aidan

Belgium has followed France and outlawed tthe birka.Does this advocate for women or does it deny freedom of expression?

arthra

This really isn't a Baha'i issue .. but anyway we do know that Baha'i women when by themselves and away from the constraints of a Muslim society would not wear a veil.. It's more an issue in Europe where there are say a large number of Muslim women..

ohhcuppycakee

Basically France is trying to liberate women by taking away their rights.

ohhcuppycakee

Maybe not a Baha'i issue, but an issue for all. Should the government be telling women what they can and cannot wear? Forcing a woman to uncover is just as bad as forcing her to cover. France condemns forced covering of women in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia but forces women to uncover?

Essence of GOD

i still don't understand why women are not allowed to show their hair in Islam.
its not about personal rights, its about oneness in a united society. i think.

Sboyce

It's only a law in some branches and seems more of a choosing such as hasidic Jew and Pentecostal dress 'laws' to be modest and to not cause lust.

Sboyce

Also it may have been necessary at a time when from what I've read Arabia was rampant with rape and slave trading.

We are supposed to obey governments and not speak of politics so let's not

Fadl

This one of those cases of the wrong thing for the right reason. Many women wear hijabs or burkas against their will, or in conformity to their societal norms, but others do it either willfully out of religious conviction, and others still do it to make a political statement. Naturally, all these different factors interact with each other, and each person is different.

There are legitimate security issues that arise over not being able to identify a person’s face, and veiling the face is not really Islamic, but cultural, so I am not as sympathetic over this issue. However, covering the hair is an Islamic law, and, while it may also be worn as a sort of political statement too, it is certainly not a security threat. Considering all these, I think any law that prohibits a woman from wearing a hijab or scarf to cover their hair is the wrong thing to do in a free society because freedom of religion and expression (such as making political statements) are highly valued and important. When a government bans such things, all that results is politicizing the issue and stirring up feelings of persecution which will only lead to protest and result. If the matter were ignored, it would lose its political power and gradually fade away.

I personally do not care for the practice of veiling and believe it can be abused and find it a symbol of oppression, and it is difficult for a Baha'i, remembering the commotion caused by Tahirih unveiling herself, and how a veil was the instrument of her murder; However, I hate the idea of government telling people that they can't wear certain fabric on their head, and the thought of such an intrusion bugs me a lot more than the negative symbol (my opinion) being allowed.

aidan

Moses,Jesus,Mohammed(peace be upon Him)The Bab and Baha'u'llah were the most radical politicians of their age and still are in this age.It is impossible to be a believer and remain apolitical.However,party politics is undesired

Eftekhar Be Khoda

It should be their choice. I can understand the impulse -- the idea that a woman's body is not her own must be opposed. But at the same time, I don't see how banning the tool prevents the oppression.

I suspect that there is also some anti-islamic sentiment involved as well -- they don't want muslims to feel equal.

aidan

I dont think there is any anti-islamic element here.No western governmen would risk doing something that is anti-islamic

Eftekhar Be Khoda

Well, I respectfully disagree. There are elements of European society that do not like Islam in the least and see it as anti-european. There have been votes on banning the minaret and banning veils in Europe. There are neo-naziist movements in Europe. I don't think it's nearly as bad as America where we see no problem with saying that the Qu'ran should be used as toilet paper, but there are anti-islamic elements of European culture, and I don't think you can ignore that possibility especially in cases where the result of the law is something that targets only one faith for discrimination.

A fair law would target all similar things whether religious or not. They would be fair had they said "no hats" or if in the case of the Minerets (I believe the vote was in either Belgium or Switzerland) the fair law would limit the height of towers or noise level or something else. The fact is that this law is aimed ONLY at muslims. If a Christian were to take Paul literally and have Christian women cover their hair, I don't think this would be nearly so controversial.

LordOfGoblins

I think the anti-Islamic sentiments are more in the minds of people than their actions. Although without a doubt some people act it out. All of this comes from ignorance. If people see Muslims behaving badly they identify it with Islam. The true Islam is not like how it is today though, remember, that is why Baha'u'llah was persecuted in the first place. Yes it is important to love all religions but they also have their expirey date.

Eftekhar Be Khoda

I think that's true, but even if Islam has fallen, it's simply wrong to make one religion a pariah. That's what sticks in my craw on this -- people are treating Islam as if it's something inherently evil and something that shouldn't be allowed outside the home or the mosque. And such ideas used to be common about other groups, especially the Jews, and it never ended well for the Jews. I think we need to be very aware of the growing anti-Islamic sentiment where it exists.

kavaliro

I don't see a problem with the ban. It is no different than requiring women to cover their breasts, except that it steps in the opposite direction in terms of modesty. A nudist will tell you that being forced to wear clothing infringes upon their freedom. A Muslim would tell you that being forced not to wear a burqa does the same. Society as a whole says that nudism is offensive because in most minds it equates to promiscuity. Therefore it is not permitted. French society as a whole has determined that the burqa is offensive because in most minds it equates to the oppression of women. Therefore the burqa is not permitted. These two issues are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but in truth the same issue: does society have the right to dictate a dress code? I believe it does have that right, when it comes to extremes like nudism and burqas, because regulating these things is necessary to prevent outrage and disruption. The ban on burqas may not last forever, but it has been deemed necessary for now.