EU Court - It's okay to ban religious symbols

[EccentricM]

In all, whether it is money driven, or directly towards Muslims or not, in the big picture, it supports anti-religious views. People blame religion for the world's problems, once it becomes ok to demonise and attempt to control one religion, it will be ok to demonise and control other religions, for various reasons, whether that be for terrorism, racism, homophobia, sexism etc.  

 

The masses are more anti-religious than ever now, we have a rise of extremist "social justice" groups. Third wave feminism, LGBT and others.  All these groups are for the "unification of humanity", "love" and "morality". All these groups and others also have problems with not only Islam, but Christianity and just about any faith that has rules regarding; Men/women hierarchy, sexuality and other specific doctrines in religious books and groups. 

 

These "acceptance groups" will take the high ground in this system, as they will make all forms of faith look to be outdated and evil. Blind to the signs of the last days and chaos around them, and even being part of those very signs within themselves. The governments will also dump religion not only on these social basis, but also financially,.We know the churches have quite a bit of wealth and do not have to pay tax. In a world where "freedom of the self" and anti-relgious views are on the rise, and where countries are in mass debt, these religious groups will not be put up with for long. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by EccentricM

[tekmantwo]

12 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

 

 

 However, if my religion requires me to keep my face covered... 

 

The fact that these women MUST (according to their religion) go with their entire face covered ....

 

 

Is this accurate? ..I thought it wasn't an absolute requirement, just something imposed on women by the men..

Edited March 16, 2017 by tekmantwo

[tekmantwo]

4 hours ago, Stormswift said:

I wasn't questioning nationalistic pins, i was wondering why one would wear a jw.org pin/badge to work? 

I have a couple of hats, baseball style caps, that I have JW.ORG pins on. The reason I do it is in the hopes someone says something or asks about it. ..a conversation starter,  so to speak. ..

 

It is true, our conduct is the most visible indicator of who we are but there are quite a few people that act in much the same manner as we do.. Having a pin in plain sight may open a door that may have remained closed...IMHO...

[Ahuvah]

That makes sense ... it certainly would be a conversation piece, I'm figuring too  not all employers would be happy with it.

[tekmantwo]

29 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

That makes sense ... it certainly would be a conversation piece, I'm figuring too  not all employers would be happy with it.

Hehe, not something I have to worry about. ....

 

Besides,  my current Boss wants us to advertise His Name....

[Greg Dent]

Its funny if you do some research on the face covering or even the scarves muslim women wear there is nothing in the islamic faith that commands them to wear those things. Its strictly the rules of the state they live in. For instance in Saudi Arabia most women only wear scarves. In iraq they wear the hijab or full face covering. Its not a tenant or rule that islam has. Its stricly a cultural thing that was forces on them. 

 

My wife's previous boss was muslim but of the smilely faction and they wore no head covering at all. In fact contrary to other muslim groups they valued the education of the women because it enriched the family life.  

 

http://www.irfi.org/articles/women_in_islam/is_head_cover_for_women_mandator.htm

 

Hijab (head cover) for Muslim women is not mandated in the Qur’an. If it is, it is only the subjective interpretation of an ayah (verse) on the part of the reader. Hence, many Islamic scholars say that according to hadith, a woman should cover her whole body, except her face and hands. The majority of Muslims do not know in which hadith this is mentioned. A very limited number of Muslims know that this is in Sunan Abu Dawud. The English translation of Sunan Abu Dawud is in three volumes. Again, nobody ever mentions that it is in Volume Three. Actually, it is in Volume 3, Book XXVII, Chapter 1535, and Hadithnumber 4092, titled: "How Much Beauty Can A Woman Display?" For the benefit of the readers, the exact hadith is reproduced below:

(4092) 'Aisha said: Asthma', daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asthma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of the body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands. (Note 3523)

 

In Shari'ah or Islamic law, only the authentic (sahih) and good (hasan) ahadith (plural of hadith) are used in deriving rules. The weak (da'if) ahadith have no value for the purpose of Shari'ah.

As stated above, Imam Abu Dawud himself said that this is a mursal tradition (i.e. the narrator who transmitted it from 'Aisha is missing). What I interpret is that the narrator of this hadith is Khalid B. Duraik, who did not see 'Aisha (radhi Allahu anha, may Allah be pleased with her). Since this is a weak hadith, it has no value for the purpose of Shari'ah. That means that no Muslim, Islamic Republic, or government can pass laws punishing a Muslim woman who does not observe hijab, particularly covering the hair on her head. This is not being practiced in the so-called Islamic countries, where religious police with their canes are threatening and punishing Muslim women who do not observe hijab.

All along, I have maintained in my arguments that Islam emphasizes modesty in the dress of a Muslim woman, but nowhere does it mandate the wearing of the hijab (head cover). As a matter of fact, modesty in dress is also required on the part of Muslim men.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Greg Dent

[Shawnster]

10 hours ago, tekmantwo said:

Is this accurate? ..I thought it wasn't an absolute requirement, just something imposed on women by the men..

 

doesn't imposed = requirement?  Think about all the man-made rules in Christendom.  It's the same thing.  They may say that it's choice or that their religion doesn't require something but... if they are penalized by not following the custom then it becomes a requirement.

 

The Qur'an might not require it or it is open to interpretation.  This is the same as Amish wearing their hats and bonnets or the Pentecostals wearing their long hair in a bun  and only wearing skirts (for the women).  Their particular church or sect requires it.  Their church leaders require it and they are made to fell compelled to follow this clothing direction.  This goes beyond mere modesty or local grooming customs (like wearing suits here in the States).

 

Women who do not live in Islamic countries still feel compelled to wear these distinctive garbs.  Obviously it's more than some nationalistic law.  

Edited March 16, 2017 by Shawnster

[tekmantwo]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

doesn't imposed = requirement?  Think about all the man-made rules in Christendom.  It's the same thing.  They may say that it's choice or that their religion doesn't require something but... if they are penalized by not following the custom then it becomes a requirement.

 

The Qur'an might not require it or it is open to interpretation. 

This is kind of splitting hair,  isn't it?  Be that as it may, since I wasn't explicitly precise in my question, I'll allow it...

 

Bro Greg Dent, thank you for the information concerning Islamic dress codes. It is as I remembered,  not an absolute requirement as set out in the Quran but more of a tradition imposed by Islamic men...

The last paragraph in your post explains it well, that is how I understood it to be...

[Greg Dent]

5 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

doesn't imposed = requirement?  Think about all the man-made rules in Christendom.  It's the same thing.  They may say that it's choice or that their religion doesn't require something but... if they are penalized by not following the custom then it becomes a requirement.

 

The Qur'an might not require it or it is open to interpretation.  This is the same as Amish wearing their hats and bonnets or the Pentecostals wearing their long hair in a bun  and only wearing skirts (for the women).  Their particular church or sect requires it.  Their church leaders require it and they are made to fell compelled to follow this clothing direction.  This goes beyond mere modesty or local grooming customs (like wearing suits here in the States).

 

Women who do not live in Islamic countries still feel compelled to wear these distinctive garbs.  Obviously it's more than some nationalistic law.  

 

It is quite possible its imposed by ill meaning men that think its ok to be barbarians toward their women too. Its not a national requirement but a sect of the faith that is apostate to the original meaning behind it.

 

Think of Isis. They impose severe sanctions on everyone they deal with and its is against everything to muslim faith stands for.  Even the Talaban has pulled away from Isis for the atrocities that they have done. So its not even a national law but sects of the faith that have imposed it.

[ChocoBro]

We are talking about a religious system that has inherent difficulties in defining itself. What is islam, islamic, according to islam? How do you define what is islamic? Anything to do with the Quran?

 

If you only go by what the Quran says, you end up not understanding anything. The Quran does not explain itself in the way the bible does: "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth, then he created man and woman, then the first couple rebelled and disobeyed, then they were expelled, then they had children, one of the children murdered the other one, then.... then... then..." The Quran can only be fully comprehended by studying sources outside the Quran, for example the Hadith and life biography of Muhammad.

 

There are bookshelves full of material that come from the early islamic centuries. This isn't just a question of "sects", this is also basically a question of personal preference, the defining of "strong" Hadith and "weak Hadith". It's not quite as simple as defining biblical canonicity because weak and and the same time strong Hadith come from the same collection. Supposedly, this Hadith demanding a fully body cover is "weak" because the source quoting Aisha is not named. Then again, there are several Hadith that claim that camel urine has health benefits, and that Muhammad urged his disciples to drink the stuff. This is not a myth. Camel urine is considered healthy by some North Africans for this reason.  Now what makes more sense, that drinking camel urine is healthy or that God wants women to cover themselves fully so not as to arouse men?

 

By the way, the unresolved question of whether a Hadith is "weak" or "strong" is also why some muslims consider it wrong to marry girls before they reach puberty while entire muslim cultures like Yemen consider it acceptable to marry underage girls. I'm not going to go into the consummation of marriage issues. It has nothing to do with sects, it has simply to do with the fact that there is no coherent source muslims go by. It certainly isn't the Quran, which has about 45% as many words as the Christian Greek Scriptures, many of which repeat themselves, many of which are only references (not the full story) of distorted bible accounts or jewish fables and myths, so the Quran certainly is not sufficient to guide a muslim in his worship.

 

That leaves you with the Hadith, where you basically have a diverse set of morals available, and no clear indication or "leitmotif" to go by to determine what is "strong" or "weak". The term "religion à la carte" is actually very fitting at this point.

 

And this is precisely why you have muslim cultures that oppress women while other muslim cultures have a more balanced view of family headship and the role of the husband and father, minimum age for marriage, how to deal with unbelievers, polytheists, et cetera.

[tekmantwo]

Brother ChocoBro,  very nice summation. You pointed out fairly clearly what some of the issues are, why the Western world doesn't  'get'  Islam.  If they (Muslims ) can't understand their own faith coherently across a broad spectrum then they certainly won't be able to explain it to the West and their allies.

 

Shia and Sunni have been fighting and killing each other for centuries because they both follow the same faith. .. and they are the moderates...

 

Aren't we blessed to have a God that is organized and has His people united under the same teachings?..

 

[Shawnster]

18 hours ago, Greg Dent said:

It is quite possible its imposed by ill meaning men that think its ok to be barbarians toward their women too. Its not a national requirement but a sect of the faith that is apostate to the original meaning behind it.

 

Think of Isis. They impose severe sanctions on everyone they deal with and its is against everything to muslim faith stands for.  Even the Talaban has pulled away from Isis for the atrocities that they have done. So its not even a national law but sects of the faith that have imposed it.

In the name of religion.  

 

Therefore, their religion requires it.  

 

Catholic religion requires them to follow man-made customs and traditions that other Christendom denominations do no follow.  

 

I agree it's man-made traditions and customs.  However, ask them to explain it to you and see how they feel.  None of us are Muslim so it's not like we talk from first hand experience.

 

Bottom line is the court felt the scarf was a religious expression.  Religious.  

[Shawnster]

16 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

 It certainly isn't the Quran, which has about 45% as many words as the Christian Greek Scriptures, many of which repeat themselves, many of which are only references (not the full story) of distorted bible accounts or jewish fables and myths, so the Quran certainly is not sufficient to guide a muslim in his worship.

 

That leaves you with the Hadith, where you basically have a diverse set of morals available, and no clear indication or "leitmotif" to go by to determine what is "strong" or "weak". The term "religion à la carte" is actually very fitting at this point.

 

Sounds a lot like Christendom.  A Catholic guy I went to school with flat out believes that is what you should do.  You and I do not undstand Constitutional Law because it's too complex, we listen to and trust a lawyer.  Same with the Bible.  You can't fully understand the Bible until you read the various Church Fathers...   And even then it's best to just leave the understanding to the priests and just do as they tell you.  

[ChocoBro]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

Sounds a lot like Christendom.  A Catholic guy I went to school with flat out believes that is what you should do.  You and I do not undstand Constitutional Law because it's too complex, we listen to and trust a lawyer.  Same with the Bible.  You can't fully understand the Bible until you read the various Church Fathers...   And even then it's best to just leave the understanding to the priests and just do as they tell you.  

The difference is "Christendom" does have a book to go by, it's called the bible, and as the bible itself says it is complete and fully equips you - even if most people in Christendom can't wrap their heads around that. The Quran simply is not sufficient to "fully equip" a muslim. Take an hour or two to flick through it, you'll understand what I mean.

Edited March 17, 2017 by ChocoBro

[Shawnster]

5 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

The difference is "Christendom" does have a book to go by, it's called the bible, and as the bible itself says it is complete and fully equips you - even if most people in Christendom can't wrap their heads around that. The Quran simply is not sufficient to "fully equip" a muslim. Take an hour or two to flick through it, you'll understand what I mean.

Now you are sounding like a witness. Don't fall into that trap in this case. Amish are part of Christendom yet their religion has dictates, impositions or requirements that go beyond the Bible.   Dress, grooming, stunning of modern technology (unless it makes them money). 

 

 That's what I keep stressing.  Except for witnesses, all religions followed dictates that are beyond and they feel superceed the Bible. That still makes it part of their religion. 

 

Good Catholics don't eat meat on certain days, give up something for Lent, go to Ash Wednesday, shun birth control, etc 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Shawnster

[Qapla]

I have held back on this ..... but, the time has come - now, before I start, let me say I do not mean to point a finger or pick on Ruben (ChoCoBro), it is just that he is the latest to post what I am going to have a "mini-rant" about:

 

7 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

"Christendom" does have a book to go by, it's called the bible, ... The Quran simply is not sufficient to "fully equip" a muslim.

 

Why is Quran spelled with an upper case "Q" and Bible is spelled in this quote with a lower case "b"? If you look at the following post (the one by Shawn) you will note that each time he used "Bible" he spelled it with an upper case "B" - just as it should be spelled.

 

Whenever we use the word Bible, it should be spelled with an upper case B - likewise, when we use Jehovah, we spell it with an upper case J. It should be noted that, when we refer to Jehovah, we should always use the upper case for the first letter. If we say "Jehovah is God" we use the upper case for both the J and the G - if we continue this sentence and add, "so, when He speaks, we should listen", again, the "H" should be in the upper case.

 

It just seems odd that many will use upper case to start words like Quran, Catholic, Muslim, Jew and yet, they will write "bible". Of all the books we name, the Bible should be the one we always remember to elevate ... so, please, Bible, not bible.

 

OK - mini-rant over ...........

 

Again, I am not picking on ChoCoBro, many have done this same thing, he just gave me a convenient post to quote.

 

 

[carlos]

17 minutes ago, Qapla said:

Whenever we use the word Bible, it should be spelled with an upper case B - likewise, when we use Jehovah, we spell it with an upper case J. It should be noted that, when we refer to Jehovah, we should always use the upper case for the first letter. If we say "Jehovah is God" we use the upper case for both the J and the G - if we continue this sentence and add, "so, when He speaks, we should listen", again, the "H" should be in the upper case

I use 'Bible' vs 'bible' to distinguish between the book itself and a copy of the book.

So "Jehovah's Witnesses are guided by the Bible" or "Read the Bible every day", but "I placed two bibles this month" or "My bible was so worn that I had to take a new one". I have many bibles at home, but of course they all are translations of the Bible. The same rule could be applicable to the Quran, only that I don't have that many qurans and have never placed any.

 

This is the rule in Spanish. I don't know if such a rule exists in English but it seems quite logical to me. (Yet in Chocobro's post I think it was just a typo.)

[Shawnster]

Quran, Koran, Bible, bible... you say tomato, I say potato...

[Qapla]

Basically, when referring to God's Word, it makes the word Bible a proper noun - thus, it should be capitalized.

 

[timpin]

looking to the left, I did notice most everybody capitalized the first letter of their personal name

Edited March 18, 2017 by timpin

[Cushi]

1 hour ago, Qapla said:

I have held back on this ..... but, the time has come - now, before I start, let me say I do not mean to point a finger or pick on Ruben (ChoCoBro), it is just that he is the latest to post what I am going to have a "mini-rant" about:

 

 

Why is Quran spelled with an upper case "Q" and Bible is spelled in this quote with a lower case "b"? If you look at the following post (the one by Shawn) you will note that each time he used "Bible" he spelled it with an upper case "B" - just as it should be spelled.

 

Whenever we use the word Bible, it should be spelled with an upper case B - likewise, when we use Jehovah, we spell it with an upper case J. It should be noted that, when we refer to Jehovah, we should always use the upper case for the first letter. If we say "Jehovah is God" we use the upper case for both the J and the G - if we continue this sentence and add, "so, when He speaks, we should listen", again, the "H" should be in the upper case.

 

It just seems odd that many will use upper case to start words like Quran, Catholic, Muslim, Jew and yet, they will write "bible". Of all the books we name, the Bible should be the one we always remember to elevate ... so, please, Bible, not bible.

 

OK - mini-rant over ...........

 

Again, I am not picking on ChoCoBro, many have done this same thing, he just gave me a convenient post to quote.

 

 

I'm guessing he naver gave much thought to it. Here on jwtalk it sometimes doesn't automatically capitalize the b when you spell Bible. I know for sure because I just had to go back and capitalize the b in that last sentence. It does automatically capitalize the q in Quran though. Maybe he didn't meant to capitalize it. I don't know if it's on this website or my text messaging but it will sometimes capitalize the s in satan.

[Shawnster]

John made his point.  Let's move on from discussing the proper etiquette for capitalizing Bible.  

[Cushi]

54 minutes ago, Brother Jack said:

I'm guessing he naver gave much thought to it. Here on jwtalk it sometimes doesn't automatically capitalize the b when you spell Bible. I know for sure because I just had to go back and capitalize the b in that last sentence. It does automatically capitalize the q in Quran though. Maybe he didn't meant to capitalize it. I don't know if it's on this website or my text messaging but it will sometimes capitalize the s in satan.

How in the world did I spell never naver? 

[tekmantwo]

3 hours ago, Qapla said:

I have held back on this ..... but, the time has come - now, before I start, let me say I do not mean to point a finger or pick on Ruben (ChoCoBro), it is just that he is the latest to post what I am going to have a "mini-rant" about:

 

 

Why is Quran spelled with an upper case "Q" and Bible is spelled in this quote with a lower case "b"? If you look at the following post (the one by Shawn) you will note that each time he used "Bible" he spelled it with an upper case "B" - just as it should be spelled.

 

Whenever we use the word Bible, it should be spelled with an upper case B - likewise, when we use Jehovah, we spell it with an upper case J. It should be noted that, when we refer to Jehovah, we should always use the upper case for the first letter. If we say "Jehovah is God" we use the upper case for both the J and the G - if we continue this sentence and add, "so, when He speaks, we should listen", again, the "H" should be in the upper case.

 

It just seems odd that many will use upper case to start words like Quran, Catholic, Muslim, Jew and yet, they will write "bible". Of all the books we name, the Bible should be the one we always remember to elevate ... so, please, Bible, not bible.

 

OK - mini-rant over ...........

 

Again, I am not picking on ChoCoBro, many have done this same thing, he just gave me a convenient post to quote.

 

 

I had a question about capitalizing the letter H in the word He when we are referring to Jehovah. 

 

I found out that the rule is , that you don't have to capitalize every time,  only when there may be a question about who is being referred to. .

 

If you write a sentence and you say Jehovah,  and you don't mention any other name, you don't have to capitalize the letter H because there won't be any confusion about who the 'he' is talking about. .

 

Conversely,  if you wrote  'Jehovah and Moses were talking,  He told him...' then you capitalize the H to distinguish Jehovah as the speaker. .

 

Anyway, I think that is right...

[Buddy]

 I noticed that too