What's new

Austria face veil ban 'criminalises Muslim women'

Varun

Senior Test Player
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Runs
26,112
Post of the Week
1
Activists and experts have condemned a law implemented in Austria on Sunday prohibiting the face veil as "counterproductive" and as an "attack on religious freedom".

The law, commonly known as the "Burqa ban," came into effect in advance of a general election on October 15, which could see the traditionally xenophobic far-right Freedom Party make gains.

Of approximately nine million Austrians, between 100 to 150 Muslim women - or 0.002 percent - wear the face veil.

There are around 700,000 Muslims in the country.

The garment covers the entire body and face except for the eyes, but violators may now face a fine of up to $180.

The Austrian government says the law safeguards Austrian values and the concept of a free society.

Officials have carefully marketed the law, termed "Prohibition on the Covering of the Face", as being religiously-neutral by also restricting the donning of medical masks, party masks, and scarves in public.

But activists and experts have denounced the nature of the law as "counterproductive" and "Islamophobic".

Carla Amina Baghajati, a rights activist and spokeswoman for the Austrian Islamic Religious Authority, a public institution representing Muslims, says the law threatens the concept of an open society.

"They believe that they are 'freeing these women' and that they're taking action to secure the identity of Austria, but this is hypocritical as the idea of an open society is that everybody has the liberty to act and dress as they please as long as nobody else is harmed," Baghajati told Al Jazeera.

"These ladies are being criminalised. Everybody thinks that they are victims, but you cannot be patronising them. They say that they do not want to be freed because they are already free and chose to wear the face veil," said Baghajati.

READ MORE: Rights group to take action after Cannes burkini ban

The legislation was approved in May as part of a wider set of proposals aimed at countering the rise of the Freedom Party, which came close to winning Austria's presidential election in January.

In those measures, Austria also banned the distribution of the Quran and required all refugees and immigrants to participate in an "integration" programme to learn the German language and "Austrian ethics".

Baghajati attributed the face veil ban as an attempt by politicians to "send a message to the public that they are in control" of the security situation.

Fears over "extremism" have been fuelled by the arrival of refugees.

But Austria has taken a tough stance against the entry of refugees.

Earlier this year, the government told the European Union that it would no longer accept any refugees, many of whom are Syrians seeking refuge from the six-year war plaguing their country.

In February, Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz called for setting up mass camps in North Africa for refugees who fled to Europe.

Islamophobia

Farid Hafez, senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, says the notion of the face veil ban is reflective of the "Islamophobic imagination of what has been construed to be the 'Muslim problem'" in several countries across Europe.

"Islamophobia is a problem in Austria as it is a problem and a challenge to democracy, human rights and religious freedom in many European countries today," Hafez, who is also a professor at the University of Salzburg, told Al Jazeera, warning that the ban could have "serious consequences".

"Common people on the street [will] feel enabled to act disrespectfully towards Muslim women, insult them openly on the street," said Hafez, adding that young aspiring Muslim women would feel "obstructed".

Austria is the latest European country to implement such a ban.

In 2011, France and Belgium introduced such laws. In 2015, the Netherlands approved a partial ban on the veil, while Bulgaria implemented a full ban in 2016.

The bans have fuelled a debate about multiculturalism across the continent.

Supporters say the face veil threatens security and hinders interaction, while those against say a ban violates religious rights against the backdrop of Islamophobia.

"At the moment, we are very worried about the political discourse against Islam, which has entered mainstream politics," said Baghajati of the Austrian Islamic Religious Authority, expressing anxiety over the rise of the Freedom Party, which, like similar groups across Europe, pedals an anti-immigration, anti-Islam line for political gain.

Last week, the far-right nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party won seats in Germany's Bundestag, the first to do so since World War II, stirring fears of similar waves in Austria.

"We are worried that this will have an effect on Austria, as well," said Baghajati. "Accusations against Muslims, prejudices, and all kinds of negative thinking have now entered the mainstream".

"It feels as though it is a general threat against society to be a Muslim."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...riminalises-muslim-women-171001104455120.html

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rules of Austria's burka ban (from Oct 1). Top row: allowed, 2nd row: under certain circumstances, 3rd row: banned. <a href="https://t.co/1v2LmgZNeQ">https://t.co/1v2LmgZNeQ</a> <a href="https://t.co/rRtPWxYjjp">pic.twitter.com/rRtPWxYjjp</a></p>— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/910916389975805953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Another European country goes this way. Many would agree that it is a good thing too: there's nothing religious about the burqa, so none should be offended.
 
Beef ban in India and Burqa ban in Austria.

You have to respect the law of the nation you live in.
 
Beef ban in India and Burqa ban in Austria.

You have to respect the law of the nation you live in.

Maybe in India but in the UK we have the right to challenge any law and many have been repelled.

As for the ban, Austria was the birth place of Hitler so no surprise.
 
As for the ban, Austria was the birth place of Hitler so no surprise.

Life is so simple for you :yk

You have simple explanations for everything, since Hitler was born in austria so the whole country is bad (in your eyes of course), is it?

Churchill was just as bad as hitler, he just ended up on the winning side, that's it. I guess it is no surprise that Britain is decadent society :srini
 
Life is so simple for you :yk

You have simple explanations for everything, since Hitler was born in austria so the whole country is bad (in your eyes of course), is it?

Churchill was just as bad as hitler, he just ended up on the winning side, that's it. I guess it is no surprise that Britain is decadent society :srini

I was being sarcastic. :modi

I challenge you to start a thread justifying your view Britain is a decadent society while India is shining the Kohi Noor, which btw is in England :)
 
Should be implemented europe wide.

Absolutely no reason in this day and age for people to walk around with their face completely covered. If a guy cant get served at a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet or balaclava the veil should be no different.

If people subscribe to such stone age mentalities towards woman they have bigger issues either way.
 
Should be implemented europe wide.

Absolutely no reason in this day and age for people to walk around with their face completely covered. If a guy cant get served at a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet or balaclava the veil should be no different.

If people subscribe to such stone age mentalities towards woman they have bigger issues either way.

This is not for banks but for all public places including the street. Do you still agree with it?
 
This is not for banks but for all public places including the street. Do you still agree with it?

Yes. As I said, veils are a symbol of backwardness. For any functioning society to work, people need to communicate with each other, not hide their faces and or oppress women to the extent even seeing them is seen as a bad thing

Feel free to wear it at home by all means, once you go outside though, people have the right to see your face.
 
Yes. As I said, veils are a symbol of backwardness. For any functioning society to work, people need to communicate with each other, not hide their faces and or oppress women to the extent even seeing them is seen as a bad thing

Feel free to wear it at home by all means, once you go outside though, people have the right to see your face.

Im not sure if you live in NI or Ireland but it's a very cold country. Do you want scarfs on faces banned too along with balaclavas or any other material which covers the chin, lips etc? Do you want the mouth to be shown at all times or which part of the face?
 
Im not sure if you live in NI or Ireland but it's a very cold country. Do you want scarfs on faces banned too along with balaclavas or any other material which covers the chin, lips etc? Do you want the mouth to be shown at all times or which part of the face?

lol comparing scarves and a veil is just nonsense. One is primarily worn around the neck and even then not THAT commonly seen, the other covers the entire head and is worn purely for backwards, ultra conservative reasons and serves no purpose in any forward thinking state.

You know full well the difference between wearing clothes over the face out of necessity i.e cold weather, and wearing something out of some belief that humans some put up divides at every possible chance between each other instead of actually being decent people. Even in your scarf example, they get taken off indoors and generally fairly regularly even in cold weather.

Never seen any non gang members wearing balaclavas tbh, in fact I've never once come across someone attempting to wear one openly ever. Dont even know if thats legal tbh

Hijabs are fine, hell they look quite cool actually. Veils are just relics of a stone age era and should be consigned to history. Its telling that from my time on here and interactions in real life I can say the vast majority of Muslims agree with me as well.

No logical reason for a veil to exist aside from female oppression, brainwashing and fear. None of which Europe needs. If youre Muslim you got a hijab, if youre so conservative that a man seeing your face is an issue or your wife slash relative being seen by someone is an issue maybe reconsider your life priorities and embrace what the world has to offer instead of fearing it.
 
Yes. As I said, veils are a symbol of backwardness. For any functioning society to work, people need to communicate with each other, not hide their faces and or oppress women to the extent even seeing them is seen as a bad thing

Feel free to wear it at home by all means, once you go outside though, people have the right to see your face.

Telling women what they can or can't wear is a sign of oppression isn't it? Let the women make her own judgement and as long as its not a safety risk, it shouldn't be a problem. A woman shouldn't be forced change the way she lives just cause some man finds it wrong .
 
Last edited:
Telling women what they can or can't wear is a sign of oppression isn't it? Let the women make her own judgement and as long as its not a safety risk, it shouldn't be a problem. A woman shouldn't be forced change the way she lives just cause some man finds it wrong .

Except it is a safety risk. Whats stopping a criminal who's a female throwing one on and using it to evade discovery? Or a male? Whats stopping them concealing a weapon??

And please, if banning a veil, something that literally reduces a woman to a shadow, a faceless being, is female oppression I'm Bill Gates.

No issue with it in the home, as you say wear what you want, but once you leave the house and enter society their are some basic values to be met, one of the first of which is to allow other people to at least see your face.
 
lol comparing scarves and a veil is just nonsense. One is primarily worn around the neck and even then not THAT commonly seen, the other covers the entire head and is worn purely for backwards, ultra conservative reasons and serves no purpose in any forward thinking state.

You know full well the difference between wearing clothes over the face out of necessity i.e cold weather, and wearing something out of some belief that humans some put up divides at every possible chance between each other instead of actually being decent people. Even in your scarf example, they get taken off indoors and generally fairly regularly even in cold weather.

Never seen any non gang members wearing balaclavas tbh, in fact I've never once come across someone attempting to wear one openly ever. Dont even know if thats legal tbh

Hijabs are fine, hell they look quite cool actually. Veils are just relics of a stone age era and should be consigned to history. Its telling that from my time on here and interactions in real life I can say the vast majority of Muslims agree with me as well.

No logical reason for a veil to exist aside from female oppression, brainwashing and fear. None of which Europe needs. If youre Muslim you got a hijab, if youre so conservative that a man seeing your face is an issue or your wife slash relative being seen by someone is an issue maybe reconsider your life priorities and embrace what the world has to offer instead of fearing it.

This is no different in principle to what the conservative people think of mini skirts, it's alien to them but does that mean they have a right to tell women what to wear? No they dont and neither do you. The veil may be backward to you just as mini-skirts are backward to them.

Plenty of people in cold countries cover their heads and face with only the eyes showing in winter. You cannot tell one person it's ok to do so but another not to do so.

You make a ludicrous claim women who wear this garment are oppressed, brainwashed or in fear which is not the case esp in Europe. What evidence to you have to support this argument? In fact your arguments are no different to the likes of Tommy Robinson.

I dont think you have ever spoken to a woman who wears this so watch this.


And no most Muslims do not agree with you, again you have nothing to back this up. Most Muslims do say it's not required in the religion and I agree with them but most do not like to force women to wear or not to wear any garment of clothing.
 
Last edited:
Except it is a safety risk. Whats stopping a criminal who's a female throwing one on and using it to evade discovery? Or a male? Whats stopping them concealing a weapon??

And please, if banning a veil, something that literally reduces a woman to a shadow, a faceless being, is female oppression I'm Bill Gates.

No issue with it in the home, as you say wear what you want, but once you leave the house and enter society their are some basic values to be met, one of the first of which is to allow other people to at least see your face.

Thats your opinion, you find it oppressive but many successful/ educated women don't. They choose to wear it , denying them that right and patronizing them by telling them whats right and wrong is extremely regressive. If its a safety risk then use that as a basis to ban it, don't make this about oppression cause dictating how a women's dresses is oppressive in itself.
 
Thats your opinion, you find it oppressive but many successful/ educated women don't. They choose to wear it , denying them that right and patronizing them by telling them whats right and wrong is extremely regressive. If its a safety risk then use that as a basis to ban it, don't make this about oppression cause dictating how a women's dresses is oppressive in itself.

Do you find Islam extremely regressive when they tell people that they cant drink alcohol or they must pray 5 times a day. You admit that dictating how a woman dresses is oppressive yet islam dictates what a woman can wear and will deal out punishment if a woman were to go to the beach in a bikini.

How do you accept that islam can put certain rules on women yet find it oppressive if a government does the same.
 
I am not in favor of enforcing dress code.
However, I do not think burqa will move the civilization forward.
 
The state should have no right in dictating how one must dress, provided it isn't bringing any harm to anyone.

What the Burka represents and it's role in subjugating women is a completely different issue.

All this law does is legitimise bigotry.
 
Yes. As I said, veils are a symbol of backwardness. For any functioning society to work, people need to communicate with each other, not hide their faces and or oppress women to the extent even seeing them is seen as a bad thing

Feel free to wear it at home by all means, once you go outside though, people have the right to see your face.

What do you mean by people have a right to see your face?
 
Telling women what they can or can't wear is a sign of oppression isn't it? Let the women make her own judgement and as long as its not a safety risk, it shouldn't be a problem. A woman shouldn't be forced change the way she lives just cause some man finds it wrong .

How far are you willing to take the notion of free will?
 
Do you find Islam extremely regressive when they tell people that they cant drink alcohol or they must pray 5 times a day. You admit that dictating how a woman dresses is oppressive yet islam dictates what a woman can wear and will deal out punishment if a woman were to go to the beach in a bikini.

How do you accept that islam can put certain rules on women yet find it oppressive if a government does the same.

It's liberating when it done by "us", oppressive when done to "us".

The moral grandstanding is laughable as is the irony of the arguments presented.
 
Farid Hafez, senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, says the notion of the face veil ban is reflective of the "Islamophobic imagination of what has been construed to be the 'Muslim problem'" in several countries across Europe.

"Islamophobia is a problem in Austria as it is a problem and a challenge to democracy, human rights and religious freedom in many European countries today," Hafez, who is also a professor at the University of Salzburg, told Al Jazeera, warning that the ban could have "serious consequences".

"Common people on the street [will] feel enabled to act disrespectfully towards Muslim women, insult them openly on the street," said Hafez, adding that young aspiring Muslim women would feel "obstructed".

This is the problem I have with a lot of the noise coming from the media regarding burkas, veils and other such paraphernalia. I don't know that it's driven by safety concerns and is in fact fuelled by fear and hatred. You don't have to dig deep to see how society is being affected negatively across the world, never mind Europe with this sort of discussion.
 
What do you mean by people have a right to see your face?

If someone is serving you in a business or generally trying to contact you in some way or communicate I find it the absolute height of rudeness to not deem them worthy of seeing you, which is how a veil comes off tbh.

Just basic manners. If you talk to somebody and they turn their back to you and keep talking isnt it seen as rude? In a culture where veils arent at all common or accepted they come off the same way.
 
You should search up the Austrian king and queen walking in the streets a hundred years ago and she was covered from head to toe.
 
You should search up the Austrian king and queen walking in the streets a hundred years ago and she was covered from head to toe.

Youve just further proven my point that they're a relic of the past and have no place in a forward thinking society!

30 years ago in my country divorce and contraception were banned and single mothers were enslaved all the while priests abused children with impunity and nuns starved children to death before tossing their bodies in septic tanks. Just because something was accepted in the past doesnt mean its right.

Less religion is present in open society, the better society tends to be. Keep it in the home where it belongs. That and the safety and societal issues ive mentioned prior.
 
Youve just further proven my point that they're a relic of the past and have no place in a forward thinking society!

30 years ago in my country divorce and contraception were banned and single mothers were enslaved all the while priests abused children with impunity and nuns starved children to death before tossing their bodies in septic tanks. Just because something was accepted in the past doesnt mean its right.

Less religion is present in open society, the better society tends to be. Keep it in the home where it belongs. That and the safety and societal issues ive mentioned prior.
My point in sharing that was to show that the veil is neither new nor is it a historical suppression of women as some would have you believe. If it's good enough for Austrian royalty a hundred years ago, than why in this modern world can't a woman wear it when it is her choice?
 
Yes. As I said, veils are a symbol of backwardness. For any functioning society to work, people need to communicate with each other, not hide their faces and or oppress women to the extent even seeing them is seen as a bad thing

Feel free to wear it at home by all means, once you go outside though, people have the right to see your face.

Asides from that it IS a security risk

You have people roaming around the street without any idea who they are, what they are carrying etc
 
My point in sharing that was to show that the veil is neither new nor is it a historical suppression of women as some would have you believe. If it's good enough for Austrian royalty a hundred years ago, than why in this modern world can't a woman wear it when it is her choice?

as he said it is a relic of the past and sign of backwardness

100 years ago Austrian society was seeing genocide as well so hardly a time to be idealized
 
The state should have no right in dictating how one must dress, provided it isn't bringing any harm to anyone.

What the Burka represents and it's role in subjugating women is a completely different issue.

All this law does is legitimise bigotry.

Well the burka IS a security risk
 
as he said it is a relic of the past and sign of backwardness

100 years ago Austrian society was seeing genocide as well so hardly a time to be idealized

How is a genocide related to a clothing? Also just because it was a hundred years ago does not mean it has regressed or advanced. In fact, if things survive hundreds of years they have to be really good and are often left unchanged, like masterpiece books such as The Communist Manifesto.
 
As the veil is not obligatory, why would Muslims argue about it being prohibited?

Also, the veil has its origins in ancient Greece, where it was the practice for aristocratic ladies to cover their faces so that peasants could not look at them, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.
 
As the veil is not obligatory, why would Muslims argue about it being prohibited?

Also, the veil has its origins in ancient Greece, where it was the practice for aristocratic ladies to cover their faces so that peasants could not look at them, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Well said. The veil is a Saudi Arabian invention. It's more tied to Arab culture, not Islamic culture. The fact that most Arabs are Muslims is coincidental.
 
Well said. The veil is a Saudi Arabian invention. It's more tied to Arab culture, not Islamic culture. The fact that most Arabs are Muslims is coincidental.


Actually, it is not a Saudi invention. The veil is worn during marriage ceremonies, and was quite a prominent practice in the West.

The veil crept into Christendom, when, where and how I do not know, but it is through centuries of contacts with Christians that Muslim communities absorbed and imbibed some of their practices, including the covering of the face.
 
As the veil is not obligatory, why would Muslims argue about it being prohibited?

Also, the veil has its origins in ancient Greece, where it was the practice for aristocratic ladies to cover their faces so that peasants could not look at them, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

It started with assuriyans, when they brought so many captured women back to their cities --> their city streets filled with these captured women and they were mistreated by local males --> sometimes free/local women were also mistreated by mistake so free/local women starting wearing veil for easy identification of status.

Later Persian embarrassed this idea ...
 
As the veil is not obligatory, why would Muslims argue about it being prohibited?

Also, the veil has its origins in ancient Greece, where it was the practice for aristocratic ladies to cover their faces so that peasants could not look at them, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Because many Muslims and Non-Muslims defend the right of a woman to wear what she likes.

As for the security risk, winter in Europe you will see hundreds of men and women wearing hats and scarfs around their face, only showing eyes. If you ban the veil for this reason, ban all clothing which hides most of the face.
 
It started with assuriyans, when they brought so many captured women back to their cities --> their city streets filled with these captured women and they were mistreated by local males --> sometimes free/local women were also mistreated by mistake so free/local women starting wearing veil for easy identification of status.

Later Persian embarrassed this idea ...


Yes, aristocratic Greek and Persian women wore the veil, for the reasons mentioned above.
 
Because many Muslims and Non-Muslims defend the right of a woman to wear what she likes.

As for the security risk, winter in Europe you will see hundreds of men and women wearing hats and scarfs around their face, only showing eyes. If you ban the veil for this reason, ban all clothing which hides most of the face.


I understand the point you are making, and respect it.

However, this is not about rights, but about what Islam permits and instructs Muslims to do, and what it does not. Thus, there is no reason for Muslim women to cover their faces, there is no religious obligation, no social pressure. The only thing required of both genders is modest conduct and attire.

I cover my head with a hat, just as many Jewish women cover their heads with wigs. Religion is adaptable and adjustable, not rigid and unbending. I have to keep reminding myself, and my brethren in faith, of this.
 
Last edited:
Yes, aristocratic Greek and Persian women wore the veil, for the reasons mentioned above.

You stated "veil has its origins in ancient Greece"

per my understanding, it originated in Assuriyan Empire, long before Greek and/or Persian adopted it. (so I feel that credit should go to Assuriyan women)
 
I understand the point you are making, and respect it.

However, this is not about rights, but about what Islam permits and instructs Muslims to do, and what it does not. Thus, there is no reason for Muslim women to cover their faces, there is no religious obligation, no social pressure. The only thing required of both genders is modest conduct and attire.

I cover my head with a hat, just as many Jewish women cover their heads with wigs. Religion is adaptable and adjustable, not rigid and unbending. I have to keep reminding myself, and my brethren in faith, of this.

I agree with you it's not required in Islam and your view on modesty but this is about rights.

In Europe ALL people should be treated equally, given the same rights and there should be no discrimination. What we Muslims think on the issue is irrelevant to European society. If people can legally cover their faces with garments so should a woman be able to wear the veil.
 
You stated "veil has its origins in ancient Greece"

per my understanding, it originated in Assuriyan Empire, long before Greek and/or Persian adopted it. (so I feel that credit should go to Assuriyan women)


It is in light of my researches and studies that I credited ancient Greece with originating the veil. But, perhaps you are right, I will definitely go back and re-do my history studies regarding this topic. Thank you.
 
If someone is serving you in a business or generally trying to contact you in some way or communicate I find it the absolute height of rudeness to not deem them worthy of seeing you, which is how a veil comes off tbh.

Just basic manners. If you talk to somebody and they turn their back to you and keep talking isnt it seen as rude? In a culture where veils arent at all common or accepted they come off the same way.

Are judging someone on their appearance or the content of their character?

The analogy of one turning their back doesn't really apply. A fundamental basis of communication is active listening, which isn't achieved when one turns their back. However, the burka doesn't hinder this is anyway.

If it comes off the way you say it does then the flaw is with the culture not the individual. A culture which promotes civil liberties and individual rights can't then make exceptions that strip those rights from one particular demographic.

Have you ever considered that your stance may be influenced by a subtle form of prejudice which has been shaped by years of demagoguery?
 
I agree with you it's not required in Islam and your view on modesty but this is about rights.

In Europe ALL people should be treated equally, given the same rights and there should be no discrimination. What we Muslims think on the issue is irrelevant to European society. If people can legally cover their faces with garments so should a woman be able to wear the veil.

I think we are coming at this from entirely different angles, because my focus is Islam, not European lawmakers, whereas you are are stressing the importance of European discrimination policies and how this ban conflicts with them. So we are, in essence, in agreement about both.
 
My point in sharing that was to show that the veil is neither new nor is it a historical suppression of women as some would have you believe. If it's good enough for Austrian royalty a hundred years ago, than why in this modern world can't a woman wear it when it is her choice?

How is it not a symbol of female subjugation?

How do you define choice?
 
How is a genocide related to a clothing? Also just because it was a hundred years ago does not mean it has regressed or advanced. In fact, if things survive hundreds of years they have to be really good and are often left unchanged, like masterpiece books such as The Communist Manifesto.

So slavery must have been great?
 
I think we are coming at this from entirely different angles, because my focus is Islam, not European lawmakers, whereas you are are stressing the importance of European discrimination policies and how this ban conflicts with them. So we are, in essence, in agreement about both.

My angle is based on the thread topic. If the topic was 'Is the Veil required in Islam' I would agree with you fully. But the topic is criminalising women who choose to wear this garment. I think as Muslims we should defend the rights of all when it comes to discrimination esp other Muslims even if we disagree with their view. :)
 
My angle is based on the thread topic. If the topic was 'Is the Veil required in Islam' I would agree with you fully. But the topic is criminalising women who choose to wear this garment. I think as Muslims we should defend the rights of all when it comes to discrimination esp other Muslims even if we disagree with their view. :)

This made me chuckle. You're so disingenuous.
 
The hypocrisy in this thread is resounding. If we lived in a Utopian society, I would disagree with regulating what people are allowed and not allowed to wear.

It's nigh impossible to consider someone my equal when they refuse to show me their face. That person will always be alien to me.
 
The hypocrisy in this thread is resounding. If we lived in a Utopian society, I would disagree with regulating what people are allowed and not allowed to wear.

It's nigh impossible to consider someone my equal when they refuse to show me their face. That person will always be alien to me.

That's your opinion and Im assuming you are just an ordinary person not someone who has the right over a population. If you dont like someone who wont show you their face, dont talk to them . Simple.
 
That's your opinion and Im assuming you are just an ordinary person not someone who has the right over a population. If you dont like someone who wont show you their face, dont talk to them . Simple.

You're right. And I live in a democracy where I'm right to an opinion and to express it. And if a bill was ever to be passed in my country to ban the burqa or its substitutes, I would support with delight.

Similarly, I'm sure plenty of Austrians are thrilled about this law. Maybe even a majority.
 
You're right. And I live in a democracy where I'm right to an opinion and to express it. And if a bill was ever to be passed in my country to ban the burqa or its substitutes, I would support with delight.

Similarly, I'm sure plenty of Austrians are thrilled about this law. Maybe even a majority.

On what basis?
 
Yes. As I said, veils are a symbol of backwardness. For any functioning society to work, people need to communicate with each other, not hide their faces and or oppress women to the extent even seeing them is seen as a bad thing

Feel free to wear it at home by all means, once you go outside though, people have the right to see your face.

I struggle with this.

Yes, people should be able to see your face - it is a simple matter of respect for your fellow citizens.

On the other hand, my liberal values say that the only time the state should exert power over people is to prevent someone from being hurt.

Some women choose the veil, not through coercion by their husband but through a desire for piety and anonymity.
 
Churchill was just as bad as hitler, he just ended up on the winning side, that's it. I guess it is no surprise that Britain is decadent society :srini

Without Churchill, Britain would have cut a deal with Hitler and Europe would have fallen to either Nazi or Soviet totalitarianism. Instead, liberal democracy flourished.
 
Without Churchill, Britain would have cut a deal with Hitler and Europe would have fallen to either Nazi or Soviet totalitarianism. Instead, liberal democracy flourished.

Liberal democracy colonizing nations and probably proud of that :14:
 
Liberal democracy colonizing nations and probably proud of that :14:
All the colonies got their independence. Would you have preferred to be overrun by the Imperial Japanese?
 
All the colonies got their independence. Would you have preferred to be overrun by the Imperial Japanese?

You are a truly shameless chauvinist for glorifying the atrocities committed by your forefathers
 
How is it not a symbol of female subjugation?

How do you define choice?

Simple. If the woman wants to wear it, she wears it. If she doesn't, she doesnt. Everyplace besides Saudi Arabia shares the same logic.
 
I've never made secret my distaste for the burqa. Its an eyesore and totally alien in a Western society where many non-Muslims not only perceive it as intimidatory but also as a symbol of Islamist extremism. It is counter to human nature and our interactions where we pay each other the basic courtesy of seeing each others' face. A few points addressing the posts in this thread:

1) People are arguing that banning the burqa would be counter to liberal values and tolerance. However even in a liberal democracy, society sets limits on one's rights. There is no such thing as absolute freedom or liberty. In some places you cannot burn a flag, cannot drink and drive, cannot use a mobile phone and drive, excessively speed or roam around naked.

2) The hypocrisy from those opposing the ban is also noteworthy. The same people opposing a burqa ban in the West in the name of "allowing women to wear what they want" are nowhere to be seen when the same freedom is demanded for women in Muslim countries. You cannot have your cake and eat it by earning livelihoods in the West and demand the West compromise with your values when you don't reciprocate the same right to Westerners in Muslim societies.

3) From a practical point of view - these women will need to reveal their identities anyway at banks, to apply for a driving license, passports, rail cards, student cards etc so there's an already of element of compromise.

4) The burqa has been a security risk. In Chad and Cameroon, there have been suicide bombings carried out by burqa-clad Boko Haram militants, and consequently they have banned it. One of the terrorists in the Red Mosque siege of 2007 in Islamabad tried to escape in a burqa. There are other examples too.

5) Finally, I don't buy that all women wear the burqa out of choice. Social conditioning and family expectations plays a huge part. Are you seriously arguing that women in the stifling heat of Northern Nigeria, Syria, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan are wearing those suffocating veils out of choice ?
 
I've never made secret my distaste for the burqa. Its an eyesore and totally alien in a Western society where many non-Muslims not only perceive it as intimidatory but also as a symbol of Islamist extremism. It is counter to human nature and our interactions where we pay each other the basic courtesy of seeing each others' face. A few points addressing the posts in this thread:

1) People are arguing that banning the burqa would be counter to liberal values and tolerance. However even in a liberal democracy, society sets limits on one's rights. There is no such thing as absolute freedom or liberty. In some places you cannot burn a flag, cannot drink and drive, cannot use a mobile phone and drive, excessively speed or roam around naked.

2) The hypocrisy from those opposing the ban is also noteworthy. The same people opposing a burqa ban in the West in the name of "allowing women to wear what they want" are nowhere to be seen when the same freedom is demanded for women in Muslim countries. You cannot have your cake and eat it by earning livelihoods in the West and demand the West compromise with your values when you don't reciprocate the same right to Westerners in Muslim societies.

3) From a practical point of view - these women will need to reveal their identities anyway at banks, to apply for a driving license, passports, rail cards, student cards etc so there's an already of element of compromise.

4) The burqa has been a security risk. In Chad and Cameroon, there have been suicide bombings carried out by burqa-clad Boko Haram militants, and consequently they have banned it. One of the terrorists in the Red Mosque siege of 2007 in Islamabad tried to escape in a burqa. There are other examples too.

5) Finally, I don't buy that all women wear the burqa out of choice. Social conditioning and family expectations plays a huge part. Are you seriously arguing that women in the stifling heat of Northern Nigeria, Syria, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan are wearing those suffocating veils out of choice ?

Good, rational post

Hijabs are fine and sometimes even look good for women

Burqas make me feel queasy and unsafe. No place in today's world. If it is banned during Hajj, I don't understand why it's allowed elsewhere
 
I've never made secret my distaste for the burqa. Its an eyesore and totally alien in a Western society where many non-Muslims not only perceive it as intimidatory but also as a symbol of Islamist extremism. It is counter to human nature and our interactions where we pay each other the basic courtesy of seeing each others' face. A few points addressing the posts in this thread:

1) People are arguing that banning the burqa would be counter to liberal values and tolerance. However even in a liberal democracy, society sets limits on one's rights. There is no such thing as absolute freedom or liberty. In some places you cannot burn a flag, cannot drink and drive, cannot use a mobile phone and drive, excessively speed or roam around naked.

2) The hypocrisy from those opposing the ban is also noteworthy. The same people opposing a burqa ban in the West in the name of "allowing women to wear what they want" are nowhere to be seen when the same freedom is demanded for women in Muslim countries. You cannot have your cake and eat it by earning livelihoods in the West and demand the West compromise with your values when you don't reciprocate the same right to Westerners in Muslim societies.

3) From a practical point of view - these women will need to reveal their identities anyway at banks, to apply for a driving license, passports, rail cards, student cards etc so there's an already of element of compromise.

4) The burqa has been a security risk. In Chad and Cameroon, there have been suicide bombings carried out by burqa-clad Boko Haram militants, and consequently they have banned it. One of the terrorists in the Red Mosque siege of 2007 in Islamabad tried to escape in a burqa. There are other examples too.

5) Finally, I don't buy that all women wear the burqa out of choice. Social conditioning and family expectations plays a huge part. Are you seriously arguing that women in the stifling heat of Northern Nigeria, Syria, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan are wearing those suffocating veils out of choice ?

POTW candidate.
 
Are judging someone on their appearance or the content of their character?

The analogy of one turning their back doesn't really apply. A fundamental basis of communication is active listening, which isn't achieved when one turns their back. However, the burka doesn't hinder this is anyway.

If it comes off the way you say it does then the flaw is with the culture not the individual. A culture which promotes civil liberties and individual rights can't then make exceptions that strip those rights from one particular demographic.

Have you ever considered that your stance may be influenced by a subtle form of prejudice which has been shaped by years of demagoguery?

I doubt it. I asked several Muslims men and women during my stay in Germany from Turkey and Jordan of their thoughts on it and all were against it. The women laughed at the veil as ridiculous and said they'd worn it maybe once or twice as a joke amongst friends. I generally try to be as neutral as possible in debates and use logic in making decisions, might not be perfect mind but I try. And the veil is a security risk but as well as that I feel its backwards and unnecessary. [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION]'s excellent post summed it up rather well tbh. You make a valid point that everyone should have the right to wear what they wish but again as Markhor said society tends to impose some form of limits on these freedoms, which is fine as long as those limits are within reason.

From a religious POV its not needed, the hijab exists and is perfectly fine.
From a security POV its dangerous, people can hide objects, hide identity and so on.
From a cultural POV its often used to subjugate women and many women (not all but I imagine overwhelming majority) wear it due to this and not out of actual free will.
From a general POV it massively obstructs communication and presents an image of "stay away from me" just like if you saw a guy wearing a balaclava you aint gonna stop on the street and ask him for directions.

Nothing at all against it at home, far as I'm concerned thats everyone's own business
 
My angle is based on the thread topic. If the topic was 'Is the Veil required in Islam' I would agree with you fully. But the topic is criminalising women who choose to wear this garment. I think as Muslims we should defend the rights of all when it comes to discrimination esp other Muslims even if we disagree with their view. :)


The reason I raised the issue is because we cannot, as Muslims, place the onus of responsibility of non-discriminatory policies and practices upon European lawmakers alone.

Muslims have a responsibility to set the record straight, by clearly stating that the Niqab is neither obligatory nor even optional, as it does not form any aspect, or facet, of the Message of Islam.

Now, for those Muslims who believe Niqab is optional though not obligatory, then why on earth argue about an issue that is not even a requirement under Islamic Law?

Europeans have their laws, as do individual states, but Islam only has one law, and all adhere to it, inasmuch as they are able. Also, given that Western democracies are liberal and open, why would any woman - or man - argue that these societies necessitate the covering of the face?

As a Muslim woman, I am strongly opposed to the Niqab, it conceals the identity and personality of the wearer, and thereby, separates her from not only the rest of society, but also from her own community.

For those men who decry Austrian attempts to ban the Niqab, I have a suggestion: wear one yourself.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of the full face covering but it's not the job of the state to tell women what they can and cannot wear. Sure if businesses want to ban it on security grounds or if hospitals want to ban it in clinical areas on health and safety grounds then that right should always be there however to actually ban it in all public spaces is something I'm not comfortable with.
 
All the colonies got their independence. Would you have preferred to be overrun by the Imperial Japanese?

And we should thank hitler for that, if not for the world war, the greedy Britishers would have never left the colonies.
 
The reason I raised the issue is because we cannot, as Muslims, place the onus of responsibility of non-discriminatory policies and practices upon European lawmakers alone.

Muslims have a responsibility to set the record straight, by clearly stating that the Niqab is neither obligatory nor even optional, as it does not form any aspect, or facet, of the Message of Islam.

Now, for those Muslims who believe Niqab is optional though not obligatory, then why on earth argue about an issue that is not even a requirement under Islamic Law?

Europeans have their laws, as do individual states, but Islam only has one law, and all adhere to it, inasmuch as they are able. Also, given that Western democracies are liberal and open, why would any woman - or man - argue that these societies necessitate the covering of the face?

As a Muslim woman, I am strongly opposed to the Niqab, it conceals the identity and personality of the wearer, and thereby, separates her from not only the rest of society, but also from her own community.

For those men who decry Austrian attempts to ban the Niqab, I have a suggestion: wear one yourself.

The problem is one Muslim cannot tell another their version is wrong. Im sure there are many people who disagree with your version just as there are people who disagree with mine.

I assume you disagree with women wearing bikinis in public? Would you then also support a law in a country which bans this even on beaches?

Everyone knows these are laws are only made due to Islamaphobia and to discriminate. There is no other sane or logical reason to ban items of clothing.
 
Moreover, the targeting of Muslim facial coverings without labeling it as such has led to some strange situations in Austria. With legislative elections only days away — in which the right-wing Freedom Party could gain as much as 25 percent of the vote — police appear to be enforcing the new law rather too stringently, interpreting the statute in somewhat extreme fashion.

“He was dressed as a stuffed animal and not as a terrorist,” said Jakob Kattner, an executive with the PR agency. Kattner said his company would not appeal the fine, acknowledging that the costume had violated the letter of the law.

Reflecting the confusion over the statute, however, police said Monday that the charges against the man would probably be dropped.

“This law does not apply to professionals who need to cover their faces due to their jobs,” said police spokesman Harald Sörös, who acknowledged certain shortcomings in the law. Several cyclists have erroneously been stopped for wearing scarves as protection against the cold, Sörös confirmed, but he added that none

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ists-who-wear-scarves/?utm_term=.2b774dace3b8

SHART.jpg

So the Austrians tried to define the the law so it wouldn't seem like discrimination which has caused people to be stopped by police. Now they realise their idiocy, so are making a u-turn to prove it is discrimination. Such a stupid country, thank fully no such ban take place in the UK.
 
Everyone knows these are laws are only made due to Islamaphobia and to discriminate. There is no other sane or logical reason to ban items of clothing.

If it is indeed due to Islamophobia - what does Austria stand to gain from such a stance in your opinion?
 
If it is indeed due to Islamophobia - what does Austria stand to gain from such a stance in your opinion?

Keep the fascists happy. Austria is on the brink of the far right getting very strong, this is one type of appeasement.
 
Back
Top