How far will the rise of nationalistic populism go ?

[L00b 441]

Seems like I may have touched a nerve, I quoted your post as you mentioned the burkini ban being overturned and it wasn't done to have a go at you but you seem to have taken it that way.

You'll have to explain what on earth gives you that impression.

 

Or you can try and pull the other one

[WestTinsley 11]

I think this thread took a turn for the worse.

Although was obvious where it was going at the outset.

If you are gonna critique Islam or some Islamic dresses then it's always best to know what you are talking of, and understanding the people who follow that culture or religion.

Also terms like 'burka' when describing the Saudi 'modern style' niqab don't help a nuanced convo.

You guys sound ridiculous talking on a subject from a distance. Knowledge on the subject in relation to islams, and muslims of which ever cultures might help. understanding the problems faced around it today.

i.e. wahabism/salafism

Edited December 15, 2016 by WestTinsley

[mafya 246]

You'll have to explain what on earth gives you that impression.

 

Or you can try and pull the other one

 

I'm not pulling the other one otherwise I would have come straight out with it and called you a Muslm hater /bigot etc as I'm not one to shy away from what I think but you have really got the wrong end of the stick.

Europe has turned anti Muslim including the politicians and banning items of clothing under some excuse of women being forced to wear them is laughable.

France's burkini ban shows the hypocrisy of its secularist state = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/france-burkini-ban-secularist-equality-muslim

They may have overturned the ban but the hypocrasy was clear for all to see..

Edited December 15, 2016 by mafya

[L00b 441]

I think this thread took a turn for the worse.

Although was obvious where it was going at the outset.

If you are gonna critique Islam or some Islamic dresses then it's always best to know what you are talking of, and understanding the people who follow that culture or religion.

Also terms like 'burka' when describing the Saudi 'modern style' niqab don't help a nuanced convo.

You guys sound ridiculous talking on a subject from a distance. Knowledge on the subject in relation to islams, and muslims of which ever cultures might help. understanding the problems faced around it today.

i.e. wahabism/salafism

Do you have anything useful to contribute to the thread, then?

 

Perhaps about the rise of nationalistic populism, and its stoking and exploitation of anti-Islam sentiments?

 

How about some educating material for us all, to get us 'closer' to the subject?

 

Because the above is somewhat lost in the ambient noise, tinny as it coming all way down from that tall ivory tower of yours.

I'm not pulling the other one otherwise I would have come straight out with it and called you a Muslm hater /bigot etc as I'm not one to shy away from what I think but you have really got the wrong end of the stick.

Thy neighbour's eye <etc.> springs to mind, here.

Europe has turned anti Muslim including the politicians and banning items of clothing under some excuse of women being forced to wear them is laughable.

France's burkini ban shows the hypocrisy of its secularist state = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/france-burkini-ban-secularist-equality-muslim

They may have overturned the ban but the hypocrasy was clear for all to see..

Let me know when you decide to make a reasoned argument, instead of posting baseless and broad-brushed opinions.

 

I take care to distinguish between the main body of Islam faithful and the very small minority of more extreme faithful in all my posts on this sensitive subject. The least you could do is reciprocate. Just a suggestion because, so far, as you don't, your opinions smack a bit of paranoia.

 

You don't see me post that "all of the UK has turned anti-EU immigrants", do you? Even in the face of all the anti-EU and anti-immigrant rethoric that long preceded June 24. Because for all of that, and the vote outcome, and the notable rise in xenophobic hate crimes post-24 June, the UK hasn't. Some people in the UK have.

 

I note in passing that your link pre-dates the decision of the Conseil d'Etat which outlawed the burkini bans. The fundamental (constitutional) human right principles of the State are the basis on which these bans were outlawed. The face covering ban is a security measure, there is no security risk associated with the burkini (it does not cover the face), the State has no business banning garments (other than by reason of national security, which is how and why the burqa is caught, along with balaclavas (other than when wintersporting), full-face helmets (other than when riding or welding), anti-pollution filters (other than when pushbiking) and so many more face-covering items). So the burkini bans are unconstitutional, and therefore outlawed. The end.

 

I'm not seeing any other hypocrisy here, than that of proselytes and agenda-peddlers (like the author of your linked opinion piece) crying in their soup because they're not having their way (namely, an exception to the face-covering ban for burqas on religious grounds: I'm afraid they're no more "special" and deserving of exceptions, than varieties of Christians, Jews and others that have long tried to get such exceptions before them, and all of them in vain).

 

So let me also know when you decide to adopt a bit of objectivity in your opinions.

Edited December 16, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

Seems like I may have touched a nerve, I quoted your post as you mentioned the burkini ban being overturned and it wasn't done to have a go at you but you seem to have taken it that way.

 

You're crying wolf a bit there my friend. You'll have a job convincing anybody on here that L00b has anything but the best intentions.

If anything, conservative Islam has had an easy ride in the west because we're all scared of the R word. If some Christian sect was oppressing women the way conservative Islam does in Europe they'd have been torn to shreds decades ago.

[Cyclone 10]

You said "You cannot increase freedom by banning things". I pointed out that you rather obviously can.

Slavery makes one person the property of another and places them under their control. Ultra-conservative Islam does the same with women. How should this be tackled?

 

As I tried to tell you earlier. Sometimes the threat to our freedom comes from other people and groups rather than the state. The state can be our ally in defending against such threats.

 

And then I pointed out why your comparison was invalid.

 

The state could be an ally yes, but not by imposing it's own control in order to replace the control it's defending you against. You don't free someone from slavery by mandating that they are owned by the state.

[unbeliever 10]

And then I pointed out why your comparison was invalid.

 

The state could be an ally yes, but not by imposing it's own control in order to replace the control it's defending you against. You don't free someone from slavery by mandating that they are owned by the state.

 

You do however free people from slavery by forbidding them from being treated as property.

[pretty_big 10]

my bold=

Shouldn't that be "Europeans don't like Islam/Muslims?

Let's not beat about the bush and call a spade a spade.

 

Unfortunately most EU politicians and the people they've brainwashed do like the religion, that's just one the many problems with the EU.

[Cyclone 10]

You do however free people from slavery by forbidding them from being treated as property.

 

However in this case that's not what's happening.

 

Instead you're saying these women are being made to wear this clothing. So the state shall mandate that they wear different clothing.

And that's whilst knowing that some women are choosing to wear this clothing.

[Margarita Ma 10]

It's quite clearly entirely different to that law. That IS secularism being enforced, servants of the state, acting for the state, not showing religious affiliation.

Banning the public from showing a specific form of religious affiliation, particularly when we all know it only applies to one faith, is the opposite of secularism. It's the state interfering in private religious matters.

 

---------- Post added 15-12-2016 at 11:13 ----------

 

 

So should we ban anything that isn't "the norm"? I suspect that would upset a lot of people.

But it's okay if it only upsets Muslims I suppose.

 

---------- Post added 15-12-2016 at 11:14 ----------

 

 

 

So you think you can save women in Britain (or France) from being oppressed by telling them what they must wear... That's pretty special logic.

 

You got that the wrong way round I don't think I can save women from being oppressed by telling them what they must wear. They are being told what to wear by someone else which is what oppresses them.

 

I can see that you don't mind wearing a cycling helmet, as advised, for your safety, when on your bike. How would you feel about being advised to wear a burqua or a niquab for your safety, when you go out of your home? (Not Rhetorical)

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2016 at 21:19 ----------

 

Keep your generalisations to yourself, you make out you are knowledgable on Islamic/Muslim matters but all you know is your bigoted views.

Bigot...

 

You have failed to refute even one of my assertions(not generalisations) and you are resorting to name calling which means that you are not willing to look at the subject in any other perspective than the one you currently have, or to make a logical argument against what I have stated in this and/or any other post.

And you call me a Bigot. Lol.

 

When the Hungarian and Polish refugees came here in the 1950s they brought with them national costumes, some of them so detailed in their decoration they could identify people from their own regions, even down to the village. They were not practical garments to wear every day. They kept them for special festivals and feast days. I saw the same thing happening with the Pakistani and Indian communities that became established.

 

Answer this. Why is it that most of the men in the faith of Islam wear western clothing while the women for the most part do not? Why is it that only in recent years have we seen women covering their faces.

 

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

If a women needs to cover her hair and face to prevent a man's desire from being inflamed. Then men should need to do the same, but this does not happen because it is absolute tosh. Human beings are able to exersise self control.

Edited December 21, 2016 by nikki-red
fixed the quote

[Cyclone 10]

You can't see that. I don't wear a cycle helmet unless I'm off road.

And you also can't know whether someone is wearing something through choice or coercion. Plenty of Muslims will tell you that they are not coerced into wearing the burqa or niquab, are they all lying?

[L00b 441]

Plenty of Muslims will tell you that they are not coerced into wearing the burqa or niquab, are they all lying?

Plenty of women will tell you that they're not being abused. They're not all lying either: it's just that their partner has issues and nobody understands him, you see?