HEJAB

In theory, everything looks beautiful, but realtity is different

Once Marxism- leninist was ideal for many generations. An Euthopia without explotation,etc. The reality proved otherwise. Once stinky mullahs promised moon to the people of Iran, but we see the reality is different. Now, the viel doesn't go with Freedom. That is the fact and no way around it. It is degrading against women. France administration decision to ban cover for women is precisely admirable. They feel the growing of Arab ideology and they fight it before it gets out of hand, as it happened in Iran 32 years ago. If we reacted back then we wouldn't be in this mess these days. Our intelletuals were also decieved by these Islamic monsters. The idea of covering women belong to 1400 years ago and has no place in modern world.

Siavash

Dear R-B, Honestly I don't

It is not that I intend/insist of "not to get it", it is just that my rational does not allow me to, unless I would also agree and believe in dictating my way of life to another set of [adult] people is the right and just thing to do, which I don't.

So much has been discussed and seems to be going around and around…

Perhaps one more time

All the issues you have raised (security, identity etc) is not a goal of this law and this law does not address any of those issues as disguising one's face can be done in other ways and method that does not include wearing a Neghab. Likewise if that was the true sense of this law, it could have been addressed in such ways that does not limit one's ability to wear them.

Just entertain this idea for a sec, will you...

Don't you think putting this time and effort in educating the very small minority of people would have yielded better result without alienating some Muslim community and heel the rift? Isn't this law really to appease the hard core write then really to deal with such small group of folks who are not hurting any one by their action?

Sincerely

Mehrdad

P.S. You see, I thanked OnlyIran because I know how he opposes such hardcore Muslim and backward tradition, much as I do, but it is his principle of "freedom for all" even those who I oppose strongly that I appreciate very much.

Mehrdad jaan

This isn't merely an issue of freedom of choice.

As much as it offends my sense of rational behaviour/thought and basic common sense, I have no issue with people, voluntarily, covering their faces, if it were simply a question of respecting their personal freedom.

But it isn't!

This also raises problems of security, identity and also trying to function in any progressive society. Do you not get that?

Thank you OnlyIran

For exhibiting a true sense of "freedom for all" even though I know such way of clothing would not be your preferred choice, nor is mine. Yet if we truly believe in personal freedom, then we MUST honor it to those who we oppose their choice.

Mehrdad

Ali P

I happen to be a predominantly burkha wearing society at the moment. As a non-burkha wearing woman, I hardly get to deal with women, but the few times I have had a chance to speak to them, their response to my question about their choice to wear the bukha has been: "We feel much more comfortable in the bukha because we get to move around without being harrassed by men and being called names." My presonal observation moving about the city has been that here most men assume you either "sahaab nadaari" (i.e must be a prostitute) or must be a foreigner if you don't wear the burkha.

The following story might be much more telling. I was driving somewhere with a male colleague of mine a couple of weeks ago. His wife had a son eight months ago, so as we were driving in the car he pulled out his mobile phone to show me a picutre of a person in burkha holding his son. Looking at the picuter I asked," Is this your wife in burkha?" He grinned and said, "What do you think?", so I porbed further. "Is this your mohter?" With a larger grin he said, "What do you think?" I thought a bit and finally with a big surprise I said, "Is this YOU wearing the burkha??" He laughed and finally said, "Yes".

In disblief I asked him why he did that. He said, "I just wanted to see how it feels." I continued, "And?" He made a disgusted face and said, "Horrible!!" Then I said, why do you make your women wear it than. He said, "Because if my wife ventures outdoors without it, everybody is going to say I am bigherat and have no namoos. I can't have that."

What I would really want to see...

is a comment by someone who wears the neqab, and who could tell us if it is her choice, or if she is pressured, and what her take on this debate is.

Is the neqab-wearing population tech savvy enough to use the internet, and voice its opinion?

Come to think of it, I have met and interacted with thousands of people in my life, but hardly ever, have I- as pleasant of a conversationalist, as I am !- had a conversation with a neqab-wearing woman.

Why is that, you suppose?

Yours,

Ali P.

Black shroud is discriminatory, oppresive against women

French people are smart. They are dealing appropriately with the issue in a civilized manner and banned it before it gets out of hand. Intelligent nation. French see the sign of fundamentalism and they kill it before it grows to the point to hurt the nation. The idea that is the production of mind of lizard eater Arabs 1400 years ago in Arabian Peninsula. The idea that may be attractive to Afghans, Pakestani, or Arabs ,but not for Persian with a great civilazation and rich history. We should have done the same thing that french are doing long before these Islamic bastards took power in 1979. Iran progressed and modernized because Reza shah was firm with these monsters. The same things French authorities are doing right now. God bless Reza shah's soul.

Payandeh Iran

Let's drop a masque called burqa/niqab

If it walks like a taliban, talks like a taliban, it is a taliban.

The Saudi money reaches far.

PS. I've seen it at work in another country, it makes me sick.

You can not eat your cake and have it too

  These backward fanatical women who wear burqa and mask , insist on living in the western world because they can benefit form the fruits of modernity . On the other hand they refuse to break away from their mysaginistic ,oppressive outfits . They can not have it both ways . Why do they not go to live in Najaf , Ghom, Karbala , Sudan, Samereh, Yemen or Kabul where they can wear 50 yards of fabric on thir face and body . In such places they can breathe the freedom they so intensely seek . They can even use a mask for their mouth !

Another point of view

I , however, found the argument in the article that I have posted quite interesting.

It has a few good points in it as well ...

you can read the entire article here

Well-meant but flawed niqab law will hurt those it seeks to help 

If you go to an Arab and

If you go to an Arab and Muslim country they make sure you cover yourself. Well Islamists should obey other nations law and not cover they face and body!!

Mutual respect.

Onlyiran jaan

Being a member of a society involves more than just walking down the street. Sooner or later, people will inevitably have all kinds of interactions, relations and communications with other people in their daily lives.

Would you, for example, be happy to be treated by a doctor who is covered from head to toe and whose face you never see? Would you do a business deal with someone whose face you never see? Would you be happy for your children to be have a teacher whose face they (and you) never see and can never recognise? How would you be able to get legal recourse if, for example, you get into a dispute with someone walking down the street whose face is covered and they assault you and run away? How could you possibly hope to identify them?

My point is, when we choose to be members of a society, we can't live in an isolated goldfish bowl, with no interactions with fellow human beings, at the same time. Sooner or later what we do will, at some level, interfere (positively or negatively) with other people's lives. And when that happens people, at the very least, have a right to know what the person they are dealing, looks like.

Personal freedom means personal choices

and so long those choices do not interfere with other people's lives, and so long as they are made by free people without force or threat from anyone (including family members), people should be allowed to wear what they want.

If a person in France is walking down the street, minding her own business and is voluntarily wearing a "neqab" or a bikini, how is that any of my (or anyone else's) business?   

I agree Raoul1955!

On security grounds but not on religious grounds or as Sarkozy "explained" it for saving female dignity.

 For an Islamic democracy

Salman farsi

Read a blog by Azadeh Azad.  Her writings are thoughtful, thorough, and factual.  Here is one:
//iranian.com/main/blog/azadeh-azad/masks-niqabs-are-not-everyday-public-clothing
Read her posted responses as well.

What happened to Laicite Mr Sarkozy?

The new French ban on Niqab goes against one of France's most treasured principles since the French revolution: Laicite.

According to this principle religion must not interfere in the affairs of  government and the governmnet must not interfere in the affairs of religion. Furthermore, ALL religions must be treated equally.

The French law on Niqab violates both of the above rules. It is a direct interference in a religious tradition and besides it only applies to on relgion. In both cases the target is Islam.

If Hijab is restricted why not Tzniut?

 For an Islamic democracy

Afsaneh

You say:

freedom of Religion" is like saying: "Freedom to breathe air" - you can't put in IFs  and BUTs....

In other words, whatever the followers of a religion or even a variant of a religion (as you state) claim their religion requires them to do, they must do, even if they live in another country that has different laws. 

Now, Islam (or at least a large part its followers), believe in the amputation of limbs, e.g. hands to punish people accused of theft. Would you then advocate the Muslims that live in Western countries be allowed to carry out such this punishments if they have been victims of theft? Another example, Muslims are against any kind of idolatry, should they be allowed to go round destroying statues and other kinds of idols? I mean, like you say, NO IFs and BUTs.

And why not go all the way and let Muslims that live as minorities in other countries have their own Sharia Law altogether. And if this clashes with the state law, well, like you say, it's all about "their religious freedoms", they should be allowed to follow Sharia Law and break the host countries law in the process, because no IFs and BUTs, right?

(Never mind that many so called Islamic laws and fatwas etc are essentially arbitrary, made on the hoof according to the personal prejudices of various high ranking Mullahs and Imams). 

Afsaneh Jan

We can make a naked butt club as a religion in no time ......... then should it get the green light so we see all its old and new converts running around all day?

I am pretty sure Playboy club is  a religion to many of its followers with Hugh Hefne being the God ......  who gives authority here? what is that one is a religion the other is not?

Democracy is the right of individuals regardless of their religion ... Now all I am saying is that even the most democratic countries have rules and dress codes ....... wether we agree or not the citizens should follow it ........ I see nakedness as radical and fanatic as wearing neqab .... I actually am not for freedom .. I say both should be banned in public ........ But then you can always wear what you want by going to the playboy club  or to the Neqabee club ( depending on what your place of worship is called ) 

Now France may have some political agenda in mind as well ... May be they are trying to get veil off the women faces to have it put on their corrupt society and failed economy instead but that requires another blog by itself ....... In general My replies to begin with was to the author of this blog who brought a few points that I happen not to agree with  and i mentioned it in my earlier comment ....... 

Hafez

You write:
"Freedom of Religion" is like saying: "Freedom to breathe air" - you can't put in IFs  and BUTs.

Let's say Joe's religion requires that he cuts the throats of those who offend his deity, or depict his prophet in drawings.  Based on your logic then he should be allowed to do so. 

That "argument" is so

 oh lord, I'll turn into a potatoehead, but so perfect about cults and volume. Return of the Jeddi , I say!.

apples + oranges

Soosan Khanoum: This is about "Freedom of Religion" - that's why your Naked v. Neqab argument doesn't quite stand. Being Naked is not a religion. And I'm not an Islamic scholar - but the ones who choose to where a Neqab are doing it in the name of Religion. Most Religions have dozens of variants. My guess is Cyrus the Great didn't sit down and decipher which variants were OK and which variants were  not. "Freedom of Religion" is like saying: "Freedom to breathe air" - you can't put in IFs  and BUTs. You'd asked a question and I hope this answers it. If there are people whose religion requires them to walk nude, I think they should, too. But from my knowledge of things, such a Religion doesn't exist. So, the Nude vs. Neqab becomes Apples and Oranges - just different categories. 

Afsaneh

Mehrban

I would love to lecture him but he wouldn't listen.

 For an Islamic democracy

Soosan Khanoom

I have no problem with women (and men) walking around naked - it is their choice. The only thing is that you and I cannot control the society's reaction to what we may wear. We need to be able to wear what we wear free from the threat of violence by the members of the society in which we live and this is the job of the government to protect our freedom of choice. I condemn Sarkozy's words on the grounds of being hypocritical and fascistic. To suggest that banning of niqab is supposed to save women's dignity is the same as to suggest that all women in the middle east and African countries who were niqab,  are indignified masses. This is another example of the same fascist doctorine that used to tear up women's trousers under Pinochet in Chile or forced women to wear trousers in the Maoist China.

 For an Islamic democracy

...

  For an Islamic democracy

Pure Fiction

It sounds more like fiction...Anyway, I bet the black-bin-girl get lots of "haven't we met before?" pick up lines...:-)

Kidding aside, if I was your client, I'd have dropped you and had gone with another company (the one with a normal looking delegate) just for the sake of the reputation of my own business. 

Salman Farsi

There are rules to be followed by citizens of the land ..... 

Tell me why women should be allowed to walk in the street  with " Neqab "  while  in all major western countries who are Democracy advocates they are not allowed to walk topless or naked?  Can you explain this to me?

The laws either should be for all or for none when it comes to EXTREMISM ....... 

For more clarification please read my earlier comments.  Do not talk about freedom unless you say it is fine for you to have people walk around butt naked as well .....

and if you can not say that then you should not say this as well ..... otherwise you are an hypocrite 

Kari Ansari

You state: 'However, most Muslim women choose to wear the niqab of their own free will..'

I am assuming that you are basing this claim on a formal research.  Having stated that, I therefore request that you post the results of your [official] research on why most muslim women opt for wearing hijab, and how your research was conducted.  Did you actually travel to muslim nations and conducted your research face-to-face with the women?  How many muslim women did you interview?     And of course the more details on how you conducted your research the more acceptable your assertion that most muslim women opt for wearing hijab.

Thanks,

Salman Farsi

Go lecture the head of IR (pardeh Daar) who is raping the Iranian children.

Afsaneh is right and correct

She is right in saying that the greatest of Persian cultural and literay heritage is that if tolerance and she is also correct in saying that the great Cyrus empire was held togther out of respect for the "different" and not out of enforcing the "same" on others.

چو پرده دار به شمشیر میزند همه را    کسی مقیم  حریم حرم، نخواهد ماند

For an Islamic democracy

***

//iranian.com/main/blog/tapesh-401