Muslima wrote:Ok people, let's be clear. Most women who wear niqabs in the West Choose to do so , so saying it was banned to protect them is not true.

You can clearly see from this video, how this is problematic. Whether you like the niqab/hijab or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it is mandated by Islam or not is irrelevant. Mona talks about women who fled France to be refugees in the UK because they couldn't wear their hijabs at work, this is outrageous. If you support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, then you should support these women's right to wear a niqab/hijab when they choose to. Saying that you don't but that Muslims should accept danish cartoons is hypocritical.

A few people on You Tube proves nothing. Please.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?

My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !

No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

+1

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?

My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !

Well, yes. It wasn't a crazy person off his meds who did this, or radical Christians, or any other group. It was Islamic extremists, and I'm blaming Islamic extremists, of which there are unfortunately a large number.

Exactly!

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?

My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !

The fact that he was a fellow Muslim obviously meant absolutely nothing to his executioner. Absolutely nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But allowing these women to wear the burqa in public effectively protects the husband and his values. Whereas banning the burqa will force many of these husbands to relent, and allow their wives to go out in public to shop, attend school, or take a job. I don't know if anybody has numbers for how this plays out IRL. That's another side of this coin, though.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that a ban on the burka is going to get a man who forces his wife to wear one to suddenly become enlightened. Do you really think a woman who is forced to wear a burka is going to be allowed to get a job?

No, but let's avoid straw men. Some women undoubtedly will be allowed to go out without their burkas, to buy groceries or clothing if for no other reason. Other men will decide that newly imposing the burka isn't worth it because they would have to take on the grocery shopping. Some women might leave such marriages.

The point is, we don't know the relative numbers of women involved here, but you can't write it off with "these women wouldn't be getting jobs anyway." (Although given unployment in France, there may be unemployed men with working wives.) Now if I can ask, why do you think it's preferable to come down on the side of the burka-imposing men, by supporting their rights? Do you have numbers to support your contention that more women would be housebound be than allowed to go out burkaless after all? I'm sincerely curious.

I don't think it's preferable to come down on the side of those men. I think it's preferable to come down on the side of the women who choose to wear a burka for whatever reason, because I think that's part of freedom in a democratic society.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?

My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !

Well, yes. It wasn't a crazy person off his meds who did this, or radical Christians, or any other group. It was Islamic extremists, and I'm blaming Islamic extremists, of which there are unfortunately a large number.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?

My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !

No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900941/Who-Charlie-Hebdo-gunmen-Islamic-fanatics-claimed-Al-Qaeda-Yemen-shooting-12-dead.html

No news here. A large number of so called islamic terrorists are actually drug and alcohol abusers, moronic losers who can't get a life and alternate between their heavy partying, petty crime lives, and their mosque going, hate the west idiotic views. I've known a bunch of young Muslim men in the US who use and abuse alcohol, drugs, prostitutes, and are just one imam youtube video away from turning to radical islam and acting on some of those views. Ask them any basic question about the Koran and the idiots can't even muster a coherent answer.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?

My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !

Anonymous wrote:This puts it well. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

All this discussion of Muslims in French society is nice but off point.

+1

CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

Ok people, let's be clear. Most women who wear niqabs in the West Choose to do so , so saying it was banned to protect them is not true.



You can clearly see from this video, how this is problematic. Whether you like the niqab/hijab or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it is mandated by Islam or not is irrelevant. Mona talks about women who fled France to be refugees in the UK because they couldn't wear their hijabs at work, this is outrageous. If you support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, then you should support these women's right to wear a niqab/hijab when they choose to. Saying that you don't but that Muslims should accept danish cartoons is hypocritical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But allowing these women to wear the burqa in public effectively protects the husband and his values. Whereas banning the burqa will force many of these husbands to relent, and allow their wives to go out in public to shop, attend school, or take a job. I don't know if anybody has numbers for how this plays out IRL. That's another side of this coin, though.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that a ban on the burka is going to get a man who forces his wife to wear one to suddenly become enlightened. Do you really think a woman who is forced to wear a burka is going to be allowed to get a job?

No, but let's avoid straw men. Some women undoubtedly will be allowed to go out without their burkas, to buy groceries or clothing if for no other reason. Other men will decide that newly imposing the burka isn't worth it because they would have to take on the grocery shopping. Some women might leave such marriages.

The point is, we don't know the relative numbers of women involved here, but you can't write it off with "these women wouldn't be getting jobs anyway." (Although given unployment in France, there may be unemployed men with working wives.) Now if I can ask, why do you think it's preferable to come down on the side of the burka-imposing men, by supporting their rights? Do you have numbers to support your contention that more women would be housebound be than allowed to go out burkaless after all? I'm sincerely curious.

I should add, your argument that allowing burkas protects women is different from the freedom of expression arguments. I think your "allow burkas to protect housebound women" argument is flawed, lacks evidence and could easily be turned upside down to say that banning burkas does more to protect women. Pending evidence, of course, which neither of us has brought.

I truly am on the fence about the freedom of expression argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But allowing these women to wear the burqa in public effectively protects the husband and his values. Whereas banning the burqa will force many of these husbands to relent, and allow their wives to go out in public to shop, attend school, or take a job. I don't know if anybody has numbers for how this plays out IRL. That's another side of this coin, though.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that a ban on the burka is going to get a man who forces his wife to wear one to suddenly become enlightened. Do you really think a woman who is forced to wear a burka is going to be allowed to get a job?

No, but let's avoid straw men. Some women undoubtedly will be allowed to go out without their burkas, to buy groceries or clothing if for no other reason. Other men will decide that newly imposing the burka isn't worth it because they would have to take on the grocery shopping. Some women might leave such marriages.

The point is, we don't know the relative numbers of women involved here, but you can't write it off with "these women wouldn't be getting jobs anyway." (Although given unployment in France, there may be unemployed men with working wives.) Now if I can ask, why do you think it's preferable to come down on the side of the burka-imposing men, by supporting their rights? Do you have numbers to support your contention that more women would be housebound be than allowed to go out burkaless after all? I'm sincerely curious.