Comments on: Open season on Muslims

By: Thersites

Thersites — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:14:26 +0000

“The teacher would take off her niqab during class. ” Except in this case she wouldn’t because there was a male teacher in the classroom.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:38:57 +0000

LJH wrote: "If there a teacher is speaking to a class in which there is a deaf pupil and she is wearing a piece of cloth over her mouth, how is the disabled child to understand what is being said?" The teacher would take off her niqab during class. The issue is not whether *anyone* can see her face, but only men who are not mahram for her. Children aren't a concern, so both boys and girls before puberty could see her face without the niqab. Hence, there should be no problems concerning the issues you raised in your last sentence.

By: LJH

LJH — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:18:51 +0000

This is not to enter into any religious debate but a matter of pragmatics - If there a teacher is speaking to a class in which there is a deaf pupil and she is wearing a piece of cloth over her mouth, how is the disabled child to understand what is being said? The veil then becomes in direct conflict with the interests of a child’s learning and is possibly in contravention of the DDA.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:26:43 +0000

Now I know you’re really grasping at straws.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:20:41 +0000

Muslims choose to drive in ramadan in a physical condition that makes them more likely to harm themselves and other people. They put compliance with instructions to abstain from eating and drinking above the safety and lives of other people. However, you believe that says nothing about muslim attitudes to other people.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:45:51 +0000

No, it says nothing about “Muslim attitudes.” People may need to drive during Ramadan for many different reasons that have nothing to do with so-called “Muslim attitudes.”

You’re grasping at straws.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:55:56 +0000

I’d have thought that the fact that muslims keep driving at a time when they know their driving is going to be adversely affected says something about muslim attitudes, JD, wouldn’t you?.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:06:54 +0000

Thersites wrote: “…and the increase in ramadan suggests that there’s something about muslim attitudes.”

Having read your Country Brief on Turkey, the report points out that the increase in traffic accidents is due to levels of alertness, probably either just before or just after breaking the fast in the evening, when blood sugar levels are either very low or overloaded. The accidents during the month of Shawwal (the month after Ramadan) mentioned in the report are due to the home-and-home visits Muslim families do.

None of these things have anything to do with your so-called “Muslim attitudes.” Try doing your research first before spouting off your personal prejudices.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:01:44 +0000

Can’t find assessemnts, but this is useful:http://countrybrief.com/db1/00049/countrybrief.com/_download/turkey.doc

By: Ann

Ann — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:12:01 +0000

I wouldn’t be shocked to find out it was true, since there are some crazy drivers just before sunset - when they’re late getting to wherever they’re going to break their fast. It’s just that the newspapers always have reports of traffic accidents and fatality rates, etc., and I don’t remember seeing anything that singled out Ramadan.