Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Guest Peeves]

BOOOM!!!

Unfortunately all too true. It seems that any other religion is fair game for insults and levity but one.

[Tilter]

Again, poor muslim women are being pushed around by various groups with their agendas.

Yes they are---- and men too

http://www.theospark.net/2011/12/video-california-dreaming-islam.html

[cybercoma]

I'm forcing nothing on anyone I'm stating my opinion. Would you deprive me of that? Now that's arrogant.

I'm not depriving you of anything. I'm pointing out exactly what's wrong with your arguments. You're free to make them and keep exposing yourself to criticism. Like the CPC cutting debate time, apparently you do not agree with anyone having a response to your statements.

BTW the Muslim prayers now being conducted in a public school in Ontario is a contentious issue for some as it should be. I care not that any pray, but keep it off public property.

They're Muslim. They pray 5 times a day. That's their prerogative and its up to us to allow reasonable accommodation that does not interfere with the rights of others. Banning them from praying on school property means they will have to actually leave school to go and take part in their constitutionally protected right to pray.

In Britain public prayer is shutting down roads... for god's sake. oops..Allah's sake.

What does Britain have to do with Canada? What does shutting down roads to pray have to do with allowing Muslims to observe their prayer times while they're at school?

I'll tell you what: nothing.

When Muslims start blocking traffic, unless it's a protest, and even then probably, they will be arrested for blocking a highway. That's an entirely different issue. And a pretty dishonest one to bring up in the present context.

Please continue. I'm enjoying reading your sounding board of all the ways you hate Muslims, but don't think for a minute that you have even a remotely sound logical argument against anything yet.

[Guest Peeves]

BTW in my O.P. I quoted a reference to the Prophet re the veil. I might now add a comment that while subtle, says a great deal in my opinion. for it shows clearly the rights of a Muslim woman of that time were secondary if existent at all.

Niqab truths

Re: Niqab Is Not An Issue, letter to the editor, Dec. 14.

I wish to thank Hammad Ahmad for his letter, clearing up the niqab issue. In the argument between choice and freedom, one tidbit rings clear. In the tale he cites (“The Prophet was leaving the mosque late at night with his wife fully veiled when two adolescents passed by. Seeing the Prophet with a woman they didn’t recognize, they hurried away. The Prophet noticed and called them back, lifting his wife’s veil from her face to assure them that it was indeed her.”)

it was not the wife who revealed herself, but rather it was the prophet himself who made that decision.

Derek Bignell, Toronto.

Emphasis mine.

Thank you Derek for pointing out the inferior position of women then. Thank fully in most civilizations that is no longer (quite) the case. Although Westerners should be quick to admit the inferior position of women in our society none too long ago. Women here still face a 'glass ceiling' and equality in wage/promotion concerns.

[cybercoma]

Women here still face a 'glass ceiling' and equality in wage/promotion concerns.

They face more problems than that.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm not depriving you of anything. I'm pointing out exactly what's wrong with your arguments. You're free to make them and keep exposing yourself to criticism. Like the CPC cutting debate time, apparently you do not agree with anyone having a response to your statements.

They're Muslim. They pray 5 times a day. That's their prerogative and its up to us to allow reasonable accommodation that does not interfere with the rights of others. Banning them from praying on school property means they will have to actually leave school to go and take part in their constitutionally protected right to pray.

What does Britain have to do with Canada? What does shutting down roads to pray have to do with allowing Muslims to observe their prayer times while they're at school?

I'll tell you what: nothing.

When Muslims start blocking traffic, unless it's a protest, and even then probably, they will be arrested for blocking a highway. That's an entirely different issue. And a pretty dishonest one to bring up in the present context.

Please continue. I'm enjoying reading your sounding board of all the ways you hate Muslims, but don't think for a minute that you have even a remotely sound logical argument against anything yet.

I 'think' that you ignore the points I have stated which were for the most part the views of others including Muslims sources. Your tunnel vision is not my problem.

BTW. the prayer in the streets of Britain (also France and Russia etc.) does block traffic*, and in many opinions the prayer in school does conflict with religion in school.

*http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/muslims-now-squatting-in-the-streets-of-london/

[cybercoma]

Your source was the Muslim Canadian Congress, which had every single one of its board members leave in 2006. They began the CMU because the MCC was becoming an apologist for anti-Muslim propaganda: http://www.muslimunion.ca/20060822.html

The message that MCC has been giving out is "not addressed to Muslims, it is aimed at making Muslim haters feel secure in their thinking".

emphasis in the original.

[guyser]

This is, without a doubt, the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this board. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Give him time....he makes tons of ignorant posts and never comes back to defend...ya know, in a 'trollish' kind of way.

Realx, another bon mot is on the way.

[Guest Peeves]

Your source was the Muslim Canadian Congress, which had every single one of its board members leave in 2006. They began the CMU because the MCC was becoming an apologist for anti-Muslim propaganda: http://www.muslimunion.ca/20060822.html

emphasis in the original.

That does not change the validity of The MCC

"The Muslim Canadian Congress is a grassroots organization that provides a voice to Muslims who are not represented by existing organizations; organizations that are either sectarian or ethnocentric, largely authoritarian, and influenced by a fear of modernity and an aversion to joy.

President: Salma Siddiqui

Vice President Intizar H. Zaidi

Secretary General: Tahir Aslam Gora

Members of the Board

Anwer Omar

Nargis Tapal

Farzana Hassan

Ahmed Hussen

Mahfooz Kanwar

Ali Abbas Inayatullah

Regional representatives:

BC: Jane Khan

Quebec: Roksana Nazneen

Ottawa: Anwer Omari

Calgary: Kanwar Mahfooz

Saskatoon: Farkhanda Wakil

Winnipeg: Margaret Ahsan

Founder: Tarek Fatah"

nor the fact that Muslims are standing against burka wearing or sharia. There are umpteen sources including letters to papers and talk shows.

My source(s) is hardly limited to one. There are thousands of Muslims objecting to the wearing of the burka, chador in many countries they have left. There are others being arrested in countries they reside in for 'improper' dress.

I tire of those that when faced with a criticism of Islam resort to the old (by now) accusation of "You hate Muslims."

Were I to criticize some Jewish custom or Christian, I would not be so accused. That is a phony trumped up name calling as in a school yard. My criticism has nothing to do with bigotry or hate.

Dispute the fact and stop throwing false charges against me as I perceive them as simply jejune.

Fact... Muslims wearing 'masks', chador, niqab, hijab, are being criticized or having it restricted or banned in several countries including restrictions in at least 2 Islamic countries.

Fact,,, Muslims have been impeading traffic on streets in several countries and laws have had to be passed in France - Russia with problems also in London.

Fact.... Muslims have been praying by the hundreds in a Canadian public school with considerable complaint by others.

Now if you wish to call me a hater of Muslims are you maintaing the facts are in error, or do you simply find it enjoyable to resort to false charges.

I have consistently over time criticized,... Jews for certain behavior (Montreal, Israel) for example,

Christians for abuse in the priesthood, etc.

If the facts are true,the proof of the proof is the proof, then stick to refuting the facts or piss off.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a good chance that you would be accused of being bigoted if you criticized those other religious, especially if you're not an adherent.

And since all of the big three religions have similar problems, of course it looks suspicious if you point at the problems of only one. It's not surprising at all that people would think you're bigoted towards them.

[Guest Peeves]

They're Muslim. They pray 5 times a day. That's their prerogative and its up to us to allow reasonable accommodation that does not interfere with the rights of others. Banning them from praying on school property means they will have to actually leave school to go and take part in their constitutionally protected right to pray.

So what! It's not the schools responsibility, if they want to pray , great, but do it in the religious edifice of choice.

If anyone has a need or desire (Kosher-Halal)to dine, do they then automatically put an appropriate diner in the school .

Facetious..don't think so, there are required prayers and there are requirements. Are those praying following the required ablutions? Does the school have to accommodate that need too? Wash basins for feet etc.? Where do accommodations become appeasement?

Ritual ablution

Before conducting prayers, a Muslim has to perform a ritual ablution.

The minor ablution is performed using water (wudhu), or sand (tayammum) when water is unavailable or not advisable to use for reasons such as illness.

Wudhu is performed by Muslims according to the instructions of God given in the Qur'an[Quran 5:6]:

"O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful."

More specifically wudhu is performed by Muslims by washing the hands, mouth, nose, arms, face, hair, ears,(often washing the hair is merely drawing the already wet hands from the fringe to the nape of the neck) and feet three times each in that order. (It is not obligatory to wash the hair three times, once is sufficient, and men must also wash their beards and mustaches when washing the face).

[Guest Peeves]

There is a good chance that you would be accused of being bigoted if you criticized those other religious, especially if you're not an adherent.

And since all of the big three religions have similar problems, of course it looks suspicious if you point at the problems of only one. It's not surprising at all that people would think you're bigoted towards them.

Thanks, I get that. Doesn't matter.

What they think is not my problem. " Suspicion " is perception, free to consider, but I might have suspicions that one calling me names is 12 years old. I might claim or think someone denying many Muslims, those that object to masks are not Muslims might be a bigot. That is an option, but it does not address the post nor is it on point. I happen to agree with THOSE Muslims.

That I or others choose to post on an issue or issues in the news and reference facts, obligate them, I suggest to deal with the facts presented, not by fallacious derogatory accusations.

Any FACT cannot be both bigoted and the truth at the same time. If someone wants a discussion don't make unfounded accusations, address the facts.

As for who-when or what I applaud or criticize is My business so long as I'm following the rules and I'm sure any whiners will point that out.

[Michael Hardner]

Any FACT cannot be both bigoted and the truth at the same time. If someone wants a discussion don't make unfounded accusations, address the facts.

Very black-and-white, but not true. You can state facts and still be bigoted, and in fact you can mislead people with facts placed out of context.

As for who-when or what I applaud or criticize is My business so long as I'm following the rules and I'm sure any whiners will point that out.

Of course it's your business. But why are you complaining ?

I tire of those that when faced with a criticism of Islam resort to the old (by now) accusation of "You hate Muslims."

You appear to be applying a standard to one group, and not another so you should just get used to the accusations against you, as they will continue.

[Guest Peeves]

Very black-and-white, but not true. You can state facts and still be bigoted, and in fact you can mislead people with facts placed out of context.

Interesting, give an example please.

Of course it's your business. But why are you complaining ?

Complaining is what I do best... Well second best.

You appear to be applying a standard to one group, and not another so you should just get used to the accusations against you, as they will continue.

You appear to be missing the point (of the post subject and my having an opinion)

That's a rather arcane or abstruse charge in this context given the post subject being what it is. If my next post is about Jews will I then be accused of antiSemitism should I find factual issues to be openly factual about like my hate for the deeds of Goldstein or criticism of Kahane and the Koch party?

[Michael Hardner]

Example would be posting crime stats of one sort or other by race, which - out of context - implies causation.

IE "These" people do "this".

[Shakeyhands]

Are those praying following the required ablutions? Does the school have to accommodate that need too? Wash basins for feet etc.? Where do accommodations become appeasement?

They do have to perform their ablutions... Most (if not all) perform Wudu as opposed to Gushl. I'll give you an opportunity to go look that up. Basins (or water for that matter, read about dry ablution)for feet are not required if complete Gushl is done before Fajr, and it takes about 30-40 seconds to complete.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Shakeyhands

[Bob]

It's really not the government's business to investigate and interpret religion and associated exegesis. I was unimpressed with Jason Kenney's statements about the niqab and/or burka not being "Islamic law" by virtue of it not being explicitly ordered in the Koran. Since when is Jason Kenney's job to be an Islamic theologian? It is completely irrelevant whether or not it is an Islamic requirement for women to cover their faces. Would Jason Kenney's decision to require all people to show their faces when swearing their citizenship oath be different if the Koran explicitly stated that a woman must cover her face? I sure hope not. What's right is right and what's just is just, and this is not contingent on what the Koran, or any other religious book or associated exegeses/commentaries say.

The reason I'm making this point is because the OP seems to be trying to make the same argument as Jason Kenney did during his PR campaign the other day when the new rule was implemented - that since face-coverings for women are apparently not "Islamic law", given the broad nature of the instruction for "modesty" in the Koran, then this new rule doesn't transgress "Islamic law". "It's cultural, not religious", people like this say. Is Jason Kenney telling us that he will consult the Koran in the future when formulating public policy, in order not to make any changes that might explicitly contradict "Islamic law" as he sees it? Weak argumentation from Jason Kenney, but I still like him.

[Shakeyhands]

as an aside, what do you guys care if a Muslim woman wishes to wear a Hijab or Niqab for that matter? How does it affect you? Not much different than gay marriage in my opinion. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

[jacee]

Agreed ... and this suggestion by Peeves is one I will always disagree with because it limits MY freedom to dress as I please:

Wearing a mask in public should not be accepted in Canada.

NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

[The_Squid]

as an aside, what do you guys care if a Muslim woman wishes to wear a Hijab or Niqab for that matter? How does it affect you? Not much different than gay marriage in my opinion. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

You seem to be confused about why this topic originated.

I don't care what anyone wears. The topic isn't "do you care whether someone wears a mask due to their cultural beliefs". The topic is "should some Muslim women be exempt from showing their faces for identification purposes".

I was giving my opinion as it relates to the policy of the Gov't of Canada that everyone must show their face when taking the Oath of Citizenship. I happen to agree with it.

That doesn't make me a racist or a bigot. Although I am curious.... Does anyone think that my opinion actually does make me a bigot?

[Tilter]

Example would be posting crime stats of one sort or other by race, which - out of context - implies causation.

IE "These" people do "this".

Would this apply if one was pointing out that in the last 20 years 98%+ terrorist acts have been committed by Muslims?

[cybercoma]

Would this apply if one was pointing out that in the last 20 years 98%+ terrorist acts have been committed by Muslims?

Source? And how are they defining "terrorism"?

[Shakeyhands]

You seem to be confused about why this topic originated.

I don't care what anyone wears. The topic isn't "do you care whether someone wears a mask due to their cultural beliefs". The topic is "should some Muslim women be exempt from showing their faces for identification purposes".

I was giving my opinion as it relates to the policy of the Gov't of Canada that everyone must show their face when taking the Oath of Citizenship. I happen to agree with it.

That doesn't make me a racist or a bigot. Although I am curious.... Does anyone think that my opinion actually does make me a bigot?

Not confused at all, that's why I called it an aside.

[Guest Manny]

I was giving my opinion as it relates to the policy of the Gov't of Canada that everyone must show their face when taking the Oath of Citizenship. I happen to agree with it.

One should not hide, but then again why does it matter? There is no picture taken. There is no check of ones ID against the face during these ceremonies. And besides that I can change my looks very easily, use makeup, grow a beard, change my hair style and colour. Within a short time I could look completely different. It doesn't matter. Do I need to show my photo ID card? No.

[Michael Hardner]

Would this apply if one was pointing out that in the last 20 years 98%+ terrorist acts have been committed by Muslims?

Maybe. A fact on its own isn't an argument though.