What Alyia told me was that they'd all been for extra classes with a teacher at the local mosque, and it had got some women thinking more about their relationship to Allah and how best to please HimUn-huh. And would this be better or worse if "husband" were substituted for Allah
( ... )
Un-huh. And would this be better or worse if "husband" were substituted for Allah?
Nope, it's pretty grim either way, to my mind. The submissive aspect of Islam is something I've never been very good at getting my head around, I must admit.
Switch it. What if France legislated that Islamic men couldn't show their face? Or had to shave (beards are not required by the Koran, by the by--people just think they are)?
Again, still not acceptable, but this time the French would find it more difficult to hide their antagonism of a given religion behind "but we're going it for your own good! We're freeing the menz!"
Essentially, if it were an aspect of worship being outlawed. But it's codified prejudice. Unfortunately, the move comes at a time when there's also prejudice aginst Islam. The issues are getting confused.
That's probably the most sensible summary I've seen so far.
I have to say that I agree with you, Ni. Banning the wearing of veils isn't going to stop oppression. So yes, even looking at this new legislation in the fairest of lights and saying that it's purely for the oppression thing, it's nonsensical.
It's like saying, "We're banning men and women holding hands in public, because it's like saying he's possessing her."
[snip] they'd all been for extra classes with a teacher at the local mosque, and it had got some women thinking more about their relationship to Allah and how best to please Him
These women were convinced by men to aid in their own oppression. To quote Pratchett - "They didn't need whips. The worst whips are the ones in our heads."In the end I support the right of the majority to democratically shape their culture. They are not banning Islam, not banning submission to Allah, just banning an outward cultural expression of submission to male authority figures
( ... )
It is my hope that through brave culture-shaping efforts like that of the French we see a Islamic renaissance in Europe.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Assuming you're sincere, however:
That's quite a leap in logic you've got there. "Hey, let's offer a slap in the face to harmless French Muslims and that'll cause them to flower in a more Western-acceptable fashion!" Right, because this won't possibly cause resentment, and a further rejection of those values you're so hoping to see returned to Islam.
And I'd love to know how you're holding out for a renaissance in Europe when a significant proportion of European Muslims take a lot of their spiritual advice and authority from Qur'anic scholars in Saudi Arabia (Sunni Muslims especially) or in Iran (Shi'a Muslims especially).
"Now I'm aware that on the other side there are plenty of women being opressed by the men in their family. But banning the niqab isn't going to solve this global problem."
Pretty much my view. Some will be forced into wearing these items and it's a sign of oppression. Some will choose to wear it for their own reasons. Those that are being oppressed will not stop being oppressed through this item being banned, they will simply be oppressed in another way. Those that are choosing to wear this item will be having something they wish to do taken away from them.
I have more agreement for this garment not being suitable in certain jobs etc, but the right/oppression of wearing it altogether is a very complicated situation made of all types of wriggly worms. (not meaning to sound disrespectful, but being light in my word choice precisely because it's so complicated)
Comments 7
Reply
Nope, it's pretty grim either way, to my mind. The submissive aspect of Islam is something I've never been very good at getting my head around, I must admit.
Switch it. What if France legislated that Islamic men couldn't show their face? Or had to shave (beards are not required by the Koran, by the by--people just think they are)?
Again, still not acceptable, but this time the French would find it more difficult to hide their antagonism of a given religion behind "but we're going it for your own good! We're freeing the menz!"
Essentially, if it were an aspect of worship being outlawed. But it's codified prejudice. Unfortunately, the move comes at a time when there's also prejudice aginst Islam. The issues are getting confused.
That's probably the most sensible summary I've seen so far.
Reply
It's like saying, "We're banning men and women holding hands in public, because it's like saying he's possessing her."
Reply
These women were convinced by men to aid in their own oppression. To quote Pratchett - "They didn't need whips. The worst whips are the ones in our heads."In the end I support the right of the majority to democratically shape their culture. They are not banning Islam, not banning submission to Allah, just banning an outward cultural expression of submission to male authority figures ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Assuming you're sincere, however:
That's quite a leap in logic you've got there. "Hey, let's offer a slap in the face to harmless French Muslims and that'll cause them to flower in a more Western-acceptable fashion!" Right, because this won't possibly cause resentment, and a further rejection of those values you're so hoping to see returned to Islam.
And I'd love to know how you're holding out for a renaissance in Europe when a significant proportion of European Muslims take a lot of their spiritual advice and authority from Qur'anic scholars in Saudi Arabia (Sunni Muslims especially) or in Iran (Shi'a Muslims especially).
Reply
Pretty much my view. Some will be forced into wearing these items and it's a sign of oppression. Some will choose to wear it for their own reasons.
Those that are being oppressed will not stop being oppressed through this item being banned, they will simply be oppressed in another way. Those that are choosing to wear this item will be having something they wish to do taken away from them.
I have more agreement for this garment not being suitable in certain jobs etc, but the right/oppression of wearing it altogether is a very complicated situation made of all types of wriggly worms. (not meaning to sound disrespectful, but being light in my word choice precisely because it's so complicated)
Reply
Leave a comment