Because it's 2016

[Boges]

Islam forces all women to wear a hijab, veil, etc. Not just a few nuns who still where the habit by choice.

Too be fair, the Hijab, Niqab thing is purely cultural. There are plenty of Muslims countries where they aren't commonplace.

[DogOnPorch]

Too be fair, the Hijab, Niqab thing is purely cultural. There are plenty of Muslims countries where they aren't commonplace.

And Sharia Law isn't being enforced.

There are also plenty where they DO.

Anywhere Sharia is enforced.

Edited September 20, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Smallc]

Tell that to King Abdullah. He certainly tells a different story than you.

Dignitary, freedom, and well being - the birth right of every individual.

[overthere]

Islam forces all women to wear a hijab, veil, etc. Not just a few nuns who still where the habit by choice.

That is simply not true. At all. Ever been to Istanbul? London? Toronto?

[DogOnPorch]

Sharia Law isn't enforced in Turkey. Yet, at least.

[overthere]

Sharia Law isn't enforced in Turkey. Yet, at least.

You can still edit your plainly stated generalization:

Islam forces all women to wear a hijab, veil, etc

It is simply not true.

[Smallc]

Sharia Law isn't enforced in Turkey. Yet, at least.

Yeah, they're not real Muslims.

[BC_chick]

Here is the passage from the Koran saying women should cover their hair:

[the page you're trying to view does not exist]

[Machjo]

Do the Islamophobes hear even know what Shari'a entails?

[drummindiver]

Do the Islamophobes hear even know what Shari'a entails?

You do not have to be an islamaphobe to not ant any part in f Sharia law.

[DogOnPorch]

Here is the passage from the Koran saying women should cover their hair:

Here it is...

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

https://quran.com/24/31

[?Impact]

Here it is...

Do you mean:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. - 1 Corinthians 11:4-7

[DogOnPorch]

As mentioned, you're free to defend Islam.

However, the claim by those who defend Islam is that no such passage exists re: modesty in the Quran. I proved them...once again...incorrect.

[?Impact]

I proved them...once again...incorrect.

Not sure how you proved anything. Your translation is not correct.

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts and not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows. They shall cover their cleavage with their khimar. They shall not show their adornments except in the presence of their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, their slaves, the male attendants who have no sexual desire and the children who are yet to attain awareness of women’s nakedness. They shall not strike their feet so as to reveal details of their hidden ornaments. You shall repent to God all you believers, so that you may succeed." 24:31

khimar mean a cover, not a headcover. It could be a dress, blanket, anything. What normally shows? It could be the hands, face, hair, (lower) arms, (lower) legs, etc. Yes, there are some that have corrupted the meaning, but the Quran does not say headcover, that is clear.

Edited September 20, 2016 by ?Impact

[DogOnPorch]

Not sure how you proved anything. Your translation is not correct.

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts and not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows. They shall cover their cleavage with their khimar. They shall not show their adornments except in the presence of their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, their slaves, the male attendants who have no sexual desire and the children who are yet to attain awareness of women’s nakedness. They shall not strike their feet so as to reveal details of their hidden ornaments. You shall repent to God all you believers, so that you may succeed." 24:31

khimar mean a cover, not a headcover. It could be a dress, blanket, anything. What normally shows? It could be the hands, face, hair, (lower) arms, (lower) legs, etc. Yes, there are some that have corrupted the meaning, but the Quran does not say headcover, that is clear.

It's not my translation. It's...

https://quran.com/

Is that an incorrect version of the Quran? Are you the guy who decides?

[?Impact]

It's not my translation. It's...

https://quran.com/

Is that an incorrect version of the Quran? Are you the guy who decides?

That mistranslation has been well discussed in many places if you just look. Only the Bible explicitly tells women to cover their heads.

[DogOnPorch]

I'll go with the Quran.com since you don't have an alternative.

That is the Sahih International Translation.

This would be another...also provided by the Quran.com

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful.

Mushin Khan https://quran.com/24/31

[kimmy]

Guys, this thread is not about translations the Quran, or Sharia law, or the state of women's apparel in Turkey.

This thread is about Trudeau's visit to a specific mosque, and the policies of that specific mosque.

DoP, please stop. Everybody else, please stop responding to off-topic nonsense.

-k

[kimmy]

You tried to draw equivalence between Islam forcing all women to cover themselves and the Catholic church's nuns and their habits.

Mostly because the difference doesn't exist.

Certainly there is a difference between requirements imposed on religious officials and requirements imposed on the whole congregation.

The Pope wears a giant cone on his head, but not every Catholic man is required to wear a giant cone on his head. Nuns cover their hair, but not all Catholic women cover their hair.

Now, certainly there are Christian congregations that do impose requirements on the way women dress, including head coverings as seen in some Mennonite and Amish communities. But Nuns was a poorly chosen example to illustrate the point you were trying to make.

-k

[kimmy]

"regular women"

Yes, the regular women. You seem to be under the impression that the regular women who attend the mosque aren't treated any different from the MPs who joined Trudeau. That's not the case.

To help clarify, I've put my awesome MS Paint skills to work to prepare these two images to explain where the women who regularly attend the mosque were located, vs where Trudeau and the MPs were.

Picture 1, as already posted in this thread several times, is from the MuslimLink website's report on the event.

Picture 2 is from reporter David Akin's twitter, from a different angle and does indeed show the women watching from the balcony.

-k

[Argus]

So far, the following claims have been made about this Mosque:

1. Supports terrorism: False, it actually works to prevent radicalisation

Because they say the do.

2. Treats women as second class citizens: False, women are on the board, give talks and lead services

Women are 'on the board' and we have no idea what that even means. We know that women are second class citizens under Islam and IN ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES BY LAW.

Oh, but that's just a coincidence. Muslims don't reaaaallly pay any attention to their book.

3. Forced women to enter through a separate door: False, an MP who was there said that did not happen

Women ARE forced to enter through a separate door, except for those who come with the prime minister.

4. Kept women segregated on a balcony: False, women were on the same floor, at the front, at the back and even mingleing with the men

Just a coincidence that all the seats were taken by men except the ones in the balcony which were all taken by women.

So far, all the detractors have to support their case of hypocrisy is that the women covered their hair.

And reality, and facts, and history, and the Muslim holy books, and what their scholars say.

Early on in the thread, complainers were saying "Why didn't he go to a Mosque that was more progressive". It appears he did.

I'm fairly sure that if the members of a mosque aren't actually killing Jews right this very second you'd point at them and smile benignly and say how 'progressive' they are.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Who denied that it existed?

Every religious text is the world of (insert fictional deity here). I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding this and feel that is true of only Islam.

I don't know why you insist on denying all the evidence, including what Muslims say in polls and surveys, which shows that unlike some of the others Muslims actually believe very, very strongly in theirs and are willing to kill and die, or at least, have others killed, because of what's written.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Mostly because the difference doesn't exist.

Uh... the differences doesn't exist? So... clergy wearing special outfits, even though for the most part those outfits are now voluntary, is the same as ALL women commanded to wear special modest clothing.

Too be fair, the Hijab, Niqab thing is purely cultural. There are plenty of Muslims countries where they aren't commonplace.

Names of these "plenty of Muslim countries where they aren't commonplace"?

[dialamah]

Because they say the do.

Women are 'on the board' and we have no idea what that even means. We know that women are second class citizens under Islam and IN ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES BY LAW.

And you are the one who biatched because the PM gave jobs to women - "how can that be?", you whined, "they must have been less qualified because if they were qualified, they'd be men".

Your claim to be so concerned about women's equality is laughable.

[kimmy]

2. Treats women as second class citizens: False, women are on the board, give talks and lead services

4. Kept women segregated on a balcony: False, women were on the same floor, at the front, at the back and even mingleing with the men

Yep, nothing second-class here! Separate-but-equal!

-k