RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court

THE BURKA BAN II It's all about attacking Iran!   Of course, attacking Afghanistan is wrong and we should all condemn it but burkas are equally bad because they oppress women. Progressive writers should not support one in order to condemn the other. The burka is a symbol of growing religious fundamentalism and as no religion whether Islam, Christianity or Hinduism can ever liberate women, all religions must be opposed. It's not a question of women's choice or freedom. Surely by writing what you do, you don't mean to say you support the burka? Shame on you!    How does one respond to such comments? Well, for starters, I'd like to state that European women who insist on wearing the burka, or their fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends or whoever forces them to do so, will be facing legal consequences for their defiance. They are expected to abide by the 'law' of the land, regardless of whether it is just or unjust. But surely, their crime of wearing, or forcing someone else to wear, clothing 'symbolic' of oppression is not in any manner comparable to the actions of western world leaders, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Blair and Europe's other leaders, who are guilty of breaching international law? Surely, the consequences of the actions of these world leaders—cluster bombs, depleted uranium, drone killings, fabricated WMDs, millions dead, thousands maimed, the birth of deformed babies, spread of cancer, greater numbers of women forced to turn to prostitution, lives ruined, homes wrecked, millions out of work—are more grave? Are oppressive actions which determine the conditions under which large numbers of people may be allowed to live, or die, to prosper, or perish.    Twentieth century's religious wars—and by that I mean wars fought in the names of gods/deities/supreme beings—have killed far less people than have those which were waged for expressedly non-religious purposes (to maintain or overthrow colonial rule, ethnic cleansing, nationalism, imperial wars, etc.) whether conducted by capitalist, communist or third-world states. If you don't believe me, just try and tally the figures. Of course, this doesn't mean I am arguing that deaths caused by religious wars are preferable to those caused by non-religious ones.    Only some religious gods threaten to destroy humanity; their followers believe this threat to be real unlike non-believers who doubt the existence of god per se and hence have no reason to fear his malevolence. But some modern states—USA, Britain, France, China and the Soviet Union—have between them thousands of nuclear weapons, which are capable of destroying the planet a hundred times over; it would eliminate both believers and non-believers alike. The killing power of the military-industrial complex (re-named MISM, the military-industrial-security-media complex) which controls the US, reigns supreme; on its own, the US accounts for almost half the world's military spending (46.5%).    Does not war stand in the way of women's liberation since women have always borne the brunt of violence perpetrated by war? Are wars that are waged to save women, whether Muslim or not, cloaked as part of the west's 'civilising' mission justified? Malalai Joya, like most Afghan women, doesn't think so. Their problem is US-led occupation and the forces that it fosters; the US government and its allies, she says, consistently marginalise progressive and democratic movements because these are likely to mobilise Afghan people against occupation forces.     The West is secular—church and state are separate—and surely, this means that it stands for the elimination of coercion, death, destruction, torture, in other words, for progress. It is difficult for us, to find any shred of truth in this assumption as the US government, the West's unchallenged leader, has consistently supported whichever government serves its interests, religious (Saudi Arabia) or non-religious (the Shah of Iran), regardless of how fascistic it is (for instance, Hosni Mubarak has been the president of Egypt for the last 29 years, ruling by means of a state of emergency). And, as Joya reminds us, it is the US, which installed the Taliban regime.    But, the comment above seems to say, why can't you keep 'religion' and 'imperialism' separate, why can't you stick to a simple storyline which says Islam prevents girls from getting schooling, forces women to cover their faces, be confined to their homes, not earn a living or marry the men of their choice, etc, etc. Why must you drag in all these other issues, geopolitical strategies, divide-and-rule, imperial interests, oil, the new world order, US hegemony, war crimes...You mean, live in a fool's paradise?    Many bloggers and commentators, including westerners, can see through official propaganda; they raise questions about Eurocentricism, how 'abstract' formulations of self and body, embedded in European political philosophy, have little bearing on Arab women's own notions, how western ideas of freedom and liberation are equally cultural. I provide a smattering:    * But first, there are Muslim women who do choose to wear the burqa or niqab under their own volition. And second, and particularly given that fact, I do not see how an all-out ban on the burqa/niqab by a predominantly non-Muslim, male, white government will liberate Muslim women to make that choice for themselves.    * I live in a country where face veils are common; to the women who wear them, that's not at all what they represent. If Westerners see some weird symbolism that isn't inherent in it to the people who wear it, then whose fault is that? It's not niqabi women's problem that Westerners see some other message in them.    * Every culture has standards of which body parts are OK to show in public and which aren't. In Western culture, the face is public. In the Arabic Peninsula culture, it's not.    * So to us covering our faces seems weird and bad, and it's hard to imagine that a woman would ever CHOOSE that for herself. But I would suggest that this is a failure in our imagination, not a failure in Arab culture.    * Looks like the French learned too well from the Nazis they surrendered to. How can they even think of legislating what people may wear?    * Finally, how does it affect us non-veil wearers? How many of those questioned about a ban are affected by someone wearing a burqa or niqab? We live in a multicultural society so what has their religious dress got to do with us? People are a bit 'creeped out'? The last time I checked, we didn't have the right to not be 'creeped out' so there's no need at all to ban one.    * The argument that SEEMS most credible (or maybe is just the most fashionable, because it allows bigotry to hide behind feminism) is the argument that the burqa is a 'symbol of women's oppression.' For some people it might be, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. It's ridiculous. It would be like banning crucifixes to prevent paedophilia.    These bans remind me of The Incubator Baby Hoax which sold the First Gulf War (1990-1991) to the American public. A Kuwaiti girl claiming to be a nurse wept and told world audiences how she saw Saddam Hussein's soldiers take babies out of their incubators, left them to die on the cold floor. Only to be discovered later that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington; the story was concocted by a PR firm, audience surveys were carried out to make the Kuwaiti ambassador more likeable (clothing, hairstyle). Research undertaken had revealed that American people would be convinced if Saddam Hussein was portrayed as 'a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped.' Less than a decade later, videos of Taliban beheading of a woman to cheering crowds spread virally, it helped to garner support for the Afghan invasion.    As the burka ban gains momentum, I hear the beating of war drums. So, I wonder who is next.    Is Orientalism over? Those who criticise my position, if at all bothered by this question, would seem to think so. But scholars argue that contemporary representations of Islam and Muslims across a wide range of social/political discourses including journalism, other mass-communicated media as well as academic research is modern Orientalism. It impoverishes the rich diversity of Islam, it caricatures Islam. Orientalism is not a mere 'mental phenomenon', to view it thus sidelines its practical implications. It attempts to restore practices that ensure inequitable social systems of power, and behavioural manifestations such as discrimination, physical attack, extermination (John E Richardson, MisRepresenting Islam, 2004). Stereotypes of Islam that exist in historic Orientalist writings of the 13th century by Christian polemicists recur in contemporary writings: sex, violence, cunning and the irrationality of Islam. But although the topics are constant, the argumentative position has shifted with changes in Western cultural values. When Western polite society found sex to be immoral, or at the very least something to be endured, Orientalists accused Islam of promoting and celebrating such licentious activity. But now that polite society valorises gender and sexual equality, neo-Orientalists argue that Islam promotes, at times, demands, the opposite.    I refuse to live in a fool's paradise given current speculation (intelligent, well-researched) that several US nuclear bombs which went 'missing' for 36 hours (2007) may be connected to US plans to nuke Iran. Given plans of setting up the regional counterterrorism centre in Dhaka, second to the one in Indonesia (a US client state), who's to guarantee that Bangladesh will not attract the attention of militants? What is happening? Are we deliberately being sucked into the US war on terror, about to become yet another battleground?    Let history not judge us as collaborators, or too stupid to look beyond their nose. http://www.newagebd.com/2010/nov/08/edit.html#2 --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court To: "Alochona Alochona" <alochona@yahoogroups.com> Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 7:33 PM               In reaching your conclusion you have exercised infinite wisdom, O you resider on Exalted Rich Arab Land! You are a far better MUSLIM than any of us in 'dirt poor' Bangladesh. We are muslims of 'yaumu thalathah' or cheap, third-class, 3-day muslims. We are made of stinking  clay -- sedemented by muddy, now clogged up rivers flowing in to the Bay of Bengal --and you are made of pure fire!                  If burqa cannot be forced upon women what would remain of civilization? NOTHING!  Absolutely nothing! Didn't the most Excellent 'Moulana' Abul 'Ala Mooududi say that all female human beings ane sex objects for Muslim men to grab and enjoy, including schoolgirls?                   Female human beings are not to be considered Allah-created unless they are made to be personal properties of (or enslaved by) male Muslims.   To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com From: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:03:27 -0400 Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court   So School Dress also can not be forced - this is my conclusion.   To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com From: truely-yours@email.com Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:37:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court   Why BBC published same news once again?         http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11471184  4 October 2010 Last updated at 11:53 ET Bangladesh High Court passes key burka ruling The court ruled that Bangladesh was predominantly a secular country     The High Court of Bangladesh has ruled that no-one can be forced to wear the burka, or full Islamic headdress. This follows a similar but more limited ruling in August that women could not be forced to wear the burka at work or in schools or colleges.   Correspondents say the move is the latest sign of the judiciary's support for the government's attempts to pursue a more secular agenda.   The governing Awami League prides itself on its secular credentials.   It says that it wants to challenge the power of Islamic conservatives.   The court ruled that "secularism is one of the four principles of the constitution... and no-one can be forced to wear religious attire in the secular state". ------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: ANDREWL <turkman@sbcglobal.net> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, Oct 4, 2010 4:33 am Subject: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court   You mean, you did not write, "Those who want to be "Practicing Muslims" need to observe hijab [ Source: Al Qur'an 24:30-31]". . The Question is, why are you lying? Where the hell this Verse says, what you wrote if you have not mis-interpreted it? You must think, I do not know Arabic and am just like you believing in whatever my Mollaa says. If you are right, tell me, why our Prophet's own Wives and Daughters did not cover their faces or wore a Borqaa? Who the hell are you trying to fool here? --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, qrahman@... wrote: > > > Please explain what do you mean by "Big pagri Mollah of yours"? Did I ever promoted any "Big pagri" mollahs in any of my mails? For your information I am from Bangladesh, I am worried about my country. You need to go to an Indian forum or Pakistani forum if you have anything to say to them or wanna ask them about their Supreme court. > > The translations were not mine and anytime I say anything from the Qur'an, I offered source (verse and chapter) and most of the time give web links to them as well. I have NOT done any "mis-translation" here. Actually I have not done ANY translation at all. Only quoted most popular translations of the Qur'an. > > I do not think you need to get personal with any of our discussions. If my point of view or part of the Qur'an is not your "Cup of tea", you need not to answer. > > You need to POINT OUT where did I "Mis-translated or mis-interpreted" the Qur'an. Otherwise need not to slander anyone without any solid proof. > > Fact is your uncivilized post ( With imaginary accusations) does not change who I am. But it says a whole lot about who you are. > > > Shalom! > > --qr > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ANDREWL <turkman@...> > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 1:01 pm > Subject: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court > > > > > > grahman wrote: " ... we need to understand that men or women should NOT be forced to go against religion either ...". > . > TURKMAN: But we need to understand that men or women are NOT being forced to go against religion either. We are going against "FORCING" them to follow something that is not a part of Religion because nowhere in Qoraan, Allah had said to wear a Borqa. Our Prohet's own wives never wore it because it was not even invented. All his wives never hid their faces either. If its a part of Islam, why all those big Pagri Mollaas of yours could not prove this case in Indian Supreme Court? > Why they lost this case? > Because your mis-translations and mis-interpretations of Qoraan and HaDees did not work there. There were Arabic Speaking Moslim Olma, who said opposite of what you Mollaas were saying. > Stop your B.S. sir ...! > > --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, qrahman@ wrote: > > > > > > The link did not bring any web page. Like you I do not think one should be force to follow any specific religion ( Islam or otherwise). Having said that, we need to understand that men or women should NOT be forced to go against religion either (Like the previous military regime in Turkey). Turkey,UAE and Malaysia are good role models we can follow when we talk about religion. All citizens of those countries have freedom to follow or not follow any particular religion. > > > > As far as burqa is concern, most scholars of Islam says covering face is NOT mandatory in Islam. However almost all prominent scholars of Islam says "hijab" is required by Islam. Those who want to be "Practicing Muslims" need to observe hijab [ Source: Al Qur'an 24:30-31] for modesty (Certain rules applies for men as well). The first command about hijab was directed towards men. Albeit we generally think it is only at women, men needs to follow hijab [ etiquette] as well. > > > > Please click here to get answers to frequently asked questions on this topic. [ Source: http://www.islam101.com/women/hijabfaq.html] > > > > For related information, please click here. > > > > As I said multiple times before, Islam (Or any other ideology) should not be forced but it is also important for Muslims to have clear understanding of their own religion. > > > > Shalom. > > > > --qr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@> > > To: Alochona Alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 4:05 am > > Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court > > > > > > > > > > > > Many people think that secularism is a grey (as opposed to the 'black' of the burqa) burlap sack that you can whack over a person's head. > > > > A black burqa is a very good thing for Muslims, they say. > > It can put a ink-blot over the person's existence and obliterate the person's humanity. That is supposedly a very Islamic thing to do, > > though there is no Qur'anic injunction or dress-code for the purpose of blotting out the humanity of a person. > > > > This grey burlap sack called secularism, they say, is an evil thing that can be 'imposed' and can make you look like > > the devil incarnate otherwise known as Hindu. This sack is rumored to be outfitted with a devilish mechanism > > that can make the whole religion of Islam disappear from the realm in a twinkle of an eye! > > > > They also say that this devil incarnate Hindu should be eliminated from the land by any means. The means > > may take the form of mass murder but if that is what it takes to do the job there should not be any hesitation . > > Anybody showing tendencies like a Hindu should be eliminated. This Hindu Hasina should take heed. Her father was wiped out. > > "Did not hindu hasina learned anything from her Father"? > > > > Did not hindu hasina learned anything from her Father? > > > > However, the people who speak in the above language have not been able to provide a sample of the grey burlap sack > > called secularism that can be 'imposed' over people's head and that can make Islam disappear in a twinkle of an eye. > > > > Until they do, we have the Holy Qur'an to turn to for guidance, solace and fortitude. In this holy month of Ramadan, > > time for penance and self-purification, we should recognize that the above talk is itself a kind of 'covering' or clothing > > or 'lebas'. And the Qur'an warns us to be wary of these attempts at falsehoods: > > > > "Wa la talbisu al Huqqa bi-l batili wa taktumoo ul Huqqa wa antum taAlamuna" 2:42. > > (And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor coceal the Truth when ye know whar it is) > > > > For those who want be sure that there is no Qur'anic mandate for women to wear the burqa or the hijab, > > please read the following article which was published in the Daily Star, and then archived by the Islamic > > Reasearch Foundation Information. > > > > > > > > > > Fashioning lies, veiling the truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Farida Majid As the hijab issue heats up in France and Germany, and the psychological pressure and the brainwashing of women intensifies all over the Muslim world, the feverish ... > > > > irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/fashioning_lies.htm · Cached page > > > > > > > > > > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com > > From: qrahman@ > > Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:38:27 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court > > > > > > > > I think burqa should not be forced but the new law does not have some "Common sense" exceptions. For Islamic institutions "Islamic" dress should be enforced (That may include Burqa if the local community feels right about it). Albeit there are difference of opinion among scholars if Burqa is mandatory in Islam or not. Most scholars think "Hijab" covers Islamic requirements for women. > > > > While I agree Burqa should not be forced but secularism should not be forced on our people either. Maybe experts should be looking into the verdict more to ensure some "Activist" judges going overboard or not. There are some concerns from liberal groups about civil rights in another ruling regarding Shaheed minar. > > > > Personally I feel that, God created us as "FREE" men and women and gave us freedom to obey or disobey Him. Therefore, we should encourage honest and open discussions/debates about religion. Blaming everything Islamic TODAY for what some Jamaat-e-Islami leaders did 40 years ago does not seem fair or logical to me. > > > > Peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mo Assghar <moassghar@> > > To: alochona@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2010 9:02 am > > Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Secularism can be forced? Give me a break!! > > > > Did not hindu hasina learned anything from her Father? > > > > > > --- On Mon, 8/23/10, Isha Khan <bdmailer@> wrote: > > > > > > From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@> > > Subject: [ALOCHONA] Burqa can't be forced: High Court > > To: > > Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 2:36 AM > > > > > > > > > > Burqa can't be forced: High Court > > > > > > The court also ordered relevant officials to explain why forcing girls to wear burqa (veil) and keeping them out of sports and cultural activities were illegal. > > > > > > > > > > Dhaka, Aug 22 (bdnews24.com)â€"The High Court has ruled that no women can be forced to wear burqa at work and educational institutions. In it's ruling The High Court on Sunday in a suo moto order directed the government to ensure that no women were forced to wear veil or religious dress in the educational institutions and offices. > > > > The court also ordered the government to ensure that the cultural activities and sports in the educational institutions are not restricted.The orders came in the wake of a public interest petition filed by Supreme Court lawyers Mahbub Shafi and A K M Hafizul Alam on Sunday. The bench of justices A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Sheikh Mohammad Zakir Hossain also ruled that they cannot be barred from taking to culture and sports > > > > The court also ordered relevant officials to explain why forcing girls to wear burqa (veil) and keeping them out of sports and cultural activities were illegal. > > > > The A Bengali daily news item said that principal of the college in Natore ( Northern Bangladesh ) has stopped any cultural activities and sports at the college and forced female students to wear Borka or veil in the college.The HC also directed principal of the college Mozammel Haque to appear before the HC bench on August 26 to explain the matter. > > > > It also issued a rule upon the government to explain why imposition of restriction on cultural activities and sports in the educational institutions and offices and forcing the female students to wear veil should not be declared illegal. > > > > Secretaries to the ministries of home, education, social welfare and women affair and principal Mozammel Haque has been made respondent to the rule and orderThe education, home, social welfare, and women and children affairs secretaries and principal of Rani Bhabani Mohila College Mozammel Huq were asked to reply to ruling. Following a brief hearing, the court also asked the principal to appear before it on Aug 26. > > > > The lawyers in their petition on Sunday cited a report carried by a Bengali newspaper the same day headlined, 'Burqa mandatory at Rani Bhabani Mohila College'. The lawyers stated such enforcement was discriminatory. > > > > http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=332264 > > >

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___