Burka and veiled faces - a security threat?

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm


At least one of the alleged London bombers has been proven to have fled the scene wearing a full burka covering.

The jury has also heard he was captured on CCTV wearing the burka at Golders Green coach station earlier in the day.

In court, the suspect's lawyers agreed that the footage showed their client.
 
#3
Just shows that this "man" knew he needed to conceal himself because he knew he had done something wrong and would face punishment. The true zealot typically believes that nothing can touch them and no matter what they do it was the right thing and for the greater good and therefore there is no need to conceal themselves after their action. It would then suggest that he did not truly believe in the action as deeply as he might have wished it to appear.

This "man" used the most peeweak way possible to hide himself, dishonouring not only the women who do wear the bhurqa as a symbol of their religious committment but all other Muslims who are true Muslims, by dressing in a bhurqa to flee. I also believe he went against the teachings of the Qu'ran in dressing as a woman - perhaps some of the more knowledgeable members would be better in giving more thorough comment on that aspect.
 
#4
mizkrissi said:
Just shows that this "man" knew he needed to conceal himself because he knew he had done something wrong and would face punishment. The true zealot typically believes that nothing can touch them and no matter what they do it was the right thing and for the greater good and therefore there is no need to conceal themselves after their action. It would then suggest that he did not truly believe in the action as deeply as he might have wished it to appear.

This "man" used the most peeweak way possible to hide himself, dishonouring not only the women who do wear the bhurqa as a symbol of their religious committment but all other Muslims who are true Muslims, by dressing in a bhurqa to flee. I also believe he went against the teachings of the Qu'ran in dressing as a woman - perhaps some of the more knowledgeable members would be better in giving more thorough comment on that aspect.
Pure supposition on your part MizKriss. Maybe he just enjoys wearing womens' clothes.

PB
 
#5
Touche.

I shall bow to your obviously greater knowledge of the...uhhh... cross dressing community and their motivations.
 
#6
Of course they are not a threat. If I walked down a street with a balaclava covering my head and face I would expect the same courtesy. It is my human right to protect myself form people who might view me as extremely beautiful or equally ugly.
I wonder what the populace and the police would think of that.
 
#7
Possibly, but on the whole no.

No real objection to people wearing them i just think common sense needs to come into play.

Are they going through custom/security at an airport/port etc? If so they should have to show their full face.

Walking round the street doing the shopping or whatnot, then no major problems with it.

Or is that too sensible?
 
#8
His cunning disguise might have worked if he hadn't been 6 foot 2. As it was, he looked like a Star Wars villain cutting about in the bus station. :brilsmurf:

Can't speak for anyone that dresses up for God. Crack on I suppose, if you don't mind looking like that. Me, I dress for the weather, short sleeves in winter, shirts tucked in in the desert! Proper smart! :plotting:
 
#9
It does beg the question - what happens if the next great yoof craze is wearing ski masks or full-face balaclavas, instead of just hoodies?

Is the burkha any less offensive and threatening than any other form of deliberate concealment?
 
#10
mizkrissi said:
Just shows that this "man" knew he needed to conceal himself because he knew he had done something wrong and would face punishment. The true zealot typically believes that nothing can touch them and no matter what they do it was the right thing and for the greater good and therefore there is no need to conceal themselves after their action. It would then suggest that he did not truly believe in the action as deeply as he might have wished it to appear.

This "man" used the most peeweak way possible to hide himself, dishonouring not only the women who do wear the bhurqa as a symbol of their religious committment but all other Muslims who are true Muslims, by dressing in a bhurqa to flee. I also believe he went against the teachings of the Qu'ran in dressing as a woman - perhaps some of the more knowledgeable members would be better in giving more thorough comment on that aspect.
It is against Qur'anic writ, but this individual was, presumably, using a rather loose interpretation of the doctrine of taqiyya, or dissimulation. Originally a predominantly Shi'a concept, it allows a believer to pretend to be something else if their life is in danger due to their beliefs.

www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/2.html said:
In his book, "Shi'ite Islam" (translated into English by Sayyed Hussein
Nasr), the Shi'i scholar Allama Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai defines
Taqiyya as the situation where a person "hides his religion or certain of
his religious practices in situations that would cause definite or probable
danger as a result of the actions of those who are opposed to his religion
or particular religious practices." He goes on to define the nature of the
danger:

The exact extent of danger which would make permissible the practice
of Taqiyya has been debated among different Shia scholars. In our
view point, the practice of Taqiyya is permitted if there is definite
danger facing one's own life or the life of one's family, or the
possibility of the loss of the honor and virtue of one's wife or of
other female members of the family, or the danger of the loss of one's
material belongings to such an extent as to cause complete destitution
and prevent a man from being able to continue to support himself and
his family.

Tabatabai cited two verses from the Quran in support of al-Taqiyya:

"...except for precaution and dissimulation that you may protect
yourselves against them..."(Quran 3:28)


For the above verse, the great Sunni scholar, Mawdudi, has a commentary in
support of Taqiyya. Notice that in the above verse, the words "tattaqu" and
"toqat" have exactly the same root as Taqiyya.

The second verse is the following:

"Any one who becomes unbeliever after being believer, EXCLUDING the
one who is under compulsion and force while his hurt is firm in faith,
but the one go on in disbelief, Wrath of Allah is on to them and they
will have a dreadful penalty," (Quran 16:106)
It's a function of those in the process of 'martyrdom ops' [sic], that there is commonly no consideration of exfil. The expectation is of death and as such, escape is not a consideration. It makes me wonder about the specific characters of both this individual and the planning for the 21/7 attacks.

On the original point, there is little consideration of the Briton's inate mistrust of those who cover their faces. Whilst in Islam, as in the Imperial Sassanid courts from whence the tradition originates, the veiling of women is a cultural norm, in the British milieu, hiding the face connotes, Burglar Bill, highway men and muggers.
Comments above about going shopping in a balaclava helmet are spot on - this is an issue which is simply not considered; primarily on the basis of multiculturalism being addressed specifically at the assimilated UK population to the benefit of recent waves of immigrant culture.
 
#11
fas_et_gloria said:
On the original point, there is little consideration of the Briton's inate mistrust of those who cover their faces. Whilst in Islam, as in the Imperial Sassanid courts from whence the tradition originates, the veiling of women is a cultural norm, in the British milieu, hiding the face connotes, Burglar Bill, highway men and muggers.
:worship:
You must have an extra strong neck, to cope with the weight of your brain!!

All this time I've been labouring under the delusion that all those veils were a throwback to "desert chic", not only do they look good, but they keep the sand out of my nose too!
 
#12
I agree, perhaps I should refuse to take off my motorbike helmet next time I visit the bank and see how far I get!

Covering the face is not part of our cultural norm and is most definately a security threat. In particular, and process that involves an ID check must not allow anyone through with their face covered. same for any form of ID document, drivers licence etc. Its just common sense!
 
#13
4(T) said:
It does beg the question - what happens if the next great yoof craze is wearing ski masks or full-face balaclavas, instead of just hoodies?
Is the burkha any less offensive and threatening than any other form of deliberate concealment?
Good question, I think I'll pop down the bank today and wear a balaclava while I am at it!! do you reckon the bank staff would panic just a wee bit?

edited to add:

when the police come crashing through the door to give me a bit of close questioning with their batons, I'll explain that I am wearing it under my right as a male to cover my face so as to not inflame the desires of all females whom observe my countenance.....well thats my excuse and i'm sticking to it!!
 
#14
biscuits said:
fas_et_gloria said:
On the original point, there is little consideration of the Briton's inate mistrust of those who cover their faces. Whilst in Islam, as in the Imperial Sassanid courts from whence the tradition originates, the veiling of women is a cultural norm, in the British milieu, hiding the face connotes, Burglar Bill, highway men and muggers.
:worship:
You must have an extra strong neck, to cope with the weight of your brain!!

All this time I've been labouring under the delusion that all those veils were a throwback to "desert chic", not only do they look good, but they keep the sand out of my nose too!
Oddly the strength of my neck is seldom mentioned - it's usually the length of it which crops up in (one way) conversations.

The Persian kings and aristocracy kept their hareems in seclusion and veiled them if were the women ever allowed to leave the walled palaces. After the defeat of the Sassanids by the Islamic Arabs in the century after the death of Muhammad, the leadership of the new empire adopted the fashion for their womenfolk. This was justified as an interpretation of Qur'anic references to the dignity of Muhammad's wives - who lived around the courtyard which served as the communal mosque in Al-Madinah - and one of whom got herself caught, naked, going for a midnight dump.

Within a very few generations, the mainstream Muslim population had, in turn, adopted the fashions of their social superiors - think equality amongst believers and the political power of a religious law - the up-shot being that a custom designed for the queens and princesses of a sedentary imperial court was taken on by the women of a substiantially nomadic or rural agrarian population.

My neck hurts. :yawnstretch:
 
#15
PassingBells said:
mizkrissi said:
Just shows that this "man" knew he needed to conceal himself because he knew he had done something wrong and would face punishment. The true zealot typically believes that nothing can touch them and no matter what they do it was the right thing and for the greater good and therefore there is no need to conceal themselves after their action. It would then suggest that he did not truly believe in the action as deeply as he might have wished it to appear.

This "man" used the most peeweak way possible to hide himself, dishonouring not only the women who do wear the bhurqa as a symbol of their religious committment but all other Muslims who are true Muslims, by dressing in a bhurqa to flee. I also believe he went against the teachings of the Qu'ran in dressing as a woman - perhaps some of the more knowledgeable members would be better in giving more thorough comment on that aspect.
Pure supposition on your part MizKriss. Maybe he just enjoys wearing womens' clothes.

PB
I know I do........... :thumright:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top