It's even later in Dubai. Why do you say it is "punishing the women". The ones who don't even want to wear this, but get forced to do so certainly are not being punished. This sounds very cumbersome and would in itself probably also lead to outrage because it would be regarded as discrimation (why are they bothering us, why are they not letting us live how we want, why are they not going to Christian houses and checking if they have crucifixes, etc. etc.). Still, not a bad idea, one should probably do both - ban the veil and burkha AND check more actively if there is oppression in households when there are signs that there is. That analogy is a bit forced.
Basics: Do you agree that the law forbids some women from choosing to wear a veil, yet is intended to serve another group of women who are forced to wear the veil? yes/no?
Reading about stuff like St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre makes me a little less uncomfortable about this.
If you think that it's ok to strip one group of people of their rights (niqabi women), in order to protect the interests of part of that group of people (forced niqabis), despite the problem not stemming from any of these groups (forceful husbands)... then agree to disagree. I don't think that the government should violate someone's freedom in order to protect someone else's freedom... especially since it's the government, and not the niqabis themselves, have decided that someone is lacking freedom.
This happens all the time, e.g. security checks at airports are an intrusion into your freedom as a traveler in order to protect everyone's freedom (and safety). It's just a matter of how you weigh the different interests involved.
Yes, it's different when you're trying to protect the entire country. But very different when you're trying to protect a small group of people at the expense of another small group of people. Do you recognise the difference?
The difference is irrelevant, what matters is how you weigh the different interests involved, not whether it is the entire country or a specific group of people. Example: If someone gets hit with a restraining order, that affects his freedom, but to protect another person's freedom. In this case, the other person's interest outweighs that of the person that gets hit with the restraining order.
No one gets hit with a restraining order if they haven't done anything. That is a poor example. 1900 niqabi women haven't broken the law to have their freedom taken away. They haven't stepped on anyone else's freedom to have their freedom taken away. Women who wear niqab have not shown any pattern of violence and they have not committed any crimes. Your example would make sense if the women in niqab were simultaneously the aggressors and the people having their freedom taken away. They are not the aggressors, abusers, criminals, nothing. Give me another example. Something where an individual's freedom is taken away despite no person themselves from that group having ever posed a threat by exercising that freedom.
The word play you use to make your point takes away from your argument. I could bring it even more abstract (as it seems you want to take it) by mentioning seat belt or helmet laws. The root of the problem is a cultural divide. France is the country of topless beaches and individual expression.
Islam is not a culture, nationality or race. No one has to go to nude beaches. No one has to avoid nude beaches. It's a matter of choice. Seatbelts and helmets assume that the action is certain to produce an incident in the future - i.e. there will be accidents. Wearing a niqab would not, nor has it shown that it will. The thing to be concerned about is forceful husbands. So the logical thing to do is to take away the freedoms of those who exercise force. Niqabi women are not necessarily forced. Forced niqabi women are victims. Non-forced niqabi women aren't victims, they are not dangerous, they do not harm anyone. The non-forced niqabi women are having their freedom taken away. Essentially, they are being punished for the actions of someone else. There is no potential harm to others involved except from forceful husbands. Therefore, it would only be logical for the freedoms of forceful husbands to be affected. Banning niqab is a step that shows France is using this law as an excuse to ban niqab. It found that in dealing with the problem of forceful husbands, it could achieve its objective of taking away the freedom to wear niqab. In reality, I'm sure a multitude of other measures could be taken to isolate the negative elements surrounding some niqabi women.
I could say the same thing about historical Mormons and plural marriage. Taking away the freedom of women to marry a man that already has a wife. It is not bad unless the husband is forceful right? I tend to agree. It is a breeding ground for abuse and an insult to the French culture. I guess it is not Utopian but the culture of the country will always win over the religion of a small minority. Especially when the "freedom" being taken represent oppression to most.
That is pretty much the only post that matters in this thread. At the end of the day, the majority can legislate laws that favor them over a minority, it is called a tyrannical majority in democracies, and most liberal democracies have taken some steps to try and rectify that by explicitly protecting the right of minorities from intrusion or domination by the majority group. France has not done that in recent years, but I am OK with it since it is their country and I would never choose to live there knowing what I know. What France is doing is not unprecedented.
I'm not sure this is as true in practical terms as theoretically people would like it to be. You have to learn the Quran, if you want to be a scholar, in Arabic. You have to pray in the general direction of the Arabian peninsula. You have to take a hajj to Arabia. If you want to know about Mohammad, you have to learn stories about what happened to him in Arabia. Arabia is inherently Islam, much as Catholicism inherently looks to Rome. I know there have been quite a few Indonesians who feel they as a group are ignored by lots of the Islamic world because they aren't properly Arab/Middle Eastern enough. I've also seen people on both sides of the divide who frame the Sunni/Shia split as a split between Arabs and Persians. I think in practical terms I can state unequivocally that here in the USA, religion, culture and tradition become mixed up and tied together in the minds of many. Functionally, these ideas become different aspects of a continuity. I've also seen enough indications to believe that it is true with respect to many Islamic cultures/countries as well. Heck, when Mohammad was alive, many of the concepts relating to multiculturalism that we have in the modern world simply didn't exist, and knowledge of practicalities of other cultures didn't exist. Perhaps it shouldn't work that way and wasn't set up to run that way, but I think in practice it does.
1) A scholar is not an Islamic position. It's not endorsed by Islam. It's a man-made position. The fact that this group of people decided that memorizing in Arabic is mandated is no different than me starting a group and mandating that memorizing in spanish is mandated. The Indonesians you mentioned (and Pakistanis Indian Muslims) now typically memorize the Quran phonetically, but know it in their own language. Have a look at youtube to see what I'm talking about. 2) You have to pray in the direction of the Kaabah, which was built by Abraham (a non-Arab). It used to be that you face Jerusalem in the first years of the prophecy. The Quran doesn't prescribe the location of the Kaabah forever - it mat be re-located. It has been destroyed before and, I think according to Hadith it will be destroyed again. Praying in its direction is just a consequence of where it is located - even if it's submerged in the ocean. 3) Hajj is at the Kaabah. See above. 4) You can learn about Muhammad in any language. What difference does it make where he is? 5) They don't feel recognized because of Arab racism, nothing more nothing less. It's not Islam requiring someone to be Arab, it's Arabs placing a higher value on being Arab. Has nothing to do with the identity of Islam. 6) Ali Bin Abi Talib, the central figure in Shiite ideology, is Arab. As are his children (the Imams). The two big Sunni hadith scholars, Bukhari and Muslim, are Persian. The Persian flavor of Shiite Islam is a direct consequence of them being banished from practicing too openly in the Gulf states since the time of the split. 7) Certainly, many parts of Arab culture have leached onto Islam, forming a quasi-Arab culture with elements of the surrounding conquered territories. However, I think the things you mentioned are not related to that. The Kaabah HAD to be somewhere, and the Prophet had to be near it - so you would be able to use your theory above regardless of location whereas the idea is that it HAD to be somewhere, and it is in Saudi Arabia for no particular reason. 8) When Mohammed was alive, all the multi-cultural concepts existed. Mecca was a merchant town. There were tons of Jews, Christians from everywhere, atheists, polytheists/pagans, slaves, prostitutes, a wealthy elite, women leaders, everything. In fact, Mecca was (even after prophecy) surrounded by Jewish and Christian towns. What do you think didn't exist back then? Certainly, there are things that are Arabic, but those are distinct features of Arab culture and not Arab by chance. Things like placing little value in females (they used to bury their daughters at birth), veils, kissing the Kaabah, walking between the Safa and Marwa as part of Hajj, gender segregation, arranged/forced marriages, dying for pride, establishment of a self-certifying group of people in power, etc.. There's tons and tons of stuff. I think somehow, you mentioned all the ones that are Arabic by chance and, therefore, if anyone places importance on the Arabicness of it, it's basically their own mistake. The Prophet is one of over 500 prophets, and I believe he is the only Arab in those 500. His speech (almost agreed that it was on his deathbed) has him saying "I warn you. There is no difference between an Arab and a non-Arab." and that's in aaaaaaaaaaaaaaall the hadith books. A key reason for the focus of Arabness in Islam is that there's an inherent belief that Arabs are "the" chosen ones and Arabic is "the" chosen language. That's not the case and the Quran is very clear about that. Essentially, the Quran states that Arabs were the group that NEEDED the Quran most. It was a MERCY on them that it came to them. That's the EXACT opposite of the chosen ones lol. So in practical terms, you may have to go to pray towards the Kaabah and go for Hajj there. If the Kaabah moved, you would have to move. The point is to have a central location, that's all. Also, Islam was not "born" in Arabia. In fact, Arabia is its "final resting place" because Islam started with Adam PBUH. I guess I can see what you're saying, but I'm disagreeing that the un-Islamic actions of a few would define Islam. The KKK, for example, aren't a part of Christianity, even though they are/were a part of the Christian community. Seeing as there are no real requirements for becoming part of the Islamic community, it would not make sense for the collective group of people or the religion itself to assume responsibility for the idiotic members. Anyone can call themselves Muslims, and Muslims are forbidden from labelling someone else as Believer/Non-Believer.
Thank God this law was introduced to instill good values into the burqa-wearing women of France. The lawyers have taken step one in setting a great example... (Yes, I'm aware that the attacker is an extremist and that this is not the average/norm behavior. I'm just pointing out the irony in the fact that she's an extremist and randomly attacked the veiled woman.) It will be interesting to see how the charges are dealt with. It's also fascinating to me that the attacker is a lawyer lol.
Not an extremist just because of that, but should leave the enforcement of the law to the police once the law is enacted. So what happens to the burkha lady now? Her veil was lifted...does life still go on? If yes, why have the veil in the first place?
If someone physically kept me from attending church...life would go on. But that doesn't mean that's freedom.
