My Opinion

nothing but my opinion

Should the Burka get banned in all Western societies without exception?

BurquaIn the Quran, there are only two passages that indicate the veil of the Muslim women. However, without precise specifications, how exactly this has to look. Everything else has been added in the course of time by Islamic theologians and women's conspirators, and served only to keep the woman in check and make her more controllable.

The most important question should be: What does it matter, whether this is so in the Quran or not, and whether this is true in Islamic law as prescribed?
Freedom of religion does not mean having to tolerate inhuman and anti-democratic matters in the name of religion because this has been demanded since 1400 years by a religious founder and his ideological descendants and is still regarded as exemplary by Orthodox Muslims (Sunnah). In a secular European state, universal human rights are the basis of our ways of thinking and laws, and the main reason why European states became democratic. Also blind adherence to Islamic rules is not contemporary. If reason and individual freedom are rejected as pagan by orthodox Muslims, the logical consequence must be: The modern democracy based on reason and freedom is also rejected by them.

The insistence on the traditions such as the burqa is the inroads within a European State in a reactionary Islamic parallel society. Needless to say, how little our concept of human rights is similar to an islamized conception of the same. We are so far that the women finally found their equitable place next to the man. At the same time, however, accepting burquas or other whole body veils can only be regarded as a mockery of all achievements in the area of women's rights. Already the sight of this form of concealment can cause in an enlightened man only misunderstandings and violent shaking of the head, since our modern image of freedom strongly contradicts it.

The modern European has its own history, which also speaks of a dark time, in which the "voluntary" submission to the Christianity of the churches was so advanced that almost all of the ancient knowledge from Plato to Pythagoras fell victim to it. It was hard to believe that there was an era when Islamic caliphs attempted to reconcile the Hellenistic secular knowledge with Islam (but eventually failed because the dogmatism of Islamic orthodoxy prevailed against reason and Reversed everything). But what is happening today, almost one thousand years later, no longer corresponds to this enlightened image of the caliph from this ancient time. Even today dogmatism is preferred to reason and a strong turn to Islam is preached. What is supposed to mean the salvation of Islam has always led to its decline in history and is now intended to lead to the rise of Muslim countries. The Islamic countries are scientifically and economically on the ground despite huge revenues from the sale of oil and their location on geostrategically important routes and seem to be incapable or unwilling to allow these billions of income to benefit science and their own population. As is often the case in Islamic history, wealth is divided within the ruling class. Magnificent palaces and mosques often adorn the cityscape. What the average Muslim can experience of this richness is the prayer among the vaults of the material wealth of decorated mosques.

In order to obscure this social injustice and the failure of Islamic societies, an external enemy gets used, which is sometimes rightly called, but often wrongly, as the cause of all existing problems. This is only to be explained by an anti-knowledge and authority, which alone recognizes the Islamic discourse as the only authority and fights discourses as "foreign" and liberal, Islam-threatening ideas. Thus the oppressed by the Islam becomes the greatest advocate of his own oppression, without understanding it. The fanatical belief in the inviolability of Islam makes him a blacksmith and a preserver of his own misery. The lack of rational thought led to a lack of self-critical thought makes him incapable of recognizing this.

The expansion of Islam over the whole world was the goal of Muhammad already 1400 years since he viewed Islam as the successor religion of all monotheisms known to him. Never was it as easy as today, one could think of spreading such an intolerant movement. And this, although the people (in the West) were never as enlightened as they are today. In the middle of Europe, a pretext for why this is to be tolerated is the reason why Islam is said to be good, although history could never confirm this. The criticism of Islamic imperialism and its goal of bringing Western societies under its influence is generally regarded as racism or "Islamophobia" - which seems completely absurd in the historical context. Several Western groups and ideologies based in Europe seem to have found an ally in Orthodox Islam, which has been lost in recent decades. In order to combat the alleged US imperialism, for example, Islamism is preferred as a partner, who now speaks openly about the world as soon as the chances for it exist. But there will not be much left of democracy, freedom of opinion and freedom of religion. The only common ground between Islamic and European anti-Western ideologies is the common enemy image. There can be no question of common values, since they do not exist.

It is worth pointing out the particularly high interest of the policies of various European countries with a relatively high proportion of Muslim immigrants who can play a decisive role in democratic elections. Once again, Orthodox Islamic associations, which are entitled to represent the Islamic municipalities, are once again the contact point. As a clientele they are granted a certain immunity in the form of religious propaganda. In order to win the Muslims votes, they are hardly openly criticized, even if there are obvious reasons for this. Thus the attempt to procure the majority necessary in democracies is weakened very consciously. This in turn means that trust in democracy is dwindling.

So why it is important to pronounce a burqua ban is now clear. As a visible element of Orthodox Islam, a prohibition would be an important sign. A clear denial of intolerance. A rejection of the obvious suppression of the (Muslim) woman and the religious immaturity of the Muslims, which here too are increasing proportionally and, as the majority creator of various parties, this rampant backwardness can spread unhindered to the whole society. As a further step, it will be necessary to provide the large group of secularized people from Islamic countries of origin with the possibilities and the help to organize and decisively oppose Islamic orthodoxy together with the enlightened Europeans. Up to now, these aid is only guaranteed to the Islamic associations, since religion, however serious it may be, enjoys state protection and is given an inviolable status in our democracies through the so-called "blasphemy paragraphs". Although it is usually no racism to reject intolerant religious representatives, Islam criticism is today used synonymously with racism and agitation and rejected.

Anti-Western racism among Muslims is widespread and leads to the secular "Muslims" being prevented from joining together with secular Europeans and forming a broad front. The most intolerant representatives of Islam are only too glad to rely on the "racism" against Europeans, in order to suppress any criticism of their approach and to prevent a necessary shoulder closure among the secular ones. With the pretext of racism, they live their own racism against Western, because non-Islamic ways of thinking. If they do not drive a wedge between people, they lose their own importance.

This assumption of racism is seldom questioned and gladly taken up by "anti-racist" groups in politics and media. These groups live from racism. If there were no racism, these groups would not exist, and they would lose their importance. All their campaigns are based on real but often also invented racism. For example, the already mentioned equality of all Islamic criticism with racism. In some cases even the self-evident requirement of a burqua ban is declared a racism.

As long as burqas and other conflicting symbols of extremist thinking are not get prohibited, they continue to remain as propaganda instruments of dubious groups, which are used only as pretexts and overshadow really important debates, while they at the same time they are weakening the democracy.

Alone in a so long to debate why the burqa, the symbol of backward thinking, should be prohibited at all, should show us that the anti racism debates of the "anti-racists" and Orthodox Islam societies drifted off already long ago in the absurd and is missing any enlightened thinking. That are only apparent debates and red herrings. Those who are boundlessly tolerant of accepting even the most intolerant ideas will ultimately only promote intolerance and give up tolerance.

If a man is not able to stand the view of a woman, he should wear blindfolds and not the woman a veil!!!