Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

the site also says:

"Native‐born blacks have the highest unemployment rate, at 10.4 percent as of 2008. This is 4.6 percentage points higher than the unemployment rate for the native‐born population as a whole."

So tying that in with the above comments I found, although they have the highest unemployment, it doesn't actually happen specifically in areas where there is entry into the market of other immigrants. So maybe other immigrants aren't taking their jobs, they just don't want jobs?

rudeboy wrote:

Speedhump wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Thank god that the West will not give in to the stupidity of the ME and allow criminals (men) to walk through security checks and escape dressed as Muslim women because no-one will touch them.

I'd label you, as an idiot.

They want to live in the UK, Germany, Netherlands, wherever THEY MUST CONFORM.

wot the fricking hell are you on about. we are discussing about women wearing hijabs in UK and you are on about criminals wearing hijabs in the ME. lol

are u british or something??

I realise it's difficult for you to keep up with conversations and the way that many different factors impinge on a debate, I suggest you just start a new thread all by yourself.

u dont really come up with good come backs?. why dont u go and lie down on jumeriah road and act like a propa speed hump.

I don't fight with unarmed boys, so don't expect flames from me, I wouldn't waste them on you.

Sorry, I don’t understand what was wrong with my previous post. I cannot find in the report any digits about unemployment of recent emigrants, which disprove my statement.

I continue affirming that developed welfare system, except possibly free education, is the evil for economy.

Red Chief wrote:Sorry, I don’t understand what was wrong with my previous post. I cannot find in the report any digits about unemployment of recent emigrants, which disprove my statement.

I wasn't trying to say you are wrong, that is too big a blanket to throw. But I was pointing out a set of data that conflicts with your statement "You can see rather African Americans than fresh citizens in the dole queue. It’s very visible from TV news programs.".

By 'fresh citizens' I guess you mean recent immigrants (for sake of argument, the large number of Hispanics that arrive constantly).

The report I found seems to show that your fresh citizens do not make for higher African American unemployment. They don't take their jobs, basically, nor those of the local white population. Where both are present. I guess any TV station can take a camera to Harlem (or wherever) and find black faces outside a job office, but that's not a proper demographic statement.

I continue affirming that developed welfare system, except possibly free education, is the evil for economy.

I strongly disagree. Even under 'Iron Lady' Margaret Thatcher in the UK the UK social welfare was maintained, although it was under very close watch, which is fully correct. A welfare system correctly and strictly operated is a blessing on any civilised country.

Public health and education systems are even more important. Your view smells of greedy industrialists and repression of the workforce. I'm surprised to find the oppressor in you.

The UK started to introduce social welfare programs in the nineteeth century. One of the champions of workers' rights was Lord Leverhulme in his own factories and plantations, even before there was any law to support it. He was the founder of the worldwide Unilever group, a man way ahead of his times. A true social reformer and a man who loved his workers both at home and in Africa and the Far East. Read 'The King of Sunlight' from Magrudys.

Edit: corrected factual error, Lord Lever not Beaverbrook, ...brainfart!

While King Leopold's minions in the Congo were cutting off workers' hands and feet for dissent, Lever was building his own workers in Africa homes, schools and hospitals. Social welfare is crucial for civilisation.

The report I found seems to show that your fresh citizens do not make for higher African American unemployment. They don't take their jobs, basically, nor those of the local white population.[/quote]

I didn’t talk that recent LEGAL immigrants stole some jobs of African Americans. As far as I understand it was Bora’s desire to persuade African Americans to fill some dirty vacancies. Such way she was going to convert them to the “human being race”. They obviously do not want to follow her advice.

The situation, when most recent immigrants are Hispanics, shows that US really can’t regulate migration as they effectively did in 1930s (by discriminating South Italians and other unwanted nations).

Now US have huge influx of low-skilled people of one nationality/(mentality) whom they will not be able to melt in American pot in the future. The practice of CA, AUS and NZ looks more reasonable.

Red Chief wrote: The report I found seems to show that your fresh citizens do not make for higher African American unemployment. They don't take their jobs, basically, nor those of the local white population.

I didn’t talk that recent LEGAL immigrants stole some jobs of African Americans. As far as I understand it was Bora’s desire to persuade African Americans to fill some dirty vacancies. Such way she was going to convert them to the “human being race”. They obviously do not want to follow her advice.

The situation, when most recent immigrants are Hispanics, shows that US really can’t regulate migration as they effectively did in 1930s (by discriminating South Italians and other unwanted nations).

Now US have huge influx of low-skilled people of one nationality/(mentality) whom they will not be able to melt in American pot in the future. The practice of CA, AUS and NZ looks more reasonable.[/quote]

You piece of crap!!!! I never referred to any race in my statement. And get off the African American. African Americans are Americans - bottom line, not immigrants. That's you all over making assumptions as usual.

And if you want to know who I was referring to it was the wave of Russian immigrants that took place for years!!!! It was real heart warming to know that the money I put into social security working those years was being used to supplement welfare, because the welfare budget went bellyup because there were so many immigrants. The influx of low-skilled people of one nationality/(mentality) etc., etc., are the Russians. I guess you missed the boat when they were landing in America by the plane loads!!!

You talking about America as if you know something is like me talking about Russia - and I don't because I've never been there and have no interest in it. The only thing I know about Russia are those Russians that migrated to the US and live off of it like its a big tit.

If you are going to respond to a post may I suggest, don't read it when you are drunk, and/or don't respond when you are drunk. That would mean we would hear from you alot less.

you two are having a lot of trouble with your quote/unquotes!

Speedhump wrote:you two are having a lot of trouble with your quote/unquotes!

Yeah, but he's having alot of trouble in his responses!

Bora Bora wrote:

Speedhump wrote:you two are having a lot of trouble with your quote/unquotes!

Yeah, but he's having alot of trouble in his responses!

Bora, if you think that I do care about those kikes you will be strongly disappointed. Thanks God, they are your problem now.
Again, it was you, not me, who jumped to my conversation with Speedy and started your xenophobic crying about US. I was not interested in continuing but you insisted.
I’m sorry; I forgot that logic isn’t a strong feature of your damaged brain.

Well. How much do you put into the US social security living permanently in the UAE? I’m just curious.

Red Chief wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

Speedhump wrote:you two are having a lot of trouble with your quote/unquotes!

Yeah, but he's having alot of trouble in his responses!

Bora, if you think that I do care about those kikes you will be strongly disappointed. Thanks God, they are your problem now.
Again, it was you, not me, who jumped to my conversation with Speedy and started your xenophobic crying about US. I was not interested in continuing but you insisted.
I’m sorry; I forgot that logic isn’t a strong feature of your damaged brain.

Well. How much do you put into the US social security living permanently in the UAE? I’m just curious.

First, alot of those "kikes" as you refer to your countrymen are Christians, who obtained false papers to enter the US. The mere fact that you use that ing word shows what kind of person you are. Those "kikes" you refer to must have converted when they arrived in the US and built their Orthodox Christianity churches.

Second, posts are public. You don't own them and no one has to ask permission to post. If you don't like what you read, scan your eyes downward. And if you are going to respond, please make statements that are correct. All one has to do is to refer to the post you are referring to and see that you were probably responding while in your usual state of mind - drunk and stinking like a skunk.

Third: I insisted you continue? What, was I holding a gun to your head or did you imagine that during one of your blackouts?

Fourth, what I pay and don't pay is none of your business.

So go back into your bottle, and shut your pie hole. The rants of a drunk are getting tiresome. I don't know where SH gets the patience for you. I guess he has more compassion for the mentally challenged and weak than I do.

Bora, believe me... please... please.... There were no Christians except very old people in the former Soviet Union.

Kike was a record in passport which was impossible to change. KGB released people according to this record only.

Chief, Kike is accepted generally as a very abusive and racist term.

Would you call black people 'niggers'?

Red Chief wrote:Bora, believe me... please... please.... There were no Christians except very old people in the former Soviet Union.

Kike was a record in passport which was impossible to change. KGB released people according to this record only.

Once again you need to be directed as to what was said. I said forged documents and passports, probably supplied by the Russian Mafia. And there were plenty of Christians. Yeah, there were old people who came over using medical as an excuse, received medical care and were then classified as too sick to return home, so they stayed and went on the dole.

Do you think America is actually going to announce how many Russians migrated to the States and went on the dole?? If you lived in the States you would learn a few things about those who migrated. So if there were no Christians, how do you explain all the churches they built for themselves?

Apparently the KGB and those in power used the word "kike" the same way the word "nigger" was used to describe black Americans. You have to be extremely ignorant to think that using the word "kike" is appropriate and acceptable, especially in the year 2009. In the US the word "kike" is as unacceptable as the word "nigger". Both are racist words.

Your problem is that you think you know everything about everything. Yet, you know very little and that comes through in your posts.

Oops sorry BB, posts crossed on the same point. These word are not only unacceptable in the USA.

Speedhump wrote:Oops sorry BB, posts crossed on the same point. These word are not only unacceptable in the USA.

I think for the most part, any educated person would know that they are two very unacceptable words.

Speedhump wrote:Chief, Kike is accepted generally as a very abusive and racist term.

Would you call black people 'niggers'?

Speedy, come on, of course I know the meaning. I used this word to pay some respect to Bora only.

By the way my first flame was a Jew. We were teenagers and do care rather about sex and Dostoevskiy than nationalities and religions.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Chief, Kike is accepted generally as a very abusive and racist term.

Would you call black people 'niggers'?

Speedy, come on, of course I know the meaning. I used this word to pay some respect to Bora only.

By the way my first flame was a Jew. We were teenagers and do care rather about love and Dostoevskiy than nationalities and religions.

Backpeddling are we? Show me respect? Please, spare me Boris. You don't know the meaning of respect.

And as usual, evasive when exposed as the drunken buffoon that you are known to be.

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Wearing abaya and niqab is 100% arab clothing traditions which has a long history. In fact word "hijab" is mentioned 7 times in Quran and NONE of the times it means "something that covers hair" so I don't understand why people claim that hijab is a must-be for muslim women. So if they try to explain their dressing-traditions with islam then it's ridiculous. Islam is a religion of freedom so there are no clothing restricitions exept 1) cover your chest (24:31), 2) they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (33:59) which basicly means every culture decides the look of women clothes.
It is a well-known fact that this "ghost-costume" causes identification issues in Europe. For example in Saudi they identify eachother by their purses lol.

If you're in Europe, you wear european clothes. Period.

Hmm GEM that sure is reason to ponder....


So basically RC thought that since BB is a Muslim he would insult the Jews and BB would join in the bashing. That's what he meant when he said that he used the word kike to pay respect to BB.

Unfortunately Red Chief's conniving little stunt didn't pay off, cos BB isn't gonna stoop down to (your?) that level.

Well my respect for BB has only increased post this diatribe. You tell it like it is woman!

So what was the plan Red Chief? You would use the word Kike, BB would have a laugh and then you would turn around and call her racist? I like your manipulative ways Red Chief.
Cause quite evidently you have nothing against the Jews.
Am I right?

Misery Called Life wrote:Cause quite evidently you have nothing against the Jews. Am I right?

Not really. The kikes were and are big issue in Russia. I don't like all those Gusinski, Berezovski, Hodorkovski, Abramovich and another thiefs. So I don't care how many of them left Russia for US or UK.

Red Chief wrote:

Misery Called Life wrote:Cause quite evidently you have nothing against the Jews. Am I right?

Not really. The kikes were and are big issue in Russia. I don't like all those Gusinski, Berezovski, Hodorkovski, Abramovich and another thiefs. So I don't care how many of them left Russia for US or UK.

YOU ARE A DISGUSTING RACIST!!! Is that the kind of swill you shove down your childrens throats?

At the end of the day you and them have one thing in common - you are all Russian. And I'm talking about people who are generational Russians, with ancestry in Russia.

Misery Called Life wrote:Hmm GEM that sure is reason to ponder....


So basically RC thought that since BB is a Muslim he would insult the Jews and BB would join in the bashing. That's what he meant when he said that he used the word kike to pay respect to BB.

Unfortunately Red Chief's conniving little stunt didn't pay off, cos BB isn't gonna stoop down to (your?) that level.

Well my respect for BB has only increased post this diatribe. You tell it like it is woman!

So what was the plan Red Chief? You would use the word Kike, BB would have a laugh and then you would turn around and call her racist? I like your manipulative ways Red Chief.
Cause quite evidently you have nothing against the Jews.
Am I right?

Thank you MCL.

Bora Bora wrote:

Red Chief wrote:

Misery Called Life wrote:Cause quite evidently you have nothing against the Jews. Am I right?

Not really. The kikes were and are big issue in Russia. I don't like all those Gusinski, Berezovski, Hodorkovski, Abramovich and another thiefs. So I don't care how many of them left Russia for US or UK.

YOU ARE A DISGUSTING RACIST!!! Is that the kind of swill you shove down your childrens throats?

At the end of the day you and them have one thing in common - you are all Russian. And I'm talking about people who are generational Russians, with ancestry in Russia.

Tell it to Mr. Sergey Brin. I am sure that he will regret and add 20 bucks to your old-age pension.

GEM wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Wearing abaya and niqab is 100% arab clothing traditions which has a long history. In fact word "hijab" is mentioned 7 times in Quran and NONE of the times it means "something that covers hair" so I don't understand why people claim that hijab is a must-be for muslim women. So if they try to explain their dressing-traditions with islam then it's ridiculous. Islam is a religion of freedom so there are no clothing restricitions exept 1) cover your chest (24:31), 2) they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (33:59) which basicly means every culture decides the look of women clothes.
It is a well-known fact that this "ghost-costume" causes identification issues in Europe. For example in Saudi they identify eachother by their purses lol.

If you're in Europe, you wear european clothes. Period.

hate it when ppl just post bits out of the quran.

"24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

fact is in the home you can wear anything you like in front of your husband etc etc. but outside your home u should be covered. now i have seen many muslim women wear the salwar kameez with short sleves and even short salwars. yes they are covered but they still are revealing some of their body parts. this is wrong because when they walk in public many men will stare at them. but then again we all know which women like to reveal their body parts in public


by the way if u r in europe u dont have to wear european clothes. does that mean when i am in europe i 4get my family, my name, my religion and my clothes? lol plz

rudeboy wrote:

GEM wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Wearing abaya and niqab is 100% arab clothing traditions which has a long history. In fact word "hijab" is mentioned 7 times in Quran and NONE of the times it means "something that covers hair" so I don't understand why people claim that hijab is a must-be for muslim women. So if they try to explain their dressing-traditions with islam then it's ridiculous. Islam is a religion of freedom so there are no clothing restricitions exept 1) cover your chest (24:31), 2) they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (33:59) which basicly means every culture decides the look of women clothes.
It is a well-known fact that this "ghost-costume" causes identification issues in Europe. For example in Saudi they identify eachother by their purses lol.

If you're in Europe, you wear european clothes. Period.

hate it when ppl just post bits out of the quran.

"24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of love; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

fact is in the home you can wear anything you like in front of your husband etc etc. but outside your home u should be covered. now i have seen many muslim women wear the salwar kameez with short sleves and even short salwars. yes they are covered but they still are revealing some of their body parts. this is wrong because when they walk in public many men will stare at them. but then again we all know which women like to reveal their body parts in public


by the way if u r in europe u dont have to wear european clothes. does that mean when i am in europe i 4get my family, my name, my religion and my clothes? lol plz

You complete dickhead. You just shot down your own argument

One's face and hands must necessarily be shown, for normal social interaction, oh unless you believe that women do not need to be understood and so it's not necessary to see their lips speak and their faces move and convey their emotions...well...I would hazard a guess that you do think that women don't need to be paid any attention to except in bed. You just proved that there's nothing in the Koran that says Muslim women have to cover their face, so why the f*ck are they screaming about this in England? I know, another chance to create unrest and stir up the peaceful Muslim majority in the UK. It's how civil disobedience and terrorism starts. Hope those words aren't too big for you.....

Speedhump wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

GEM wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Wearing abaya and niqab is 100% arab clothing traditions which has a long history. In fact word "hijab" is mentioned 7 times in Quran and NONE of the times it means "something that covers hair" so I don't understand why people claim that hijab is a must-be for muslim women. So if they try to explain their dressing-traditions with islam then it's ridiculous. Islam is a religion of freedom so there are no clothing restricitions exept 1) cover your chest (24:31), 2) they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (33:59) which basicly means every culture decides the look of women clothes.
It is a well-known fact that this "ghost-costume" causes identification issues in Europe. For example in Saudi they identify eachother by their purses lol.

If you're in Europe, you wear european clothes. Period.

hate it when ppl just post bits out of the quran.

"24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of love; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

fact is in the home you can wear anything you like in front of your husband etc etc. but outside your home u should be covered. now i have seen many muslim women wear the salwar kameez with short sleves and even short salwars. yes they are covered but they still are revealing some of their body parts. this is wrong because when they walk in public many men will stare at them. but then again we all know which women like to reveal their body parts in public


by the way if u r in europe u dont have to wear european clothes. does that mean when i am in europe i 4get my family, my name, my religion and my clothes? lol plz

You complete dickhead. You just shot down your own argument

One's face and hands must necessarily be shown, for normal social interaction, oh unless you believe that women do not need to be understood and so it's not necessary to see their lips speak and their faces move and convey their emotions...well...I would hazard a guess that you do think that women don't need to be paid any attention to except in bed. You just proved that there's nothing in the Koran that says Muslim women have to cover their face, so why the f*ck are they screaming about this in England? I know, another chance to create unrest and stir up the peaceful Muslim majority in the UK. It's how civil disobedience and terrorism starts. Hope those words aren't too big for you.....

listen humpty i said SHORT salwar kameez which reveals your arms and your legs. do you know what a salwar kameez is? do you want one for xmas so you can become an indian father christmas

2ndly islam is a religion of freedom as GEM correctly said so. in the quran there are two verses in the Quran that concern women's dress. These are Surah an-Nur verse 31 and Surah al-Ahzab verse 59. Surah an-Nur verse 31 contains two commands that particularly relate to women's dress. The first is that women shall cover all of their beauty except "what is apparent of it" around men who are not related to them. The second is that women should extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms. As for Surah al-Ahzab verse 59, it commands that women shall wear long, loose outergarments (jilbabs) when they go out from their houses.

yes you are right humpty (once in his lifetime) that in the quran there is no mention about a woman covering her face and hands yet so many muslim women do so.

but if humpty you had read the quran you would know that PRIVACY is very important in Islamic social code. Everything that is not necessary to be known in public should be concealed and kept private. There is an entire code of conduct that a Muslim follows in order to uphold the importance of private space and private things. Hijab is a part of this. A Muslim might desire to be especially careful in protecting privacy. This might involve using extra vigilance in guarding one's tongue and averting one's gaze, above and beyond what is required. It might also involve extra-modest dress. When a Muslim woman is already covering everything but her face and her hands and she wants to dress more modestly, the only things left for her to cover are her face and hands. Seen in this light, niqab is not "extreme", but rather is a natural extension of the principle of privacy.

why dont muslim ladies shake hands with men?

why is it that when you go to some muslim houses you will find a separation of men and women?

its all because of privacy. just an example humpty. if i welcomed you into my house (lol u wish mate ) i would make sure that you sit separately from the women. why? cos of privacy.

fact is some women choose to cover their faces and some dont. if you dont u wont be sinned provided you are wearing something modest but if you do you are not doing anything wrong.

now lets get back to this topic before you drift off again .
this woman is not forced to wear it. she can take it off anytime she wants and if i am correct she said i will only take it off infront of the female teachers. so why not respect her beliefs and co operate with her so that she can show her face to the female teachers and then we can all get on with our lives? ey?

wot u say humpty?

rudeboy wrote:

Speedhump wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

GEM wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Wearing abaya and niqab is 100% arab clothing traditions which has a long history. In fact word "hijab" is mentioned 7 times in Quran and NONE of the times it means "something that covers hair" so I don't understand why people claim that hijab is a must-be for muslim women. So if they try to explain their dressing-traditions with islam then it's ridiculous. Islam is a religion of freedom so there are no clothing restricitions exept 1) cover your chest (24:31), 2) they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (33:59) which basicly means every culture decides the look of women clothes.
It is a well-known fact that this "ghost-costume" causes identification issues in Europe. For example in Saudi they identify eachother by their purses lol.

If you're in Europe, you wear european clothes. Period.

hate it when ppl just post bits out of the quran.

"24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of love; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

fact is in the home you can wear anything you like in front of your husband etc etc. but outside your home u should be covered. now i have seen many muslim women wear the salwar kameez with short sleves and even short salwars. yes they are covered but they still are revealing some of their body parts. this is wrong because when they walk in public many men will stare at them. but then again we all know which women like to reveal their body parts in public


by the way if u r in europe u dont have to wear european clothes. does that mean when i am in europe i 4get my family, my name, my religion and my clothes? lol plz

You complete dickhead. You just shot down your own argument

One's face and hands must necessarily be shown, for normal social interaction, oh unless you believe that women do not need to be understood and so it's not necessary to see their lips speak and their faces move and convey their emotions...well...I would hazard a guess that you do think that women don't need to be paid any attention to except in bed. You just proved that there's nothing in the Koran that says Muslim women have to cover their face, so why the f*ck are they screaming about this in England? I know, another chance to create unrest and stir up the peaceful Muslim majority in the UK. It's how civil disobedience and terrorism starts. Hope those words aren't too big for you.....

listen humpty i said SHORT salwar kameez which reveals your arms and your legs. do you know what a salwar kameez is? do you want one for xmas so you can become an indian father christmas

2ndly islam is a religion of freedom as GEM correctly said so. in the quran there are two verses in the Quran that concern women's dress. These are Surah an-Nur verse 31 and Surah al-Ahzab verse 59. Surah an-Nur verse 31 contains two commands that particularly relate to women's dress. The first is that women shall cover all of their beauty except "what is apparent of it" around men who are not related to them. The second is that women should extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms. As for Surah al-Ahzab verse 59, it commands that women shall wear long, loose outergarments (jilbabs) when they go out from their houses.

yes you are right humpty (once in his lifetime) that in the quran there is no mention about a woman covering her face and hands yet so many muslim women do so.

but if humpty you had read the quran you would know that PRIVACY is very important in Islamic social code. Everything that is not necessary to be known in public should be concealed and kept private. There is an entire code of conduct that a Muslim follows in order to uphold the importance of private space and private things. Hijab is a part of this. A Muslim might desire to be especially careful in protecting privacy. This might involve using extra vigilance in guarding one's tongue and averting one's gaze, above and beyond what is required. It might also involve extra-modest dress. When a Muslim woman is already covering everything but her face and her hands and she wants to dress more modestly, the only things left for her to cover are her face and hands. Seen in this light, niqab is not "extreme", but rather is a natural extension of the principle of privacy.

why dont muslim ladies shake hands with men?

why is it that when you go to some muslim houses you will find a separation of men and women?

its all because of privacy. just an example humpty. if i welcomed you into my house (lol u wish mate ) i would make sure that you sit separately from the women. why? cos of privacy.

fact is some women choose to cover their faces and some dont. if you dont u wont be sinned provided you are wearing something modest but if you do you are not doing anything wrong.

I already said that this is the answer. Facial recognition is a large requirement of social interaction. As is is not haram to show your face nobody in the world should be allowed to refuse to show their face when requested, in any country. If this is not a law it should be so. And please open your eyes, it doesn't just apply to Muslim women.



Excerpt from http://www.uclshrp.com/exchange/styling ... eneration/

Last week I decided to brave Oxford Street in search of a new mobile phone. As ever I was drawn into any and every shop regardless of their expertise in telecommunications. It was a cold, damp day and I wanted to remain somewhat invisible and not be drawn into any unnecessary conversations, so I employed the trusty hoody. Hooded and snug I thought, but the reaction of the security in one large store seemed more: hooded and thug. I was approached and informed that, despite no notices or anything of that sort being displayed, hoods must not be warn in that particular store. I was soon to find out that this was a policy employed by a number of other stores I visited on the street.

++++


When society feels its values being threatened they must do what they feel right to normalise it. The world is changing.

My last word.

Speedhump wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

Speedhump wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

GEM wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Wearing abaya and niqab is 100% arab clothing traditions which has a long history. In fact word "hijab" is mentioned 7 times in Quran and NONE of the times it means "something that covers hair" so I don't understand why people claim that hijab is a must-be for muslim women. So if they try to explain their dressing-traditions with islam then it's ridiculous. Islam is a religion of freedom so there are no clothing restricitions exept 1) cover your chest (24:31), 2) they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (33:59) which basicly means every culture decides the look of women clothes.
It is a well-known fact that this "ghost-costume" causes identification issues in Europe. For example in Saudi they identify eachother by their purses lol.

If you're in Europe, you wear european clothes. Period.

hate it when ppl just post bits out of the quran.

"24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of love; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

fact is in the home you can wear anything you like in front of your husband etc etc. but outside your home u should be covered. now i have seen many muslim women wear the salwar kameez with short sleves and even short salwars. yes they are covered but they still are revealing some of their body parts. this is wrong because when they walk in public many men will stare at them. but then again we all know which women like to reveal their body parts in public


by the way if u r in europe u dont have to wear european clothes. does that mean when i am in europe i 4get my family, my name, my religion and my clothes? lol plz

You complete dickhead. You just shot down your own argument

One's face and hands must necessarily be shown, for normal social interaction, oh unless you believe that women do not need to be understood and so it's not necessary to see their lips speak and their faces move and convey their emotions...well...I would hazard a guess that you do think that women don't need to be paid any attention to except in bed. You just proved that there's nothing in the Koran that says Muslim women have to cover their face, so why the f*ck are they screaming about this in England? I know, another chance to create unrest and stir up the peaceful Muslim majority in the UK. It's how civil disobedience and terrorism starts. Hope those words aren't too big for you.....

listen humpty i said SHORT salwar kameez which reveals your arms and your legs. do you know what a salwar kameez is? do you want one for xmas so you can become an indian father christmas

2ndly islam is a religion of freedom as GEM correctly said so. in the quran there are two verses in the Quran that concern women's dress. These are Surah an-Nur verse 31 and Surah al-Ahzab verse 59. Surah an-Nur verse 31 contains two commands that particularly relate to women's dress. The first is that women shall cover all of their beauty except "what is apparent of it" around men who are not related to them. The second is that women should extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms. As for Surah al-Ahzab verse 59, it commands that women shall wear long, loose outergarments (jilbabs) when they go out from their houses.

yes you are right humpty (once in his lifetime) that in the quran there is no mention about a woman covering her face and hands yet so many muslim women do so.

but if humpty you had read the quran you would know that PRIVACY is very important in Islamic social code. Everything that is not necessary to be known in public should be concealed and kept private. There is an entire code of conduct that a Muslim follows in order to uphold the importance of private space and private things. Hijab is a part of this. A Muslim might desire to be especially careful in protecting privacy. This might involve using extra vigilance in guarding one's tongue and averting one's gaze, above and beyond what is required. It might also involve extra-modest dress. When a Muslim woman is already covering everything but her face and her hands and she wants to dress more modestly, the only things left for her to cover are her face and hands. Seen in this light, niqab is not "extreme", but rather is a natural extension of the principle of privacy.

why dont muslim ladies shake hands with men?

why is it that when you go to some muslim houses you will find a separation of men and women?

its all because of privacy. just an example humpty. if i welcomed you into my house (lol u wish mate ) i would make sure that you sit separately from the women. why? cos of privacy.

fact is some women choose to cover their faces and some dont. if you dont u wont be sinned provided you are wearing something modest but if you do you are not doing anything wrong.

I already said that this is the answer. Facial recognition is a large requirement of social interaction. As is is not haram to show your face nobody in the world should be allowed to refuse to show their face when requested, in any country. If this is not a law it should be so. And please open your eyes, it doesn't just apply to Muslim women.



Excerpt from http://www.uclshrp.com/exchange/styling ... eneration/

Last week I decided to brave Oxford Street in search of a new mobile phone. As ever I was drawn into any and every shop regardless of their expertise in telecommunications. It was a cold, damp day and I wanted to remain somewhat invisible and not be drawn into any unnecessary conversations, so I employed the trusty hoody. Hooded and snug I thought, but the reaction of the security in one large store seemed more: hooded and thug. I was approached and informed that, despite no notices or anything of that sort being displayed, hoods must not be warn in that particular store. I was soon to find out that this was a policy employed by a number of other stores I visited on the street.

++++


When society feels its values being threatened they must do what they feel right to normalise it. The world is changing.

My last word.

humpty if a woman decides to cover her face it is because she wants abit of privacy. its not because she is going to go rob a bank yes terroists have even wore it to get out of trouble but they get caughty. depends how good the british police is in recognizing men in hijabs

secondly i always thought england waas the most free country. so where is the freedom now where a woman wants to protect her privacy when she goes out? she is willing to cooperate and show her face to female teachers. what is wrong with that? why dont the government learn from that and employ a law where only female police officers are allowed to check women with hijaabs????

mate how would u like it if your mum or sis was arrested by the police and were checked physically by male police officers?

No-one is being body searched they are being asked to show their faces, very reasonably. You are twisting the facts to make yourself sound so correct but you are telling lies. In any case body searches of women are done by women officers, by law. You see that you know nothing about this and really should stop now.

Freedoms must be restricted, the world is not what it was. Grow up and understand.