Chinese Province Bans Islamic Veil, Sparking Rights Concerns

Hijab comes in many colors

Hijab comes in many colors

Source: Dawn

BEIJING: The capital of China’s far western Xinjiang has banned the wearing of Islamic veils in public, the regional government said on Thursday, in a move experts worry could spark more unrest in the troubled region.

The restriction comes as China is stepping up curbs on religious clothing amid increasing nervousness about Islamist extremism. Beijing blames Islamist separatists for several deadly bomb and knife attacks that have killed hundreds of people over the past two years or so.

Many Xinjiang experts say the outlawing of veils and the heavy-handed enforcement of the rules would further stigmatise the region’s minority Uighurs.

Uighurs have traditionally followed a moderate form of Islam, but many have begun adopting practices more commonly seen in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, such as full-face veils for women, as China has intensified a security crackdown in recent years.

More:

17 replies

  1. The Muslim Times stands for human rights of every person and for Separation of Mosque-Church and State, so, our position is clear on this issue.

    But, often the Muslims shoot themselves in the foot also. Firstly, in this province of China, some were practicing terrorism. Secondly, the Muslims almost every where keep raising slogans in favor of Sharia Law.

    We need to understand that there are more than 70 verses in the Holy Quran, stressing justice and human dignity, which every modern country is providing and the Muslims have not had a track record of providing that for the last several centuries. So, in a way, with small exceptions, like alcohol, gambling and nudity, the Western societies are already practicing Sharia Law. Additionally, they have evolved these laws in the last couple of centuries to bring them up to date to the modern needs.

    In each country we need to improve things from within, with a pro-establishment attitude, rather than without and anti-establishment attitude.

  2. since when has the veil become a part of the six/five basic tenets of Islam? It has always been an expression of the upper class landed aristocracy based ashrafia and salariat.They want to protect their women from the eyes of the lower classes. While the teeming millions of working class muslim women have never had any problems in dressing modestly and carrying out their extremely hard daily chores. The veil has been transformed by the Wahabis/Salafites into a weapon of terror and should be proscribed in every civilised society.Countless acts of terror/crime have been perpetrated by remaining behind the veil. The Lal Masjid Islamabad Mulla and the recent murder of a US citizen lady in Dubai are just a taste of the horrible system of life these so called Islamists intend to impose upon the already beleagured and battered Muslims.Get rid of this veiled threat to protect your life and limb.

  3. Mr. Shah Wrote: “The Muslim Times stands for human rights of every person and for Separation of Mosque-Church and State, so, our position is clear on this issue.”
    Separation of Mosque/Church and state is a vague slogan. MUSLIM TIMES Means what exactly? And Who is standing behind what?
    If you ask for equality or justice for all (which is fine) then its not something off or against Mosque or Church. Other than that you cannot really keep them separate. Mosque or Church unite people. The problem lies when you don’t use them or misuse them. You are also here using Mosque to wow you ideas (which is all ok for me) as long as you use it justly).
    Also to promote there own sets of ethics or customs or laws, there are different Theologies or Schools of thoughts … like… Religious /Commercial / Western/Interest Based Commerce/Underworld/Rivalries and Anti Christ. So one way or other some one is influencing some how and is trying to set there tone and teachings. Which one wud you like?

  4. @Rafiq
    Let’s face it: You don’t speak for everyone; only yourself. What you think ladies look attractive in is utterly irrelevant. And the fact you bring it down to how women look shows the depths of your sexism.

  5. @Rafiq/Al/Anon: for me , You all have point with your perspective. Beauty or secret is more attractive and valuable when its not fully open.
    Anyways, neither you need to put women in Hijab by force nor you need to remove their Hijabs by force or by your likes or dislikes or by your votes. Let them choose what they like to wear. Security is never been the main issue – its more about values but wud you force people to your values? or Jeans or T-shirts etc? If Marry, mother of Jesus is living today wud you ban her Hijab or coverings? Totally ridiculous! Another Truth is that the more you turn to God, the more you become modest through your actions and also through your appearance – otherwise it may be opposite. So wud you like people not to be modest or religious or Godly? Think justly.

  6. @Nadi
    I thought I’d answer your questions seeing at they were partially directed at me.

    “…but wud you force people to your values? or Jeans or T-shirts etc? ” – No, and my comment didn’t suggest I would.

    “If Marry, mother of Jesus is living today wud you ban her Hijab or coverings?” – No, and my comment didn’t suggest I would. To be fair, neither did the other two commenters you addressed.

    “Another Truth is that the more you turn to God, the more you become modest through your actions and also through your appearance – otherwise it may be opposite. So wud you like people not to be modest or religious or Godly?” – Actually, I couldn’t care less about how “godly” or religious someone is. What they do or don’t believe is entirely up to them, and none of my (or your) business. Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on goodness and decency. You don’t need religion to be good; nor are religious people “better” that non-religious folk.

  7. @Al – Sure not all those comments were yours – some were suggestions/opinions or replies. Thanks for the clarifications tho. Religions is the set of teachings and ethics which comes form God or Godly wisdom. A common man may also devise these ethics but mostly even his children don’t agree or follow them. So religions also are a binding force which make people to agree to at least some values or ethics.
    Also a prophet or Godly person acts for God and for the fullest sympathy of His Creatures. He does not asks for any government or worldly rewards in return, nor they retreat because of hardships, so its like comparing apples with oranges.

  8. “A common man may also devise these ethics but mostly even his children don’t agree or follow them.”
    – That’s simply not true – there are many core values that are largely universal and not the result of religion.

    Some of the most just, equal societies in the world are the least religious. As I said, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on goodness.

    “Also a prophet or Godly person acts for God and for the fullest sympathy of His Creatures. He does not asks for any government or worldly rewards in return, nor they retreat because of hardships, so its like comparing apples with oranges.”
    – I didn’t make a comparison. But you could equally argue that someone who is not religious but good acts for no reward – be it worldly or heavenly. They don’t need an incentive in this world or the next to be a decent human being.

  9. @ Al – no arguments that a common man cannot devise good morals. yes he can but again – they don’t become universal – which ethics or morals you think are devised by man which are against or separate from religion?
    One more point that Good is made by God – which is found in children and even in animals – and basic good actions come from basic good nature not from morals. And a true and survived religion is also from God where God teaches men to be steadfast against odds and improve your basic nature into high morals. If it was so simple then no religion was needed at all.
    I hope you get my point. Thanks

  10. ….continued. can u devise a way of formal prayer or fasting acceptable to God or even folks around u. Or to build some certain type if building to pray and bring pwople together. So many othwr issues … some body gave his whole life and too many sacrifices then only people listened to him and agreed to some sets of prayers and ethics. Now shud I discredit there efdorts and sacrifices ? I may but their Sender will not. Thanks

  11. @nadi

    “no arguments that a common man cannot devise good morals. yes he can but again – they don’t become universal – which ethics or morals you think are devised by man which are against or separate from religion?”
    – You could say the same thing of “religious morals”, many of which exist outside of religion (as I’ve said, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality). In any event, many people are of the view so-called religious morals were devised by the “common man” anyway.

    Regardless, ideas on right and wrong develop over time, and evolve as societies evolve and become more equal and just (i.e. women’s rights, gay rights etc).

    “One more point that Good is made by God” – We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

    “If it was so simple then no religion was needed at all.” – That’s just it, for many people, no religion is needed.

  12. @ AL. Well On exodus – what and who saved Isrealites?
    Who Saved Humanity from the waters at the time of Noah? Who united people at the time of Jesus? Budhha and Muhammad and other Prophets and gave people liberty and triumphs?
    Who has been helping the humanity with prophecies and Ethics and moral and practices which are not heard by a common man or if heard but not agreed upon. One may say Religion or a Prophets – but not a common man.
    When its time of great trials people ask God to help or send a helper – so when He sends someone and bring people out of fears and trials – man forgets HIM. All the things including you and your mind are made by God so if you use your mind to deny Him – that’s really odd? It takes more effort to deny Him rather than to accept Him and His works.
    And a common man does have a sense of ethics even animals have it to some extent, but it becomes morals when and you apply it properly at a given situation. Your moral may be ok for you but may not be ok for others. Also Moral of Prophets are like sun and moral of a common man are like a lamp. Cud you be steadfast against odds Jesus or Buddha faced? If you can show same or better morals that’s really good then i wud consider you more than a prophet. The world already need one now. Thanks

  13. @Nadi

    With respect, I think you’re misunderstanding my comments. I’m not denying the existence of religion (how could I?!); nor am I denying that religions come with their own code of ethics. What I’m saying is you don’t need religion to be good, or to have morals, or to decipher between good and bad (and all of the varying shades in between). How “godly” someone is has no bearing on their ability to be and do good. That’s what I mean by “religion doesn’t have a monopoly on goodness”. To suggest otherwise would be to say all atheists or followers of a religion other than your chosen religion are without morals.

    “All the things including you and your mind are made by God so if you use your mind to deny Him – that’s really odd? It takes more effort to deny Him rather than to accept Him and His works.” – With respect, I, along with millions of people, disagree, that’s all. You’re free and entitled to believe whatever you want, but so are those that disagree.

    “Your moral may be ok for you but may not be ok for others.” – I agree, there are lots of morals and rules laid out in religious texts that I find completely abhorrent. Fortunately, many societies have evolved, and now discount many of them.

  14. @Al – well yes man can act on good morals no problem but to portray that religion is something obsolete or useless – is surely an exaggeration and a gesture of ungratefulness. But i respect your opinion.
    Religion means way – if you choose to be out of any formal religion that’s also a religion – your way your religion. Man follow some one at any given time – different ideas form tv, papers or books etc and even if follows his own heart or mind.
    Religion brings people together and people start doing politics around it so I do understand that religion has been misused by some ill hearted people but so is the case with other attachments (country hood, nation hood, (land or resources) etc have been used to appease pride, enmity, jealousy … and to justify immoralities. so will you leave all of them?
    Religion is not to blame for the disturbances but mans greed and pride is – and it doubles when religion is used which comes to end these mischieves. Despite all the issues A common man’s wisdom still finds ways to justify his wrongs!!! Isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.