[akudha]

Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not

No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face. If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed. Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.

[dang]

Please do not take HN threads into religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[pocketarc]

> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face

We’re raised to cover our bodies in clothes. You accept that as normal but draw the line at covering your face?

Edit: Updated the quote I was replying to.

[phatfish]

Saudi Arabia has the climate that one could survive without clothes. In many other places you would be very cold.

In the coldest places it is even necessary for someone to cover their face to avoid frostbite.

Let's not pretend enforced face covering anything except the subjection of the female sex. "Enforced" includes the peer pressure to conform even if it's not breaking a law.

[wwtrv]

> that one could survive without clothes

I'd love to see you to try and survive naked in the desert for an extended period of time. Temperature isn't everything. Also at night it might get pretty cold.

[zakki]

We are enforced to pay income tax. We accept it. And that is not a problem. Why a religion that enforced its law to its follower become a problem?

[wwtrv]

If you can't tell the differ between paying income tax and executing women who try to resist being raped (or imprisoning those who don't), there isn't much point in having a good faith discussion with you, is it?

[adammarples]

Well a) lots of people do have a problem with income tax but at least b) it is spent on public goods, not just burned. What is the great public good of forcing women to cover their faces? This argument is so broad as to be meaningless. Oh I'm sorry, we have income tax so what's wrong with <travesty>?

[paulryanrogers]

> Why a religion that enforced its law to its follower become a problem?

Does Sharia law not apply to unbelievers? Do followers choose the faith only in adulthood? Or are people involuntarily indoctrinated from birth? Are apostates and unbelievers granted the same rights and privileges as everyone else?

[rajup]

Umm taxes are a by-product of laws which in most cases come about by representative democracy. Not some 1500 year old book written by some randos, which happens to be set in stone.

[MikeDelta]

I draw the line at the gender inequality where only women have to do this or they get beaten by men.

[watwut]

Probably because taking down hijab is symbol and first thing to do when there are protests against muslim religious dictatorships.

It is also a thing ex Muslim women complains about a lot. It is a thing that systematically and repeatedly ceases to be worn the moment you remove violence and threats from the equation.

Muslim states including Saudi Arabia exert considerable violence against women disagreeing with these laws. They would not needed the violence if it was all voluntary.

[yucky]

I felt the same about people wearing those non-N95 masks over the last couple of years, but a huge chunk of the population made it part of their personalities.

I'm agnostic so I don't really have a horse in the race, but it turns out a lot of people (maybe due to anxiety) actually loved an excuse to keep their faces covered in public.

[erenyeager]

Such an ethnocentric view. If you believe the one Creator commanded you to wear modest clothing, then indeed it is most rational to follow. And covering your face also gives a kind of privacy in society that many western women would not have the luxury of.

Anyways, many commenters here could benefit from a broader cultural perspective rather than a narrow minded, tunnel visioned view of the world.

[feet]

Where does the belief of some creator come from?

[stavros]

I don't have an opinion, but I'll say that the argument form of "no normal person wants to do X; if you want to do X, there's something wrong with you" should be beneath us.

I hope we know better than casual No True Scotsman arguments.

[recuter]

I'd just like to thank you, as a (cannibal) resident of Nukuhiva, for respecting my culture. Everything is just a matter of perspective after all, it is good to keep an open mind.

[stavros]

I guess maybe I should adjust the standard of discourse I expect on HN.

[terryf]

The other guy is right. Moral relativism is not the way.

There are limits to acceptance as you imply in your comment.

Freedom is measurable and matters.

How long is the list of things that you can do for which the state can repress you in Saudi Arabia? How long is the list in Belgium?

Is there a fair trial process?

Are there equal rights to people?

Yes, some people want to cover their faces and that is fine. Some others don't. That should be fine as well.

[HDThoreaun]

Moral realism is not the way. There is absolutely no reason to believe in universal right and wrong. Might make you feel good but that doesn’t make it true

[terryf]

You sure seem to be absolute in that belief ;)

[stavros]

No, both of you are strawmanning my argument. I said "No True Scotsman isn't a valid argument" and you got "moral relativism is OK" from that.

There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".

[recuter]

So, presumably there is a line after all. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing with other than palatable phrasing.

I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?

[bitcharmer]

This refers to your comments more than others. There's a lot of mental gymnastics you're engaging in.

[akudha]

Why don’t you have an opinion? They’re treating women so bad, their policies are stuck in 1200s, and we are in 2022. Does that not bother you at least a bit?

Honest question about the argument - how would you phrase it (I wrote that comment)?

[stavros]

I wouldn't make that argument that way, I'd say I don't like what they're doing. It's not useful to say "no normal being would do that", given that millions of "normal" human beings do it.

It makes it sound like they're inhuman monsters and that we'd never do that. The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would, just like we eat meat.

[akudha]

Ok, fair enough.

The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would

But that is kinda what I said though, isn’t it?

Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make them sound like monsters (except the rulers, they sure are).

I’ll try to word things better, next time.

[stavros]

It's not so much about the wording, it's about this line of argumentation separating us from them. I especially dislike this line of thinking when thinking about Nazi Germany and the atrocities there, because people tend to think "no sane person would do that, and we're sane, so we won't do it".

Instead, a much better line of thinking is "normal people can do this, under specific circumstances, so we should be very careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves".