Kelvin Mackenzie Is Thinking About Lodging An Official Complain About Fatima Manji's Hajib

[sp1814]

From his column in The Sun (the link at the bottom is to the Independent, because the Sun is behind a paywall):

I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.

Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/kelvin-mackenzie-is-thinking-about-an-offical-complaint-about-fatima-manjis-hijab--byxQgHfLUZ

Do you think he has a point?

[naomi24]

Read my post. Specifically "head coverings".

[sp1814]

Head coverings over their bosoms.

So...their boobs?

[sp1814]

The word 'hijab' appears seven times in the Quran. Five of them as 'hijab' and two times as 'hijaban', these are verses: 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.




None of these 'hijab' words are used in the Quran in reference to what the traditional Muslims call today 'hijab', that being the head cover for Muslim woman!




God knows that generations after Muhammed's death the Muslims will use the word 'hijab' to invent a dress code that God Himself never authorised. God used the word 'hijab' ahead of them just as He used the word 'hadith' ahead of them (45:6).



The word 'hijab' in the Quran has nothing to do with the Muslim women's dress code.

[sp1814]

From:

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html

This suggests to me that the wearing of the hijab might be open to interpretation...seeing as not all Muslim women wear it.

[mikey4444]

This is all drivel. The poor woman was perfectly entitled to wear whatever she likes.

But I hope that the truly odious Mackenzie does take this further, as it will show him up for the twit he is. He appears to have learned nothing from his debacle over Liverpool.

[jim360]

I think it's well-established by now that Naomi is the foremost authority on this site on pretending to know everything about what Islam really is.

MacKenzie doesn't have a point and it's a shame to continue to see his pathetic attempts to persecute a woman doing her job in her usual attire given any credence on this site.

[naomi24]

The word is irrelevant. The instruction is clear. Whether all women choose to do it is another matter.

[mikey4444]

Jim for BA !

[sandyRoe]

Naomi, is the translation of that verse, your post at 7:22, a good one? Why, if women are permitted to display their 'ornaments' to so many male members of their families it might be read as a directive to stew in a sink of unhealthy intimacy.

[naomi24]

Jim, I don't pretend about anything, and I don't pretend to know 'everything', so please don't be rude. I know what I know and if I don't know I'll say so.

[naomi24]

Mikey, move out of the schoolyard. You're a big grown up man now.

[sandyRoe]

I should have added this to my last post.
:-))

[jim360]

I wasn't being rude, just saying things as I see them.

[naomi24]

Jim, you accused me of pretending which is tantamount to accusing me of lying. I don't.

[mikey4444]

Jim...its always easy on AB, to know when someone has lost the argument, when that someone resorts to personal abuse !

[naomi24]

Mikey, then by that token Jim has lost the argument. I haven't been rude to him - but he's insulted me.

[mikey4444]

Jim...I would give up if I were you !

[naomi24]

^That's the best idea you've had this morning!

[NoMercy]

Mikey and Jim, don't waste your pixels. I don't anymore ;-)

I'm off fishing now

[-Talbot-]

At least Fatima has a choice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-women-in-my-stealthy-freedom-campaign-call-on-western-tourists-to-violate-headscarf-law-to-a6996136.html

Obviously the oppression of women means very little to her.