Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Searching a woman - how do you tell it is? - should not be depending on a husband or older brother or father allowing it, nor should it need any "religious authority" to allow it to make it what you call a "smoother" procedure. That is what its about as reason number one. An Imam has not to have any say in it, nor the family. The Imam has no rights over this women, the father has none, the brother has none. The women does not get owned by them, it is not their slave - by our rules, and it is our rules that rule here in our home countries, its not their rules, their rules do not count here, with us. Ewuality o men and women is to be defined and enforced by our laws, not by their backwardly worldviews - if they want to stay here. Nor do they have any claim to make that allows them to agree or to not agree that the law of the land gets applied only if they agree to it. Do we out a bank robber to court only when he agrees to it?= Do we quesiton a suspect only when he agrees to get arrested by the police? No, we apply the laws, period, with or without his agreement. The person wearing a burkha got to be searched? Fine, like any western women it should be done by a female police officer - and there is nothing to be claimed by Mr or Mrs Burkha beyond that. Compliance - nothing else. Agreement by Imam or family is not relevant, and should not be needed by law and police.
Its not only that the state or the police should not need an Imam's or a family's approval to apply the law. Its more about that you accept that Imams and fathers have possesional claims for that - supposed - woman in the burkha. You step right into that trap that the article by Birgit Kelle describes, and I summarised that point even if not translating the whole thing.
You already accept the claim for possession of women by men and religion by your suggestion to respect these men's views and make it a smoother experience for them - and you do not even realise that. - THAT is what its about as reason number two. And from an ethics point of view it is about the more important reason. Do we tolerate a slave holders claim for haviung the right to hold slaves, or not? You say we shall make it smooth a procedure to not upset his porecious slvery worldviews. I say we should not giv episs for whether he is upset or not. He complies with our rules, gives up slave holding, or he gets the boot kicked into you know where and flies back to where he cam eform in no time.
This, and nothing else.
---
No helmets in German banks for sure.
|
All of the above would be fine if people were robots, but we both know better than that. Besides, we also know the dangers of a completely subservient population who will comply with any rule or law that their government imposes on them without protest.
Now neither of us conflict on our belief that there should be no problem for 'Mrs Burqa' to be searched by a woman police officer, as mentioned by example in mapucs post, however where we clash is codifying this in Islamic law. Truth be told there would most likely be a high number of Salafists and Wahabists who would object to anyone but the husband of Mrs Burqa seeing her without the clothing on, but that's because there are conservatives and puritanists on both sides of the divide here, and quite honestly the last thing we in Europe should think of doing is pushing more people towards hardline Salafists, Wahabists and even Khawarijs.
I think you expect Islam to do in a few weeks what it took Christianity a few hundred years and God alone knows how many wars to do.