French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab

Jacques Chirac has actually elevated himself to be a Muslim reformer. Like Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, he is now Hazrat Jacques Chirac rehmat ullah aleh as far as I am concerned. I hope he does more sensible things which idiot Muslim rulers can`t. If reformation is not possible from within, let it happen from outside. This reformation or ijetehad baby must born despite the barren Islam to bear it. Besides France, Canada must also help in this regard and do similar things.


LONG LIVE HAZRAT JACQUES CHIRAC

Re me last post....final bit should read ``Certainly not``, rather than ``Certainly``

although i consider the concept of hijab to be totally idiotic, those who want to wear the silly headgear should be allowed to do that. the author is right however, the french have done nothing compared to what the saudis and iranians (especially saudis) have been doing to their female population for years. if protests are needed its in front of the saudi embassy.

#74 by Urstruly

You and your kind are a virus trying to infiltrate the civilized world. When looked from this view your tirade makes sense. Which virus would want to be wiped out from the world.

However rest assured the antibiotic is on the way and the only virus left will be benign kind.

`....The ideals of religious tolerance, human rights, abiding law, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and opinion, ..`

You wouldn`t understand all this. Your pea brain is not capable of understanding this. You are only capable of instinctive kill and be killed.

This law, and other equally ridiculous laws, that try to paint the world in perfect black and white secular and reliigious blocks, is going to play out in an interesting manner.

Once again, looking at the group that (at least in my opinion) will be the most affected: Sikhs.

The Sikh boys will now be kicked out of school, if they wear their turbans. So lets suppose, they take off their turbans. I don`t know the details of the Sikh religion, but I assume the reason for the turban is that they have long hair.

Will Sikh boys be allowed to go to school with such long hair? I assume not. Since that would violate this new, ``secularization`` law, and it would violate dress standards in most schools. So they will be forced to cut their hair.

Now lets suppose all the Sikhs in school cut their hair also, a la Jagjit Singh and Sunny Deol. Considering the fact that so many Sikhs are willing to go through their whole lives with long hair, cutting it would most definitely be a traumatic affair (I assume) for many. Far more traumatic than taking off a scarf, for a Muslims, which isn`t really mandated in Islam to begin with. Or taking off a Cross necklace, for a Christian, which is basically jewelry, and has nothing to do with the Christian religion.

But suppose some Sikh guy sues the govt. over allowing girls to have long hair in school and not boys. After all, why should there be gender discrimination. The reply would be that it is culturally accepted in France for girls to have long hair and boys to have short hair. This would actually not be true, because some French folks (French Sikh) do not accept this as their, ``French`` culture. Hence they could argue that there needs cannot be discriminated against, on the basis of culture, i.e. culture and State should be as secularized as Church and State, so that one culture doesn`t dominate another.

So in a purely non-discriminating secularized society, no other groups` cultures or religion should be supported over another`s in school. Hence long hair for boys and girls should be equally allowed.

Of course, then one could argue that why in the world are there Christmas holidays for everyone in a secular state, but not Eid holidays for everyone? What if I want to go to work and get paid on Christmas. Why the hell does the govt. close all its offices on Christmas. It is a 100% religious holiday that has nothing to do with the State.

And why the hell is Martin Luther King day a holiday, but not Maclom X day, or Allen Dershowitz day. Why do African-Americans get priority over Desi culture or Jewish culture.

Do French public schools close down equally for Eid and Christmas and Hannukah. What about athiests who want to go to school and learn on Christmas Day also. Why are they being deprived

Such laws in France and their anti-laws (in Saudi Arabia) do nothing else but highlight the short-sightedness of individuals who want everyone else to see the world exactly as they see it, i.e. a fanatical point of view.

``4. To some extent, this has been brought about by the higher reluctance of muslims to assimilate as opposed to other immigrants.`` (arjun_m)
#58. Buddy i agree. As long there is reluctance among muslims to assimiliate, no matter in the states, canada or europe, this kind of shit-traps are going to come up. In the states, i see Christians, jews et al to accept each other. They go to each others` place of worship. They inter-marry, they send greetings to each other on the holydays and feast days. But the same definitely can`t be said about most muslims living in the West. I think muslims either think they are a superior people than other people around them, or they simply have decided to ignore them and bitch about their sad state. And, i gorgot to mention one thing, many of them just can`t stop blaming the Jews, United States, and Christians for their misery.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly:72

No they are only disallowing Lipstick. Not the cosmetic one, but the habit of Hindian soldiers to keep their lips stuck to the bumpers of Mindian and Sindian soldiers..(for cover, they say)

That is the closest thing to meat which vegetarians are allowed in the army..but to stick lips?

Urstruly #72

You must be retarded ! The lipstick ban is for women soldiers you idiot. I think your head is so way up you A@@ and your thinking so backward looking that I guess you cannot even think of Women as soldiers. I guess all you can think of them as a Sex object or a machine to produce children so that they can glorify Allah by becoming Shaheeds.

On this thread as well as the Pasta-Paratha thread, I guess my existence has been wiped out from Romair`s attention :)

[Er the anti-woman stances of the Taliban WAS and continues to be very much a concern of `your own nation`. Those who burn girls schools in Afghanistan cannot be caught because they find refuge in Pakistan where friendly Pakistani provincial governments allow them to regroup.]

You missed the point. If indeed you recognize the Muslim ‘nation’ as a whole, then you are effectively telling us Muslims to put our money where our mouth is. If we believe in one Ummah, then behave as such. I actually agree with this premise. Your point is fundamentally sound. It’s just odd coming from one who would otherwise disparage the notion of all Muslims belonging to one community. I digress, though. It is perfectly reasonable to ask one to behave consistently with what they preach.

[Exactly. What issues get popularized? What is considered tangential. Everyone makes their own choice about what they want to popularize and protest. That choice is indeed the subject of this article. ]

It doesn’t quite work that way. We have little control over what issues get popularized…that is largely a function of the popular media. Muslim activism would certainly help, however even for things like Bosnia, the original Afghan war, or other Muslim ‘causes’, I have little or no recollection of any kind of mass protest that hasn’t been set up by the government (there’s always a protest for Kashmir in Pakistan…for obvious reasons). Protesting is a poor gauge of Muslim opinion, however you seem to be using it as the only standard. I think you’re keenly aware of this as well, however are not one too pass up a good ol’ danda. Perhaps I’m mistaken…

[But the headscarf ban is not being solely protested as a mere lack of freedom to wear the headscarf, the ban is being protested in more universal terms of ``suppression of religious freedom and violation of human rights``, with appeals to the world`s ``conscience``. ]

By some, perhaps. For the most part, it’s for the reasons I stated, and as far as the protests in the Muslim world are concerned, it’s more of a solidarity thing. They only protest because they perceive this as an attack on Islam from a nation that otherwise claim to be, at the worst, neutral to the religion. Does the view have merit? No, probably not…but that’s not the point.


[If the French government is expected to take notice of these worldwide protests and modify their behaviour wrt Muslim women accordingly, why are the governments of Saudi Arabia andIran who are much more repressive towards Muslim women, NEVER subjected to such protests by these same protestors of conscience, in similar attempts to modify these governments` behaviour toward Muslim women?]


Valid questions, however I still think it`s irrelevant to most protestors. These questions should, however, be asked to those who harbor the view that this ban is a violation of some sacred universal principle. Let them explain themselves. Neither the French, or most of the protestors sincerely hold the view that such principles are being violated. Considering that the French DO tout such principles themselves, though, it does make a nice stick to whack them with, no? After all, regardless of your own principles, is it too much to ask for others to at least be consistent with their own proclaimed principles? Certainly…

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Mullah urstruly is a clear example of how a turd worlder doesn`t just immigrate to west but also brings his turd world along with him.

#50 by tahmed32

`` So you mean you allowed a racist to call YOU names to your face (unless you tell me that you are in fact not one of us third world immigrants to the west). And how did you respond? E.g. did you kick his behind, or take him to court for verbal abuse so you could hit him in the wallet? Or did you just smile and shake your head (the south indian form of agreement) and say ``You got that right, bwana``? ``

I consider myself a truth seeker. Therefore I couldn`t argue against his points.... In fact, his words made me speechless.

Romair # 73

You are asking wrong questions from wrong people.

9/11 has changed the world. It was not just the destruction of two buildings, it was also the moral collapse of the ideals that West was so intent on propagating to the rest of the world. The 9/11 has proved that the moral foundation of Western ideals was only as strong as that of those two buildings. The ideals of religious tolerance, human rights, abiding law, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and opinion, ............all have collapsed along with those two buildings. The words of Allama Iqbal have proven to be prophetic when he said that ``your civilization will committ suicide with its own dagger``.

Today, what US, France, and Germany (canada included) are doing in their countries is Exhibit A of the fact that white man, the capitalist vampires are scared. What they are doing in their countries is something that goes beyong intolerance. It is fear. Fear of the most disposesd people of the world? No it is the fear that the world has seen their ugly face. It is the fear that now world knows that the fangs that sunk deep into its carotid belong to which face. For hundered year West had tried its best to masquerade this ugliness behind a make belief world. The mask has been lifted.

Unfortunately, some of our own are so impressed with white man`s ``accomplishments`` that they have lost their cognitive ability to differentiate between right and wrong. So dont waste your breath on them and Hindu ghouls who have no morals anyway.

SameerJB #67 ``If some Muslims are so interested in hijab for their daughters, they should send them to private schools or open private school specially for hijabis.``

There was a proposal in Pakistan Punjab that all girls should be forced to wear hijab to school. There was a proposal in NWFP that Muslim boys should not be allowed to wear pants to school.

Neither of these proposals applied to public life. They only applied to public schools. What would be learned in school would not change, so everyone would still have the same education. However, the dress code would be enforced.

Based on your comments, would you agree that if some Muslims did not want their daughters to wear hijab or did want their sons to wear pants, they should, ``send them to private schools or open private school specially for,`` non-hijabis and for pant-wearers.

Or should they protest the right of the govt. to enforce clothing on their children? And what if they cannot afford private schools?

Also, would you support a similar law in Indian Punjab, i.e. Sikh students should not be allowed to wear their turbans to school (as will be the case in France, now). And all the Sikh parents who want their kids to wear turbans should, ``send them to private schools or open private schools specially for, ``turban-wearers.``

If it is correct for the French govt. to legislate against Sikh turbans in public schools, then on the basis of principle, one should support it in India, also. And in Canada, for that matter.