Freedom is Never Out of Fashion

Safiyyah pontificates thus:

"For the record there is no
legalized "marriage like" status in Islam. Without a contract, dowry and publicity there is no marriage-period."

Wrong! The following is a quote from the link cited below.
"The 'Urfi marriage is a marriage without an official contract. Couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before God. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and two witnesses sign it. The Egyptian government did not recognized 'Urfi marriages until 2000 and the paper could be used only to prove the relationship in court. Women could not get a divorce since the government did not recognize the marriage in the first place. Under the new personal status law passed on January 29, 2000 however, divorces from 'Urfi marriages are now recognized."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/U/urfi_marriage.html

The same could be said about the other so-called marriages such as Misyar, friend,postage etc. which are no more than legalized prostitution. As for Muta(pleasure) marriage this is rampant in Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq among others and it is an agreement that ranges from a single encounter to living to gether for up to a month.

This is to abhab:
For the record there is no legalized "marriage like" status in Islam. Without a contract, dowry and publicity there is no marriage-period. Also, there is a big difference between a slave and a servant in Islam and no one except the servant's husband or wife has the right to have sexual relations with such a person. Correct me if I err but I do not think that slavery is legal anywhere in the world; therefore, all grants concerning that status vanished with the abolishment of that status. "Muta", which you mentioned was outlawed by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, a long time ago and "Urfi" which is the living separate from one's husband is at the elections of the parties. I am having a hard time equating choosing to live apart from one's spouse as "prostitution" and I am unable to draw the connection between any of this and choosing to wear more as opposed to less clothing.

Why this obsession with the so-called “modesty” in a culture that sanctions prostitution under the so-called marriage types; the Muta ((Pleasure), Urfi, Misiar, Stamp, Friend etc. Those are different names for types of sex for hire. Furthermore Islam sanctions sexual relations with slaves and servants. Female slaves and servant are not required to cover their heads or their breasts.

Sister, the one point that you didn't make is the one that is the most simple yet reveals what is really going on here: Have you ever heard of a country or culture legislating the maximum amount of clothing a person can wear? I haven't!!!!That's right, I said maximum for every other standard regarding clothing speaks to requirements and prohibitions in terms of miniums that are allowed.
This isn't about whether or not the French should "grin and bear" the uncomfortable feelings that the burqa engenders in some of them, this is clearly a line in the sand over having to hold one's nose at all about anything that Muslims might be doing because he (the French President) has become tired of the fact that we exist in his society at all. This is the real intolerance that the French President claims the French can not abide so as its advocate why doesn't he remove himself and his point of view from France and leave the sisters to their choice in apparel.

Currently, women throughout America enjoy the right to dress as they wish, given some limitations, under the law.Muslim women in America also have that right.

Therefore, it is their choice to dress as they please. If a Muslim woman choses to remove her veil that is her decision. If she decides to keep it on because she believes, and this is the point that all those who've commented thus far have missed, that she is following her religion by only allowing her husband, blood relatives and other women see her face, then she is making her choice.

It is not the place of non-Muslims to say what Muslim women can and cannot wear. Muslim women are not going around demanding that bikini clad women on beaches cover themselves, are they?

When you are a member of a particular religion you have the right to speak on its behalf because you believe in its doctrine, no matter how you interpret its teachings.

When you're outside of the religion you don't have that right because you neither believe in it nor understand its doctrine.

Someone who is illiterate can run around calling people to illiteracy because he/she feels its the key to happiness. But what does he/she know about the literate person? Nothing.

In conclusion, there are women who feel it is perfectly normal to wear a bikini on the beach. They were born and raised that way. And there are women who would never be caught dead in a bikini. They were born and raised that way.

Forcing women or men to dress a certain way in America is currently against the law. Therefore either the law would have to be changed or deport all Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Nuns, Priests, Rabbis and anyone else who doesn't live up to the "ideal" dress code and life would be "perfectly homogeneous".

Western imperialism has many faces...

While the opposition to women wearing the niqab mentions things like security, I have yet to hear of niqab-wearing bandits holding up a bank.

Reading some of the comments here, it seems to be more of a reaction to some who equate Islam with terrorism, along with others that cannot believe that some folks, both women and men, willingly choose to separate themselves from what seems to be a hedonistic and self-centered culture.

I'm a liberal, Christian male, but I can understand where a devout Islamic woman would be horrified by some aspects of our modern culture. There are parts of it that disturb me, too.

So, what next? The Amish women wear long, conservative dresses. Should we require them to wear "Daisy Duke" shorts and halters? Some women I know (and I run in some rather liberal circles) wear long, loose fitting garment because they choose not to be considered as sex objects. Should we insist that they wear thong bikinis in public?

There are those among us seem to believe in freedom only as long as the people involved act and believe just as we do, but find justifications for restricting others from expressing their own freedom. We insist on freedom of speech for ourselves, but label opposing opinions "hate speech", and try to restrict it. We insist on freedom of religion, except when the religion (or lack thereof) disagrees with our own beliefs.

And here, we want the freedom to dress as we want, but to restrict that freedom in others. Essentially, that's saying that everyone "has the right to agree with me".

You don't like niqabs? I don't either. They look hot and uncomfortable. Here's an idea. I won't wear one, and if you don't like them, you don't wear one either.

A government that forbids the niqab is no better than one that requires it.

Burkas and the niqab are forms of INDECENT EXPOSURE, plain and simple. Civil public interaction requires a peculiar balance of public and private - we are not so intimate with our fellow citizens that total exposure is appropriate, yet we are by necessity thrust together into the public square, which demands a show of solidarity and good faith that total concealment betrays. Both extremes indicate a situation that is out of balance and boundaries that are disrespected.

Sarkozy is right to ban total concealment of women, or anyone, in public, though his line of reasoning isn't quite on target. Concealment is indecent. It is a violation of the social contract. It puts honest, trustworthy citizens on the defensive. Save it for Halloween.

No one with face covered should be allowed into any commercial establishment, for security reasons. When I once tried to enter a liquor store on Halloween with a mask on, I was stopped and told to take it off or get out immediately. The reason was obvious; it is no less so if the wearer MIGHT be a woman, or MIGHT be an armed robber who will be very hard to ID later, with or without video cameras. There is NO reason to let religious nuts be allowed to get near cash registered with covered faces, especially if wearing clothes baggy enough to cover an AK-47. We don't have to apologize about this -- let them get themselves out of the 7th century and deal with life as it is today.

Burka, schmurka. Let them wear pignoirs instead.

Ukba,

If your Cult intervenes people's sexual organs(circumcision,FGM),if your Cult interferes what people eat and drink,if your Cult intervenes how to dress,
STATE can interfere(absolutely,thousand times absolutely,million times absolutely) chain on your head and chain on your body.

Turkey or any country should be governed by Contemporary Constitution,not by Desert Rules.
Contemporary Constitutions ban Subjugation,Oppression,Enslavement,Debasement.
Contemporary Constitutions embrace Woman-Man Equality and Human/Woman Dignity.
Contemporary Constitutions ban *wife beating*,*four women*,*I divorce you(whenever he likes)*,*half witness*.

The Universities shouldnt be Madrasas.
*If you dont put on Headscarf,your hairs will be/get snakes* shouldnt be taught.

State,if state is state,has to provide Woman-Man Equality and Human Dignity.

“In Iran, if women do not dress in public according to the Old Man's commands, they get beat in the back of the head by a sneak with a stick.… Isn't there a little hypocrisy here? Sure people have freedom to wear whatever they want, if they don't mind being beat with a stick.”

You’re not making any sense at all? Iranian women when in public don’t have a choice but to wear the hijab. And the rules are enforced: violators can receive lashes, fines or even imprisonment. Therefore women don’t have a choice in the matter. How can they have a choice when they don’t have one to begin with?

Wearing the hijab is also enforced in Saudi Arabia too; and it was the case with the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan. There are also some odd rules concerning women: In Saudi Arabia a woman is allowed to work outside the home but not allowed to drive; it is a strange idea but it is the law there. Under the Taliban’s rule, girls were not allowed to go to school and get a decent education. Where in the world did they come up with that one? I don’t know. And if that’s not strange enough for you two countries, Turkey and Tunisia, ban the hijab in government buildings, universities and public schools. Now that’s really cruel and unnecessary. It is a shame that Muslims are not allowed to be who they are in their country by their own government. In the other Muslim countries, over fifty of them, there are no such laws governing women’s dress code.

I my opinion, religion should not be legislated by the government. It should be a personal matter and what the government of Iran is doing is wrong. To wear a veil or not is not any of the government’s business. It is true that in the Qur’an women and men are encouraged to dress modestly but there is no code of punishment for violators. The prophet Muhammad is told in no uncertain terms that: “Your duty is to deliver the message; and the reckoning is ours.” That’s true and that’s how it ought to be.

Most Catholic nuns gave up their burqa-like garb years ago.

In Iran, if women do not dress in public according to the Old Man's commands, they get beat in the back of the head by a sneak with a stick. I know this is true, because every Iranian woman I have ever met has told me so.

Isn't there a little hypocrisy here? Sure people have freedom to wear whatever they want, if they don't mind being beat with a stick.

I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of religion. But, let's face it, Islam has a problem of public perception. And frankly, under the conditions of coercion which I believe Islamic woman live, I do not suppose that their plaintive cries that they "choose to dress this way" will have much credence with me, and this includes the author of this article.

I agree with an earlier poster that this is not a matter of dressing modestly. It is really a matter of complete subjugation, and control, in a very ugly and brutish way, and it is beyond my comprehension.
This may or may not be the true situation, but it seems that with this prevailing perception of Islamic customs among modern Western peoples, Moslems would do well to be a little more humble in the presentation of their "religious" ideas that may seem so foreign to us.

While we're outlawing veiled women, let's outlaw $10,000 gay red dresses for Cardinals as well.

Kudos to UKBA for articulating good points on the subject.

I agree "burqa" is neither required nor is it Quranic, modesty is.

Wearing the niqab or other full body cloth that also covers the face except for tiny holes to see through is not modesty and its rational is very week. It is about taking a simple idea about modesty to extremes. My problem with it is two-fold: a) it is impersonal and not safe; b) it is not mandated by the Qur’an.

The Qur’an says that “It is He (God) who has elected you, and has laid no hardship on you in matters of religion.” I think wearing the niqab seems to impose undue restriction on a woman in her everyday life. For one thing the niqab narrows one’s field of vision considerably; which might impede the woman in her day to day activities and might even cause her to have accidents. It is also very impersonal for other people who have to deal with a woman wearing the niqab. It would be uncomfortable carrying on a conversation with a person who is totally covered except for a tiny hole or two over their eyes. Also, the niqab would make it hard for the woman to breathe normally given the lack of air available which might be contaminated with carbon dioxide. It is an unreasonable demand to make on a human being to wear something like the niqab. It is absurd and should be banned.

The Qur’anic source that some Muslims use to justify wearing the niqab is found in these verses:

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their modesty…. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their modesty, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof.”

Muhammad Assad translates the words “illa ma zahara minha” as “beyond what may [decently] be apparent.” He also writes in his commentary about these verses: “My interpolation of the word “decently” reflects the interpretation of the phrase illa ma zahara minha by several of the earliest Islamic scholars as “that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom”. Although the traditional exponents of Islamic Law have for centuries been inclined to restrict the definition of “what may [decently] be apparent” to a woman’s face, hands and feet - and sometimes even less than that - we may safely assume that the meaning of illa ma zahara minha is much wider, and that the deliberate vagueness of this phrase is meant to allow for all the time-bound changes that are necessary for man’s moral and social growth. The pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand, addressed in identical terms to men as well as to women, to “lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity”: and this determines the extent of what, at any given time, may legitimately - i.e., in consonance with the Quranic principles of social morality - be considered “decent” or “indecent” in a person’s outward appearance.”
Continue...

Continued...
The verses continue: “hence, let them draw their khimar (head-coverings) over their bosoms.”

Assad writes: “The noun khimar denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women before and after the advent of Islam. According to most of the classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times more or less as all ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer’s back; and since, in accordance with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman’s tunic had a wide opening in the front, her breasts cleavage were left bare. Hence, the injunction to cover the bosom by means of a khimar, (a term so familiar to the contemporaries of the Prophet) does not necessarily relate to the use of a khimar as such but is, rather, meant to make it clear that a woman’s breasts are not included in the concept of “what may decently be apparent” of her body and should not, therefore, be displayed.”

And this leads to a good argument found in the Qur’an which deals with taboos that people invent and ascribe to God. The Qur’an condemns such actions in the strongest terms:

“Hence, do not utter falsehoods by letting your tongues determine [at your own discretion], “This is lawful and that is forbidden”, thus attributing your own lying inventions to God: for, behold, they who attribute their own lying inventions to God will never attain to a happy state! “

[This is where the very important problem of an arbitrary determination, based on subjective preferences, of what is to be considered ethically right or wrong. This refers to an arbitrary attribution to God of commandments or prohibitions in excess of what has been clearly ordained by Him. Some of the commentators include within this expression the innumerable supposedly "legal" injunctions which, without being clearly warranted by the wording of the Qur’an or an authentic Tradition, have been obtained by individual Muslim scholars through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as "God's ordinances".]

I think wearing the niqab is a good example of forbidding what is lawful. To say that a woman cannot show her face in public is a matter ordained by God is an exaggeration and a lie that mustn’t stand. Wearing Niqab/burqa should be banned at least on religious grounds.

LIFETIME MOVIE CHANNEL shows movies based on true stories of how men commit atrocities against men in America.

Domestic violence is a very big problem in America. Why don't we ever write against domestic abuse in America? We are always focusing on how Muslim women are oppressed.

France should outlaw men marrying young models and then divorcing them as soon those models start getting wrinkles and then marrying other younger models.

How many times did Sarkozy marry and divorce models?

It is a cruelty against women. Women live in constant threat that their husbands will leave them as soon as they (women) start getting wrinkles.

Wrinkle creams and other make-up paraphernalia are a trillion dollar industry in the West.

Great post! So often democratic countries have double-standards, for France the motto is "liberty, equality and fraternity" however, restricting a woman's choice of what to wear is far from those lofty values.

Furthermore, Sarkozy is gravely mistaken to think that clothing (or a piece of fabric) can restrict women from social interaction and being productive members of society. It should truly be a woman's choice to wear whatever she wants whether it be in Afghanistan or France.

Ccatmoon, what about Christian nuns in habits? What about buddhist nuns in habits, or shaving their heads? The niqab/burqa is a form of aestheticism which reduces the innate attractiveness of the female as a public presence. The hijab has the same effect.
In essence, reducing the sexual appeal increases the humanity. This effect is often evident.

By taking a position against burqas/niqabs, Sarkozy is admitting the failure of intellectual discourse with the Muslim community in France and the world.

Not so long ago, less than a hundredd years ago, in fact, before 1920, Western women were also buttoned up, buckedled up, wired up, girdled up, corsetted up, and covered from chin to to, so that no one ever glimspe even their writsts, or even worse, their ankles.

This is just a neurotic form of body-shame, wrapped up in religious terminology. It all amounts to a confusion about sex and sexuality. I don't have any religious respect for this custom, but I would bow to and acknowledge the sufferings of other people, and of individual people, who must feel severlly compelled to dress this way.

You are very cruel not to admit the horrible prison in which these women live. They never feel the wind in their hair or look on the unveiled faces of their companions in public.The lines of the hideous screen behind which they must look impair their vision all their lives,like the bars of a jail. It is a jail and apartheid more hideous than the South African apartheid. Because of the burka, one woman can never know the encouragement of a smile from another woman or a wordless expression passed between them. The most elementary means of human expression, the face, has been ruthlesly and illegitimately taken from them.
I am not impressed with your hijab. I know that there are women who would be killed if they dared not to wear it. They are living in the US and know very well that if they dare to challenge the rule of their fathers, brothers or uncles they will be ruthlesly killed by them, often with the aid of their mothers and sisters.

The West by and large will not protect you and you know it. So do not talk to me of freedom to be enslaved. The beauty of your chains is disgusting to me as a woman. As a woman, you can say to me, "I am afraid to risk my life, will you stand with me?" and my answer to you is "yes", I will stand with you to the death and some of us will die, so that others will be free. We will have the consolation of knowing that we stood for truth and freedom and did not stoop to take a single human life, but stood instead for protecing and giving life. Any other conversation is nonsense and taqiyya.

Finally, some informed nuance. But a point's still missed, anyway, the question's about *public schools.* The government of a free country can't be expected to endorse young women being forced to come to school without a face. Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole freedom thing.

No woman "chooses" to negate herself - which is what wearing a burqa amounts to - in a vaccuum. Your comments are framed as if all things are equal - but they are NOT.

Women acceding to their oppression is not a prospect I will ever chalk up to "freedom."

As I just posted to Charles "Chuck - ex-con") Colson - when men wear burqas, get back to me.

Until then, I agree with Sarkozy. And I am an extremely liberal feminist.

Mr. Sarkozy’s argument against the niqab was that it is NOT ordained by any religion, and it does separate women from the larger society. I would further add that this Zorro-like wrap facilitates crime and sexual immorality. Most of the prostitutes who work in the Pyramid district of Cairo arrive at their dens wearing niqab.

The niqab and other forms of veils such as Hijab are political and cultural statements that are meant to say “We are better than you and we reject your culture”. Why else would the Islamists pay large sums of money to public figures such as movie actresses and news anchors to wear the Hijab and the niqab? Or why the Islamists in Iraq threaten non-Muslims men with death if their women do not wear the veils?
Not only the niqab but also the Hijab should be outlawed in Western societies because of the above reasons and because a baseball cap and a turtle neck would be as Sharia compliant. If that was the real purpose.

You comments are considered, but upon the whole, we protect things we cherish in a democracy, even with freedom of speech, it is unlawful to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre...
We cannot have a society of veiled women...it is unquestionable that some things should not be allowed. I'm sorry that we have to say something which is practiced mainly by those of a religion are banned, but there it is.