Muslim Woman Competes in Weightlifting

Off Topic
221

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

You are reaching. That falls beyond the spirit of discrimination because it’s validated by peer review.

If the “peers” feel it is discrimination, they’ll vote against allowing her to compete. Simple.[/quote]

So was segregation.

Voting doesn’t change what is or is not discriminatory. You are wanting discrimination.[/quote]

Segregation of what? You mean in THIS country, i.e. 50s & 60s ?

If the community (of all peers, the competitors) feels it is discrimination, it will vote against it (in theory). The system would self-correct. “Market forces” and all that sexy stuff.

Voting allows the peers to express whether or not they feel it is discriminatory. Who is being “discriminated” against? All the people who’ve wanted to compete with hockey masks and Halloween costumes?

Again, I don’t think governing body should give her an allowance, I’m just suggesting (as a compromise) that the competitors be allowed to weigh in and decide so they can’t blame the governing body with “discrimination.”

I wish there was an actual competitor here to weigh in.

EDIT: Or do you mean the option of peer review denying her admission amounts to discrimination, and thus the rule of a 3rd party / ruling body is meant to keep the neutrality in this matter?[/quote]

Actually it would go either way. Popularity of an idea wouldn’t change what discrimination is.

If they want to institute a rule that discriminates against 49% of the people and works in favor of 51% of the people, in your scenario it would pass. People vote for self interest, not whats right or wrong.

222

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I wish there was an actual competitor here to weigh in.[/quote]

From page 8.

[quote]TheJonty wrote:
All that being said, I compete in olympic lifting, and I don’t think the rules should be changed.[/quote]

I wouldn’t ever be competing against the woman in question, so take that for what it’s worth.

Also, pretty sure one or two of the ladies who’ve posted in this thread train for o-lifting, not sure how much/if they’ve competed or not.

223

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

You are reaching. That falls beyond the spirit of discrimination because it’s validated by peer review.

If the “peers” feel it is discrimination, they’ll vote against allowing her to compete. Simple.[/quote]

So was segregation.

Voting doesn’t change what is or is not discriminatory. You are wanting discrimination.[/quote]

Segregation of what? You mean in THIS country, i.e. 50s & 60s ?

If the community (of all peers, the competitors) feels it is discrimination, it will vote against it (in theory). The system would self-correct. “Market forces” and all that sexy stuff.

Voting allows the peers to express whether or not they feel it is discriminatory. Who is being “discriminated” against? All the people who’ve wanted to compete with hockey masks and Halloween costumes?

Again, I don’t think governing body should give her an allowance, I’m just suggesting (as a compromise) that the competitors be allowed to weigh in and decide so they can’t blame the governing body with “discrimination.”

I wish there was an actual competitor here to weigh in.

EDIT: Or do you mean the option of peer review denying her admission amounts to discrimination, and thus the rule of a 3rd party / ruling body is meant to keep the neutrality in this matter?[/quote]

Actually it would go either way. Popularity of an idea wouldn’t change what discrimination is.

If they want to institute a rule that discriminates against 49% of the people and works in favor of 51% of the people, in your scenario it would pass. People vote for self interest, not whats right or wrong.[/quote]

It doesn’t change it and it doesn’t have to. My point is that the negative impact (other competitors feeling discriminated against…I don’t buy it, but ok) of “special allowances” in this case would hopefully be mitigated by the option of popular vote.

If you feel discriminated against as a competitor, because someone else is allowed to lift in hijab, you’ll vote “no.” And if you feel your nay vote is in the minority, you could speak up to your peers to sway their vote. You have the option. You get to speak up with your vote and possibly to your peers before they vote.

TheJonty,

Thanks. Missed that. Again, I originally said that the rules should not be changed. I’m just putting up food for thought (re: popular vote).

224

If the judges can determine that she reaches the required position for the lifts with her hijab on, (ie lockout) then the purpose/spirit of the rule is still upheld. The problem was that the judges wouldn’t even make that determination and just said that she couldn’t compete. There should at least be an attempt at inclusion, and if they couldn’t tell if she was cheating or not, then obviously she couldn’t compete.

226

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
You adapt to the Federation, the Federation does not adapt to you.[/quote]

Thread should’ve ended here.

227

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Yes, let’s re-invent the wheel.

Because the rules that we have now obviously weren’t based on any sort of experience with such things.

And every time someone comes up with a new “special case,” let’s spend lots of time and resources examining the rules yet again to see if we can “accomodate” them.

BTW, do you honestly think you’d be pleading this case so “enthusiastically” if it was some member of a little-known religion that you had no “investment” in? [/quote]

Yes. That’s correct. The rule has to be reexamined. That is a part of progression, inclusion, and integration. The constitution originally only gave rights of citizenship to free white men. Should no one have reexamined that rule either? We are STILL reexamining that rule.

228

[quote]zahmad wrote:
If the judges can determine that she reaches the required position for the lifts with her hijab on, (ie lockout) then the purpose/spirit of the rule is still upheld. [/quote]
By simply dressing like everyone else, she wouldn’t stand out and thus would be obeying the “purpose” or “spirit” of her religious rule.

Its funny how to some people any rule can be flexible unless its a religious one.

229

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]zahmad wrote:
If the judges can determine that she reaches the required position for the lifts with her hijab on, (ie lockout) then the purpose/spirit of the rule is still upheld. [/quote]
By simply dressing like everyone else, she wouldn’t stand out and thus would be obeying the “purpose” or “spirit” of her religious rule.

Its funny how to some people any rule can be flexible unless its a religious one.[/quote]

The purpose or spirit or her religious rule has nothing to do with dressing like everyone else or standing out. It has to do with modesty.

231

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]zahmad wrote:
Yes. That’s correct. The rule has to be reexamined. That is a part of progression, inclusion, and integration.
[/quote]
But that is a one way street, right?

I mean Islam has no obligation to progress, include and integrate, does it?

So, we have a "My way or the highway (if not death for aposty) religion asking for “re-examination” of the way things are done all over the world…

Here’s an idea: If Muslims are so concerned about this, why not start an Islamic weight lifting federation?

Oh, and then when a Western woman wants to compete in shorts and a t-shirt there, that Federation will “progress, include and integrate” her, right? Because it’s only fair…

[/quote]

Islam neither requires nor expects non-Muslims to abide by it’s rules. The Muslim weightlifter girl is not asking ALL the competitors to wear hijab, she is only asking that she is allowed to wear hijab in the competition.

232

[quote]zahmad wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]zahmad wrote:
If the judges can determine that she reaches the required position for the lifts with her hijab on, (ie lockout) then the purpose/spirit of the rule is still upheld. [/quote]
By simply dressing like everyone else, she wouldn’t stand out and thus would be obeying the “purpose” or “spirit” of her religious rule.

Its funny how to some people any rule can be flexible unless its a religious one.[/quote]

The purpose or spirit or her religious rule has nothing to do with dressing like everyone else or standing out. It has to do with modesty.[/quote]

It seems to me that not standing out would be a modest way to dress.

233

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

You are being disingenuous. You are conveniently neglecting the spirit of the incident and justifying that neglect with the letter of the law. “Fair” doesn’t always mean such strict interpretation of rules. Fair can mean accommodating people such that everyone else involved is ok with those accommodations, hence why I suggested popular vote.

It’s not about “head covering” being an inclusive definition to allow anyone to cover their heads with anything. For this particular lifter, her head covering is a part of her faith. It’s not the same to walk in with a beanie that is not part of your cultural/religious framework and stomp your feet like a spoiled kid and say, “But I want to wear my damn beanie, too!” Is the beanie critical to your values? No, and please no strawman arguments about sentimental value or the beanie covering up some birthmark or some other shit.

234

[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:

^Solution[/quote]

^Appeasement

235

Well, what if it’s my lucky beanie? Everytime I wear it, it gives me confidence because I set PR’s like wildfire in it. I believe in the beanie. The beanie makes me whole inside. I place the beanie on a mini altar when I go to bed. Why is someones belief in a recognized faith more important than my belief that the beanie will make me kick more ass than a temple full of Shaolin monks? By all means, bring the rebuttal on why my belief is somehow less important and not worthy of an exemption.

236

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

…It’s not about “head covering” being an inclusive definition to allow anyone to cover their heads with anything. For this particular lifter, her head covering is a part of her faith…[/quote]

Why should more value be placed on a faith-based preference than any other? What if a woman doesn’t want to abide by the rules because she believes the costume is immodest, but is coming from a secular perspective?

238

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
TheJonty,

Thanks. Missed that. Again, I originally said that the rules should not be changed. I’m just putting up food for thought (re: popular vote).[/quote]

Oh, I know. I’m not trying to shit on you for coming up with ideas. Just doing my best to stay away from the religious back and forth going on.

239

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]zahmad wrote:
Islam neither requires nor expects non-Muslims to abide by it’s rules.
[/quote]

Ha ha ha.

Funny man.

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [/quote]

You are the funny one dude. That verse says if non-Muslims don’t pay Jizya (taxes while residing in Muslim land) then Muslims can fight them. So non Muslims gotta pay taxes and that exempted them from military service and gave them citizenship rights.

What’s your point?

240

[quote]zahmad wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]zahmad wrote:
Islam neither requires nor expects non-Muslims to abide by it’s rules.
[/quote]

Ha ha ha.

Funny man.

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [/quote]

You are the funny one dude. That verse says if non-Muslims don’t pay Jizya (taxes while residing in Muslim land) then Muslims can fight them. So non Muslims gotta pay taxes and that exempted them from military service and gave them citizenship rights.

What’s your point?

[/quote]

This is CAIR/AQ bullshit. Christians and Jews had to sell their fucking children to pay the Jizya in many cases(Christian Berbers in 630 at Tripoli e.g.) The Jizya was established by Muhammad and was an inferior status to be placed on all who would not submit to Islam. It was extortion enforced with threats of violence. Many of Muhammad’s and his sucessors’ ‘battles’ comprised sacking, looting, raping, murdering and extorting a city that didn’t even have an army.

Both the Qaran and the Hadith make it plain that this extortion and violence is to continue until everyone in the world is an inferior being extorted by Muslims or a Muslim.