Is it acceptable for non Muslims to wear burkas?

[mjw47]

So, it's got nothing to do with Islam, what so ever?!

 

Some Atheists practice genocide. Some Christians practice dog fighting, some Catholics practice sex with children.

 

I'm just putting the same slant on my words as you did.

 

Got nothing to do with Islam whatsoever?

 

Has Islam condemned the practice and instructed it's followers to stop or risk whatever their version of excommunication is?

 

Click on the first link on SavannahP post at 140.

 

It is estimated that over 20,000 girls under 15 are at risk of FGM each year in the UK.

 

How many of those do you think will be Muslim and how many from other religions.

 

And some Muslims practice genocide. Some Muslims practice dog fights and some Muslims have sex with children.

[Bonzo77]

Yes they are, Circumcision involves mutilation of the either the penis or vagina.

 

Female genital mutilation (sometimes referred to as female circumcision) refers to procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The practice is illegal in the UK.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation/pages/introduction.aspx

 

 

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

 

Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

 

The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. However, more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and the trend towards medicalization is increasing.

 

Those links you posted were about circumcision in boys.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2014 at 15:36 ----------

 

Got nothing to do with Islam whatsoever?

 

Has Islam condemned the practice and instructed it's followers to stop or risk whatever their version of excommunication is?

 

Click on the first link on SavannahP post at 140.

 

It is estimated that over 20,000 girls under 15 are at risk of FGM each year in the UK.

 

How many of those do you think will be Muslim and how many from other religions.

 

And some Muslims practice genocide. Some Muslims practice dog fights and some Muslims have sex with children.

 

Haha........what does at risk mean??

 

Are those people in the UK at risk of FGM because their parents are Muslims, or because they come from a culture that practices FGM and just happen to be Muslims?

[SavannahP]

Those links you posted were about circumcision in boys.

 

 

You clearly didn't read them or the quotes from them if you came to that conclusion.

They were about both, hence the reason they all talked about FGM.

[mjw47]

Those links you posted were about circumcision in boys.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2014 at 15:36 ----------

 

 

Haha........what does at risk mean??

 

Are those people in the UK at risk of FGM because their parents are Muslims, or because they come from a culture that practices FGM and just happen to be Muslims?

 

Disingenuous garbage, you sound pretty comfortable with barbaric practices and treating women like property.

 

Perhaps it's part of your heritage?

[Bonzo77]

You clearly didn't read them or the quotes from them if you came to that conclusion.

They were about both, hence the reason they all talked about FGM.

 

Mackie writes that FGM is found "only in or adjacent to" Islamic groups.[123] There is no mention of it in the Quran. It is praised in several hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required, along with advice that the milder forms are kinder to women.[124] Although its origins are pre-Islamic, FGM became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion.[125] In 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled, according to UNICEF, that FGM had "no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions."[126] Several fatwas were issued against the practice between 2008 and 2013.[122]

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2014 at 15:52 ----------

 

Disingenuous garbage, you sound pretty comfortable with barbaric practices and treating women like property.

 

Perhaps it's part of your heritage?

 

Dude, wind your neck in and pick your dummy back up!

[mjw47]

There is absolutely no reason that the law needs to concern itself with criminalising a lack of courtesy. What a ridiculous notion.

This is an entirely different argument. You cannot solve oppression by imposing oppression, which is what you are suggesting.

I find it most bizarre that someone claims to want to liberate people by making it a criminal act to wear an item of clothing.

 

But the law does concern itself with a lack of courtesy, what do you think the laws against racial abuse are?

 

If the abuse is only verbal and no physical harm is done it is still an offence in law, however, all that has happened is that someone has been discourteous in a serious manner.

 

In what possible way can you interpret treating everyone equally and requiring the customs of the country to be observed as oppression?

 

As there is no religious requirement for the burka then the reason for it being worn is at the personal behest of some man wanting to keep his women under his control.

 

Last year whilst waiting for a flight in Manchester airport I observed a young Asian couple, he was dressed like an American gangsta rapper, over sized baseball cap worn sideways, trainers, skinny jeans, baseball jacket, all designer stuff.

He was playing with his iPod and moving to something he was listening to on his earphones.

 

Meanwhile, his wife was stood there in a burka with only her eyes on view.

 

We have a custom in this country which whilst not being enshrined in law is generally adhered to, it's called 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2014 at 16:06 ----------

 

 

Dude, wind your neck in and pick your dummy back up!

 

Dude? :hihi: It wasn't you at Manchester airport that I mentioned in my last post was it?

 

Dude how old are you?

[L00b]

All that from

FGM is also illegal in the UK, and rightly so, despite the fact it is a common practice amongst some Muslims.

 

The thread mountaingineers have been busy!

I find it most bizarre that someone claims to want to liberate people by making it a criminal act to wear an item of clothing.

If the item of clothing is considered a 'prison' for those people who are made to wear it...on the contrary it's deliciously ironic to criminalise their 'jailer'.

[Bonzo77]

Dude? :hihi: It wasn't you at Manchester airport that I mentioned in my last post was it?

 

Dude how old are you?

 

I'm 33 years young.

 

Taking the pee out of the way people talk, another one of your prejudices, is it?

[Baz1]

That quote, with regard to it being forbidden for women to cover their faces whilst on a pilgrimage to Mecca, was made by Doctor Taj Hargey an Imam, the question was his, not mine, I simply asked if anyone had an answer.

 

You haven't answered it, you have simply disagreed with the Doctor so which of you is correct?

 

That is my question.

 

I did answer it- but the problem is Taj is a rejector of hadeeth- and people like him I have debated (and won) against on many occassions.

 

The issue you have with people like him is how do they justify the acts like prayer/fasting/charity etc that do get mentioned in the Qu'ran- but are not explained but through the authentic narrations.

 

He once was caught saying he accepts authentic narrations (that are transmitted with an unbroken chain and attributed to Muhammad)- yet still rejects what he finds unsuitable?!

 

So how does he qualify as a 'scholar' as most Muslims do not see him as someone who carries any real authority/voice for Muslim world.

 

The question in point, there are authentic traditions that state (and majority of scholars of hadeeth and fiqh accept) that women at time of ihram should not wear a nikab or covering that physically touches the skin (hence the ommission of gloves/hats). This is based on fact the wife of Muhammad, Aishah (and other women) would simply draw a cloth over their faces when men would be near- so as to hide their face (which is what some women do today).

 

In Mecca, the Saudi police would in fact encourage you to cover up, not cover down or remove veils. If a woman is used to wearing a veil- she can use a cloth to cover her face (without it touching it) and there are special headscarves that allow this.

 

So covering the face is not forbidden- as the narration we have supports this (which taj would like to deny)- but lets us get one thing right- I also hold this view, and that is that it comes to a matter of choice and faith.

 

No one should be forced to wear it but at the sametime, be forced not to should they prefer to observe this form of dress.

 

I trust you're not skilled in classical Arabic or studies of fiqh and hadeeth- so do tread carefully if you want to drag this issue with me further.

[Alan Ladd]

At the end of the day, it boils down to this, there are people outside this island who are odd. They kill each other, mutilate their women and force them to wear batman outfits. Others get into unsafe boats and get upset when they sink.

 

Regrettably not all of us win the lottery of life in that we are not born English.

 

Its a shame, but enough is enough. We have run out of energy, we are tired of being the worlds Police, Fireman and Ambulance person.

 

Its time the rest of the world started looking after itself.