Woman in hijab attempts bank Robbery in Melbourne, Australia

[sammy]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld Why are you so defensive about this?

Her face was uncovered. I don't get what his point is either. Oh that's right...he doesn't really have one besides being anti-Moozlem.

[vaids_13]

Without getting into the obvious distortion and straw man argument being posited, I cant help but find amusing the glaring ironies in your posts....

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld This always amuses me greatly. This little pissing contest of "I know more about it, so you cannot criticize it". That thinking is so hilariously twisted. That's like a Nazi saying I know more about the 3rd Reich, so you cannot criticize Nazis. Just stupid.

Quote

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld That article is a whiny piece of self-victimization. Someone who praised Khomeini considers himself moderate? Like praising Hitler for building some highways...

Quote

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld Your constant comparisons between Muslims and Nazis are actually interesting, because one would expect an anti-Muslim person to come up with something like that, if at all - I would not have had the idea, as what the Nazis did is so unspeakably terrible. As you keep bringing up the parallel between Nazis and Islamists (remember, you are the one that keeps doing that): The evil of Nazism is so far unparalleled in history in terms of scale of what they did.

[AroundTheWorld]

I'm just picking up on your comparisons.

[Mathloom]

Edit: nvm, not worth it.

[AroundTheWorld]

Hijab, niqab, burqa, etc., who cares.

The issue of whether one should be allowed to cover one's face when entering a bank remains the same.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Mathloom IzakDavid13 said he studied Islam, and he misrepresented hijab even going out of his way to manually edit the title and attaching extra pictures that show people with their face covered. Not only that, he claimed that because of Assyrian heritage, he knows the difference in head dress. Then the picture he posted contained a clear error: a niqab covers the face ONLY whereas the picture he posted insinuates that both the niqab and the burka cover the whole body. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niqab http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ctionary/niqab http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/index.php?word=niqab http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../british/niqab Hell, most Muslims disagree with the English definition that burqa covers the whole body. In Europe, when burqa is banned, it refers to the face covering. Saying you studied Islam and not knowing what hijab is, is like saying you studied the Nazi Genocide and don't know what a swastika is. He went back after his second post and my two posts and edited the original post. Very fishy. Anyone can be critical of anything they want. You don't have to know what a swastika is to be critical of Nazi genocide. You don't have to know what hijab is to be critical of Islamist terrorism or violence. But you have to know what Hijab is if you put it out there that you have studied Islam. I called him out on it in another thread, I'm calling him out on it again. 1) If he didn't know what hijab meant, he lied about studying Islam. 2) If he knew what hijab meant, he intentionally lied/deceived in this thread. Let the honorable missionary decide which one. I intend to drag his credibility through the mud. I guess "I'm having a bad day at work" too.

This post sounds very fanatic.

[IzakDavid13]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld Excellent question.

And a question that he will refuse to answer by sending out a personal attack or challenging my knowledge of Islam...

[IzakDavid13]

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 And a question that he will refuse to answer by sending out a personal attack or challenging my knowledge of Islam...

Like in this post...

Originally Posted by Mathloom IzakDavid13 said he studied Islam, and he misrepresented hijab Show me where even going out of his way to manually edit the title and attaching extra pictures that show people with their face covered. Not only that, he claimed that because of Assyrian heritage, he knows the difference in head dress. Then the picture he posted contained a clear error: a niqab covers the face ONLY whereas the picture he posted insinuates That is your opinion of what the picture represents that both the niqab and the burka cover the whole body. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niqab http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ctionary/niqab http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/index.php?word=niqab http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../british/niqab Hell, most Muslims disagree with the English definition that burqa covers the whole body. In Europe, when burqa is banned, it refers to the face covering. Saying you studied Islam and not knowing what hijab is, is like saying you studied the Nazi Genocide and don't know what a swastika is. He went back after his second post and my two posts and edited the original post. Very fishy. I went back to see if I could take the word HIJAB out of the title so as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of some on this board, there were no changes to the original post, but you knew that already. You are just trying to portray me as a deciever. Anyone can be critical of anything they want. You don't have to know what a swastika is to be critical of Nazi genocide. You don't have to know what hijab is to be critical of Islamist terrorism or violence. But you have to know what Hijab is if you put it out there that you have studied Islam. No, you made a base less claim and refused to answer any of the questions that I asked of you.I called him out on it in another thread, I'm calling him out on it again. 1) If he didn't know what hijab meant, he lied about studying Islam. 2) If he knew what hijab meant, he intentionally lied/deceived in this thread. This statement makes no sense, the picture posted of the alleged criminal was of a woman in a hijab, just as the title said. Point 2 is irrelevant because I didn't lie or intentionally or unintentionally deceive. Let the honorable missionary decide which one. I intend to drag his credibility through the mud. And you are doing a terrible job of it. The article and my post said nothing defamatory towards Islam or Muslims, yet you have chosen to attack me, question my integrity and slander my name. Why? You also never seem to answer any of the questions that I ask of you, are they too hard? I guess "I'm having a bad day at work" too. It happens, just shake it off, you'll be OK.

Here is a question for Mathloom...

The one thing that I don't understand is if the Hajib, niqab or Burqa is a choice, and not something forced upon women why are they arrested and/or beaten in some middle eastern countries (specifically by so called moral or religious police?) for not wearing it?

Another off topic question...

Where does the sun set?

[IzakDavid13]

I wonder if the 12 who voted that items covering the face shouldn't have to be removed before entering a bank or service station, would feel the same way if their wives, husbands or children were working in a bank or service station?

They are basically saying that it is OK, in their opinion, to enter a bank in a ski mask...lol,
Political Correctness gone mad.

[Mathloom]

Any person who has studied Islam would know:

1) Burqa/niqab/hijab are not the same, the rules are different for all of them, and the source is different for all of them. Burqa is cultural, niqab is extremist, and hijab is believed to be Islamically mandatory according to the huge majority of Muslims.

2) In Arabic language and in Islamic law, Niqab abd Burqa are pieces of clothing. Hijab is a dress code consisting of IIRC 5 rules.

3) Burqa and Niqab are not legally mandatory anywhere in the world. They are also not considered mandatory by the huge majority of Muslims. In fact, burqa and niqaab are forbidden in some instances, especially during pilgrimmage (hajj or umra).

4) Hijab is mandatory in 2 countries I'm aware of. That's not "some". Where it is mandatory legally, it is for political reasons, and always in countries where the power to legislate is held by brutal force.

5) Beating someone for not wearing niqaab or burqaa is illegal everywhere.

Once again you've embarrassed yourself.

Personal attacks are wrong when the topic at hand should supercede the person's credibility. But since we quickly debunked your personal statements, and you refused to acknowledge it, the only topic of importance left to discuss was your credibility. This is vastly different than posters who are totally disinterested in the topic at hand and resort to personal attacks as a tool to undermine the real topic and true facts.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not challenging your knowledge of Islam (lol!!). I am flat out calling you a liar with no knowledge of Islam beyond a few websites. Just like I said in another thread before, where it was also blatantly clear you had copy/pasted from those websites because the order of the pasted material was identical to one of the websites.

A missionary with the most desperate, least fortunate and most poorly educated at his mercy caught red-handed lying about religion. I guess you were busy looking up answering-islam.com when they gave the course on ethics.

Good day sir. Thanks for starting this thread. It was really bothering me that you were covering up your intentions. The irony of you being the one trying to keep a veil on is priceless.

Good day sir.

[Mathloom]

Oh, and just in case you try to twist the one thread you're hanging on to, I completely reject the idea that women should wear niqab and/or burqa, and I can't see anyone in the thread who has said they support wearing them when identifying the face is necessary for safety/security purposes.

[IzakDavid13]

Originally Posted by Mathloom Oh, and just in case you try to twist the one thread you're hanging on to, I completely reject the idea that women should wear niqab and/or burqa, and I can't see anyone in the thread who has said they support wearing them when identifying the face is necessary for safety/security purposes.

[JuanValdez]

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 It's the same picture, but because you like her so much...

Oh no! With her hair covered like that, police will never be able to get a positive ID!

Seriously, this is like wearing a baseball cap into a bank but actually less effective as a disguise. The brim of a cap can obscure your face from cameras mounted up high. A scarf on your head literally does nothing but hide your hair. Should we ban baseball cap wearing in banks? At least you won't have a discrimination suit to deal with, and I'm sure most guys will take off their caps when security asks them to, but man what a headache.

Besides that, banks don't get robbed very much and the takes aren't very big anyway. Banks have a lot of security measures in place and video of a person's face isn't exactly the only line of defense. A gas station is a softer target, but they aren't just relying on video either. And, if they did, are you going to get guys to take off their baseball caps and sunglasses in a gas station? Be serious.

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 I wonder if the 12 who voted that items covering the face shouldn't have to be removed before entering a bank or service station, would feel the same way if their wives, husbands or children were working in a bank or service station? They are basically saying that it is OK, in their opinion, to enter a bank in a ski mask...lol, Political Correctness gone mad.

Of course I'd feel the same way if my family was working at the establishment. I don't take some remote chance that they'll be held up at gunpoint by a woman in a hijab as an excuse to persecute Muslims, especially considering it's much more likely that they'll be held up by a man in a baseball cap and sunglasses.

I have to wonder about the 5 who said Yes to this poll, assuming you were thinking of the American context, how do you think a rule like this would win in court when it's challenged as discrimination?

As for the guy in a ski mask in a bank: he has 2 approaches. He can come in with force, in which case silly little rules about what he's allowed to wear don't matter. Or, he can come in as a regular patron and pull a weapon when he gets to the teller. In the latter case, I am sure that anyone with a ski mask, motorcycle helmet, burqa, or whatever that covers their face is going to be watched very closely by the armed security personnel. It's probably the worst way to rob a bank. If you want to be able to obscure your identity without raising too much suspicion, your best bet: baseball cap and sunglasses.

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 The one thing that I don't understand is if the Hajib, niqab or Burqa is a choice, and not something forced upon women why are they arrested and/or beaten in some middle eastern countries (specifically by so called moral or religious police?) for not wearing it?

The context is different for burqa-wearing women in Saudi Arabia and the USA. There could still be some repressive force used to make women wear it in the US, but there isn't the same potency. You can't have moral police beating people up for what they wear around here. And even a family member faces a real risk of prosecution for domestic abuse. If we're talking about people entering US banks with a burqa, moral police in some foreign country is irrelevant.

These outfits for covering the hair and face are done to satisfy cultural norms for modesty. All other US laws concerning clothing that I can think of are also there for modesty. A burqa ban would be the first to enforce immodesty, which is a bit ridiculous. May as well go all out and ban shirt-wearing as an obvious repression by women's chauvinistic male oppressors. Show us the boobies! If you don't, you're not free!

If you really feel the burqa is a repression, overlaying that repression with another, contradictory repression isn't the best way to go about solving it. Would these women be free from repression if we disallow the burqa? Of course not, you're just treating a symptom. You need to get at the problem a different way. It might help that the burqa is around because it's a big, tall flag that shows where your target for liberation is at.

[sammy]

The real question is if Lebron should be allowed to enter a bank or gas station with his headband on. Since it basically covers his head.

[across110thstreet]

good thing those 17 users voted on the matter, we've got some real data now on this pressing issue of masked gunmen in gas stations and banks.

folks this is real.

but hey let's talk about why Saudi Arabs beat their women!

insert a meme photo here...

smiley

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by JuanValdez These outfits for covering the hair and face are done to satisfy cultural norms for modesty.

Why only for women? Shouldn't you as a leftist be all for equal rights and so on?

Originally Posted by JuanValdez All other US laws concerning clothing that I can think of are also there for modesty. A burqa ban would be the first to enforce immodesty, which is a bit ridiculous.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that a woman not wearing a burqa is "immodest"? THAT is ridiculous. You are clutching at straws, seriously.

Originally Posted by JuanValdez If you really feel the burqa is a repression

[insert facepalm pic here]

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Mathloom Any person who has studied Islam would know: 1) Burqa/niqab/hijab are not the same, the rules are different for all of them, and the source is different for all of them. Burqa is cultural, niqab is extremist, and hijab is believed to be Islamically mandatory according to the huge majority of Muslims. 2) In Arabic language and in Islamic law, Niqab abd Burqa are pieces of clothing. Hijab is a dress code consisting of IIRC 5 rules. 3) Burqa and Niqab are not legally mandatory anywhere in the world. They are also not considered mandatory by the huge majority of Muslims. In fact, burqa and niqaab are forbidden in some instances, especially during pilgrimmage (hajj or umra). 4) Hijab is mandatory in 2 countries I'm aware of. That's not "some". Where it is mandatory legally, it is for political reasons, and always in countries where the power to legislate is held by brutal force. 5) Beating someone for not wearing niqaab or burqaa is illegal everywhere. Once again you've embarrassed yourself. Personal attacks are wrong when the topic at hand should supercede the person's credibility. But since we quickly debunked your personal statements, and you refused to acknowledge it, the only topic of importance left to discuss was your credibility. This is vastly different than posters who are totally disinterested in the topic at hand and resort to personal attacks as a tool to undermine the real topic and true facts. To be perfectly clear, I'm not challenging your knowledge of Islam (lol!!). I am flat out calling you a liar with no knowledge of Islam beyond a few websites. Just like I said in another thread before, where it was also blatantly clear you had copy/pasted from those websites because the order of the pasted material was identical to one of the websites. A missionary with the most desperate, least fortunate and most poorly educated at his mercy caught red-handed lying about religion. I guess you were busy looking up answering-islam.com when they gave the course on ethics. Good day sir. Thanks for starting this thread. It was really bothering me that you were covering up your intentions. The irony of you being the one trying to keep a veil on is priceless. Good day sir.

Fanatical rant by a brainwashed Islamist.

[IzakDavid13]

In Australia we have signs that request that you remove your helmet, sunglasses etc.

No big deal, law abiding citizens will do what is right most of time.

[trustme]

Izakdavid is atw's new cjerk buddy since DD got banned.

[IzakDavid13]

Originally Posted by trustme Izakdavid is atw's new cjerk buddy since DD got banned.