Canada - no more veils allowed at swearing in ceremonies.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Exactly. What a most worst of it, some Muslim women have to burden many rules they said have been taken from Quran. One example, if you are not accept your husband to be polygamist, God will hate you. If Muslim women willing to accepted that, God will reward her sanctuary in Heaven. I am afraid these women do not know their rights and have been brainwashing then blind-sided by that. This is a real things happened in my country. I grew up in Muslim family and am very strong to against these stereotypes apply to women.

Frankly, all that stuff about polygyny is a bunch of #######. The Qur'an actually warns against taking more than one wife, but they conveniently leave that part out. I was married to a Christian man for almost 30 years, so you know I heard plenty about how I was going to hell, but there's also nothing in the Qur'an or the Sunnah preventing Muslimas from marriage with ahl al kitab. A lot of westerners think Muslim women are oppressed, and some are, just as some non-Muslim women are. A lot of us are pretty independent.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The citations and references to that piece are located at the bottom of the page. Like the poster Girl from Celebes pointed out, the Persians had the Niqab before anyone in that area.

Most historical accounts cite both, with Christian women taking it up in the Byzantine era. The cites in Wiki are all over the place, and really conclude nothing. A look at the discussion page for Wiki articles is always instructive, and it's best to look a bit farther down the list when searching to find something more specific than most of what's offered in Wikipedia.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This teenage gal from Morocco doesn't where head covering. She looks pretty liberal imo.

[Amby 490]

Primarily in Saudi and Iran, maybe Yemen, but it's been a while since I've been there. Although Saudi defines the "Muslim world" in the minds of many westerners, due to its deeply tribal culture and alliance with Wahabbism, it's a very unique place where not much is the same as in other Muslim countries.

As far as most countries go, hijab is a trend that comes and goes, like in Egypt, for example. They're going through a phase where hijab is not legislated, but expected. When political fervor is high, women, as the bearers of tradition, are expected to cover. I'm going there soon, btw. I was supposed to be away now, but we had a funeral yesterday I had to attend.

Do you think there's a difference between those countries requiring non-Muslim women to wear them, and a non-Muslim country requiring a Muslim woman to show her face? To me, the showing of the face for things like the swearing in or immigration type things is more of a safety concern than anything else. How are you to know it's the correct person if they don't show their face?

[BobnCherry 10]

Another victory for Canada! Good Job!

---------

http://worldnews.msn...ship-ceremonies

MONTREAL -- In a move likely to inflame Canada's Muslim community, the government said on Monday it would bar all women wearing face coverings from taking part in citizenship swearing-in ceremonies.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said he had received complaints from citizenship judges and parliamentarians about veiled women taking the oath to become Canadian.

"Requiring that all candidates show their faces while reciting the oath allows judges and everyone present to share in the ceremony," Kenney said in a speech in Montreal.

"The citizenship oath is a quintessentially public act. It is a public declaration that you are joining the Canadian family and it must be taken freely and openly."

Kenney said some citizenship judges were concerned that some Muslim women wearing face coverings were not actually reciting the oath.

"They told me last month that it's a fairly common problem. Every week, in every region of the country, we're dealing with situations where applicants arrive with a veil on," Kenney said, according to The Globe and Mail. "Frankly, I found it bizarre that the rules allowed people to take the oath with a veil on."

Kenney's announcement will affect women wearing the niqab -- a face veil with an eye opening -- as well as the burqa, which has a full face covering with a mesh area to allow vision.

The move might well trigger a court challenge from those who say the restriction violates freedom of religion provisions under Canada's constitution.

The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations said Kenney's move questioned the sincerity and good faith of some citizenship applicants and not others.

"This decision will have a damaging effect on our democracy because it forces those who wear the niqab to choose between their religious convictions and adopting Canadian citizenship," said Ihsaan Gardee, the council's acting executive director.

The most recent figures from Statistics Canada show that, in 2001, around 2 percent of the population was Muslim. Community leaders say the figure now is more like 3 percent of the country's 34.5 million people.

•Canada considers: Can rape accuser testify under veil?

The location of the announcement was not without symbolism. The French-speaking province of Quebec has had debates over how much Canada should bend to accommodate newcomers.

The provincial government said last year it planned to ban Muslim women from receiving all official services if they have their faces covered.

Earlier this year, a court in France fined two Muslim women for wearing full-face veils in public, the first time a judge had imposed punishment under a "burqa ban" law.

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of a Muslim woman who wanted to testify against her alleged rapists from behind her niqab. A decision has not yet been rendered.

:thumbs: :thumbs:

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't get this whole line of argument that because in, say, Saudi Arabia a woman must cover her hair/face that we should make sure that in the US a woman must not do so. Why would anyone want to compare the US to Saudi Arabia? We're not Saudi Arabia and as long as we keep the Evangelical nutjobs in check, chances are we never will be. Saudi Arabia certainly ain't but this here still is a free country, yes?

That said, for certain occasions, the face is going to have to see the light. Picture ID will require a picture of the actual face. And I do not think it's asked too much that the head cover comes off in public proceedings such as a swearing in ceremony. Or a court proceeding or anything that requires that a person identifies him- or herself.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I don't get this whole line of argument that because in, say, Saudi Arabia a woman must cover her hair/face that we should make sure that in the US a woman must not do so. Why would anyone want to compare the US to Saudi Arabia? We're not Saudi Arabia and as long as we keep the Evangelical nutjobs in check, chances are we never will be. Saudi Arabia certainly ain't but this here still is a free country, yes?

That said, for certain occasions, the face is going to have to see the light. Picture ID will require a picture of the actual face. And I do not think it's asked too much that the head cover comes off in public proceedings such as a swearing in ceremony. Or a court proceeding or anything that requires that a person identifies him- or herself.

I think that is the point of it. People see a face covering and see it as something that is a religious extreme.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do you think there's a difference between those countries requiring non-Muslim women to wear them, and a non-Muslim country requiring a Muslim woman to show her face? To me, the showing of the face for things like the swearing in or immigration type things is more of a safety concern than anything else. How are you to know it's the correct person if they don't show their face?

I stand by the Islamic command to obey the laws of the country where you live. If you have to show your face, you show your face. Nothing wrong with that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This teenage gal from Morocco doesn't where head covering. She looks pretty liberal imo.

She looks like a man with breast implants. And she is mad about something. Maybe we should require veils.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think that is the point of it. People see a face covering and see it as something that is a religious extreme.

So what? We've got plenty of religious nuts and extremes in this country. And they can have that nuttiness if it pleases them just as long as they leave the rest of the nation alone with it. The extreme and nutty Muslims are by far the smallest group among among the religious nuts. By far. Why target them exclusively?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So what? We've got plenty of religious nuts and extremes in this country. And they can have that nuttiness if it pleases them just as long as they leave the rest of the nation alone with it. The extreme and nutty Muslims are by far the smallest group among among the religious nuts. By far. Why target them exclusively?

Because they cover their face like KKK members. Lots of states also ban the wearing of face coverings at protests. You disagree?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because they cover their face like KKK members. Lots of states also ban the wearing of face coverings at protests. You disagree?

While I reject the comparison of a major religous group to a racist terrorist organization, I don't have a problem with laws prohibing face coverings in certain settings - namely those where one needs to identify oneself. I think I've made that clear earlier.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

While I reject the comparison of a major religous group to a racist terrorist organization, I don't have a problem with laws prohibing face coverings in certain settings - namely those where one needs to identify oneself. I think I've made that clear earlier.

Ya, I mean it's not like a dozen or more Mullah's have been deported from Europe for preaching extremist rhetoric, and it's not like anyone in Europe has been put on a Islamic hit list. We all were just born yesterday and everything in Western Europe is hunky dory with the Muslim situation there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ya, I mean it's not like a dozen or more Mullah's have been deported from Europe for preaching extremist rhetoric, and it's not like anyone in Europe has been put on a Islamic hit list. We all were just born yesterday and everything in Western Europe is hunky dory with the Muslim situation there.

Well, the KKK likes to label itself as Christian. Does that make all Christians racist terrorists? According to your argument, it does.

ETA: My family and friends in Europe are doing just fine. They don't have a Muslim situation they're worried about. Now, the neo-nazi situation in ole' German is a different story. Those are folks to be worried about.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

While I reject the comparison of a major religous group to a racist terrorist organization, I don't have a problem with laws prohibing face coverings in certain settings - namely those where one needs to identify oneself. I think I've made that clear earlier.

Just like Mormons had to give up plural marriages and stop discriminating against certain races and the Amish can't take their buggies out on federal highways - At some point when a religious practice runs up against society norms and rules something has to give. Right or wrong the practice is offensive to many in the western culture; If they cannot convince the community to change their views they need to conform or go someplace where it is accepted. Pretty simple.

Edited December 14, 2011 by OnMyWayID