Justin Trudeau's government drops controversial niqab appeal

[gcomeau]

17. No I'm really not.

I just keep waiting for you to get to the part where you stoptelling me over and over again that x percentage of Muslims in Y location are in favor of Sharia law, or making assertions that a niqab is always a political statement when it is not, and move on to the point where you draw the connection between any of that and the justification that any individual Muslims freedom of peaceful personal expression or speech should be restricted by the government.

And you just keep not doing that.

The niqab is not a religious obligation. Anywhere.

As I have pointed out several times there are multiple Sunni religious traditions that damn well do consider it obligatory.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81bb

"Sunni
The opinions of the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence are as follows:

Maliki: In the Maliki madhhab, the face and the hands of a woman are not awrah; therefore covering the face is not obligatory. However, Maliki scholars have stated that it is highly recommended (mustahabb) for women to cover their faces.

Hanafi: The Hanafi school does not consider a woman's face to be awrah; however it is still obligatory (wajib) for a woman to cover her face. While the Hanafi school has not completely forbidden a male’s gaze towards a female’s face when there exists absolutely no fear of attraction, the woman has no way of knowing whether the gazes directed towards her are free of desire or not, especially when she is out in public. The Hanafi school has thus obliged women to cover their faces in front of strangers.[12][13]

Shafi'i: The Shafi'i school has had two well-known positions on this issue. The first view is that covering the face is obligatory at all times when in presence of non-mahram men.[14] The second view is that covering the face is preferred in general, but obligatory only in a time of fitnah (where men do not lower their gaze; or when a woman is very attractive).[15]

Hanbali: According to the Hanbali school, there are two differing views on whether a woman's whole body is awrah or not. Mālik, Awzāʿī, and Shafiʿī suggest that the awrah of a woman is her entire body excluding her face and her hands. Hence, covering the face would not be obligatory (fard) in this madhhab.[16] According to scholars like Tirmidhī and Ḥārith b. Hishām, however, all of a woman's body is awra, including her face, hands, and even fingernails. There is a dispensation though that allows a woman to expose her face and hands, e.g. when asking for her hand in marriage, because it is the centre of beauty.[17]

The modern Salafi movement (with the only exception of Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani) state that it is obligatory for a woman to cover her entire body when in public or in presence of non-mahram men.[18][19] Some interpretations say that a veil is not compulsory in front of blind, asexual or gay men.[20][21][22]

Salafi women in several countries, including Saudi Arabia, veil their faces because they believe the face of a woman is considered awrah. Wearing the niqab, however, is not exclusive to the Salafi movement, and other Sunni Muslims may regard niqab either as mubah (permitted), mustahabb (recommended, an additional act of worship) or fard (obligatory)"


You can keep denying the reality of the situation all you like, it isn't changing.

The Sharia and the KKK lead to the death of the persons targeted.
I don't see a difference.

Perhaps because you refuse to deal with the fact that wearing a niqab does not automatically indicate the wearer wants to impose Sharia on everyone fucking else. As even your own cited poll numbers show seeing as none of them say "100%".

Whereas *everybody* wearing a KKK uniform is supporting overt racism by definition.