France not to allow women to wear abayas in schools: Minister

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Europe has religious Freedom, in that you can believe in whatever Gods You want without persecution. You may not express your religion by bullying other people.

There is not a single definition of ”heathen”, and Muslims were known as heathens since they started harrassing Christian nations.


I simply show the absurdity of the opinion that limiting atrocities means repressing freedom.

You are playing with words. Limiting religious freedom, and the excuse for that is to limit atrocity! There is no legal basis for such a thing. It is a violation of the Declaration of Human Rights. Religious freedom is a fundamental right.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Stalin was helped by the West. Good to know that You consider him a puppet.
Speaks loudly about your mindset.

Lol, someone's projecting.

The CIA's antics in Iraq of supporting specific actors against other actors is documented and well-known.

One of these actors was the Ba'ath Party (whom Saddam belonged to) during the time of Qasim. So, when Abdul Rahman Arif wasn't cutting it, the CIA helped the Baath Party carry out a coup in 1968 to remove him and, in turn, put Baathists in charge of Iraq. Following a decade or so of rule by Hassan al-Bakr, his successor, Saddam Hussain, took over and the US, once again, worked to keep this guy in place until he didn't serve their interests.

Revealed: how the West set Saddam on the bloody road to power

The botched CIA attempt to oust the Iraqi despot last June, in which hundreds died, was not the first intervention by the US agency to have disastrous consequences. Patrick Cockburn tells of the coup it backed in 1963 that paved the way for the rise of Saddam

www.independent.co.uk

The US and UK had routinely pulled the same garbage over and over again: removing Mossadeigh in Iran, murdering Patrice Lumumba in DRC, using military dictators in Pakistan, and so on. If you don't know this much, then you should spend time reading history rather than new mental gymnastic moves.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

France should not claim to be a tolerant and inclusive country then. They just want to promote Bikini prostitute culture.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You are playing with words. Limiting religious freedom, and the excuse for that is to limit atrocity! There is no legal basis for such a thing. It is a violation of the Declaration of Human Rights. Religious freedom is a fundamental right.

Bullying is not a fundamental right.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Bullying is not a fundamental right.

Says the guy who wants gov't to bully girls/women out of schools because of what they're wearing. Bravo.

The Bigot's Anti-Muslim Checklist​

1. Headscarfs? Check.
2. Abaya? Check.
3. Burkinis? Check.
4. Halal meat? TBA.
5. Muslin names? TBA.

 

[Gaomayaslayer]

What's wrong with that?

View attachment 949369


Would you like Pakistan to be turned into a Protestant Christian republic?

You cunts tried. European missionaries often accompanied your scum armies but we fought back. My great grandpa slapped and kicked out a scummy and predatory Christian missionary in our village. I think he was German or French.

 

[Foinikas]

You cunts tried. European missionaries often accompanied your scum armies but we fought back. My great grandpa slapped and kicked out a scummy and predatory Christian missionary in our village. I think he was German or French.

I'm Greek so my "scum armies" were under Ottoman control back then.

 

[aviator_fan]

France should not claim to be a tolerant and inclusive country then. They just want to promote Bikini prostitute culture.

A religiously tolerant country still has some minimum set of rules that have to abided by in their society that should not infringe on 90% of freedom of religion.

For example, Islam allows polygamy , but it is not a pillar of islam. France, US polygamy is illegal. You can well practice 4 out of the 5 pillars (5th one is not polygamy but involves going to Mecca) without any interference. So if a muslim wants to practice polygamy , then don't move to these countries. You can't say that not allowing polgyamy is getting in the way of practicing religion.

As for the bikini: well thats their process. They have topless beaches too. And nude ones. As a muslim there are tons of places to build a mosque that are not across these places.

You can judge and look down on the bikini culture, fine, but these countries are not Muslim countries constitutionally.

And go visit most of the Arab world. This 'prostitute bikini' culture is allowed in Qatar, UAE, Oman, Jordan, and now more recently in Saudi Arabia under the guise of allowing tourism.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Says the guy who wants gov't to bully girls/women out of schools because of what they're wearing. Bravo.

The Bigot's Anti-Muslim Checklist​

1. Headscarfs? Check.
2. Abaya? Check.
3. Burkinis? Check.
4. Halal meat? TBA.
5. Muslin names? TBA.

They can go to school, not wearing those things,
It is not very different from not bringing drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence.

Please keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

They can go to school, not wearing those things,
It is not very different from not bringing drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence.

Please keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

Lol, I didn't mention a single thing about "drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence."

I'm squarely focused on the fact that your societies supposedly call for freedom abroad, yet deny it at home. My conclusion from all that is simple: You can't intellectually defend your own ideas, so you're using the law to snuff out opposing thought.

If your societies were intellectually strong, then you'd have no problem convincing Muslim children to shed their past heritage and adopt the thinking and culture of their new home. But for some reason (maybe implicit racism, lack of opportunities, an insidious foreign policy, etc), you're not winning them over intellectually, so, as a result, you're forcing them to assimilate.

You're not using your own ideas to defend your ideology, but brute force. Seriously, do you fail to see what's going on here? When you tell Muslims they can't go to school (i.e., get an education, acquire skills, elevate their career prospects) because of the way they dress, you're telling them, "it's either you or your religion -- choose." That's the stick, not intellectual conviction. What's next? Forcibly taking them from their parents?

Just admit to your intellectual bankruptcy. Tell us who you truly are. We can all see it.

 

[aziqbal]

They can go to school, not wearing those things,
It is not very different from not bringing drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence.

Please keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

no wonder Scandinavia countries produce some of the Worst Neo Nazi terrorists

 

[Menace2Society]

Why don't all Muslims who have have a problem just move to Saudi and Dubai? Then you can larp as Arabs all you want. You are like a square peg in a round hole in the west. Your refusal to integrate in what is a generously all encompassing homogenous western culture is a deal breaker. Your values and culture are not compatible, this is the unfortunate truth. Just go to the desert and you won't no longer need to feel the odd one out.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Lol, I didn't mention a single thing about "drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence."

Bringing drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence is undesirable behaviour.
Using your appearance to apply group pressure is equally undesirable behaviour.
No difference.

I'm squarely focused on the fact that your societies supposedly call for freedom abroad, yet deny it at home. My conclusion from all that is simple: You can't intellectually defend your own ideas, so you're using the law to snuff out opposing thought.

You can’t keep a coherent thought. Noone bans the thought. What is banned is infringing the rights if others by group pressure. A strawman.

If your societies were intellectually strong, then you'd have no problem convincing Muslim children to shed their past heritage and adopt the thinking and culture of their new home. But for some reason (maybe implicit racism, lack of opportunities, an insidious foreign policy, etc), you're not winning them over intellectually, so, as a result, you're forcing them to assimilate.

Children are protected against the abuse of their parents.

You're not using your own ideas to defend your ideology, but brute force. Seriously, do you fail to see what's going on here? When you tell Muslims they can't go to school (i.e., get an education, acquire skills, elevate their career prospects) because of the way they dress, you're telling them, "it's either you or your religion -- choose." That's the stick, not intellectual conviction. What's next? Forcibly taking them from their parents?

Noone is telling them not to go to school. They can certainly remain Muslim in any type if clothes.

Again a strawman.

 

[prashantazazel]

This will result in girls not being allowed to go out or to school.

How can parents restrict their children from going to school in the west?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Bringing drugs, weapons and signs inciting violence is undesirable behaviour.
Using your appearance to apply group pressure is equally undesirable behaviour.
No difference.

You said it: "equally undesirable behavior." So, you're literally equating how people dress to literally "guns, weapons and signs inciting violence." Thanks for exposing your racist inclinations, it's the most honest thing you've said up to this point. Okay, why don't you go to a hospital ward and ask a patient who's overdosed what's worse -- their drugs, or some random brown girl wearing an abaya?

You can’t keep a coherent thought. Noone bans the thought. What is banned is infringing the rights if others by group pressure. A strawman.

So by regulating the dress code, you (the majority) are infringing the rights of a minority with state-backed legal pressure. You're literally doing what you're accusing the ones wearing hijab or abaya of -- you don't see it, or choose not to admit to it because you're racist.

Noone is telling them not to go to school. They can certainly remain Muslim in any type if clothes.

If I tell an atheist they can't attend school without taking part in Jummah prayer, then it means that I'm denying them their right to education unless they practice what I practice. I'm denying the atheist their right to not recognize a deity. It's the same in this situation.

If there are Muslim children who see that abiding by Islam's dress code is a religious practice, you're telling them, "you either come to school, or you stay at home practicing your faith." By attacking the abaya, you're systematically attacking what Muslims view as a religious practice, hence, their religion.