Skip to main content

Should Britain ban the burka?

Image
By

The Big Questions, BBC1, Sunday 28 June 2009, hosted by Nicky Campbell.

This fascinating discussion began with Campbell asking the one woman in the studio with a burka why she wears it. Throughout the programme, she consistently maintained that it was an expression of her own personal choice, and that she was not under duress in any way. Nevertheless, she did say that she wore it because certain scholars said so.

Campbell's opening 'googly' bowled the poor woman for a duck. His question: If men and women are equal, why shouldn't men cover their faces too? No answer. Even more interesting was the tirade from the moderate Muslim preacher who insisted that the burka is a pre-Islamic cultural item of dress, which is a relatively new introduction in the UK. He was angry about the infiltration of Saudi Wahhabism and its non-Qur'anic dress codes. He asked several times where the words 'niqab' and 'burka' were in the Qur'an, and criticised the Hadith as erroneous in many places.

Peter Hitchens of The Mail on Sunday was in typically robust form, asking whether the freedom for women to wear what they pleased in a pluralistic culture like the UK would be reproduced in an Islamic culture. Essentially, those who support 'a woman's right to wear a burka' are a walking contradiction (if not, in a French politician's words, "a moving prison").

Islam does not appear to be a religion of choice; but a religion of power, of law, and of force. The Lord Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is the one who came to affirm and liberate all women who will turn to Him in repentance and faith, whatever they wear and, like the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery, whatever their background.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more