Islamic dress vs the rest of the world

[i-need-a-martini]

How come the burka/niqab is a security risk but the abaya is not? 

How is the burka/niqab oppressive to women but the abaya and the hijab is not?

How is the burka/niqab oppressive to women but the sari is not?

How come the burka/niqab is oppressive to women but the shetel/tishel of jewish women is not?

How come the burka/niqab is oppressive to women but the way Nikki Minaj dressed and behaved in Anaconda is not?

Is a sikhs kacchera and turban oppressive to Indian men? If not why would they wear it?

[the_great_she_elephant]

  

[the_great_she_elephant]

[the_great_she_elephant]

[muppet_detector]

---

@karliandjacko wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

No? Because you don't have to? Choose not to? We've moved on?

Time Australiam muslim women did too.

---

Why do we have to bully them into change though? What's wrong with dialogue instead of demonising women who are most likely recent arrivals that don't feel confident and comfortable in their new environment?

---

That's a good point. I never considered that.

Expanding the discussion, not dismissing the point.

Is there an argument that one bad apple spoils it for everyone? In our society, it usually only takes a few isolated incidences for something to occur before there is a crack down and a rule or law is placed on everyone to abide by.

I am thinking here of the case where a lady with her face covered was stopped by police, later made a complaint about the police behaviour which was then proven to be false, but the sentence handed down was overturned because the identity of the person could not be verified.

There are other incidences where the clothing has been used to mask identity overseas, so could this all be as a response that even though the majority do nothing wrong, because a few do, then the rules/law apply to everyone?

Perhaps if it was known before a person's arrival that a particular code of dress was required, then those choosing to come here could decide if they would feel comfortable in that situation. Other countries tell you how to dress or what dress code is expected of you before you go there, so if you don't agree with it, you can choose to go somewhere that does suit you.

I think we are focused on what is a small minority already here, but undoubtedly, we will see more arrivals in the future.

Every time we get a new law or rule (or eBay policy for that matter) some feel they have been "bullied" into a change that they don't like. They still have to either adapt to those changes or go to somewhere where they are not affected by them.

Most places, whether they be the local RSL, a place of employment, a leisure venue or an entire country have a code of conduct - a set of expectations that must be adhered to if you choose to accept what else they offer. Why is this any different?

Could it be as simple as "this is how it is, if you don't like it, don't come"?

[azureline**]

If you don't like it don't come? if only it were that simple.

[raptor_rebooted]

yes those abayas are pretty much the same

loose style covering whole body except face

feet and hands.

The abaya "cloak" (colloquially and more commonly, Arabic: عباية‎ ʿabāyah , especially in Literary Arabic: عباءة ʿabāʾah ; plural عبايات ʿabāyāt , عباءات ʿabāʾāt ), sometimes also called an aba, is a simple, loose over-garment, essentially a robe-like dress, worn by some women in parts of the Muslim world including in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.[1] Traditional abayat are black and may be either a large square of fabric draped from the shoulders or head or a long caftan. The abaya covers the whole body except the face, feet, and hands. It can be worn with the niqāb, a face veil covering all but the eyes. Some women choose to wear long black gloves, so their hands are covered as well.

The Indonesian and Malaysian women's traditional dress kebaya gets its name from the abaya.

There are more than 80 recorded ways to wear a sari.

The most common style is for the sari to be wrapped around the waist, with the loose end of the drape to be worn over the shoulder, baring the midriff.

[muppet_detector]

"could this all be as a response that even though the majority do nothing wrong, because a few do, then the rules/law apply to everyone?"

I have never used a pair of scissors or any other sharp instrument on board an aircraft for any purpose other than they were intended. (I don't think I have at all, but I might have forgotten an occurence) yet now, I am not allowed to include items of this nature in my onboard luggage. I am reasonably certain that this is not oput of concern for my safety i.e. I might cut myself - I think it is because others have used these instruments as weapons in the past, most notably pilots or airline staff.

I have never tried to make drugs, yet the ones with the pseudo stuff in them, I am now restricted from buying - I need a doctor's prescription, I can't just buy them over the counter or select them from the shelves. From memory, this was an initiative to limit access to those who used that ingredient to make drugs - so a rule/law for everyone, even though not everyone did anything wrong.

Both of these examples address potential for trouble rather than present a representation of how many did anything wrong.

[muppet_detector]

---

@azureline** wrote:

If you don't like it don't come? if only it were that simple.

---

Why isn't it?

The principle applies to just about everything else in society.

[icyfroth]

---

@karliandjacko wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

No? Because you don't have to? Choose not to? We've moved on?

Time Australiam muslim women did too.

---

Why do we have to bully them into change though? What's wrong with dialogue instead of demonising women who are most likely recent arrivals that don't feel confident and comfortable in their new environment?

This argument is just an excuse to verbally attack muslim women, from what I've seen.

---

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

I have no problem with muslim women wearing burqas. To each their own.

As a garment I don't like it, and wouldn't be seen dead in it. Then again who'd know it was me anyway? lol. If I had to wear it or cop a whipping or a beheading I suppose I'd wear it. 

Australia is a liberal country that allows freedom of religious and cultural expression and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Having said that, whether a muslim woman chooses to wear one as agaiinst being pressured to do so, it is a concealing garment proscribed by the orthodox religious leaders of their community. Which of course are men. There's no other way of interpreting it.

The burqa is designed so that a woman does not reveal any part of her body which may distract men by inciting lustful urges in them. It is enforced by the men of the family/community because they also must be faithful to Islam and must be seen to ensure obedience of their women.

However. The burqa has been known to have been abused for reasons of identity concealment by ppl engaging in criminal activity and has been identified as a security risk, albeit a minor one.

My point is, if, IF, the Federal government should decide to ban the wearing of the burqa in public for security reasons, as in some other countries, which is highly unlikely, the the men and women of Islam must comply with Australian law and not insist that Islam law is the higher law.

For Am: "what is an orthodox Muslim?"

The first definition for "orthodox" in Answers.com is: Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion. That's perfect. And it is easily understood by most Westerners. It's a term we're already familiar with.

The only piece of information missing from most peoples' understanding is that the "radicalized" Muslims are not really radical. They are orthodox. They are simply doing what it says in their scriptures they are supposed to do. They're not "hijacking" their religion or misinterpreting it. Most non-Muslims are unaware of this.'

More on the subject here: http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/07/orthodox-versus-heterodox-muslims.html

[azureline**]

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

If you don't like it don't come? if only it were that simple.

---

Why isn't it?

The principle applies to just about everything else in society.

---

does it?

What about people fleeing for their lives? not the ones who choose to emigrate for economic or family reasons, the ones who are in danger of being persecuted or killed?