French headscarf ban recommended

[Acecombat 0]

Mr Sanctuary i would first gladly say i didnt say off my own accord i have read about this on various media paper/mags/net etc that christains dont believe in the theory of EVOLUTION , evolution of humans that is.

And i would personally say this that i would never try to undermine your religion if your saying so becoz islam is christanity's descendant , its the religion with which we share many things. Christanity's and Islams views on Earths creation are the same too .

The only problem is christainty got changed a whole lot and has now culminated a form which isnt very much the same as Jesus preached. Anyway your free to believe in what you do so.

Cheers

P.S: Dude the 7 day is mentioned in th quran aswell and the same word 'era' or 'timeframe' is used in others to elongate it.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Mr Sanctuary i would first gladly say i didnt say off my own accord i have read about this on various media paper/mags/net etc that christains dont believe in the theory of EVOLUTION , evolution of humans that is.

It depends on the Christian. The problem is that some Christians seem completely ignorant about what the theory of evolution actually is.

[Pukko 0]

EDIT : @ denoir

Yeah, I would say that the world really do is getting a better and better place, though it works in mysterious ways  

I have exaggerated quite much to get my point through indeed, and will continue with that a little more.

The concept of eurocentrism is indeed relevant. Partly because through it a universal global reality is since long ago already implemented. Sure the Eurocentric in it self is not ours anymore. Its everone's on this planet. But this eurocentrism is nothing more and nothing less than endless amounts of scientifically proved truths (discourses) about all aspects of 'reality'.

Ok, I repeat myself and I feel like I have got the basic message through. But these discourses continue to have a life of their own, and Europe, or the western world (dont think there really are any opposite of that quite sick concept, but we do all seems to have a good conception of what it means - maybe its the parts of the world that at a given time have a value comparable to Europes, maybe its therefore the 'civilised' world vs the 'uncivilised' ) continues to be a part of them.

What I wrote in the parenthesis above is quite usable to continue from there. The Eurocentrism is a very alturistic phenomenon, the scientists that measured the cranium of different 'races' in favour to the white did it in all good intentions. They now could explain why we white people were so much 'better' (intelligent (a very interesting concept in it self - what do you measure in a IQ test? ) civilised, cultural etc. ), and added that to other science to get a better 'understanding' of how to treat and help those less cranium-fortunate.

But the problem is that the Eurocentric reality is probably quite addicted to maintain Europe (and its equals - the western world) as superior. The likes of the cranium theory about intelligence is since long falsified (I think), but still lives on in our uncouncious - it lives on through other discourses influenced by it. It still is a part of human 'reality' whether we like it or not. And that reality, in its life of its own, continues to be consistent by maintaining the western world as the superior center of human reality. The Eurocentric lives, and uses its own survival strategies

But at this time the inferior peoples (not of Europe-value) is able to discern the general eurocentric discourse, and is therefore forced to to get out of their now unjustified inferiority by deconstructing the discourses that defines them as inferior. However when deconstructiong these dicourses (that is, seriously questioning different scientific truths) they have to go through the western world. Because its very hard to sit in for example Ethiopia and and get deconstructive theories publicated globally (to deconstruct eurocentric discourses one have to ultimately act/communicate globally within the scientific (which in it self is eurocentric) sphere). Therefore most postcolonial theorists that dedicate themselves to this kind of intellectual stuff sits at American and European universities (no, the western world is no utterly evil ). And it is important to note that its not only 3'rd world people that work actively to deconstuct eurocentric discourses, feminist and queer theorists do it to. And its not without intellectual conflict between them. A good example is the problem with the western feminists; they produce (or at least produced) theories that put the white woman as superior to the black woman (and man) in many different ways. Its a good example of how the eurocentric phenomenon continues to reproduce itself, primary since it defines what is scientific knowledge and what is not.

Its absolutely not impossible to do this kind of intellectual work; to deconstruct the eurocentric. It's as I wrote in my previous post a very present activity. But, and this is what I meant with it as being possibly dangerous: If the western world has problems to accept this new reality, when colored humans of all ethnicities and religions, women, gay and in some extent also children (through the likes of me) slowly rises and grabs hold of a grater human value (and thereby also new possibilities), then all kinds of new conflicts evolve - both within and from outside of the western world. Thats the reason why I fear militant conservatives like the Bush administration. The feminsits and gay revulutions within the western world is probably quite unlikely to become overly violent if conservatism should rule in a greater extent than presently.

But the external threat is bigger. If the conservatives refuse to accept the changed reality (that is the constatly deconstructed eurocentrism) that comes with 'rising' non-westerners, global tensions will without doubt increase. Its not really relevant to speculate what WW3 would look like, but if one side dont have nukes, they will find out other ways to hurt their enemies. But maybe it will be a global version of the Israel/palestine conflict.

The Bush administration is not exactly improving the odds of such global tolerance to become reality, and a radical change in US political culture is not very likely, or hopefully it is? But I do have have some hope that EU (which has grown a little humble by its knowledge of its centuries of mistreatment) can become a more tolerant part in the world. And accept a new reality that is basically (and ironically) the deconstruction of eurocentrism, whilst a 'new' Europe is evolving. The postmodern kinds of thinking is not exactly dissapperaring, but grows quickly (even though never under the very name of the dirty postmodernism, as I said earlier - it has many faces), and will potentially hinder the EU from becoming another classical superpower; Hinder the EU to unite agaist an external enemy, and instead make EU develop a much more complex 'national identity', that integrates it in the global community (possibly helping to create a positive kind monoculturalism that we spoke of earlier), instead of putting it in opposition to the surrounding world.

I was also thinking about 'explaing' more how the eurocentric (discourse) can keep most of the world as inferior to the western world, but think that I have writtenquite some bit about that already, and now I must take a break. SHIT this post took an eternity to write - must be a little tired   And what bullshit dogma I have spewed out.... well, dont take it to serious  

[denoir 0]

Its a good example of how the eurocentric phenomenon continues to reproduce itself, primary since it defines what is scientific knowledge and what is not.

Well, since science is a word of European origin, European philosophers defiend what it was and European scientists built on it...

If you want an alternative, that's fine, but you can't call it science. It's like objecting against the Christians having the monopoly on what constitutes "Christmas"

Quote[/b] ]If the western world has problems to accept this new reality, when colored humans of all ethnicities and religions, women, gay and in some extent also children (through the likes of me) slowly rises and grabs hold of a grater human value (and thereby also new possibilities), then all kinds of new conflicts evolve - both within and from outside of the western world.

Believe it or not, but the western world is currently one of the most tolerant towards diversity. In western cultures today you don't get stoned for being gay and you have equal rights regardless of the color of your skin. I challange you to find another system as tolerant and liberal as the western. We havn't evolved as far as I personally would like it, but we're still light years ahead of the other larger cultures.

Quote[/b] ]Thats the reason why I fear militant conservatives like the Bush administration. The feminsits and gay revulutions within the western world is probably quite unlikely to become overly violent if conservatism should rule in a greater extent than presently.

Bush is a very mild conservative compared to other non-western world leaders. Look at the Mid East. Look at China. Bush seems like a hippie compared to most of the leaders of those regions. Compared to modern European leaders, he is very conservative and sure, that's certainly a negative trend. In absolute terms though, he ain't much of a threat.

Quote[/b] ]Hinder the EU to unite agaist an external enemy, and instead make EU develop a much more complex 'national identity', that integrates it in the global community (possibly helping to create a positive kind monoculturalism that we spoke of earlier), instead of putting it in opposition to the surrounding world.

Well, it will be most interesting to see how well we can create a tolerant monoculturalism in Europe. That's what we're trying with the EU. It's not so dramatic as all European countries share a very similar culture, but it's a good first step.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Howcome it allows hashis for example? or Khat?

Sorry Acecombat,    but it seems that someone doe'snt know alot about Crusades.

During this Dark Ages, exist the group of Hashishim (or "users of hashish"), drug-using, faithless, profiecient killers lead by "the old man of the Mountain". They were feared by muslims and helped sometimes some christians Lords, threatening men and Califs. Even Saladin had real difficulties with them!

The word Hashishim got transformed by history and become the word Assassin.

I know the history of that word, thankyou, but i was talking about the precence here.

[Pukko 0]

LOL, its hilarious how we can talk past eachothers. aint it?

Well, since science is a word of European origin, European philosophers defiend what it was and European scientists built on it...

If you want an alternative, that's fine, but you can't call it science. It's like objecting against the Christians having the monopoly on what constitutes "Christmas"

Its not really about creating an alternative science. Its about that those that feel oppressed (or their sympathisers) by these scientific discourses break them (the oppressive discourses, concieved as unjustified 'scientific thuths about them'; not science as a whole) down.

But indeed feminists have in big parts managed to create alternative science, or at least they have had a massive impact on social sciences as a whole. Obviously there do can be a need to create aternative science for some social groups to make their voice heard. And the only thing that can stop that is probably conservative politics (not necessarily enforced by 'politicians' - their real power in modern western societies is very small. Rather the ones with discoursive power)), like cutting funding to some science forms for example.

EDIT: Also, its not really necessary to change the name of something, just because you change its characteristics. We still call female humans women for example, even though the feminin character has changed quite alot in the last decades. Changing names in it self dont take away negative values from people, things and practicies. The miltiple taboo names of black humans for example have not exactly increased their human value or changed their (by the white man) concieved characteristics in it self, I would say.

btw, more common synonyms to 'eurocentric discourse' is 'modernistic discourse' or 'enlightment discourses'. I just started to use since it better show its origin, even though it kind of diguises its age.

Quote[/b] ]Believe it or not, but the western world is currently one of the most tolerant towards diversity. In western cultures today you don't get stoned for being gay and you have equal rights regardless of the color of your skin. I challange you to find another system as tolerant and liberal as the western. We havn't evolved as far as I personally would like it, but we're still light years ahead of the other larger cultures.

And thats about the same as I wrote. Read about those postcolonial theorists (mostly immigrants) I wrote about who sits in USA and Europe? They are about as controversal scientists you will find.

Quote[/b] ]Bush is a very mild conservative compared to other non-western world leaders. Look at the Mid East. Look at China. Bush seems like a hippie compared to most of the leaders of those regions. Compared to modern European leaders, he is very conservative and sure, that's certainly a negative trend. In absolute terms though, he ain't much of a threat.

I did write "if conservatism should rule in a greater extent than presently"... I know quite well that the politics performed presently in the western world is'nt very extreme, not even in USA. But I fear that the need for more conservative politics is just around the corner. These controversal sciencies will probably not be less frequent in the future you know. Put that together with an increasingly hysterical western labour market, and possibliy growing terrorism; and its more than most voters tolerates I recon.

EDIT: And I am not particulary worried about internal US conservatism. I'm primary terrified over the "preserve Pax Americana" foregin policy....

Quote[/b] ]Well, it will be most interesting to see how well we can create a tolerant monoculturalism in Europe. That's what we're trying with the EU. It's not so dramatic as all European countries share a very similar culture, but it's a good first step.

Europe is quite monocultural already (EDIT:and not only in its positive form) I recon, or rather the entire western world. But there is indeed many things that will have to be dealt with. I dont really promote a European state, or its like, neither do I oppose it by principle (since I still have hope that it can be to the better, even though that might change). I rather dont se anything stopping it in the long run (atleast in a 100 years perspective), its just its characteristics that are on stake IMO.

EDIT: The reason I write this bullshit now is probably because I have an exminating seminar about it next week at the University. Sorry if I bored someone out, and its all good if I gave someone a good laugh.

[Pukko 0]

   

Found this when looking for something completely else. Ok, it's not exactly science, but an extremely hyper unlikely link between modern science and Islam. Seems like muslims dont need no new science to tell the truth of things, its all in the Quran already (check out the link for a better overview):

http://www.geocities.com/speed_o....ult.htm

Quote[/b] ]Today, according to the US National Bureau of Standards, the speed of light is = 299792.4574 +/- 0.0011 km/s. According to the British National Physical Laboratory, the speed of light = 299792.4590 +/- 0.0008 km/s (making an average with the US standard = 299792.458 km/s).

But 1400 years ago and with no scientific means at all, the speed of light was known to be 299792.5 Km/s. It is stated in the Koran (Quran, the book of Islam) that light travels in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 1000 years (12000 lunar orbits). And since velocity = distance / time, a simple calculation reveals the speed of light to be 299792.5 Km/s. This is mathematically verifiable in less than 10 minutes

Anyone dares to write those numbers in roman figures instead of the arabic? (and it should be in Km/h too )

[m21man 0]

Now that is impressive !

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well that settles it- I'm converting tommorrow

[theavonlady 2]

@ Dec. 16 2003,07:27)]Well that settles it- I'm converting tommorrow  

To the metric system?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Dec. 16 2003,07:27)]Well that settles it- I'm converting tommorrow  

To the metric system?

[denoir 0]

Now that is impressive !

It would be, had it been true

After searching a bit on the web it becomes obvious very fast that this is in the same cateogry as the Jehova's witnesses interpretation of the book of revelations: very very imaginative.

For a full critique of the claims, here is an article on the subject by Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby, professor of Mathematics at the Univeristy of Vienna.

This is specifically what is said in the Quran and it's the only data this claim is built on:

Quote[/b] ]

"He [GOD] directs the affair from heaven to earth, then it goes up to Him in one day, whose measure is a thousand years of your counting." (32:5)

[Acecombat 0]

Denoir can you save that page and send it to me the one you linked i cant open it its blocked for me.....seems suspicious  

I went to this site Pukko posted:

http://www.geocities.com/speed_of_light_quran/relativity_quran.htm

Its indeed very very educative , i am seriously impressed by reading it.

[Apollo 0]

To just voice my oppinion on the ban of the headscarf in schools in Europe.Basicly the European public shool system is for the majority as such that any wild ,extravagant or different outfit from the regular outfit that students are supposed to wear in school are most of the times not allowed ,banned if you will.Having youre culture is one thing ,but it's not bbecause youre Hawaian that you should wear a skirt only ,or that you are Russian orthodox and would wear a big black cap on youre head.And a hindoe in Mahatma Gandi dress wont be allowed in public schools school neither.Even thing's like piercing's ,collored or wild hair or other extravagant fashion trends are mostly not allowed.Because in most schools in Europe Order in school and class is most important ,teacher maintain a very high degree of authority over students bacause they find it important to efficiantly educate the students.And when people dress up all differently it damage's the order in the class and the authority of the teacher.

There is a difference however with low grades and mid grades shools at the one side and university's/high schools at the other side.In university's tolerance and freedom is much higher as in most European culture's people are accepted as adult at an age of 18 and then for them a lot changes and the young adult is now expected to make their own choices.But the right's of a student before he reaches adultship are limited ,and they have certain duty's.

[Balschoiw 0]

jumping on the train i am a strong supported of school uniforms. I find the concept working and suitable for our times.

A lot of crime at school is based on clothes, shoes and things like that. Kids from Low income families often have no chance to keep up with wealthy pupils and are marked as outsiders because of their clothes.

I like the school uniform concept and therefore appreciate the german movement towards it.

For headscarves:

I think it´s ok to keep them out of school. Why ?

You create outsiders also.

The muslim families already cause a lot of fuzz when it comes to physical education, swimming and class actions like skiing or visits to other countries and such.

They already influence schools a lot with their pseudo muslim claims. No need for more of that.

Some schools in Berlin are visited by up to 80 percent pupils of foreign origin, mainly turks, albaniens....

The teachers have to do a lot of home visits when they intend to do a holiday with the class because muslim fathers oppose almost everything.

I mean it´s ok to raise your voice if something is totally against your religion but most of the times they interpret the religiouse things to their likes to direct their family members.

Germany is a democratic country and we don´t need religiouse extremists here.

A guy who tells me that his daughter is not allowed to go swimming while male kids are in the water has an ego problem but no religouse problem.

I´d like to see head scarves off by default in german schools too. Only makes differences where there should be none. Integration and coliving is the name of the game,not separation started with kids.

[ran 0]

just a question : is there any mention of the islamic dress in quran ?

[Balschoiw 0]

Here ran:

Dresscode

Quote[/b] ]God, the Most Merciful, gave us three basic rules for the Dress Code for Women in Islam (Submission),

(1) The BEST garment is the garment of righteousness.

(2) Whenever you dress , cover your chest (bosoms).

(3) Lengthen your garment.

EDIT:

Interesting:

Quote[/b] ]THE WORD "HIJAB" in the QURAN

"Hijab" is the term used by many Muslims women to describe their head

cover that may or may not include covering their face except their eyes,

and sometimes covering also one eye. The Arabic word "Hijab" can be

translated into veil or yashmak. Other meanings for the word "Hijab"

include, screen, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division,

divider.

Can we find the word "Hijab" in the Quran??

The word "Hijab" appeared in the Quran 7 times, five of them as

"Hijab" and two times as "Hijaban," these are 7:46, 33:53, 38:32,

41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.

None of these "Hijab" words are used in the Quran in reference to

what the traditional Muslims call today (Hijab) as a dress code for the

Muslim woman.

God knows that generations after Muhammed's death the Muslims will

use the word "Hijab" to invent a dress code that He never authorized.

God used the word "Hijab" ahead of them just as He used the word

"Hadith" ahead of them.

Hijab in the Quran has nothing to do with the Muslim Women dress

code.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

While many Muslims call "Hijab", an Islamic dress code, they

completely ignore the fact that, Hijab as a dress code has nothing

to do with Islam and nothing to do with QURAN.

In reality "Hijab" is an old Jewish tradition that infiltrated into

the hadith books like many innovations that contaminated Islam

through alleged Hadith and Sunna. Any student of the Jewish

traditions or religious books will see that head cover for the Jewish

woman is encouraged by the Rabbis and religious leaders.

Religious Jewish women still cover their heads most of the time and

specially in the synagogues, weddings, and religious festivities.

This Jewish tradition is a cultural not a religious one. Hijab was observed

by the women of the civilizations that preceded the Jews and was

passed down to the Jewish culture.

Christian women cover their heads in many religious occasions while

the nuns cover their heads all the time. This religious practice of

covering the head was established from traditions thousands of

years before the Muslim scholars claimed the Hijab as a Muslim

dress code.

The traditional Arabs, of all religions, Jews, Christians and

Muslims used to wear "Hijab," not because of Islam, but because of

tradition. In Saudi Arabia, up to this minute most of the men cover

their head , not because of Islam but because of tradition. Thank

God this tradition has not been counted as Islamic dress code yet.

North Africa is known for its Tribe (Tuareg) that have the Muslim

men wearing "Hijab" instead of women. Here the tradition has the

hijab in reverse. If wearing Hijab is the sign of the pious and

righteous Muslim woman, Mother Teresa would have been the first

woman to be counted.

In brief, hijab is a traditional dress and has nothing to do with

Islam or religion. In certain areas of the world, men are the ones

who wear the hijab while in others the women do.

Mixing religion with tradition is a form of idol-worship, because

not knowing (or not trying to find out) what God asked you to do in His

book, the Quran, is a sign of disregarding God and His message.

When tradition supersedes God's commandment, the true religion

takes a second place. God never accepts to be second, God has to be

always the FIRST and to HIM there is no second..

[theavonlady 2]

This Jewish tradition is a cultural not a religious one.

This is incorrect.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is incorrect.

enlighten us with a link Avon

[Acecombat 0]

Hey i sometimes use the miswak too?

Would you guys ban that too in Europe too ? Since its a practise the Prophet Muhammed use to do ?

This is getting stupid really stupid.

I would have understood this if a women came naked or something in the school and they asked her to dress properly but telling a women to take of her clothes just so she matches in with the crowd is stupid , its disrespect for other peoples culture and somewhat religion.

Plus i cant understand the damaging effects on the eyes of fellow non muslims if they see a girl/women in scarf ?

*Argh my eyes....*

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]This Jewish tradition is a cultural not a religious one.

"One God, One King, One People, One Land" is the basis of the first monotheistic religion in the World, whick make it being unique in Mankind History.  

They also manage to keep intact their fundamental beliefs and traditions through thousands years of occupations and diasporas.  

                      ----------------------------------

For other things, no lessons to learn from countries that forbade Christain Churches on their territory, while demonstrating religions tolerance.

Mostly after having heard that they were :

- the human rights on one side,

- the rights of the Muslim Human on the other side.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]This is incorrect.

enlighten us with a link Avon

I think you'll get a little lost here and here.

maybe this is a touch simpler to comprehend.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Mostly after having heard that they were :

- the human rights on one side,

- the rights of the Muslim Human on the other side.

*Cough*

Whats that suppose to mean?

The rights of muslims are pretty much the same as anyones ,if you wanna go on religious discrimination spree then add athiesm and everyone in there too ...

I cant imagine all this for just a *^%$@& scarf ?

Can plz anyone still answer me how damaging an effect just the scarf is to the french people?

[theavonlady 2]

Can plz anyone still answer me how damaging an effect just the scarf is to the french people?

Hermes must be losing business.

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]Mostly after having heard that they were :

- the human rights on one side,

- the rights of the Muslim Human on the other side.

*Cough*

Whats that suppose to mean?  

The rights of muslims are pretty much the same as anyones ,if you wanna go on religious discrimination spree then add athiesm and everyone in there too ...

I cant imagine all this for just a  *^%$@&   scarf ?

Can plz anyone still answer me how damaging an effect just the scarf is to the french people?

At my own regrets, I didn't have to imagine anything.

What has been written has been said, and not, understand it well, by secular side.

I won't ALLOW anybody saying that different levels of Human rights do exist.

But In France, as you don't know, throught it's far away from you, it's is what had been claimed by "pious" demonstrating women, while "protected" and leaded by their "male allies".

They also claiming things that would be even not tolerated in some Muslim countries.... being healed only by a female doctor for exexmple. As you don't know it's developping, and not from recent immigrants but "pious" now-french citizens.

... oh yes, those gouvernments are so corrupted...

While all governments are always viewed as corrupted by a part of their people...