move to Islamic countries. Probably you will enjoy more freedom there !:hysterical:[/quote'] You are missing the point. The bar is higher for those have set a high standard for themselves, namely the west, in terms of individual liberty and freedom. It is exactly the reason why there is even a debate about a country like France as opposed to a hopeless situation like the Saudis.
Recommended Posts