Mark, You certainly have this one right! I heard the interview and this woman is both pathetic and devious. It is quite clear that she deceived the school officials to get the job and now in typical Muslim fashion, is attempting to bash the school officials for objecting to her wearing the veil.
Mark-usiconoclasticpatriot also has it right. She revealed her face to the male governor of the school and then made a change in attitude with the express purpose of forcing Shari'a norms on the Church of England School and possibly setting a precedent.
By-the-way, her speech is difficult to unerstand through the veil, making her ineffective as a teacher for many students who learn through visual cues or those that are hard of hearing.
IT is not stated anywhere in the Koran, that the veil is a compulsory form of dress for muslim women. It is not mentioned at all.
It is said that during the conquests by Islam of neighbouring former Christian Byzantine Countries such as Syria, and also of Egypt,,, that the conquerors noted that the hgher class women of Byzanteum wore veils on their faces, and this was to indicate their wealth or other high-status. This "fashion" was adopted then by the Muslim invaders and taken as their own.
Muslim scholars are in debate on this topic and many would agree with Jack Straw, that the veil serves little purpose in the modern world and is indeed a barrier to Muslims living in other communities.
Why on Earth did the taxpayer have to fork out millions for the PM Blair's wife to defend such an issue in the highest British Courts over the schoolgirl Ms Begum, some months ago?
Is this a barb in a challenge by Mr Straw to the Blairs capitulation of all things contrary to his multi-cultural dream?
I doubt if we will see PM Sraw, but you never know!
The veil is a POLITICAL issue, not a religious one, and even the blind have seen through THIS veil!
This is what I tried to post on the BBC website only yesterday; though I am not sure if it got posted. There were so many people posting there that I couldn't find it. I wrote:
Veils should be banned by law, especially for security reasons. It is unreasonable to expect others to put up with them. They look sinister, are frightfully ugly, and are not British. Besides which, there is nothing particularly Islamic about them. They are a relic of desert life, where they were generally worn by privileged, upper class women to show they didn't have to work. They set them apart from the poor women who did. They were also worn to shield the face from the blistering sunshine.
I was actually told this by (a) Saudi(s) when I worked in the Kingdom.
I doubt that the BBC had the balls to put it up.
I find what you stated about upper class women very interesting.
Of course she's pathetic and devious. Aren't most of them? They want their own way, and they want to Islamize the West. And that's it! We must stop this nonsense NOW!
She revealed her face to the male governor of the school and then made a change in attitude with the express purpose of forcing Shari'a norms on the Church of England School and possibly setting a precedent.
Exactly! It is to be hoped that the authorities don't buy into this BS.
By-the-way, her speech is difficult to unerstand through the veil, making her ineffective as a teacher for many students who learn through visual cues or those that are hard of hearing.
I wouldn't like her teaching any kids of mine. She seems to be only half-literate anyway. So what can she teach? And what the hell is she doing teaching in a Church of England school?
This is a comment I have just placed up on the BBC website (if it ever gets published). I think it adds something important to this debate.
It is absurd for a teacher to think that she can teach a language, of all subjects, whilst wearing the full veil. We communicate with each other with words, voice, intonation, body language, and facial expressions. That anyone should wish to teach language, of all subjects, by hiding the face beggars belief.
It is my understanding that, in any case, a Muslimah does not have to veil up in front of pre-pubescents. So why is this young lady making such a fuss?
This is an interesting article from the BBC about how Tunisia treats the veil:
The Tunisian authorities have launched a campaign against the Islamic veil worn by some women to cover their hair.
Police are applying with renewed vigour a decree dating back to 1981 which prohibits women from wearing Islamic headscarves in public places.
In recent days, senior officials have hit out at what they describe as sectarian dress worn by people who use religion to hide political aims.
Human rights groups say the move is unconstitutional.
Police in Tunisia have been stopping women on the streets and asking them to remove their headscarves and sign pledges that they will not go back to wearing them.Tunisia moves against headscarves
Veils are not worn, even in the conservative Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by pre-pubescent girls, and they are not worn by women in front of children. Not even in the conservative Kingdom of Saudi Arabia!
They are not worn in front of a woman's father, or mother, or brother; rather, they are worn by women in front of possible suitors: where there is a danger of sexual attraction. There is no danger of sexual attraction where a female teacher is teaching pre-pubescent children! So why is this woman making such a fuss? It seems to me that she doesn't even know her own religion!
Mark, Thank you for your extremely enlightening comments on the 'wearing of the veil.' This case certainly proves that the wearing of the veil is mostly about making political statements and very little, if at all, about piety.
11 comments:
Mark, You certainly have this one right! I heard the interview and this woman is both pathetic and devious. It is quite clear that she deceived the school officials to get the job and now in typical Muslim fashion, is attempting to bash the school officials for objecting to her wearing the veil.
Mark-usiconoclasticpatriot also has it right. She revealed her face to the male governor of the school and then made a change in attitude with the express purpose of forcing Shari'a norms on the Church of England School and possibly setting a precedent.
By-the-way, her speech is difficult to unerstand through the veil, making her ineffective as a teacher for many students who learn through visual cues or those that are hard of hearing.
IT is not stated anywhere in the Koran, that the veil is a compulsory form of dress for muslim women.
It is not mentioned at all.
It is said that during the conquests by Islam of neighbouring former Christian Byzantine Countries such as Syria, and also of Egypt,,, that the conquerors noted that the hgher class women of Byzanteum wore veils on their faces, and this was to indicate their wealth or other high-status.
This "fashion" was adopted then by the Muslim invaders and taken as their own.
Muslim scholars are in debate on this topic and many would agree with Jack Straw, that the veil serves little purpose in the modern world and is indeed a barrier to Muslims living in other communities.
Why on Earth did the taxpayer have to fork out millions for the PM Blair's wife to defend such an issue in the highest British Courts over the schoolgirl Ms Begum, some months ago?
Is this a barb in a challenge by Mr Straw to the Blairs capitulation of all things contrary to his multi-cultural dream?
I doubt if we will see PM Sraw, but you never know!
The veil is a POLITICAL issue, not a religious one, and even the blind have seen through THIS veil!
Mirrorman, welcome!
This is what I tried to post on the BBC website only yesterday; though I am not sure if it got posted. There were so many people posting there that I couldn't find it. I wrote:
Veils should be banned by law, especially for security reasons. It is unreasonable to expect others to put up with them. They look sinister, are frightfully ugly, and are not British. Besides which, there is nothing particularly Islamic about them. They are a relic of desert life, where they were generally worn by privileged, upper class women to show they didn't have to work. They set them apart from the poor women who did. They were also worn to shield the face from the blistering sunshine.
I was actually told this by (a) Saudi(s) when I worked in the Kingdom.
I doubt that the BBC had the balls to put it up.
I find what you stated about upper class women very interesting.
USIP:
Of course she's pathetic and devious. Aren't most of them? They want their own way, and they want to Islamize the West. And that's it! We must stop this nonsense NOW!
Eleanor:
Mark-usiconoclasticpatriot also has it right.
Of course he does.
She revealed her face to the male governor of the school and then made a change in attitude with the express purpose of forcing Shari'a norms on the Church of England School and possibly setting a precedent.
Exactly! It is to be hoped that the authorities don't buy into this BS.
By-the-way, her speech is difficult to unerstand through the veil, making her ineffective as a teacher for many students who learn through visual cues or those that are hard of hearing.
I wouldn't like her teaching any kids of mine. She seems to be only half-literate anyway. So what can she teach? And what the hell is she doing teaching in a Church of England school?
This is a comment I have just placed up on the BBC website (if it ever gets published). I think it adds something important to this debate.
It is absurd for a teacher to think that she can teach a language, of all subjects, whilst wearing the full veil. We communicate with each other with words, voice, intonation, body language, and facial expressions. That anyone should wish to teach language, of all subjects, by hiding the face beggars belief.
It is my understanding that, in any case, a Muslimah does not have to veil up in front of pre-pubescents. So why is this young lady making such a fuss?
This is an interesting article from the BBC about how Tunisia treats the veil:
The Tunisian authorities have launched a campaign against the Islamic veil worn by some women to cover their hair.
Police are applying with renewed vigour a decree dating back to 1981 which prohibits women from wearing Islamic headscarves in public places.
In recent days, senior officials have hit out at what they describe as sectarian dress worn by people who use religion to hide political aims.
Human rights groups say the move is unconstitutional.
Police in Tunisia have been stopping women on the streets and asking them to remove their headscarves and sign pledges that they will not go back to wearing them. Tunisia moves against headscarves
I should like to add the following:
Veils are not worn, even in the conservative Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by pre-pubescent girls, and they are not worn by women in front of children. Not even in the conservative Kingdom of Saudi Arabia!
They are not worn in front of a woman's father, or mother, or brother; rather, they are worn by women in front of possible suitors: where there is a danger of sexual attraction. There is no danger of sexual attraction where a female teacher is teaching pre-pubescent children! So why is this woman making such a fuss? It seems to me that she doesn't even know her own religion!
Mark, Thank you for your extremely enlightening comments on the 'wearing of the veil.' This case certainly proves that the wearing of the veil is mostly about making political statements and very little, if at all, about piety.
USIP:
You're welcome! Well, that's how it really is. They can try and slice it as they will, but that's the truth of the matter.
Post a Comment