Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Burkha Controversy - Now Sikhism watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the Kirpan be banned?
    Yes
    75
    50.00%
    No
    75
    50.00%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well let's weight this up. As far as I'm aware the Kirpan is compulsory for Sikh's where as the Burqa and Niqab are not compulsory in Islam. Also the only people who view the Kirpan as a functional weapon are... non-Sikh's. The guy that used it to stab someone in Canada acted against his religion. Using the Kirpan in malice or anger is strictly forbidden.

    Though I do understand the other side. As said earlier I guess an ideal would be to allow blunted Kirpans but let's put this into perspective instead of viewing at in a vacuum. I'm not aware of any Kirpan attacks in the UK, in fact I'm only aware of few in the world. That's pretty remarkable and adds weight to the notion that the Kirpan is merely a religious symbol. I mean more people are probably attacked with scissors or heavy books than Kirpans for crying out loud.

    What next? Are people going to be banned from carrying utility blades regardless of the context because they might "flip out in the heat of the moment"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if we are going to go about debating this issue, people actually need to research properly before they start to answer. The Kirpan is one of the most important parts of our religion for many reasons.

    The Kirpan is one of the 5k's, issued by the 10th Master of the Sikhs. The Kirpan was given to give ability to Sikhs to defend themselves against any oppression they may have, AND ALSO TO DEFEND OTHERS!! The Kirpan in 99.999% of cases has never been used to intiate an attack. In fact, there is lengthy criteria and justification which need to be achieved before a Sikh can bring out this 5k.

    People say if the Sikhs have this, then everyone else should. But Ive never heard Jesus or Mohammed give his followers such a religious command as carrying a sword, maybe I'm wrong?

    Should it be banned? No it should be not, and Sikhs will of course fight against this. Sikhs are hardly going to sit by whilst political people go against our 10th master. If any Sikh purposly wears a Kirpan to attack innocent people, he will meet his match in hell.

    Finally, the Kirpan has been a saviour of Sikhs. Sikhs are arguably the greatest warriors in the world's history. The Kirpan provided what little resistance was possible in the 1984 Genocide (yes anyone remember that). Why dont you people come to me an tell me why 250,000 people been killed, and not one person had been made to stand in court and answer the crimes. Then we shall debate the Kirpan issue (nothing to debate).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Well let's weight this up. As far as I'm aware the Kirpan is compulsory for Sikh's where as the Burqa and Niqab are not compulsory in Islam.
    The Burqa is compulsory.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Also the only people who view the Kirpan as a functional weapon are... non-Sikh's. The guy that used it to stab someone in Canada acted against his religion. Using the Kirpan in malice or anger is strictly forbidden.
    Blowing up innocents is strictly forbidden in Islam yet we see Muslims doing it. And Sikhs are also doing things which are against their religion. Do not think Sikhs are without their terrorism either. For example: An airline bombplot committed by Sikhs which killed more than 300 Canadians.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Though I do understand the other side. As said earlier I guess an ideal would be to allow blunted Kirpans but let's put this into perspective instead of viewing at in a vacuum. I'm not aware of any Kirpan attacks in the UK, in fact I'm only aware of few in the world. That's pretty remarkable and adds weight to the notion that the Kirpan is merely a religious symbol. I mean more people are probably attacked with scissors or heavy books than Kirpans for crying out loud.
    How many attacks have their been with ninja stars? This isn't the criteria for whether we ban an offensive weapon or not, as someone stated earlier.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    What next? Are people going to be banned from carrying utility blades regardless of the context because they might "flip out in the heat of the moment"?
    If those utility blades are for use at work then no. The law does not prohibit the use of utility blades IF you can prove they are being used for work. This is of course non-discriminative and logical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLeader)
    The Burqa is compulsory.
    Please provide several reliable sources. I'm fairly sure wearing of the Burqa is more cultural than religious. Perhpas you're thinking of the Hijab (even then I don't think it's compulsory). I don't think the Quran even suggests that women should be veiled but merely suggests that men and women dress "modestly" something which is open to interpretation. Either way it's a debated issue where as there is no debate surrounding the Kirpan for Sikhs.

    And just to clarify it's not a Burqa ban, it's a ban on concealing your face in public. Something which includes balaclavas, motorbike helmets etc.


    Blowing up innocents is strictly forbidden in Islam yet we see Muslims doing it. As we Sikhs doing things which are against their religion. Do not think Sikhs are without their terrorism either. For example: An airline bombplot committed by Sikhs which killed more than 300 Canadians.
    Are you really comparing Islamic (if you can call it that) terrorism to less than a handful of Kirpan attacks, none of which have proven fatal? The numbers speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it the bottom line is that there is no reason to be weary of the Kirpan, especially not in the UK.

    How many attacks have their been with ninja stars? This isn't the criteria for whether we ban an offensive weapon or not, as someone stated earlier.
    You'd have a point if a ninja star was a very important and compulsory item for more than 25 million people world wide. I said it's wrong to look at the Kirpan in such a black and white manner.

    If those utility blades are for use at work then no. The law does not prohibit the use of utility blades IF you can prove they are being used for work. This is of course non-discriminative and logical.
    What and you find banning the Kirpan to be non-discriminative and logical? What's logical about deeming an item as "offensive and dangerous" when nobody has been attacked by one in the UK, let alone killed? Is that not proof enough that the Kirpan is not used as a functional weapon?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLeader)
    The Burqa is compulsory.
    No it isn't, the Hijab is. Hence why the vast majority of muslim women wear the hijab
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    lol i love how people are very quick to dismiss this as a lesser security threat than the burkah.

    Don't get me wrong, i have nothing against sikhs, but the same people using certain arguments against the burkah suddenly 'forget' those points when talking about anyone who isn't muslim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Please provide several reliable sources. I'm fairly sure wearing of the Burqa is more cultural than religious. Perhpas you're thinking of the Hijab (even then I don't think it's compulsory). I don't think the Quran even suggests that women should be veiled but merely suggests that men and women dress "modestly" something which is open to interpretation. Either way it's a debated issue where as there is no debate surrounding the Kirpan for Sikhs.
    Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

    The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman. This is in addition to the shar’i evidence which states that it is obligatory to cover the face.
    For example, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)…”

    [al-Noor 24:31]

    Drawing the veil all over the juyoob implies covering the face.

    When Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) was asked about the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

    “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies”

    [al-Ahzaab 33:59] –

    he covered his face, leaving only one eye showing. This indicates that what was meant by the aayah was covering the face. This was the interpretation of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) of this aayah, as narrated from him by ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani when he asked him about it.
    (Collected by Ibn Abee Shaybah in al-Musannaf, Vol. 3, p. 540 & 541, hadith no. 16997 & 17012 and al-Bayhaqi in Sunan al- Kubraa. Al-Albaanee ruled in Jilbaab al-Mar'ah al-Muslimah, pp 59-60, that the isnaad of this statement is saheeh.)

    Tasfir

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Are you really comparing Islamic (if you can call it that) terrorism to less than a handful of Kirpan attacks, none of which have proven fatal? The numbers speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it the bottom line is that there is no reason to be weary of the Kirpan, especially not in the UK.
    No I was comparing the airline bomb attack which killed 3 hundred Canadians to terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. I was simply disproving your claim that we have nothing to fear from any Sikh because Sikhism forbids attacks. I was trying to break your perception (or at least that's how it appears) that all Sikhs are pacifist. I also don't think we should wait untill someone is attacked like Canada before we decide to act. Anyone regardless of religion is capable of attacking someone with a knife and especially considering Sikh children going to school are allowed them I am even more weary. People of that age cannot be trusted with a knife.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    You'd have a point if a ninja star was a very important and compulsory item for more than 25 million people world wide. I said it's wrong to look at the Kirpan in such a black and white manner.
    I was refuting your claim that it should not be allowed on the basis that there is only a few kirpan-related crimes committed in that specific comment of mine.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    What and you find banning the Kirpan to be non-discriminative and logical? What's logical about deeming an item as "offensive and dangerous" when nobody has been attacked by one in the UK, let alone killed? Is that not proof enough that the Kirpan is not used as a functional weapon?
    Yes non-discriminative, because right now I am not allowed to carry a dagger but Sikhs are. So it should be the same rule regardless of your religion.

    Of course it's a functional weapon, it's a knife for God's sake. Ask the guy with 12 centimetre wound in the news article.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Banning the carrying of a Kirpan on the premise that it might be used as a weapon is somewhat futile dont you think? Do you really think someone who is willing to attack someone with a knife anyway is going to give a **** whether it is legal or not to to carry them? Banning the carrying of any knives only affects the law abiding people, it does nothing to stop those who are inclined and determined to inflict violence.

    I should also point out that a lot of Pagans carry ceremonial daggers as a requirement of their religon. Also those who wear the full Scottish national dress carry a small dagger in their sock called a Sgian Dubh. Do you want to ban them too?

    **** nanny state hysteria.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What's next? Banning Scottish men from having daggers at weddings? This constant nannying is getting absurd. It should not be a crime until they stab someone with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Please provide several reliable sources. I'm fairly sure wearing of the Burqa is more cultural than religious. Perhpas you're thinking of the Hijab (even then I don't think it's compulsory). I don't think the Quran even suggests that women should be veiled but merely suggests that men and women dress "modestly" something which is open to interpretation. Either way it's a debated issue where as there is no debate surrounding the Kirpan for Sikhs.
    Women must cover their heads and both men and women must dress modestly. That's what Islam says. Any other addition is non-islamic.


    Are you really comparing Islamic (if you can call it that) terrorism to less than a handful of Kirpan attacks, none of which have proven fatal? The numbers speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it the bottom line is that there is no reason to be weary of the Kirpan, especially not in the UK.
    Do we really need to wait for someone to be killed by it to prove it? And how many people have been killed by a burkha?


    You'd have a point if a ninja star was a very important and compulsory item for more than 25 million people world wide. I said it's wrong to look at the Kirpan in such a black and white manner.
    Didn't seem to matter with the burkha ban


    What and you find banning the Kirpan to be non-discriminative and logical? What's logical about deeming an item as "offensive and dangerous" when nobody has been attacked by one in the UK, let alone killed? Is that not proof enough that the Kirpan is not used as a functional weapon?
    It is a dagger. I could convert to Sikhism and justify carrying a goddamned knife around.
    I'm not exactly for banning this. It is an important religious symbol, but is open for abuse. I have nothing against Sikhs, but a lot of the arguments used here are the exact same ones used AGAINST the burkha, which, as a muslim, annoys me greatly (even though it's not Islamic, a lot of Islamic women feel it is important to them, and it doesn't even hurt anyone... somehow a dagger is deemed less dangerous to society than a piece of cloth)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see any sikhs blowing up buses, trains, planes etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cesar Lecat)
    No it isn't, the Hijab is. Hence why the vast majority of muslim women wear the hijab
    It is in times of ''loose morals''.

    This post might help:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5&postcount=16
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by basketofsnakes)
    I don't see any sikhs blowing up buses, trains, planes etc
    Not actually relevant to the discussion but here you go: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...t-182-disaster
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    What's next? Banning Scottish men from having daggers at weddings? This constant nannying is getting absurd. It should not be a crime until they stab someone with it.
    A wedding is a private event; it is different from on the street or at school. Do you think everyone should be allowed a knife? Or are you just in favour of allowing Sikhs to carry a knife because of their religious observance?

    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Banning the carrying of a Kirpan on the premise that it might be used as a weapon is somewhat futile dont you think? Do you really think someone who is willing to attack someone with a knife anyway is going to give a **** whether it is legal or not to to carry them? Banning the carrying of any knives only affects the law abiding people, it does nothing to stop those who are inclined and determined to inflict violence.
    Outlawing the posession of knives in public without reasonable grounds deters people from carrying knives because they can be reprimanded when/if caught. This does prevent people willing to use knives from always taking them with them. Thus preventing the opportunity to use it. I know people who would like to carry them all the time just in case they bump into that guy they have been looking for but can't due to fear of being arrested if caught.

    There is also the issue about the subjectivity of self-defence. If someone is throwing punches is this enough to use your knife, or would it have to be defence against a weapon, if so which kind of weapon?

    Not to mention the fact that it can be taken off some weedy little Sikh (not implying they are all weedy btw) and be used on him or someone else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLeader)
    Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

    The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman. This is in addition to the shar’i evidence which states that it is obligatory to cover the face.
    For example, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)…”

    [al-Noor 24:31]

    Drawing the veil all over the juyoob implies covering the face.

    When Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) was asked about the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

    “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies”

    [al-Ahzaab 33:59] –

    he covered his face, leaving only one eye showing. This indicates that what was meant by the aayah was covering the face. This was the interpretation of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) of this aayah, as narrated from him by ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani when he asked him about it.
    (Collected by Ibn Abee Shaybah in al-Musannaf, Vol. 3, p. 540 & 541, hadith no. 16997 & 17012 and al-Bayhaqi in Sunan al- Kubraa. Al-Albaanee ruled in Jilbaab al-Mar'ah al-Muslimah, pp 59-60, that the isnaad of this statement is saheeh.)

    Tasfir
    That's about Hijab and whilst in Arabic it translates as "veil" or "yashmak" it also means screen, barrier, partition etc. Burqa is not mentioned once in the Quran and out of the 5 mentions of Hijab and 2 of Hijaban none of the mentions are regarding dress code in Islam.

    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...8P1357%29.html

    No I was comparing the airline bomb attack which killed 3 hundred Canadians to terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. I was simply disproving your claim that we have nothing to fear from any Sikh because Sikhism forbids attacks. I was trying to break your perception (or at least that's how it appears) that all Sikhs are pacifist. I also don't think we should wait untill someone is attacked like Canada before we decide to act.
    It's a useless comparison. It's not my perception that "because it goes against their religion it means they won't ever use it to attack", the point I was eluding to is that you have absolutely nothing to fear from Sikh's wearing Kirpan because this one attacker completely went against his religion. Stop ignoring the fact that out of 25+ million Sikhs world wide literally a handful have attacked another.

    You seriously can't expect a 100% record (although they almost have one) and say "NOPE, YOU'VE RUINED IT NOW" the moment a few people use it as a weapon. Since when have such minute cases equated to the need to completely outlaw something? Despite people proving they use their utility knives for work (the same way Sikhs have proven Kirpan is just a symbol) there are still occasional attacks, this does not mean utility knives should be outright banned.

    I also think you're blowing this way out of proportion, it's almost as if you believe it's inevitable before the Sikhs revolt and massacre us with their Kirpans... It's simply not rational to outright ban the Kirpan because the facts simply don't match up with your hysteria.

    I was refuting your claim that it should not be allowed on the basis that there is only a few kirpan-related crimes committed in that specific comment of mine.
    Yes and such refutation doesn't really work when you strip the Kirpan of its context, something which is important when discussing it.

    Yes non-discriminative, because right now I am not allowed to carry a dagger but Sikhs are. So it should be the same rule regardless of your religion.

    Of course it's a functional weapon, it's a knife for God's sake. Ask the guy with 12 centimetre wound in the news article.
    Do you know how petty that sounds? I can't carry a dagger so they shouldn't be allowed... Become a Sikh if it bothers you that much? Do you believe you should be allowed to carry a truncheon/pistol around with you because some police officers are allowed? Surely you'll point me to the context of these items (used for the job) whilst ignoring the context of the Kirpan.

    Also, I said "proof that is not USED as a functional weapon".

    There are plenty of ideas such as "fixed" Kirpans, blunted or downsized versions but outright banning them is nothing short of ridiculous when you consider the facts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    That's about Hijab and whilst in Arabic it translates as "veil" or "yashmak" it also means screen, barrier, partition etc. Burqa is not mentioned once in the Quran and out of the 5 mentions of Hijab and 2 of Hijaban none of the mentions are regarding dress code in Islam.

    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...8P1357%29.html
    The Niqaab is part of Islaam. Until recent modernist and heretical opinions (which are invalid) began to appear, the niqaab was considered to be either compulsory or a recommened and rewardable act.

    There is absolute agreement on this. The views of modernists makes no difference to an issue, when the ruling was clear with the first threee generations of muslim.

    In fact, every single madhab was in agreement that in times of bad conduct between the opposite sexes, the niqaab becomes compulsory.

    The ruling upon the niqaab is clear from the Qur'aan, as understood by the Prophet's(saws) companions. And who knew the Qur'aan better than them, when they were taught by the prophet himself! Furthermore, the hadiths make its importance clear. Finally, all the prophet's wives and the female companions wore a face veil.

    Who cares about a modernist opinion, when the ruling was patently obvious to the Sahaba.

    There are enough proofs in the following articles to make it clear that the niqaab is part of Islaam, and not a cultural item. Anybody who wishes to argue that it is a cultural item, should note that they are not speaking on behalf of Islaam, but their own personal opinion.

    Niqab According to Quran and Sunnah

    When is the Niqaab necessary?
    The Niqaab in light of the Holy Quran and Sahih Hadith and in the Opinions of the great scholars....
    Its Islamic Ruling and Controversy in the Western world


    (Original post by thisisnew)
    There are plenty of ideas such as "fixed" Kirpans, blunted or downsized versions but outright banning them is nothing short of ridiculous when you consider the facts.
    Obviously a blunt or downsized version should not be banned. This wouldn't be against the Law if you was non-Sikh either. However it then wouldn't match the criteria of being able to use it in self defence and therefore be illegitmate to a Sikh man. It would be like telling a niqabi you can't wear the veil but here have some sunglasses - they are more suitable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qasman)
    I'm not exactly for banning this. It is an important religious symbol, but is open for abuse. I have nothing against Sikhs, but a lot of the arguments used here are the exact same ones used AGAINST the burkha, which, as a muslim, annoys me greatly (even though it's not Islamic, a lot of Islamic women feel it is important to them, and it doesn't even hurt anyone... somehow a dagger is deemed less dangerous to society than a piece of cloth)
    In response to your points:

    "Do we really need to wait for someone to be killed by it to prove it? And how many people have been killed by a burkha?"

    To prove what? We know it can be used as a dangerous weapon, the same way a pair of scissors or a beer glass can be. In fact I dare say less people have been attacked in the world by Kirpans than people attacked in Newcastle by being glassed. These very, very isolated cases are not means for outright banning the entire thing.

    First of all it's not a burqa ban, it's a ban on concealing your face. Asking how many people have been killed by a burqa is about as stupid and irrelevant as asking how many people have been killed by a balaclava.

    Didn't seem to matter with the burkha ban

    That's because it's not compulsory nor is it a major aspect of the religion unlike the Kirpan. In fact I saw numbers somewhere which suggested like 350 women would be affected by the ban in France... When we're talking about the Kirpan we're talking about the religion and it's followers in their entirety not a minute amount of people following a culturally influenced practice devoid of any religious compulsion.

    It is a dagger. I could convert to Sikhism and justify carrying a goddamned knife around.

    Yes, and you could become an armed police officer and justify carrying a submachine gun around. You could become a police officer and justify carrying a truncheon (something otherwise illegal to carry). You could become a tradesman and justify carrying around a carving knife and so on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sikh's > YOU



    lol im only kidding....

    but to be honest, the sikh community is probably the most loved (maybe love is a strong word, accepted maybe? lets be honest, there's alot of white bigots out there!) out of all the asian communitys, probably why there hasn't been frequent debates...

    those pesky muslims on the other hand....



    lol im joking, islam, sikh woteva, innocent until prven guilty, we shoudn't assume every sikh person is a stabber or every muslim is a terrorist!

    That's like assuming every white person is a peadophile!

    All races have negative steretypes about them, It's just that these stereotypes are usually aimed at minorites, so people tend to "ignore" that the same sterotypical nonsense could also defame whites....a double standard...

    Does this mean a Christian can no longer wear a crusifix because he may poke your eye out? Or no religous necklace, because he could choke someone out with it?

    Ofcourse not, whites don't randomly attack people like asians do! We just lock our own daughters up in basements and fornicate with them until they have our incestual babies.....


    EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED SUBJECTIVLEY. Im sure only a minority (if that) of sikhs would use it as a weapon.

    I suppose we should stop mechanics from carrying spanners or screwdriveers with them? incase they stab someone?

    A Kirpan is a sikh's tool, the same way a screwdriver is a mechanics tool.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.B.G)

    Pictured above is a Kirpan (dagger)
    I don't care whether they should be banned or not but that short sword looks like modern crap made by someone who just wanted something to look 'cool', perhaps among the D&D crowd. Certainly not a proper weapon.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do you guys honestly think nobody was ever killed or seriously injured in the UK by a Sikh with a Sikh sword? What planet are you on?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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

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