.

[On Guard for Thee]

The niqab has nothing to do with traditional Islam. All the scholars have said as much. What it is related to is the new extreme interpretation of Islam embraced by what you might call the far, far right of Islam. The niqab is both a religious imperative to them, given that women are evil in their view, and an upright middle finger to non-Muslim society, a proclamation of the self-assumed moral and spiritual superiority of those who wear it.

All the scholars...afraid not, and covering up is talked about in the Quran. There is some discussion as to whether the practice may have preceded Islam.

[Argus]

All the scholars...afraid not, and covering up is talked about in the Quran. There is some discussion as to whether the practice may have preceded Islam.

All the Muslim scholars I have read have said this is unnecessary. Some say it's actually offensive to Islam. In fact, I'm certain I have posted links to such opinions if not actual quotes. Perhaps you can find some who say otherwise.

[Rue]

What I find truly humorous is that not one Muslim will come on this thread, state they are Muslim and state their opinion on the matter. Why is that? Hmmmm?

Why? Why is it all the experts now who claim the Niqab are clearly not Muslim but try pass themselves off as Islamic experts now. Lol.

Geniuses.

They haven't a clue what the difference between a burqa ((Afghani),chator (Iran) or a niqab is let alone a hijab.

Let's first straighten out the Islamic experetwho compares a yarmulke to a niqab. Someone tell the Islamic expert that a yamalke is a skull cap not a face covering. A hijab which is a scarf wound around the head like a kerchief is not used to cover the entire face and no one but no one was arguing against it on this thread but we have of course the political moral police on this thread who think the discussion about the niqab is about questiong the right of an individual to wear ANY religious garment.

Never mind that is not the topic and never was, let's just throw that it, in a fit of moral righteousness.

Then we had a non sensical attempt to set up a a pissing match with Jewish attitre worn by orthodox Jews inferring myself a Jew favours Jew attire but not Muslim attire.

Yep there it is. It's because I am a Jew and I think my people should have rights Muslims should not.

Lol, when in doubt seize the debate, make it personal and insult a Jew for perceived Jewish attire you think he supports simply because he's a Jew and then hey why stop there, go further and claim he discriminates against Muslims but not Jews.

Yep always makes sense to insult and stereotype a Jews when discussing niqabs. That's a way to establish credibility either tht or accuse Argus of being a bigot. Yep those personal attacks establish the moral high ground real quick.

Lol.

The niqab is a total face covering. It in fact came about in practice by Christians in the Byzantine period and in pre-Islamic Persia. It was a cultural adaptation to prevent men from being sexually aroused by the sight of a woman's face. It was an attempt to repress sexual feelings at a time when rape was common place.

It has always been used in all kinds of societies to hide women from invaders who would rape them.

It had nothing to do with Muhammed's teachings and is never mentioned in the Koran.

For that matter good luck finding it in the Bible or in any Jewish or Christian teachings. You won't find it.

It is used today by fundamentalist Muslim sects like the Wahabi but its a cultural choice not a religious one.

The geniuses on this board who claim its based on Islamic religion need to put up or shut up. Go on find the Koranic verse for it.

Lol.

As I said the practice came about because it was believed a female face was sexually provocative.

Partial head coverings are not the issue being debated nor is the right to express religious values or where certain garments.

Covering the entire face is.

Argus and I do not give a flying phack what you wear-the issue is when you choose to cover your entire face at a public ceremony that is supposed to celebrate inclusivity that is not the time and place.Why? Because by wearing it you show your own personal beliefs of exclusivity take precedent over the rest of Canada's cultural values. That shows disrespect and a refusal to show allegiance to your adopted country. It provides a clear message that you will not adapt to the most basic values of the country you adopt.

Welcome come to Canada. Wear your Nazi uniform. Hey now, that's just fine. How about you come naked. Or if you want come with your sex partner handcuffed and gagged.

The geniuses who tried to change this issue by personally attacking Argus as a religious bigot and then me as a double standard Jew, show their actual intolerance and bigotry while claiming to be morally righteous.

Their very choice of personal attack against us and assigning us religious intolerance motives shows the very bigotry we question in them and that they tolerate, condone and welcome in anyone who thinks its appropriate to use public ceremony to display values that others might find offensive.

The people supporting the face cover don't support individuality and respect for others and tolerance- they in fact support their version of political propriety and in this case they exploit face covered women as their cause because its suitable for their argument. If it was a Zionist or a KKK member how quickly that would change.

Using their logic if a person feels it is their religious belief, they should show up at the Canadian citizenship ceremony naked.

Yep. I love it.

Now tell me, why is it that we have arm chair geniuses claiming to support and understand Muslims but not one person willing to disclose they are Muslim on this board and speak up.

Could it be when they know what I know-that the morally righteous individuals embracing the niqab are in fact the very bigots they fear?

Hmmmm? Yep you saw how one threw the Jew in my face? How about now?

I would love to hear from a Muslim who argues it is a religious duty in their religion to cover the faces of their women.Please.Just one.

Or how about one Muslim to point out what I did-that the attire worn my Muslim women is a choice they make-in the case of a total face covering it is a choice to segregate herself voluntarily and view her face as sexually provocative.

It's a choice not an inalienable right. Its a choice they can make. it doesn't mean we in Canada have to agree with it any more then female circumcision, polygamy, segregation of women from men in houses of worship.

I side with Muslim women who argue their religion does not define them as inferior-men in the name of their religion try twist it to say that. I support Muslim women who claim to be equal the same way I do Christian, Jewish and any other women, atheist.

No I do not support, condone, encourage,enable, welcome, tolerate the concept that its swell just hunky dory in this day and age to welcome people who bag their faces.

I think its primitive, idiotic, sexually repressed, an insult to Canadians.

As I stated, I do not need a woman's face covered to assist me in controlling my sex urges thank you. If that is what you think of me, and if that is the value you want to spread in Canada, I will fight you over it.

This is not a hijab. This is not some quaint cultural dance or dish to enjoy, its a repressive, destructive value that teaches women their bodies are something they are to blame for and must regulate.

What horse sheeyit. The very act of the veil means its a woman's responsibility not a man's if man can't control his sex urges.

That fundamentally clashes with basic precepts of not just Canadian law but our culture.

Nuns, who wear an equivalent to the Muslim hijab like Muslim women, have a choice when and where to wear it. Some wear it all the time some do not.

In orthodox Judaism some women choose to wear wigs. They shave their hair when they get married and then grow it back under the wig under the belief only their husband's should see their real hair. Its a version of this concept of covering women up.

No I do not agree with it. No I do not believe my religion says that is necessary. No I will not tolerate it and smile through gritted teeth with feigned political propriety I will speak out and say its bull sheeyit.

You politically appropriate defenders of face bags make me laugh.All high almighty, sanctimonious, models of religious tolerance,lol.

Go on then finish it. Should we burn women at the stakes again? Come on why do we have laws that define sexual assault the way we do. Let's go back to blaming women for how they dress and demand they covr their faces and wear baggy clothes.

Those are the values you high almighties are embracing.

I disagree with anyone who believes we should welcome and culturally institutionalize views that define women as objects to cover up.

That has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with people trying to shove intolerance in my face, saying I must tolerate their intolerance.

Brilliant logic.

Tolerate face bags but hey if its a members of the KKK that's different. Why? Because...we're off to see the Wizard the Wonderful Wizard of Oz....because because because because

Edited March 30, 2015 by Rue

[overthere]

The niqab has nothing to do with traditional Islam. All the scholars have said as much.

And both statements are completely irrelevant in this context.

People attending citizenship ceremonies are not required to get a letter of permission from their rabbi or detailed theology arguments to support their headgear.

[guyser]

The very point of covering one's face up comes from the cultural belief that a female face is sexually provocative and therefore must be covered. Zip zap and another zippity zap over your head. Is that so hard for your brain to grasp?

Why do you post water is wet when everyone knows this? Good lord you a pain in the ass.

I know what it is , We all know what it is. What the SCC is saying is it deosnt matter, she can wear it, afterall, she was privately confirmed as to who she was.

. Go on turn off the lights when you have sex. Lol.

Huh? And you want to talk about maturity?

Lol. You can't even grasp the very value you defend.

What value are you talking about? We are talking about a SCC ruling ......duh

Your Jew baiting in your response though was right on cue and it shows your real agenda-the need to switch the topic to Jew bait me and try suggest this is a debate about Muslim religion.

Poor poor rue, always playing the jew card. Feel repressed are we?

Good lord, you wanna talk about zip over the head?

The inclusion of a yarmulke was (and as shown) was to compare that some religions are given a bit of a carte blanche in certain areas, think Turbans, Kirpans, Yarmulkes and Succah.

But of course any mention of jewish is baiting. We get it, you are incredicbly thin skinned .

Covering the face has nothing to do with the Muslim religion-its a cultural choice.

IF so, ok....so is a yarmulke or succah.

IOW....ok for you to dictate but any dictating to you is verboten. Oh my...poor me and the opression- got that about right? Sure seems so.

You want to Jew bait knock yourself out. You want to throw being a Jew at me lol it shows just where you are at and quite frankly it shows me that you can use a vanilla name like Gusyer but your true culture can be seen through your face cover or in this case forum name.

Your religion is of no concern to me, obviously it is merely a card for you to play , whiny folks like that are a problem.

You bring up a lot of stupid childish BS . Pathetic really.

I criticize any culture that defines women's faces as sexually provocative and in need of a cover. Its why I criticize fellow Jews who embrace ultraorthodox and fundamentalist views on sexuality, yes. Your attempt to suggest I don't is par for the course. Your attempt to compare a skull cap to a face covering is also brilliant.

You dont, Look above in your posts FFS .

Its accommodation !!!!

How F hard is it to see. ONe gets accommodated, they all get accommodated

Kirpans

Succah

Turbans

Crucifixes

Yarmulke

How can one be so damn ignorant ?

Go on Mr. Tolerance, go walk with the KKK and tell them how you adore those hoods.

Lol.

Yup....totaly ,missed the point

Good job

What, no dead dad jokes today?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Guyser2

[Keepitsimple]

What I find truly humorous is that not one Muslim will come on this thread, state they are Muslim and state their opinion on the matter. Why is that? Hmmmm?

Why? Why is it all the experts now who claim the Niqab are clearly not Muslim but try pass themselves off as Islamic experts now. Lol.

Geniuses.

............

Well said Rue.......count me as a team mate with yourself and Argus on this issue......which is a non-issue to almost all Canadians.

[guyser]

I think he's stated on numerous occasions that this is not about a single woman, but about a symbol.

What does a Kirpan say to anyone other than a Sikh?

Its a knife..........and carried in school. and allowed.

Symbol is meaningless really. We have ok'd others as we have this one.

Really? Words aren't offensive? So if someone started spewing the N word around and calling gays various pejorative terms you wouldn't take offense?

Taking offense and codifying laws are two different things Argus.

I may be offended, and may not. I can say easily that I would be in some scenarios and some not.

The point is we all have an offensive meter....and all are different.

But we dont in law. The words have to have physical or the chance of physical harm for it to be brought into a court.

[guyser]

......which is a non-issue to almost all Canadians.

If only that were true.

But you can sleep nicely making things up all you want.

[guyser]

What I find truly humorous is that not one Muslim will come on this thread, state they are Muslim and state their opinion on the matter. Why is that? Hmmmm?

There aren't any here?

Hows about that huh?

Guess what, we have had threads about Jet planes (F35) and NOT A SINGLE engineering whos worked on them has posted.

Why is that? Hmmmm?

Guess what? We've had threads on the NHL, and NOT A SINGLE pro hockey player has posted

Why is that? Hmmm?

Why? Why is it all the experts now who claim the Niqab are clearly not Muslim but try pass themselves off as Islamic experts now. Lol.

Geniuses.

They haven't a clue what the difference between a burqa ((Afghani),chator (Iran) or a niqab is let alone a hijab.

Apparently only you have this problem.

[Keepitsimple]

If only that were true.

But you can sleep nicely making things up all you want.

I'd call you delirious but in fact you have been roguishly disingenuous in your arguments right from the start - and you are continuing with your attempts to muddy the waters. As I said - as have Argus, Rue and others - almost all Canadians think it is inappropriate to cover your face when taking the Oath. It's not about the "right" to wear a niqab. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose her clothing. It has only to do with covering your face when taking the Oath of citizenship - period!.....and Canadians are completely onside with the requirement to lift their veil.

[guyser]

It has only to do with covering your face when taking the Oath of citizenship - period!.....and Canadians are completely onside with the requirement to lift their veil.

Well no they arent, despite your repeated attempts to tell us.

So, just so you know....'..the Federal Court ruled that it was unlawful for the Canadian Government to ban new citizens from reciting the citizenship oath with a face-covering veil."

I guess some of the people deciding this are Canadians....doncha think?

Correction-Yes. A majority are onside, so I have to give you that, luckily enough arent, and as history shows, the majority arent always correct. Thank goodness for that we all say.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Guyser2

[Big Guy]

I have been reading through this thread where a few posters are trying to rationalize their dislike of non-Canadians and of other cultures. Hey folks, it is not illegal to be a racist or bigot or misogynist. You may even try to make it palatable by calling it nationalistic or patriotic or even protectionist.

I found the following: "Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of Western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty."

That appears to reflect some views here.

Oh - the source of the above quote is the opening of the web page for the Ku Klux Klan of the USA.

See - there are lots of folks who think just like you!

[Argus]

Well no they arent, despite your repeated attempts to tell us.

So, just so you know....'..the Federal Court ruled that it was unlawful for the Canadian Government to ban new citizens from reciting the citizenship oath with a face-covering veil."

I personally see no easy way to legislate illegality in wearing the niqab or burqa without having the government get involved in areas we really don't want them acting. Quebec has sort of stepped onto that path with its law against covering up the face during demonstrations. France has banned these outfits but France's laws are notoriously flexible when doing what the government and people want done. Various Muslim countries have banned facial coverings in various settings but there are basically no freedoms the elites don't want in those countries.

The only legal route would be banning the covering of the face on security grounds, but again, how would that work with ski masks, or Halloween, for that matter?

I think most Canadians kinda sorta realize all this, but they also kinda sorta feel that the wearing of these things, and all they represent, ought to be discouraged, if not by law than by societal disapproval of some kind. It might seem petty, given it is this one single incident, but as has been pointed out, it's the symbolism of someone being welcomed into Canada as one of us while they are defiantly proclaiming that no they're not one of us and have no intention of becoming so.

The only legal route I can see is to simply not accept such immigrants in future. And given the economic success rate, or lack thereof, of immigrants from those parts of the world and the easy availability of people from other places/cultures, I would think that is the wise way to go.

[Argus]

I have been reading through this thread where a few posters are trying to rationalize their dislike of non-Canadians and of other cultures. Hey folks, it is not illegal to be a racist or bigot or misogynist. You may even try to make it palatable by calling it nationalistic or patriotic or even protectionist.

I found the following: "Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of Western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty."

That appears to reflect some views here.

Oh - the source of the above quote is the opening of the web page for the Ku Klux Klan of the USA.

See - there are lots of folks who think just like you!

There you have it, folks, from the mouth of our resident guru. If you express love of family or Canada, or believe in law and order you're a racist.

Thanks for the brilliant insight there, little guy.

[Bob Macadoo]

There you have it, folks, from the mouth of our resident guru. If you express love of family or Canada, or believe in law and order you're a racist.

Thanks for the brilliant insight there, little guy.

If he didn't source the quote for you.....is that not what you think? It's OK.....there are "brown people" who think that way too.......

[Argus]

If he didn't source the quote for you.....is that not what you think? It's OK.....there are "brown people" who think that way too.......

Another snotty one-line insult with no relevance to the topic at hand! Gotta admire Macadoo's consistency if nothing else.

[Bob Macadoo]

Another snotty one-line insult with no relevance to the topic at hand! Gotta admire Macadoo's consistency if nothing else.

I would've used 2....but you really aren't worth it.........

[Argus]

I would've used 2....but you really aren't worth it.........

Attaboy, Macadoo! If you can't make your replies more interesting then make them more banal so you lull people to sleep!

[guyser]

I personally see no easy way to legislate illegality in wearing the niqab or burqa without having the government get involved in areas we really don't want them acting. Quebec has sort of stepped onto that path with its law against covering up the face during demonstrations. France has banned these outfits but France's laws are notoriously flexible when doing what the government and people want done. Various Muslim countries have banned facial coverings in various settings but there are basically no freedoms the elites don't want in those countries.

Spot on correct/ Other countries have horrible rights laws that step all over the free person. I am strongly in the camp that we should not even try to legislate clothing nor religious wear.

The only legal route would be banning the covering of the face on security grounds, but again, how would that work with ski masks, or Halloween, for that matter?

And I agree with this. But why does our govt shoot itself in the foot this way? It openly campaigns (as others have before the Cons party) on us being inclusive and not demanding anyone do it this way or that way.

I think most Canadians kinda sorta realize all this, but they also kinda sorta feel that the wearing of these things, and all they represent, ought to be discouraged, if not by law than by societal disapproval of some kind. It might seem petty, given it is this one single incident, but as has been pointed out, it's the symbolism of someone being welcomed into Canada as one of us while they are defiantly proclaiming that no they're not one of us and have no intention of becoming so.

I get the 'sorta' feeling and understand how some view it, although for many others, including those who I think are well educated and knowledgeable I dont understand how this irritates them so. It how I view your position on this. In all honesty I know you are educated, I just cant seem to wrap my head around the why's of your view. It is where others have slagged you as racist or whatever , and even thats a natural presumption based on what we know of you.

But for many others the only reason they want this banned is due to petty small minded thinking and/or jealousy, racism, xenophobia and so on. Frankly, and we can all agree on this......we have some stupid people in this country who rant against anything seen as foreign. None of them post here.............I hope.

The only legal route I can see is to simply not accept such immigrants in future. And given the economic success rate, or lack thereof, of immigrants from those parts of the world and the easy availability of people from other places/cultures, I would think that is the wise way to go.

It would be the easy way for sure, but and in spite of your feelings as backed with evidence, the govts of the day will continue on this path and keep bringing folks in.

That said however has the caveat of, and was asked earlier without response, is of these types (Burqa/Hijab/rad Islamists)how many of them come from immigration vs refugee status? It is my understanding in digging thru the numbers that most of the Burqa/Hijab ones come thru refugee status. Actually most of them. And Canada has a commitment to take these, there is very little we can do but take them in and hope for the best.

On top of that, we advertise as an accomodatating , come here w whatever you have and find a spot to live and integrate yourself into CDN life. The overwhelming majority do this. Like anything, we get some crappy ones but thats life and not much we can do about that.

But we never ask them toss out their culture, they are reminded of our laws, find a way to integrate and all will be fine. We saw that with the Italians who faced hardships, no one wanted all that wrought iron railing finery, backyards all gardens of tomatoes, the language they spoke to each other. But we all know, and certainly those in Toronto who owe a debt because anything built in the last half century was done by italians, roads brisged buildings, and so on. I could not imagine Toronto without the Italians.

Places like Hamilton, Sudbury, the Soo, Thunder Bay, all italian immigrants worked there (obviously I mean the large immigrant pop. there)and produced many fine citizens . The Esposito's of the world , all sons of immigrants. Why is Hamilton a great spot for sports? Proud italian roots.

And this govt on the one hand has openly admitted in years past that the way for radical Islamism to rise is by marginlyzing the downtrodden , allowing them to fester in poverty.

So basiclly that means being inclusive, being open to their culture and habits . We have done a remarkable job at this over the years. We have very little racial strife in this country (unless one makes my mistake--Macedonian ..Greek, same thing--Boom!) .

So what does our govt do is ask for integration, not demand subservience to the dominating culture, and we know and say the path to a good country is by not isolating people.....and then shoot ourselves in the foot by going out and do that exact opposite.

A Muslim , radical or not, can easily surmise that this is an attak on him or her, and that the talk of integrating means only if you do the way the govt wants you to.

So its a classic case of talking out one side of the govt mouth, and giving the exact opposite out the other side.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Guyser2

[guyser]

Adding the above.....here is some news for all.....

China jails Muslim man for six years for refusing to shave beard. His wife jailed for two years because she wore a burqa.

Both are part of China's eastern Xinjiang’s ethnic Uighur people. A muslim group long established in China and fairly resented and oppressed.

"“Anyone dressed that way is a terrorist, not a Muslim!”

Another thing China can keep , ignorance and criminal governance against minorities.

[Big Guy]

Hey folks - If you do not believe what I quoted from the Ku Klux Klan then google Ku Klux Klan and locate their web page. On the front page is exactly what I quoted.

Look, if you look around and do not like what bed you jumped into and what kind of bed partners you have then that is your problem. You think your views are something special and new - they are not. They have been around for a lot longer than you have been on this earth. Our civilized society has dealt with that kind of racism, saw through the arrogance and rationalization of bigotry and evolved beyond it.

As I have posted before - it is not illegal to be racist, bigoted and/or misogynist. It is a view shared by many people on this earth and in this country. At least have the courage to accept that fact and not try to excuse and obfuscate your views as main stream. They are not and never will be. Intelligent posters who look at your position through the lens of objectivity cannot avoid seeing the fear of and the consequent rejection of any people who are "different" from you.

Your views are normal. Some of us find them distasteful but your views are normal and re-occurring. Look back through history to study what happens to societies who accept those misguided views and the natural progression of social order that develops as a consequence of accepting those views.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

Quack, quack.

[Je suis Omar]

The purpose is to make the woman unhuman, to turn her into a thing. The US troops in Afghanistan took to referring to the women they saw as "unidentified moving objects'.

My, you couldn't have picked a finer group to emulate. Those are the same open minded folks who gave us gooks, slants and the like.

What could one hope to accomplish by quoting war criminals and terrorists?

[cybercoma]

My, you couldn't have picked a finer group to emulate. Those are the same open minded folks who gave us gooks, slants and the like.

What could one hope to accomplish by quoting war criminals and terrorists?

Don't forget zipperheads.

[Guest]

My, you couldn't have picked a finer group to emulate. Those are the same open minded folks who gave us gooks, slants and the like.

What could one hope to accomplish by quoting war criminals and terrorists?

I suppose that makes them wrong about the women then. How could we ever have imagined otherwise?

[eyeball]

What I find truly humorous is that not one Muslim will come on this thread, state they are Muslim and state their opinion on the matter. Why is that?

C - 51 might explain it, but seriously, you should be careful what you wish for. I can see how someone seeking to radicalize people would find some of the really rednecked s**t that gets posted around here a good source of material for driving young impressionable Jihadis even more berserk. Edited March 31, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity