ForumGarden

Debate about muslim`s clothing has been reignited today with news that the netherlands is likely to become the first European country to ban the burka from some public places as a security measure.The traditional garment covers the wearer from head to toe with just the eyes showing - most citizans favour a ban as reproted in the sun newspaper today. How do you feel in todays climate - do you have an opinion. I would say if you are invited to stay in a foreign country you are duty bound to adhere to their customs..so yes im in favour of the ban.

A security measure to protect whom? The people wearing them for fear they will be attacked when advertising their heritage, or the protection of everyone else for fear of what the wearer may be hiding under it?

Talk about fashion police..............................

What's the use of inviting them to a free country, if they can't wear what they want? If the women want to wear them for religious reasons, then it should be allowed.

Kind of a catch 22 isn't it.

Well I have to say if the so called free countries ban them, they will be putting a load of strain on the muslim women who are of the belief they are necessary. Not to mention the danger they may put these women in with their men. It seems a primative article of clothing and a primative belief but hey who are we to determine the fate of these women.

This is a debate that will go on for ever. What I will say is that there are certain countries that enforce their own countries rules and customs...no alcohol , the covering of heads, not showing legs, no women in certain places etc etc. We are expected to respect these customs or suffer the consequences. ...people still go to these places for holidays and to work. Once you know what the customs are you abide by them I guess.

In the west, we have bent over backwards to accomodate the 'worlds peoples' and what a can of worms we have opened !

I think it is wrong of us to stop people following in what they see as a necessary part of their religion...

Would they ban nuns from wearing a habit, how about a priest and his clothing ?

I don't think it is right of us to force these women to uncover if it is not what they want

ArnoldLayne wrote: Its a dilemna. France I think, has a ban on them for a particular reason. My apologies but I cant remember. France has a tradition of doing what France wants and sticks two fingers up at the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.



There have even been Muslim schools in Britain that see the Burkah as inappropriate dress for its students. A case went to court about 6 months ago with that regard.


We had the same problem with hight school girls, but the school does have a fully covered outfit for a uniform that they can choose to wear, the girl just didn't want to wear it..



What kind of places are we talking about anyway, banks, embassies or basically all over. If your a bike rider you can't go into a gas station or bank with your helmut on over here, no ones complained about that.



I think that it would be ok to have restriction on it in some places such as high security area, but a person should have the right to wear what they want. If the face is fully covered in a security area thats a problem but anyone can wear a big coat or a maternity dress which covers their whole body.



Do you know that in Turkey girls are not allowed to sit uni exams in a head covering.

I know and that gets me vexed, but l also know women who would die at the thought of not being properly covered.. The men who make their women do this are insulting women and men alike. What are men such simple creatures that at the sight of a women in a skirt and blouse they can not control their base impulses?

I say to each their own, burkha, leathers and chains, pink hair and nose studs or jeans and boots.

Its whatever you feel confortable in :-2

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: Debate about muslim`s clothing has been reignited today with news that the netherlands is likely to become the first European country to ban the burka from some public places as a security measure.The traditional garment covers the wearer from head to toe with just the eyes showing - most citizans favour a ban as reproted in the sun newspaper today. How do you feel in todays climate - do you have an opinion. I would say if you are invited to stay in a foreign country you are duty bound to adhere to their customs..so yes im in favour of the ban.


UMMM ERRRR - Is it not the men of that religion that give that religion a bad name as terrorists? I have NEVER heard of a woman suicide bomber or terrorist. The women are far too repressed in the society.

Just as Muslim women wear their Burkas in America, I think foreign women should be able to dress according to their culture in other countries. That DOES NOT remain true. So let's pose the question of the the totalitarian nasty Americans allowing other cultures to express their religious freedom here when escaping from their dictatorial native coutries. Dang - isn't America BAD, BAD, BAD.

nvalleyvee wrote: UMMM ERRRR - Is it not the men of that religion that give that religion a bad name as terrorists? I have NEVER heard of a woman suicide bomber or terrorist. The women are far too repressed in the society.


Here's a little eye opener for you NV..



http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07 ... ck.widows/

There have been several femail suicide bombers.

get the burkas off, France did it because they ban all outward signs of religion in schools the same goes for cruxifixes etc.

The security one is easy to understand, you have no idea who or what is under there, the Koran as already stated does not insist on it a lot of Muslim husbands do.

tell you what try walking down the street in Riyadh in a bikini ladies see where it gets you. It must be because i am getting older but I have less and less tolerance for this. If you wish to live in the UK and benefit from our schools, national health, benefits system, be protected by our laws and our police force then you will do the following.

loose the burka

loose the FORCED arranged marriage

Learn enough English to conduct day to day life

oh and don't blow us up

[QUOTE=abbey][quote=nvalleyvee]UMMM ERRRR - I have NEVER heard of a woman suicide bomber or terrorist. QUOTE]

I do believe that her are very many FEMALE terrorists....Ulrike Meinhof and Andreas Bader...leaders of a terrorist group who took hostage and killed athetes in the 1972 Olympic Games.

"The violence in Iraq took a new and dangerous turn yesterday (29.9.05) when insurgents deployed a woman suicide bomber, killing at least six people and wounding 30.

Although female suicide bombers have been used by the Tamil Tigers, Palestinians and Chechens, they are rare in Iraq and none has struck since the start of the insurgency. Iraqi police said a woman detonated an explosive device packed with metal balls among a group of men lining up to enlist in the Iraqi army at Tal Afar, in the north-west. Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility in an internet statement."

Insights into Female Islamic Terrorists

Manuela Dviri provided some unsettling insights into the thought process of female terrorists with her story about 21-year-old Wafa Samir al-Biss. Miss Biss was walking funny as she tried to enter Israel from the Gaza Strip.

When a soldier asked her to remove her long, dark cloak, she turned to face him. All her movements were taped by the military surveillance camera at the checkpoint: calmly, deliberately, she took off her clothing, item by item, until she looked like any normal young woman in T-shirt and jeans. It was then that she tried to set off the belt containing 20lb of explosives hidden beneath her trousers. To her horror, she did not succeed. Desperate, she clawed at her face, screaming. She was still alive, she realised. She had failed her martyrdom mission.

Young Miss Biss is now being housed with 30 other Muslim women who were either stopped from their attempts at martyrdom or backed out at the last minute. What rewards do these women seek?

One of the inmates, Ayat Allah Kamil, 20, from Kabatya, told me why she had wanted to become a martyr: "Because of my religion. I'm very religious. For the holy war [jihad] there's no difference between men and women shaid [martyrs]." According to the Koran, male martyrs are welcomed to Paradise by 72 beautiful virgins. Ayat, as with many of the women she is incarcerated with, believes that a woman martyr "will be the chief of the 72 virgins, the fairest of the fair".

As the Best of the Web summarized yesterday, "the highest aspiration for a fundamentalist Palestinian girl is murder, suicide and prostitution." Not an environment that cares for its women. But was an aspiration to be the head virgin the primary reason for Miss Biss and the other women to pursue martyrdom or was it the least of bad alternatives?

According to their female guard, Some of them did it to make amends for a relative who was a collaborator, others to escape becoming victims of honour killings, and for the psychologically frail or depressed it was a good way to commit suicide and at the same time become 'heroines'. Miss Biss's neck and hands were covered with scars caused by a kitchen gas explosion six months earlier. The ugly scars - which had been treated in a hospital in Israel - had probably helped turn her into the perfect would-be huriia (virgin), the ideal martyr, since they would make it difficult for her to find a suitable husband.

So Israeli citizens treated Miss Biss at their taxpayer expense for her injuries and Miss Biss thanked them by trying to kill other Israelis six months later. She did this because she hoped to become the chief of the 72 virgins who would be given to a male Muslim martyr in the Islamic afterlife. I feel pity for her. I also think this shows the problem with a "religion of peace" that professes eternal rewards for those who slaughter others. Given the tenets of her religion and the anti-female beliefs of her culture, Miss Biss made a rational decision to kill Jews. So long as people believe in the stated tenets of Islam, we will hear stories like this.

People can wear what they want, in my opinion. But if it's a high security area, they're going to have to get used to being patted down. That should go for anyone wearing a huge robe in a bank or government building. If you can hide dynamite under your clothing, you are going to have to be searched. I mean, how easy would it be to rent a priest outfit and pretend you're clergy? Or a nun's robe? Anyone could do it. Same with a burka. Or a mu mu.

venus wrote: I think it is wrong of us to stop people following in what they see as a necessary part of their religion...

Would they ban nuns from wearing a habit, how about a priest and his clothing ?

I don't think it is right of us to force these women to uncover if it is not what they want


Exactly, you can't blame an entire religon/region for terrorist's mistakes.

Pinky wrote: Personally, I don't have a problem with it if people want to wear them.

However, it does grate on the nerves a bit when I have to take my lid off every time I get petrol, when there's half a dozen kids in hoodies walking in and out of the shop and nothing is said!:mad:


Who says you hafta?? Is that like a standard policy thing? Weird that one.

flopstock wrote: So, what's next...ponchos? ankle lenght skirts? trenchcoats? hats?

I say ban bras, that underwire crap is a real killer anyways!


Pantyhose ban them NOW!!!!

minks wrote: Pantyhose ban them NOW!!!!


They should have banned liberty bodices when I was little. Liberty bodices? You could hardly breathe in them and I'm sure they were the cause of my small boobs.

Every time this issue comes up, I wonder if it's indeed a security measure or our own discomfort with what the garment symbolizes. I will admit this: the first time I saw a woman in a burka, I found it jarring. It made me feel not just uncomfortable, but physically sick. I felt like crying for her.

BUT ... I've since realized that there is another side to the coin. It is possible that she would felt as physically sick, and tremendously vulnerable and exposed, if she were asked to remove it.

Thus, I think it's not the government's business what people wear, with the exception of high-security buildings. If the law says you can't cover your face in a bank, then you don't, Muslim or not, because these are the laws of the country you live in and you have made an informed choice when you decided to live there. If you don't like it, then you should try to move to a country whose laws you find more in accordance with your own beliefs. You see, rather than wearing my cleavage shirts in Riadh, I've chosen not to go there :wah:

On the other hand, like others said, the Qu'ran does not mention burkas. I live in Ottawa, which has a large Muslim population, and during the 3 years I've lived here, I haven't seen more than 3 or 4. Sure, there are many women who wear long coats and hijabs or cover their hair with scarves, but I imagine that in many cases this is a personal choice. There are also many Lebanese women who wear tight pants, sequined purses, and blond highlights, so my guess is that not every Muslim woman is forced into wearing head cover. The fact that there are hundreds of hijabs for every burka shows that it is not religion, but oppressive families who dictate this choice.

I would have absolutely no problem with it if the women themselves made the choice, but I tend to think this is not the case. Because of that, I think that the solution lies in offering more support to immigrant women rather than in banning burkas. If a woman has a place to go, friends to rely on, the opportunity for education and employment, she will be less likely to fear making decisions. Also, a woman who is part of a social network might be more inclined to report physical abuse (which could be a consequence of not obeying a fundamentalist husband).

As for banning all religious symbols, it may sound fair, but I think it's a gross limitation of freedom. I wear a crucifix and that has nothing to do with my academic performance. It's not meant to offend anyone (I don't see how it could be offensive, unless the person is prejudiced against Christians), but as a way of commemorating the central event in my religion and as a daily reminder that Christ died for my sins too and that I shouldn't be adding to the pile. Similarly, I have no problems with the hijab, if it's an expression of modesty, rather than of oppression. What I don't get, however, is why anyone should be pairing a hijab with uber-tight jeans ... I also don't see a problem with Zoroastrian doves or even the Sikh dagger (as long as it doesn't come out, of course). After all, public schools are supported by taxpayers, and taxpayers should be allowed to enjoy basic freedoms like celebrating their religion. This is why I'm not going to live in France or send my kids to school there. If I did, then I would follow their laws without complaining.

I would say it would not be appropriate to ban it in the US. Although, I believe it represents a mysoginistic or at least controlling attitude towards women by Islam, it is not the place of the government to ban it. If there were to be a rash of women wearing burkas and blowing themselves up or hiding weapons under them then perhaps that would be a legitimate reason. Certainly it could be discussed. Just becuase I am made uncomfortable about something is not just ground to have it banned. Having said all that I do not believe it appropriate to permit it's wearing in public schools as I believe these schools should be religously neutral.

As far as Holland if they really view it as a legitmate security threat then it would fair.