• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria bans full Islamic face veils at universities

"Some" being the majority of the Muslim world, half or an irrelevant part of it?

The question should be "Are they considered heretics by both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites?"
 
"Some" being the majority of the Muslim world, half or an irrelevant part of it?

why don't you just read about the Alawites instead if asking me quastions and come back to share your findings with us ?

img.361978_t.jpg


Bashar Assad, second right
 
Has anyone else also wondered why the physicality of a woman has long been considered to be more powerful than that of a man?

No need to wonder. Men are weak and have difficulty controlling their desires. They're jealous, overtly lustful, frequently violent, and terribly impatient. In many ways, the necessity to control women is, at its core, actually the necessity to control MEN. If women didn't tempt them, you see... men wouldn't do "bad" things. ;) So, control the women, and you keep the men under control.
 
In many ways, the necessity to control women is, at its core, actually the necessity to control MEN. If women didn't tempt them, you see... men wouldn't do "bad" things. ;)
Indeed. This convoluted philosophy is precisely why the burqa exists.
 
Indeed. This convoluted philosophy is precisely why the burqa exists.

Indeedy, it does.


I saw a tiny little bit of exposed ankle the other day and immediately fainted due to the blood loss to the head. It's probably a good thing, too, otherwise I would have had to call the morals police to come flog the women because she was inviting rape.
 
Indeedy, it does.


I saw a tiny little bit of exposed ankle the other day and immediately fainted due to the blood loss to the head. It's probably a good thing, too, otherwise I would have had to call the morals police to come flog the women because she was inviting rape.

Exactly. See, that lust that you felt is WRONG. "god" doesn't like that ****. And lust provokes one to do even more bad things. So, when she allowed you to see her ankle, she was provoking lust in you, forcing you to sin against your "god", tempting you to commit more acts against your "god". Of COURSE she must be punished for that. She can't be allowed to go around tempting men into sin. That's what evil beings do, that's what the DEVIL does.

The 'modest' clothing that women were required and pressured to wear for centuries has all stemmed from those same beliefs. Every religion has done it, Islam is no different in that regard. *Some* muslims just haven't caught up with the times yet.

Women provoke men to do bad things. Therefore, women must be controlled. It's all just a matter of pushing the blame off on someone else. Fairly typical.
 
The Alawites are Muslim .

Depends who you ask. They aren't exactly followers of most of the rituals or beliefs. Alawites are considered heretics and it's not hard to see why.

What kind of Muslim believes in Trinity?
 
Last edited:
Depends who you ask. They aren't exactly followers of most of the rituals or beliefs. Alawites are considered heretics and it's not hard to see why.

What kind of Muslim believes in Trinity?

They still are considered Muslim, so are the Druze and the Sufis and yet Sufism has simmilarities with Hinduism and the Druze remains a mystery.

The name "Alawite" comes from the name "Ali", the Prophet's brother in law. They believe in 5 pillars of Islam not 7 and they do practice some Christian rituals.
 
They still are considered Muslim

Again, depends who you ask. Syria has an extremely strong set of secular laws for a reason. Not exactly on the best terms with Muslims.

so are the Druze and the Sufis and yet Sufism has simmilarities with Hinduism and the Druze remains a mystery.

The name "Alawite" comes from the name "Ali", the Prophet's brother in law. They believe in 5 pillars of Islam not 7 and they do practice some Christian rituals.

Just because you believe in some aspects doesn't make you Muslim. Seriously. Trinity. What kind of Muslim believes in that?

Alawaites look like they grabbed a bunch of concepts from a variety of religions and synthesized their own. Not hard to consider why many Muslims think they aren't Muslim.
 
Last edited:
Again, depends who you ask. Syria has an extremely strong set of secular laws for a reason. Not exactly on the best terms with Muslims.



Just because you believe in some aspects doesn't make you Muslim. Seriously. Trinity. What kind of Muslim believes in that?

Alawaites look like they grabbed a bunch of concepts from a variety of religions and synthesized their own. Not hard to consider why many Muslims think they aren't Muslim.

You intrigued me with the "trinity" business that I had never heard about so I went and checked.

I couldn't find much info except for some web sites speaking about a trinity of God (Allah) the Prophet (Mohammed) and Ali (the Prophet's brother in-law).

But anyway, what's your point exactly in regards to the subject of the thread ?
 
You intrigued me with the "trinity" business that I had never heard about so I went and checked.

I couldn't find much info except for some web sites speaking about a trinity of God (Allah) the Prophet (Mohammed) and Ali (the Prophet's brother in-law).

Which is little more then a Islamized version of Christanity's belief aside from the brother in law. The Koran never said Mohammed was a reincaration of God. Only his prophet.

But anyway, what's your point exactly in regards to the subject of the thread ?

That Syria ain't all that bad. As I said to Sgt, if Syria didn't export its terrorists, they'd be our best pals.

Strong secular government.
Strong womens' rights.
Strong minority rights.
OIL.

I feel that Syria exports its terrorists against Israel because it got no one else to export them too.
 
Which is little more then a Islamized version of Christanity's belief aside from the brother in law. The Koran never said Mohammed was a reincaration of God. Only his prophet.



That Syria ain't all that bad. As I said to Sgt, if Syria didn't export its terrorists, they'd be our best pals.

Strong secular government.
Strong womens' rights.
Strong minority rights.
OIL.

I feel that Syria exports its terrorists against Israel because it got no one else to export them too.

A little bit like Iraq during the "good old days" you mean ? (minus the support for terrorism)

How about the abuse of human rights in Syria ?
 
A little bit like Iraq during the "good old days" you mean ? (minus the support for terrorism)

Except that Assad and his father didn't show a desire for conquest.

How about the abuse of human rights in Syria ?

Like the artillery shelling of Islamic radicals? Of course Syria has done bad things. That doesn't mean they can't be the US's friend.
 
Except that Assad and his father didn't show a desire for conquest.

what did Saddam conquer ? are you talking about Kuwait ?



Like the artillery shelling of Islamic radicals? Of course Syria has done bad things. That doesn't mean they can't be the US's friend.

You don't seem to know much about Syrian political prisons.
Of course Lebanon is of no interest either, it's just another Arab country.
 
this article caught my attention

Syria: Al-Asad's Decade in Power Marked by Repression | Menassat


The 35-page report, "A Wasted Decade: Human Rights in Syria during Bashar al-Asad's First Ten Years in Power," reviews al-Asad's human rights record in five key areas: repression of political and human rights activism; restrictions on freedom of expression; torture; treatment of the Kurds; and Syria's legacy of enforced disappearances. The verdict is bleak.
 
It's not the job of government to tell people what they can and cannot wear as long as it is not a security risk. I agree that this decision is actually striking down women's rights, not furthering them, because it is not giving women the empowered choice to remove the burka, it is forcing them to do it. That is not progress, it is fascism.

If the burka truly is so bad, then education and women's liberation will gradually free them of it. This decision was made by men in the heat of prejudice, and you get bet that there will be women who will not go to university because they will have to choose their faith over the education system. In a true women's rights movement, women would be voluntarily casting off their burkas and going to school, and not being made to choose between their faith and their schooling. This is no different than telling Christians that they can't wear the cross to school or carry a Bible with them down hallways, or telling Jews that they cannot wear a Kippah because it demonstrates separatism from other students. It's vogue to attack Islam right now so that's why these types of racist laws are going through.

A very, very bad decision. And shame on you Sgt for posting such a hateful message. No matter how hard to try to piss on Muslims and call it rain, we will always see you for what you are: a hatemonger. Please don't insult us by trying to hide it. I've also done a lot of research into Islam and I have not arrived at the same conclusions as you. Have you been to a Mosque? Have you made friends with Muslim people who are willing to educate you about their faith? Or do you just read websites about the most heinous humanitarian issues in the world, and assume that all Muslims are that way? You have fallen prey to politics, which is where most hate comes from.
 
Last edited:
If the burka truly is so bad, then education and women's liberation will gradually free them of it. This decision was made by men in the heat of prejudice, and you get bet that there will be women who will not go to university because they will have to choose their faith over the education system. In a true women's rights movement, women would be voluntarily casting off their burkas and going to school, and not being made to choose between their faith and their schooling. This is no different than telling Christians that they can't wear the cross to school or carry a Bible with them down hallways, or telling Jews that they cannot wear a Kippah because it demonstrates separatism from other students. It's vogue to attack Islam right now so that's why these types of racist laws are going through.

I don't think the Burqa is really regarded to as a religious symbol, it's mainly a cultural clothing that is more frequent amongst the more women-oppressing regions such as Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, I'd like to know what, in your opinion, is the reason so many people around the world are supporting the banning of the blanket known as the Burqa?
We know that the absolute majority of the British support the banning of this item, we know that France and Belgium have already banned this item, we know that Spain and the Netherlands show signs of following the steps of France and Belgium, and we now know that even in Syria they do not hold positive sentiments towards the Islamic veil. What is the reason, in your opinion?
 
I don't think the Burqa is really regarded to as a religious symbol, it's mainly a cultural clothing that is more frequent amongst the more women-oppressing regions such as Afghanistan.

What you think is not relevant and it's none of your business to tell these women what they can and cannot wear, or how they identify with what they wear.

Nevertheless, I'd like to know what, in your opinion, is the reason so many people around the world are supporting the banning of the blanket known as the Burqa?

A false sense of women's liberation, when really it is achieving the opposite. If Muslim women come to free nations yet still choose to wear the Burqa, that is their empowered choice, and these laws are taking that choice away from them.

We know that the absolute majority of the British support the banning of this item, we know that France and Belgium have already banned this item, we know that Spain and the Netherlands show signs of following the steps of France and Belgium, and we now know that even in Syria they do not hold positive sentiments towards the Islamic veil. What is the reason, in your opinion?

I don't particularly care for the populism argument. Anti-Muslim sentiment is very high in Europe and the U.S. right now. If private employers and institutions want to make rules about a dress code, that's fine, but anything in the public domain (short of security concerns) should butt its nose out of what these women decide to wear.
 
What you think is not relevant and it's none of your business to tell these women what they can and cannot wear, or how they identify with what they wear.
It's none of my business to declare what artifact a person considers religious and what not, but the same works for you too, you can't simply say "it's a religious symbol" without proving that they really refer to it as such.
A false sense of women's liberation, when really it is achieving the opposite. If Muslim women come to free nations yet still choose to wear the Burqa, that is their empowered choice, and these laws are taking that choice away from them.

I don't particularly care for the populism argument. Anti-Muslim sentiment is very high in Europe and the U.S. right now. If private employers and institutions want to make rules about a dress code, that's fine, but anything in the public domain (short of security concerns) should butt its nose out of what these women decide to wear.

I was more of hoping that you could explain what you reason the popularity of the sentiments against the burqa, but I guess you simply look at it as holding anti-Muslim sentiments.

Anyway, post reported for the "rightwingnutjob" thing, I was trying to be civil here, too bad.
 
It's none of my business to declare what artifact a person considers religious and what not, but the same works for you too, you can't simply say "it's a religious symbol" without proving that they really refer to it as such.

I don't have to prove anything. If a woman wearing a burqa tells me that it has religious value to her, then it's a religious artifact. This cup sitting next to me that's blue, if I suddenly decide that it represents Poseidon and the forces of the ocean and I will worship him through it, you can't say anything about it. If it's not harming anyone then what business is it of yours?

I was more of hoping that you could explain what you reason the popularity of the sentiments against the burqa, but I guess you simply look at it as holding anti-Muslim sentiments.

I thought I already covered that. A false sense of women's liberation. We think we're doing them a favor by bringing them into the "modern", and our free ways where they don't have to hide themselves. But as I said, it's not acknowledging their empowered choice to do so if they want.

Anyway, post reported for the "rightwingnutjob" thing, I was trying to be civil here, too bad.

ROFL, oh damn, sorry, that was actually a mistake. I was debating with the guy Rightwingnutjob in another thread, and had his whole "quote" field in my copy/paste. I was replying to two threads at once and accidentally inserted the wrong quote field here.

I don't think you are a right wing nut job! hahaha
 
Back
Top Bottom