Niqab wearer asked to leave restaurant in Germany

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Typical Australian Muslims telling the French how to behave.

    If they were so concerned over women's rights to dress as they please she would have gone to a Muslim country and protested there

    But as we know this is about making people accept Islamic norms not human rights.

    So glad they gave her short shrift.
    'i wanted to go over and support muslims'
    *goes to a beach and gets heckled*
    'but I didn't want to cause any trouble or make a big scene'
    *speaks to international media*

    If she wanted to support them she could have volunteered in the local community. This is just laughable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    'i wanted to go over and support muslims'
    *goes to a beach and gets heckled*
    'but I didn't want to cause any trouble or make a big scene'
    *speaks to international media*

    If she wanted to support them she could have volunteered in the local community. This is just laughable.
    Quite

    also carrying a sign saying 'look at me' is hardly modest.

    but their attention seeking has been shown for what it is (but she'll still play the victim card regardless)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37373324

    After the clashes in Bautzen yet another story. Will never end.
    Good.

    Completely covering your face in public is not even remotely socially acceptable as it provides a level of anonymity which is potentially dangerous as it allows the person to act however they please with zero accountability.

    The excuse of "it's my religion" is completely unacceptable too. If it is part of your religion then great, but your religion is not the religion of the country in which you are living and if you are not able to comply with the accepted standards of the country in which you have chosen to live then you should leave that country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MiszShortee786)
    Its up to the individual.... they want to practice their faith leave them... Nuns have the same dress code as us fellow Muslims dont see them getting discriminated? Personally I love wearing the Niqaab as it strengthens my faith! its all about pleasing Allah at the end of the day.
    Nuns do not have the same dress code. Sure they wear veils but they don't insist on hiding everything except their eyes.

    At the end of the day covering your face fully in public is not acceptable according to the standards of the civilisation in which you choose to live, according to the standards of the religion of the country in which you choose to live, and if you can't abide by the accepted standards of this country then you should move to somewhere where your choices are compatible with those of the country as a whole.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So you think that a Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife as a punishment. But because you don't really like the idea of it, you search out modern interpretations that limit the severity of the beating - in this case, like a "feather", despite there being no mention of this in the Quran of sunnah. The Quran simply says "beat/hit/strike" using a form of "waidribu" that is also used in 8:12 where it is used to describe striking enemies in battle. Do you really think that Allah instructed Muhammad's soldiers to strike their enemies "like a feather"?
    No, neither do I.
    The references in the sunnah say that the beating must not be "too severe", must not cause injury/break bones/leave wounds, and should avoid the face. Not quite "like a feather".
    Finally, in context of the use of violence, as the Quran prescribes amputation for theft and flogging for sex outside marriage, a bit of a slapping about for being a disobedient wife does not really seem out of place, does it?

    Not sure what you mean here. I have read the Quran, parts of the sunnah, classical tafsir, biographies of Muhammad and academic histories of Islam (it is a bit of a hobby of mine). I would suggest that I have more knowledge of the "Islamic perspective" than many Muslims. If what you mean is that I can't understand it unless I am a Muslim, I would say *******s! It is you who are displaying bias and a lack or willingness to look at it from other perspectives.

    I always find it ironic when people who are indoctrinated into an ideology that claims that the answer to everything is to be found in a 1400 year old book, accuse people who require some kind of evidence before accepting extraordinary claims are "biased" or "close-minded".

    Tell me this... do you accept that Allah might not exist and Islam might all just made up by 7th century Arabs?

    Finally, I don't blame you for giving up this discussion. To be fair, most apologists using such clearly falacious, muddled and contradictory arguments give up a long time before you have. And (IIRC) you haven't called me a bigot or ignorant. Well done!
    the whole time you were equating islam to a fascist violent ideology, like Nazism. You still don't understand different perspectives of islam is subject to many interpretations and opinion, using evidence from Quran and Sunnah. You don't seem to understand the difference between a person with a swastika or niqab. A swastika has a history of racist violence. The niqab is worn by non extremist muslim women and extreme women. Therefore it is not belonging and originating in evil. You simply don't understand what indoctrination is. If you apply your term of indoctrination everywhere practically everyone would be indoctrinated with everything. Islam is not propaganda, it is a way of life, a religion. If a child is brought up believing in freedom, peace etc it is not indoctrination. There is a difference between growing up with influences and indoctrination. A person is able to understand and think for themselves.

    Finally, no matter what you think about Islam, it will never die. And I whole heartedly believe Allah exists and I am a Muslim, and thankfully so. I believe in Islam because I have seen the evidence, I can read the Quran, and I believe in the religion. Of course I do not believe the Quran was man made, but revelations sent down by Allah. You are an atheist or whatever, you cant force others to be one. I'm ending this conversation because clearly you don't know anything about islam but the violent ideology isis is using by simply cherry picking, and not studying the Quran and hadith as a whole. Therefore this conversation is useless. Goodbye.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Surely going to a place that serves alcohol is proof that they aren't a 'true' Muslim after all that is what they say to defend Islam when someone commits acts of terror for the religion.
    Some Muslims don't believe drinking alcohol is wrong. There is a long history of Islamic communities producing and consuming alcoholic drinks. Some believe that drinking is OK in moderation.

    Many more believe drinking alcohol is wrong, but aren't particularly concerned about being around other people who are not Muslims doing it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is discriminatory on the basis of faith and/or ethnicity. Most of the analogies used to justify this are miles off target: wearing a niqab is not the same as other sorts of face-coverings: people who wear them have deeply held beliefs that lead them to do so. There's no reason that it should present any problems whatsoever in going into a bar, restaurant or wherever.

    However I also entirely believe it should be for the business owner to set the rules of his establishment. If he wants to discriminate on faith, race or culture, that's really his call. I don't see any particularly good reason why it should be otherwise.

    In short, **** 'em all - I don't care.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    At the end of the day covering your face fully in public is not acceptable according to the standards of the civilisation in which you choose to live, according to the standards of the religion of the country in which you choose to live, and if you can't abide by the accepted standards of this country then you should move to somewhere where your choices are compatible with those of the country as a whole.
    I don't think there's anything in the "standards" of this civilisation that suggests we should take any great interest in what people choose to wear. It's really utterly irrelevant to me what people choose to cover themselves with. When people do obsess over this, however, I usually suspect some sort of unspoken motive: chiefly racial or sectarian hate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't think there's anything in the "standards" of this civilisation that suggests we should take any great interest in what people choose to wear. It's really utterly irrelevant to me what people choose to cover themselves with. When people do obsess over this, however, I usually suspect some sort of unspoken motive: chiefly racial or sectarian hate.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    If you don't think that we have certain standards that are expected of people, whether consciously or subconsciously, then try it out. Buy yourself a balaclava and go about a full day in public while wearing it. See how long it takes before a shop owner tells you to remove it, or the police confront you about it and tell you to remove it.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous9753)
    the whole time you were equating islam to a fascist violent ideology, like Nazism. You still don't understand different perspectives of islam is subject to many interpretations and opinion, using evidence from Quran and Sunnah. You don't seem to understand the difference between a person with a swastika or niqab. A swastika has a history of racist violence. The niqab is worn by non extremist muslim women and extreme women. Therefore it is not belonging and originating in evil. You simply don't understand what indoctrination is. If you apply your term of indoctrination everywhere practically everyone would be indoctrinated with everything. Islam is not propaganda, it is a way of life, a religion. If a child is brought up believing in freedom, peace etc it is not indoctrination. There is a difference between growing up with influences and indoctrination. A person is able to understand and think for themselves.

    Finally, no matter what you think about Islam, it will never die. And I whole heartedly believe Allah exists and I am a Muslim, and thankfully so. I believe in Islam because I have seen the evidence, I can read the Quran, and I believe in the religion. Of course I do not believe the Quran was man made, but revelations sent down by Allah. You are an atheist or whatever, you cant force others to be one. I'm ending this conversation because clearly you don't know anything about islam but the violent ideology isis is using by simply cherry picking, and not studying the Quran and hadith as a whole. Therefore this conversation is useless. Goodbye.
    If that was really to be your last post, surely it would have been better to respond to my actual points, rather than going off on a tangent of non squiturs.

    I didn't equate Islam to Nazism, I simply used the swastika as an analogy for a piece of clothing that elicits a negative response from some people. Clearly, you insisit that the niqab/burqa never does this, or that if it does, then those people are somehow delusional. You take the all-too-common position of assuming that restrictions that apply to others need not apply to your own group. The swastika did not "originate and belong in evil". It was originally an ancient Indian religious symbol and has been in almost constant use by different cultures since then. The connection to fascist extremism is only a modern minority - much as you claim the niqab/burqa to be.

    You go on to demonstrate that you do not understand what "indoctrination" is, and you would probably insist that a child born into a Muslim family and taught from the earliest age, and reinforced by family and community, that Allah exists, Islam is true, jahannam is real, and Muhammad was the best of all people, was not "indoctrinated" but merely had "influences (this is most likely your own situation - which is why you so vehemently deny the concept of childhood indoctrination, because to accept it would mean accepting that you were indoctrinated yourself.
    In reality, such people do have difficulty in thinking for themselves in matters of doctrine - which is why Muslims are constantly going on about deferring all judgement on Islam to "scholars", and claiming that one cannot work it out for yourself by simply reading it with a critical objectivity. No, we can only listen to career Muslims who have a vested interest in keeping the faithful faithful!

    So you do not accept that Allah might not be real, or that it might all be made up - but you would accuse me of being close-minded, despite being happy to change my position if the evidence suggested it. I don't even totally dismiss the existence of some sort of deity, just not the gods of the major religions, which have been shown to be false by the errors, contradictions and imperfections in their revelations.

    Unlike yourself, I am well aware of the true nature of Islam, precisely because I am able to look beyond the cherry-picked, sanitised version that you have been spoon fed by parents, imams and scholars. I appreciate that it is not all violence, oppression and intolerance. But I also appreciate that much of it is, and that when you actually study the passages in context, much of the more acceptable stuff only applies to those who submit to Islam.

    You can test it if you like. Quote any "nice" passage and I reckon there's a good chance that it will be conditional on some kind of act of submission. Go on. Give it a go! Prove the ignorant kuffar wrong.
    What have you got to lose?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think this is discriminatory on the basis of faith and/or ethnicity. Most of the analogies used to justify this are miles off target: wearing a niqab is not the same as other sorts of face-coverings: people who wear them have deeply held beliefs that lead them to do so.
    Two issues here:
    1. We are regularly told that they are not religious requirements and are just items of clothing that some Muslimahs choose to wear.
    2. Why should the niqab be considered more valid than any other face covering, especially if they mean a great deal to the wearer? The Klansman's hood, the fetishist's rubber mask, the anti-globalism protestor's Vendetta mask, the motorcyclist who doesn't want to have to spent 5 minutes redoing all his wind and waterproofing every time ho goes into a garage/bank/shop in winter etc (I speak from personal experience on this one). To their wearers, they can mean just as much as the niqab, if not more.

    They must all be treated equally. No exceptions.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Two issues here:
    1. We are regularly told that they are not religious requirements and are just items of clothing that some Muslimahs choose to wear.
    Some Muslims see it as part of their religion of course, fulfilling the requirement of modesty. It's far from black and white.

    2. Why should the niqab be considered more valid than any other face covering, especially if they mean a great deal to the wearer? The Klansman's hood, the fetishist's rubber mask, the anti-globalism protestor's Vendetta mask, the motorcyclist who doesn't want to have to spent 5 minutes redoing all his wind and waterproofing every time ho goes into a garage/bank/shop in winter etc (I speak from personal experience on this one). To their wearers, they can mean just as much as the niqab, if not more.
    I don't believe any of those things have quite as great a significance as the niqab to the wearer. As for the hoods favoured by KKK members, that's something to be outright condemned and I could completely understand someone kicking such a person out of their establishment.

    Motorcyclists removing their helmets is again what I was meaning by the false analogy. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but it's a far way from the strength of feeling a person has about facial veils. Ideally one would not ask anyone to remove such things, but in - say - a bank - I can understand that security may outweigh that requirement.

    They must all be treated equally. No exceptions.
    Why?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    I couldn't disagree more.

    If you don't think that we have certain standards that are expected of people, whether consciously or subconsciously, then try it out. Buy yourself a balaclava and go about a full day in public while wearing it. See how long it takes before a shop owner tells you to remove it, or the police confront you about it and tell you to remove it.
    That's because there's very few obvious reasons for wearing a balaclava in the street on a September day. That naturally arouses suspicion. There's no real doubt about why a woman wearing a veil is doing so.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Some Muslims see it as part of their religion of course, fulfilling the requirement of modesty. It's far from black and white.



    I don't believe any of those things have quite as great a significance as the niqab to the wearer. As for the hoods favoured by KKK members, that's something to be outright condemned and I could completely understand someone kicking such a person out of their establishment.

    Motorcyclists removing their helmets is again what I was meaning by the false analogy. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but it's a far way from the strength of feeling a person has about facial veils. Ideally one would not ask anyone to remove such things, but in - say - a bank - I can understand that security may outweigh that requirement.

    Why?
    So essentially, you think that what some people think about their stuff is more important than what other people think about their stuff.

    Who are you to say that the fetishist's special things don't mean as much to them as the religionist's things do to the religionist?
    And why should one symbol of membership of a violent cult be allowed while the symbol of another is just fine.
    Muslims don't have to wear a veil but you think they should always be allowed to keep it on, whereas motorcycle helmets are compulsory by law but we have to remove them.
    Just don't make no sense!

    Either all face coverings are fine, or none are.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's because there's very few obvious reasons for wearing a balaclava in the street on a September day. That naturally arouses suspicion. There's no real doubt about why a woman wearing a veil is doing so.
    I regularly feel the need to wear a balaclava - when it is cold, when it is sunny, when someone has drawn a nob on my face while I was incapable drunk, the list goes on.
    Why should I have to face the unjustified suspicion of The Man while all those niqabbis go flouncing past unimpeded, giving it the big "I am" with their sultry eyes and barely concealed forms? Tempting me. Daring me to imagine what lies beneath...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's because there's very few obvious reasons for wearing a balaclava in the street on a September day. That naturally arouses suspicion. There's no real doubt about why a woman wearing a veil is doing so.
    But how do you know it's a woman underneath that Niqab? How do you know it's not somebody with bad intentions, somebody who is trying to hide their identity?

    Now I know what you're going to say, you're going to say that I'm being ridiculous because it's incredibly rare that anybody who is wearing a Niqab is doing so for the purposes of hiding their identity because it's incredibly rare that anybody wearing a Niqab is planning on doing something bad. To which I reply, it's incredibly rare that somebody who pulls up to a petrol station on a motorbike is planning on doing something for which they would want to hide their identity but that doesn't change the fact that most petrol stations will require a biker to remove their helmet before they will be served.

    At the end of the day the Niqab is not a garment that is required by Islam, it is purely optional, and it is simply not compatible with our culture and as such should not be worn publicly in this country. If you want to wear it privately then that's fine but in the same way that it would be unacceptable for a non-muslim in this country to walk around in public with their face hidden it is also unacceptable for a muslim to walk around in public with their face hidden.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I regularly feel the need to wear a balaclava - when it is cold, when it is sunny, when someone has drawn a nob on my face while I was incapable drunk, the list goes on.
    Why should I have to face the unjustified suspicion of The Man while all those niqabbis go flouncing past unimpeded, giving it the big "I am" with their sultry eyes and barely concealed forms? Tempting me. Daring me to imagine what lies beneath...
    I know, I mean how dare he say that I don't have a good reason to wear my balaclava in public. I find it highly offensive that he thinks I should have to show my face. I am disgusted that he's expecting me to justify my reasons for wearing a balaclava.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    But how do you know it's a woman underneath that Niqab? How do you know it's not somebody with bad intentions, somebody who is trying to hide their identity?

    Now I know what you're going to say, you're going to say that I'm being ridiculous because it's incredibly rare that anybody who is wearing a Niqab is doing so for the purposes of hiding their identity because it's incredibly rare that anybody wearing a Niqab is planning on doing something bad. To which I reply, it's incredibly rare that somebody who pulls up to a petrol station on a motorbike is planning on doing something for which they would want to hide their identity but that doesn't change the fact that most petrol stations will require a biker to remove their helmet before they will be served.
    You're right, it is ridiculous. The analogy is ridiculous too: removing a helmet is a minor inconvenience, it does not compare to violating a deeply held view.

    At the end of the day the Niqab is not a garment that is required by Islam
    Not black and white, as I said. Modesty is required by Islam, and some people's understanding of modesty leads them to believe that it is satisfied by wearing the hijab, the niqab or whatever else.

    it is simply not compatible with our culture and as such should not be worn publicly in this country.
    Great, once you ban baseball caps, Indian curry houses, pizzas in the supermarket and chilled lager in pubs, perhaps we can get around to the cultural witchhunt on headscarves.

    Do you perhaps now see why I tend to ascribe xenophobic intentions to people who go around pretending wearing the niqab is the same as wearing a motorcycle helmet in a bank? Let's just be clear here: I think we come from a very different starting point, and I believe yours is thoroughly unacceptable in a civilised society.

    If you want to wear it privately then that's fine but in the same way that it would be unacceptable for a non-muslim in this country to walk around in public with their face hidden
    It's not unacceptable. Note that the police don't tend to wrestle brides to the ground for wearing veils.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So essentially, you think that what some people think about their stuff is more important than what other people think about their stuff.
    Yep, of course.

    Who are you to say that the fetishist's special things don't mean as much to them as the religionist's things do to the religionist?
    A reasonable person who can differentiate between reality and daft thought-experiment *******s?

    And why should one symbol of membership of a violent cult be allowed while the symbol of another is just fine.
    And I think we'll leave it there...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve - Quran 8:55

    Not familiar with the contents of the Quran then?
    it doesn't say animals, it says 'dawab' which means living creatures!

    https://quran.com/8/55
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 25, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.