Is there a computer out there somewhere programmed to churn out hijab, burqa, and mantou (sp ?) topics?

Helen and Shakira are correct to argue that we should show respect for the black tent that muslim women wear. People are also correct in saying that we shouldn't respect the black tent. That is the normal discourse one expects in a democracy.

How 'bout Helen and Shakira take us down another road and broach the delightful subject of FGM? I'm sure they'd find some positives associated with FGM.

Another attempt by a religion to get public support on their side and take over society. What we are seeing, is religious war being brought to our country. All the politically correct can do is support those that wish to harm us, psychologically and physically in the end.

The Hijab is a just a part of that, infiltrate, irritate, divide, conqueror. Just as forcing us to provide them with prayer rooms everywhere and stop us using expressions, celebrations and displays that may offend their religion. They don't care, just so long as they get their way, just like the politically correct. To say that the hijab is a statement of choice, yet neglecting the effects upon themselves and those around them, just typical of the self righteous selfcentred religious.

“Young women who are assertive enough to wear hijab in defiance of intense social, media and political hostility do not seem the type to passively submit to the demands of a backward misogynist culture”. Which they class western society as, backward, so they will do what they can to disrupt it.

“Most women who veil are adamant that the choice to cover is their own.” Just another religious way of saying, I am superior to you, so you cannot look upon me, for your mind and way of life is foul. Yet they say that in their own home they wear what they like. How insulting to the general community, such an arrogant expression of disdain for those that have given them the choice of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom from suppression. They won't get that in any muslim controlled country. In Pakistan recently, a local area council decreed that women who wore coverings that didn't cover the ankles and hands, would be beaten and for a second offence, killed, lots of choice there.

Ban all religious expression, clothing or paraphernalia in public except on certain occassions and then they can be free to wear their coverings in their homes. If not why don't they go to a muslim country that will give them the freedom they want.

Fanon was right. Most people know almost nothing about Islam or its practices. I’m one of them. But I do not know anything about Muslim woman, unlike Fanon’s stereotype of non-Muslims. Hang on though, isn’t it the Muslims who are always complaining about stereotypes? Am I permitted by the PC-ers to think that I and other Anglo/Saxon Australians, or any non-Muslims for that matter, to claim that we are also stereotyped.

But, when ignorant old me suggested that there was no point in talking about headscarves until someone who knew could tell us whether or not women were required to wear them as part of their religion (which should, surely, make a difference to the discussion?), did a Muslim, including our resident maybe Muslim, come up with an answer? No!

As usual, the Muslims talk about what they want to talk about, but are not keen to answer questions

Why is it what women/men wear or not wear for whatever reason or purpose is a subject of discussion?

Are we turning into a society where everyone is 'so free' to comment on everyone else veil, purple hair, nose ring?

And why stop there, let everyone have enough freedom to snoop on their neighbours fridge and tell them what they should eat and wear and myabe what color should their car be.

This is not freedom but disguised fachism.
Hello, anyone home?

I like the hijab: any perverse meaning that may haves been applied to is an expression of the rising paranoia amongst the foolish - a symbol of oppression, an act of defiance, a public rejection of "our" values - all these bleatings are from those who (a) dont wear the things and (b) have a very superficial understanding of the religion; sure there are cohorts of latter day koran experts spouting off thier own potted versions and interpretations but it is time they were told to mind their own business - i think i will do that now - Mind your own business!-

To all ye who oppose the hijab the burkha the crucifix, the yahmulka (and yes I cant spell either), the scapular, the turban, the priestly collar, the nunnerly robes, the bishops mitre, the loin cloth of the mystic, the pentangle of the worshippers of satan - give it a rest - go back to your bunkers and stock up on tinned goods and bottled water because it is you who are brining us closer to armageddon and the less we see and hear from you the better.

I suppose I could write something a bit more rigourous but on this subject it hardly worth the effort; hail the hijab I say.

I wonder if it is simply a poorly hidden attack on Islam it's self. After all noone seems to be telling Sikhs not to wear their Turbin's. I also seem recall a instruction in the bible requiring women wear a viel in church, now some sect do this are these same people having ago that them?

It doesn't matter how many US Southerners display their Confederate flags in acts of Southern pride, it will still be a symbol of racism. Similarly, if the original basis for the religious rule was the shamefulness of female sexuality, if it has been historically associated with the oppression of women, then it will take a long time for it to become a symbol of something else.

That is not to say that most of those who wear it here do so because they are repressed, they do so because of their religious beliefs, values and traditions. It cannot be denied that many now wear it as a symbol of political Islam (see it's increased use in Turkey), and that for a minority a contributing factor is the rejection of our culture's high importance on beauty & sexiness. Female empowerment in some circumstances yes, but a symbol of equality? Never.

"But only religious practices are targeted by the French law."
I would expect that other symbols of extremism are already banned, or their are school rules against them.

I only support religious exceptions in so far as it doesn't conflict with other needs and issues of fairness. But banning hijabs doesn't fight extremist Islam, having Muslim girls interact with non-Muslims in public schools instead of being sent to religious schools does, since it fosters tolerance on both sides.

Helen and Shakira, Thanks, Rainier.

The hijab is a symbol of oppression because women have been forced to wear it - that's why it's different from "purple hair and nose rings".

The only person I knew really well who took to wearing it was a lady in Indonesia who was still unmarried at age 28 - she said that to wear it was a guarantee of virtue that would stop gossip that she would otherwise attract for being (dangerously? immorally?) single. Hardly a religious reason.

It's worth considering that banning head coverings will affect women of other religions, like Jews and Christians.

As long as the woman has the choice of covering then there should be no issue.

Surely, so long as a woman isn't being forced to wear the hijab it is no-one's business except the woman herself and the people with whom she identifies and associates?

The only two things that I would add to this are that the woman's face should be basically visible, that is, she should be identifiable where appropriate. For instance, I have seen passport photos where the woman's face is completely covered, and no-one can tell if the holder of the passport is the person behind the veil.

Secondly, I would hope that the greater Australian culture should be able to demonstrate to change the minds of those males who may want to think that any woman who is not covered is immoral or fair game.

I have been amused however sometimes, (and I hope that this doesn't incite a flaming war about Islam, but I will say it anyway.) - I have been able to observe situations where men of Islamic background have been facing court for various reasons, the reasons being immaterial. So many of their female relatives and friends turn up at court wearing a symbollic head covering, with tight tops and jeans, with stiletto shoes and heavy make up.

I find this amusing, rather than anything else, after all, it is their choice to dress the way that they wish.

It must be also alright to wear the hijab of the Klu Klux Klan.Can we now send our children to all state schools in the uniform of our choice.The hijab can be used as a subtle tool of intimidation.The message can be that we are different and superior to you.

By their own admission the hijab is not a religious practise yet they ask for dispensations on religious grounds.

The arguments always revolve around Muslim rights and how everyone else should accommodate them.Once upon a time migrants were so thankful to come to Australia that they gave up many freedoms without complaint just to enjoy a democratic way of life.

No other group or religion has caused us so much agnst.According to Muslims they are being persecuted and the rest of the world are the evil perpetrators.

Why do we not see articles condemning; terrorism,Muslim isolationism in our community,Muslim Crime in our community and muslims expressing how happy they are be be in Australia?

From when I was 0 till I was 13 my family attended an exclusive Brethren Church. At the annual conference of the Church there was always one speaker who would berate women for not showing subjection to their husband because they failed to fully cover their head. The hair was considered by them to be the glory of the woman that would excite other men [not because of grey hair as someone suggested]. The head covering was a sign of subjection to their husband. I as a child would hear women talking among themseles about the lack of respect and subjection so-and-so showed toward her husband. They were forbidden to speak or participate in any activity of the church unless it was preparing lunch and attending to children.

This practise came from a belief that the ancient Abrahamic religion got it right for all time. Women must not expose their skin or hair to men other than their husband, it in their opinion is akin to adultery.

The practise is similar in Islam. I on one occasion when entering a shop in Auburn happened to step aside for a fully clad Muslim woman. Our eyes clashed as I thought she might acknowledge my courtesy, but she ran down the street after picking up her two young children yelling out, "A man!" "A Man!" infering I had attempted to molest her. This under Mosaic law is the plea of a woman raped in the city. The head covering may be a sensitive part of their belief but if they are to participate in and understand our society there needs to be intellectual changes made. Otherwise they will remain in darkness, and view our culture as abominable and decadent. I know how the exclusive Brethren viewed society outside their religion

Times Online, Anthony Brown, 26 October 2005

"The Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes. Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman..."

At: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1823334,00.html

To Helen and Shakira,

Respecting hijab?

Let me tell you that I would fight to the death to defend your right to wear the hijab or anything else you chose to wear.

What you are confronted with here in many of the above comments is not what Australia or Australians are about. What you are reading is the mindless rhetoric vomited forth by brainwashed fools who've bought the miserable doctrine of Marx - leftists. They speak the talk of the Devil as if were the language of God.

They don't really understand what they're talking about.

They have no respect for the love of family. They have no respect for the love of children. They have no respect for the love of the unborn. They have no respect for humanity. They simply have no respect. But it's not wholly their fault. They were "educated" to believe in the doctrine of Marx and its hatred for spirituality, religion, God and man. They have been taught to hate anything that represents God. They are but lost children. Please forgive them, for they do not know the evil that they do.

But, Helen and Shakira, please rest assured that there are some of us out here who know and who will stand up and fight against their tyranny and injustice, their bigotry and their racial hatred, their mendacity and their prejudice. That's the universal force they cannot defeat. Whilst you hold your values for truth, they cannot win. Fight the fight for your families and God bless you.

And in case all you others are wondering if I'm some sort of deranged suicide bomber, let me assure that I'm not. I'm a good law abiding citizen, Anglo-Saxon, seventh generation Christian Australian, who loves democracy, freedom, justice and peace. My father fought the Nazi Axis in WW2 and by God, I'll fight any evil or mendacity just the same as he did, if I have to. But God help me that that never happens.

Maximus, Philo and Arjay:

Your words have been heard in Australia before:

Think 1868 instead of 2005 and "Catholic" for Islamic or Moslem and you will be simply repeating what was said 150 years ago.

see
http://www.shoalhaven.net.au/~cathyd/history/prince.html

Sectarian hatred is not new to Australia, and it is interesting that you are simply continuing, you might say adding to the heritage, of ethnic hatred.

And I know that nothing I say can open your closed minds.

I 'inhabit' another forum site, hosted in the USA, (yes, that is correct, the very country that lost 3000 dead in one attack four years ago). This forum is mainly contributed to by men of military and law enforcement background, some of whom have actually fought in the ME and some are currently in Afghanistan and Iraq. These guys see terror up front, not the piss weak version that you read about.

The interesting thing is that if you were to espouse your hatred on that site you would be banned within days. Why?

Because they would see you for what you are, and recognise that what you stand for is what many of these men have fought for - liberty, democracy and respect for humanity.

My goodness, we're in full swing on this one, aren't we?

In another recent thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=150 , I said

"As I understand it, 'hijab' in Islam refers to a general code of modest dress for both women and men. In many Western societies, women interpret this as dressing [sexually] modestly, according to the social context". A good background to this comment is to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab .

According to this perspective, hijab equates to a generalised modesty about exposure of the body. The head scarf or the more extreme burqua seem to me to be elaborations on this theme, that are deployed politically in various ways - both within Islam and with respect to Islam's interactions with Western modernity (and postmodernity).

Obviously, the expression of this conflict enclothing the bodies of Muslim women is confronting for many ordinary Aussies - who are more used to worshipping the beach culture of exhibitionism and exposure.

My opinion - as a devout agnostic :) - is that young Muslim women, like their predominantly 'Christian' (at least in name) Aussie forebears, will eventually get over the cultural bondage prescribed by their parents' religions and have ordinary Aussie lives.

I reckon that in about a century or so we might have sorted much of this stuff out. And that's peanuts in human history :)

It seems the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have a lot in common.Just keep your puritanical ways and superstitions to yourselves and don't try to inflict them on free thinking law abiding people.I'm free from the bible bashers and a lot happier for it.

Hamlet, have you been imbibing? Or taking other things? Your last post didn't make any sense at all - at least to me.

Anyway, do tell us, what is this mystery site/forum that you do "inhabit"?

Is it for real or is it virtual?

And BTW, you're slip is definitely showing my dear, and gosh, it's very bright red.

Fellow Human,

In a democracy, it is OK to discuss and criticise anyone and anything. Presumably, that’s why immigrants move here from countries where this is not so. We are not “turning into a society where everyone is so free to comment on everyone else….”, we have always been that society – just like any other Western democratic society. As a rule, we just smile and get on with life when confronted with something we feel is ‘odd’ or different. But, when we have people not prepared to accept our way of life, but rather waving their ways in our face and daring us, with the aid of self-hating locals, to comment, then we react.

I notice that you still have no answer on whether or not the wearing of headscarves is a religious requirement. You’ve had two chances now, but even though you claim to be Muslim and know all about it, still no comment. The silence is strange in one who is usually very vocal, and only too willing to jump on anyone and everyone in your 171 plus posts “mainly explaining views across the board on Muslims and Islamic religion” and “also commenting on nation building matter such as taxation, laws and liberties, technology, etc.” (From your post 25th October) Phew! What an expert you claim to be.

But could it be, that you, like many other religionists – not just Muslims – are guided by blind faith and dogma which has no answers in logic?

Finally, your freedom/disguised fascism remark puts you in the same class as the other name callers and is not worthy of you, considering your usual politeness.

Leigh,

I commented above on headscarfs.

the Hijab verse the Quran refers to cover the chest which some interpretations concluded that you must wear a head scarf to cover under the neck. Hijab also means to wear what is non-transparent and non-descriptive of the body (that is men and women).

Some women wear it or follow this interpretation and some don't.

Fellow human, why is it that even though the religious speak of love and acceptance, they try to do what they can to confront those in secular countries, that have accepted their religion and in lots of cases them and their families.

In countries controlled by religion, confrontation towards their religious culture is not tolerated. If islam were a gentle, loving religion, would it not be more important to be accepted within the community as a religious part of it. Rather than confront the community with your religious demands, that will force the community to change to being more religious, against the communities wishes.

The Hijab along with the cultural approach of muslims is not acceptable in this country, for most. No matter what you say, it is causing problems. For a lesser number, all forceful expressions by religion, whether it be door knocking, advertising or pressure upon the community, to drop its secular approach and accept, then adopt the religious approach is obnoxious.

At what point does Islam, the religion of peace and love, decide that its approach is causing disharmony, and in the interests of preserving and developing that religious love with others, drop their antagonistic and demanding approach.

Or is it as it appears, that religion provides a set of words as an example of their religion, then they implement a completely different set of actions as their practise. Try not avoid an answer if you possibly can, or maybe reality is to far beyond islam for it to have any answers.

Its working!

Religion divides again.

If Muslim women have perennial dandruff thats their problem, and Australians would appreciate it if they stopped making it obvious.

The problem can be solved easily, buy anti-dandruff shampoo and then you won't have to wear such ugly headgear and look so awful.

Thankyou, Fellow Human: I think we have reached some stage reality. You use “interpretations” and not “requirements”. Some Muslims choose one interpretation; some choose another or go their own way. That is the same with all religions. Some pick and choose what they want from their religion, but not the things they don’t want. Take alcohol for example. I expect that some Muslims drink alcohol. Many Christians overlook the fact most denominations (I don’t think Catholics are included) frown upon the use of alcohol, but that doesn’t stop them from drinking it. They can’t even agree on Christ turning the water to wine. Some use that as an excuse to drink alcohol, others say that it was “new wine” (unfermented grape juice).

I regard all religions as a bit odd and unnecessary while denying the rights of others to their beliefs. But, no religion has caused problems here and worldwide like Islam has since it has been moving out of it traditional locales. Yes, there have been Muslims in Australia since the year dot; but relatively few of them and those kept a very low profile. It is unrealistic to expect that the natural human characteristics and instincts of any group of people will not come into play when there is confrontation from a creed so alien to the host group.

A contributor to the book “The Multicultural Experiment” (sorry, I can’t remember name and details) mused on the chance of a liberalised branch of Islam that would fit comfortably into Western society. He wasn’t very hopeful though.

In the meantime, The Alchemist has put some poignant questions which, in my opinion, sum up the concerns of many people looking for answers to the very real concerns they have about Islam in Australia

Alchemist, (and Leigh)

Your comment is impressive in that it summarises the issue of practice.

Islam’s teachings are really the commandments, good values, love one another, be good and charitable, etc...

The reason why you see extremes from personal experience with Islam and Muslims, is that it is practiced in one of the following ways:

- Contextual, spiritual: Those who practice it but think always thinking of new modern interpretations and intent. They know that Islam is about love, peace, help one another. They know that Jihad means to control your urges, to master your anger, to sponsor an orphan, to look after your parents and to help your next door neighbour. (Majority of Muslims).

- Contextual and literal: this are the religious Orthodox people who won’t step an ant because the Quran refers to them as nations, they will smile to everyone and sell their watches to feed the poor (Mystics, Minority).

- Literal with no substance: Those who follow a set of ‘looks’ with neither understanding nor intent to practice the religion. An example of this hypocrisy is when you see a woman with a headscarf but wearing a see through white jeans on a G string. (Considerable chunk)

- Muslim parasites’: these are perverts, criminals, murderers who like to wear Islam as their bullet proof vest. The spectrum starts from those with expertise on being on the doll, evade taxes, fraud insurance and goes all the way to wife beaters and MSK the gang rapist (who actually never prayed and used to mock Islam and Muslims).

The two points you missed:
- It is in Muslims best interest to get rid of the parasites group.
- Most comments from Keisar Trad and others are usually their own personal views. They just like the political portray of ‘we’. Don’t be fooled.

"If not why don't they go to a muslim country that will give them the freedom they want."
the alchemist- that has to be the most uneducated reflection i have ever heard. The reason that Muslim women expect to be able to freely display their relgious affiliation in public is because Australia is a mulitcultural society and because our constitution clearly indicates that freedom of religion is an important Austrlian value. This is why they do not go to a 'muslim county' (islamic country would have been the correct term as the word 'muslim' refers to the people themselves who practice islam, a clear refelction of your understanding of the relgion) is because Australia openly advertises every single Australian's right to practice the religion they choose and to wear what they wish.

Maximus, sorry about including your name in my last post on this thread. You and I have some differences, but I should not have described you in those terms in regard to this matter. And yes, I had been imbibing.

The forum that I was referring to is not ficticious, but has been around in one form or another since around 1996, its address is:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php

It is known as Tankers Forum, but don't let the name put you off.

Alchemist,
For once you have not raised your sword. I must congratulate you an a very thoughtful post. Not your usual aggressive anti-religion style. However it asks the relavent questions.

unlabeled, it is not really true that "every single Australian's right to practice the religion they choose and to wear what they wish".

We do place restrictions on peoples choice of attire. Schools place restrictions on what kids wear to school (the purple mullet mentioned in someones post) would get you sent home from many australian schools. I suspect that the kind of message based tee shirts favored by some teenage christians would not be allowed in most schools.

Adults sunbathing or swimming nude at secluded beaches risk arrest and large fines if someone makes a complaint (let alone in genuinely public places).

Personally I don't think religious symbols should get better treatment than other forms of personal preference.

We all have to live within limits imposed by society. The issue for society is "are those limits reasonable?".

R0bert

In any country that claims to be democratic (and in totalitarian governments as far as that goes) government needs to keep it's nose out of religion with the exception of those that might practice human sacrifice or torture or those that practice forced membership and threats of violence against members that might want to end their membership. Presently, the pressure by political entities to accept pluralism and ethical relativism should be considered a crime against the people. No one should be allowed to assume the right to tell or demand that someone else is to believe something. Persuasion by reasoned argument (evangelism) is fine but force or coersion is absolutely wrong.

Leigh: "Hijab" is a veil/curtain used to conceal. In the vernacular it signifies headcoverings and/or the concept of modest dressing and modest character. The word hijab has a variety of connotations including a mystical one in that seekers of God aim to purify themselves to remove the 'hijab' that veils God.

The Qur'an specifically refers to women's dress in three places. That is, 24:30-31, 33:59 and 24:60. (More is found about men's dress in the hadith traditions). In regard to veiling, the Qur'an says in the context of instructing both men and women on proper etiquette, that believing women should draw their khumur (headcovers) over their juyub (chests).

The purpose of this is to de-sexualise the public sphere. It's a myth that there is something shameful about female sexuality. The Qur'an in the immediate preceding paragraph says: "tell the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them."

Traditional discussion of female clothing rules are found in the legal texts to do with covering for prayer. In this, it is universally understood that a free woman must cover everything except her hands and face. Some include the feet in this exception.

Khalid Abou El Fadl makes the point that in the Prophet's society, veiling was a sign of class and status. Free women veiled, slave women did not. He takes the position that the original injunctions were about removing hierarchies of status.

In regard to cultural interpretations of public dress, these have varied among Muslims for fourteen hundred of years. Some cultures interpret the Islamic dress code to include complete covering, others relatively minimal covering. All would consider their interpretations "Islamic" and "religiously mandated" which is why some women believe God asks them to cover their head, and others believe God does not. Given that Muslims span the globe and cover practically every race, language, and cultural background - asking for 'one' answer on how Muslims interpret their religion in this relatively minor matter is laughable.

Hope that helps.

I think that most people commenting here have forgotten about all those other dress conventions, and the place that they hold in society.

Most men in administrative and service jobs wear ties. The tie is a useless garment, but either failing to wear one, or worse, refusing, can lead to ostracism and limited opportunities. That is why men who don’t normally wear ties wear (generally borrowed) ties and jackets when they have to appear in court. It is a sign of deference.

It wasn't that long ago in Australia when women were not allowed to wear slacks in the workplace. A dress or skirt was required, preferably with heels and hose.

It was only in the early to mid 1970s that the 'requirement' for a woman to wear a head covering in church slipped away. Any female over the age of puberty was expected to show respect to God by wearing a hat or a scarf.

The ‘foundation garment’ was another requirement of ‘civilised’ dress for a woman. The idea that a woman had a slight tummy, the shape of which could be seen even when clothed, was seen as a definite social faux pas. Even today, women who don’t really need to wear a bra for either support or modesty wear them. It is no wonder that the burning of bras was seen as such a symbol of feminism.

As for the poor deluded fools who wear sandals to anywhere except a beach, or even worse, wear sandals and socks, well I personally find them as objectionable as some of the posters here find the hijab, but for very different reasons. I feel that the wearing of sandals is saying that the wearer is saying ‘I don’t conform to your norms and I want to be lazy enough not to have to wear real shoes”.

However I do not call for the banning of sandals, or laws against the wearing of sandals and socks, because as confronting as I find the sight of them: it is something I have to deal with within my own mind.

Thanks to you too, ummyasmin.

A slight qualification to my last post re sandals: It is men wearing sandals that I find objectionable - and men wearing 'dress' shoes with short socks and shorts.

This looks ridiculous.

But I have to live with that!

No problems Leigh.

I must admit, I never got the bow tie thing. They look very silly to me.

I have to agree with Ummyasmin, Leigh and hamlet in what they say regarding clothing and cultural clothing. Suits, ties, high heels, makeup, perfume, body piercing, heavy clothes in hot weather, skimpy clothes in cold weather. You name it, most fashion is just plain stupid and a waste of time and money. But it is colourful and enjoyable to watch, I could be looked upon in that way just because I wear clothes. I would hate to see the freedom for us to look ridiculous or nice, removed. It's what makes us as a country and our toleration of difference is the best there is.

With the hijab and other religious clothing, that is not the point. It is the religious connotations and confrontations that religious clothing imparts to others. The wearing of religious clothing and expressive paraphernalia, is a statement, not a fashion choice. Religious statements in secular countries, impose social restraints upon the majority population. That is simply wrong. If your religious expression effects others in an adverse way, then is that not a sin.

With that imposition, add the growing demand for more religious rights in the general community, that disrupt the secular activities and expression of the people. There should be no problem with someone walking down the street with a scarf, tent or bikini on, as long as when they are required to interact with others, they reveal themselves and communicate in a reasonable manner. Try doing that with a women wearing a hijab and see what happens if your a man. Mind you it was much the same when nuns wore habits, in the streets they were silent, very ignorant indeed. But thats religion

"Religious statements in secular countries, impose social restraints upon the majority population. That is simply wrong. If your religious expression effects others in an adverse way, then is that not a sin."

How? What social restraints? Because a woman does not wish to let somebody else see a part of her own body, how is she affecting others in an adverse way?

A woman who wears a hijab, is wearing her own clothing and is not forcing her ideology upon anyone else. A woman who is forced to remove her own clothing (a hijab), on the other hand, is the victim of having an ideology forced upon her.

Fundamentalist secularism versus fundamentalist religion is the problem here. Neither can suffer the existence of the other.

The problem with the hijab is the fact that it represents an alien culture: one which has been transplanted into the country by goon faced lefties fixated on some socialist ideal.

We are all human but we speak a different language. The hijab is the language of religious fundamentalism with an anti-western zeal.

Bring back All-'s posts.

In honest social interactive sense no person should cover their head, or turn eyes down or away. Such practise places the person on lower or lesser social position of authority than the person with open faced, eye to eye contact.

Try doing business with persons who refuse to look you in the eye and you'l soon conclude their indifference or fear. A person who will deceive you will not look you in the eye. Women who hide behind their hair are either shy or exploitable. Australia culture in a commercial setting expects open faced dealing and eye to eye contact. The normal use of the head scalf will not impede this openness, but it will if it covers the face.

From childhood I recognised the public statement made by women in the exclusive Brethren by their wearing of the head scalf, "I belong to my husband", "I am seperate from the world". This practise by women is from an ancient Israeli culture where men worshipped seperately and prayed "I thank God I was not born a woman or a dog". This phrase still appears in the prayers of Orthodox Judaism. Similar attitudes still exist in many mens minds, that women are lesser beings.

If you carry out a study in the relationship that Christ Jesus had with women in his society, one realises he places them of equal social value. This outraged the religious Jews and even his disciples before their conversion. Paul after conversion states that in the Church there is to be no distinction between male or female, Jew or Gentile, bond or free. Though women might assume different roles within the Church because of their nurturing nature they are equal in status.

If full head covering is practised because of their submission to males or because they are the property of their husband, seems to me to be an impedement to the expression of their person. They can uphold these by their personal committment to those relationships without obstructing social expression of the character of the person.

Philo wrote:

Try doing business with persons who refuse to look you in the eye and you'l soon conclude their indifference or fear. A person who will deceive you will not look you in the eye.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

that is a very anglo-euro way of looking at things. When dealing with people of different cultures it is also important to consider the norms of those cultures, The classic two examples are people of Australian Aboriginal background will often not look you in the eye, because doing so shows a lack of respect in that culture.

The other example is that people of Chinese and some other Asian backgrounds do not like replying in a negative fashion, hence, while the answer that you receive sounds like 'yes', this may only be polite, and the real answer is 'no'. They may look you in the eye, with all politeness, and give the polite answer, but not the 'correct' answer.

No disrespect is intended, the opposite is true, in both cases.

It is always strange when someone defends Islam saying “respect for others requires.” As if Islam respects others! Respect is a two way street. To get respect, you have to respect other faiths and even the customs of the country where you live. You have to respect minorities where you dominate.

The use of the veil is derived from a command by Mohammed to his wives - all eleven or so of them (a special exception from Allah) - to cover themselves. Beating wives is also a part of Islam, not an “misogynist interpretation” of Islam. It is clear statement, no matter how much Muslims try to explain it away.

Two quotes:

Mohammed says... "Why is it, O 'A'isha (his 9 year old wife!) that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing … He said: Was it the darkness (your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain....... ," Muslim 4:2127.

“Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you… The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence…”Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301

According to altmuslim.com the number of mosques in the US that segregate women behind partitions or in backrooms has increased considerably. Also, see what is happening to women in Egypt:
http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2005/07/egyptian-women-emancipation-egyptian.html

Question: Why should we respect Muslim customs when they do not respect other faiths and cultures?
Why should anybody a custom derived from a torturer, wifebeater and slanderer of women? Every day, every year, Islam is more and more repressive and intolerant.

Kactuz

Kaktuz,

1. Islam and women rights: here is the Quran position on the topic, revealed to prophet Mohamed (PBUH) in pagan arabia:

Surah Women (4) you refer to consists of 177 verses talking about women rights: to maintain their maiden names, to have their own financial entity, to be treated well by their husbands and supported (financially & emotionally). In case of a divorce, she has the right for arbitration (to correct her husband) and supported if divorced until she finds another husband (4: 1-12, onwards). The rights went as far as ‘men should not date women in secret but reveal’ the relationship (in marriage).

The part 4:15 (explained 4:16 and followed in 24:2-10) deals with the punishments for adulterers, abusive women (and men). This is a peace of family law/ legislation (ie should be interpreted within modern framework like jailing)

2. Minorities rights in Islam is defined in the Quran in many different parts (People of the book: 2:61 onwards, all 3, you know since you read it)

3.Kaktuz wrote:

“FH, as a Muslim, have you considered the consequences of the confrontation between Israel and Islam? Are you familiar with the books of Revelation and Daniel? Are Muslims doing the devil’s work? Do you ever wonder? How is it all going to end?”

I will not go into scripture comparison as you, BD and I know the results upfront.

How can the Quran be so weary of Evil and his acts? Why there is only the commandments in the Quran? Why would Orthodox Jews (about 70,000 worldwide) share the same prophecies as Orth Christians and Muslims? Why would Jesus and Mohamed (PBUT both) give the same definition of Anti-Christ and Jesus second coming?

BTW, hadith cannot conflict with the Quran, There are 57,000 to 65,000 hadith collected 200 years after his death (Most have been quoted by Jewish tribes!).

The ‘truth’ about Islam you were fed is not making sense to you otherwise we won’t be having this conversation.

I like Mona El Tahawy’s articles on women rights in Egypt (I lived there too!).

Fellow_Human,
You maybe convinced of the truth that Islam upholds the equality of women, and that from the Qur'an. However the majority of Muslim nations see women as lesser persons as the property of the man. I suggest you start a teaching tour to Muslims in places like Iran, so they hear the truth of your belief rather than have them held in fear and submission to male authority.

Doesn't Allah command you to spread his message to those that pervert the faith. Until Islam changes, any converts will be pushed back into intellectual darkness and religious superstition. Instead of trying to defend Islam to Western infidels you ought to be changing the hatred and oppression and misinformation the Islamic deceived propogate so that later they do not overun your efforts. Jesus Messiah commanded us who follow him to demonstrate sacrifical care for each other and so change others view of him and his teaching. Those that follow Christ have a responsibility of ministry to each other.

Most Australians regard the human body as useful,normal,necessary and sometimes as drop dead gorgeous[depending on the gender]
But very, very few of us regard the body as something to be ashamed of or as something to hide.
Therefore it is totally alien for us to see anyone in this country who feels it necessary to get around in something that resembles a tent.
In fact most of us would regard such a restriction of freedom as a form of cruelty.
It must be a complete culture shock for strangers from nations with the restrictive laws to come here and find the often immodest manners of dress......but this is a western country and our dress has evolved to suit our climate and our easy way of life.

Philo,

No argument there!

I know the bad practices by some Muslims and myself, amongst others, we spend every opportunity to correct and promote 'meaning' practice. I am planning a website for this purpose in the near future.
I am doing my bit, hope you are doing yours!

All the best,

Philo, for once you are right. “Posted by Philo, Sunday, 30 October 2005 1:16:56 AM “

Hamlet, having spent a great deal of time in my youth with indigenous people, as well as spending a lot of time in Asia working, I must disagree. They lower their eyes to you because they think you are stupid and not worthy of a reply. These people are animists and have a deeper understanding of life than the religious, they are humble in most aspects of their life, no inferior nor suppressed.

They only wear their paraphernalia during ceremonies, unlike the religious who prefer to impose their culture forcefully upon others at all times. The religious have no qualms as to what method they use, be it psychological and or physical. Sadly the politically correct, closeted within their delusions can't see beyond their rose coloured glasses, to see trhe underlining agenda of islam.

How can you respect the Hijab, when it represents a view that expresses itself in violence, destruction, suppression of its adherents and non believers. It's sole aim is to impose islamic rule everywhere, including Australia. Ideologies that have no other recourse to conversion than violence, infiltration, disruption and division, are surely evil beliefs.

Just give us one example of a islamic country that is not in conflict internally, that doesn't impose physical and capital punishment, or suppression of minorities and other belief systems with in its borders, or that doesn't force its women to be subordinate to men. Explain why women are forced to worship separately in small rooms whilst men enjoy the expanse of the mosque. Show us a mosque that gives equality to the genders. Show us where islam allows freedom of expression beyond its religious cultural constraints.

According to the god you believe in, your religion should be freeing you from restraint, rather than restricting and suppressing individual expression.

Alchemist

Are you sure that you are not describing the State of Israel when you list the sins of Islamic countries? Different worship spaces for men and women, religious conflict - between Hassidic and 'secular' Jews? The Rabis having power over marriage and divorce...

I do not 'respect' the hijab, I respect the rights of a woman to make a decision whether to wear it or not.

I have seen many instances of people wearing crucifixes behaving in ways that could only be considered to be against all Christian teaching, but I do not consider people wearing any form of 'religious garb' to be forcing their religion on me or anyone else.

What would you have Australia do? Ban the weraring of all religiously significant clothing or accoutremonts? Ban Jewish men from wearing the skullcap perhaps? Ban the turban? Ban 'Christ Saves' T-Shirts? Are the wearers of these items forcing anything on you?

I live in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, where I often see Hassidic Jews whering their dark suits, yamulka, ringlets and tassled scarves. This sets them apart, but does me no harm.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, the mission statement of the Christian churches includes the conversion of as many people as posible. This isn't unique to Islam.

I have no problems with acceptance of any form of clothing providing it is not identifying a superiority of inferiority over others. I have Indian friends who once identified themselves by their caste mark, who have become Christian and no longer want to distuinguish in this way. Equality is not all wearing the same clothes; but by wearing any form of dress that deliberately states I am of more class or less class than you is antisocial.

Prime Minister Howard recently learned this lesson when attending a dinner of heads of government meeting in an open neck shirt supplied by the conference when all others were wearing dinner suits.

Personally know I could not do honest business with a person whose face I could not see. As for the Chinese, our company exports from China and we have frequent visits from Chinese reps and we do eye to eye business deals. Though they are serving us they are not our menial servants.

LOL, perhaps we need government regulation to put Manolo Blahnik et. al. out of business?

Philo wrote:

"Personally know I could not do honest business with a person whose face I could not see."

I see, so you never conduct business by phone, mail or email?

At the end of the day, this is about fashion. Religious or otherwise, we are asked to respect the woman underneath however many threads (and however arranged), she chooses to put on (or not). Simple as that.

Hamlet, Yep I'd ban all religious clothing and paraphernalia. T shirts, they are a part of our culture. I doubt that you would see covered muslim or orthodox jews wearing a T Shirt in public, might be nice though.

I deal with people from all walks of life in Australia, mostly from Sudan at the moment. They wear very colourful clothing, the women wear scarves wrapped around their hair, with long flowing dresses. The men wear robes at times. They are bright communicative, Friendly and they look great, enjoying their culture is a pleasure. I also deal with other cultures, most are a credit to their country and a bonus to ours.

However dealing with religious culture is another thing, clothed muslims, orthodox jews, evangelistic christians, are all hell to deal with. The Hijab is a religious statement, not fashion. Personally, if I was running this country, I would ban religion from public life and keep it in the home and places of worship except for special occasions. If people can”t accept that, then they can leave. Freedom of choice also refers to our choice to not have these people offended us, by their ignorant and discriminative religious attitudes.

Secular countries are the only ones that are surviving at the moment. But the relentless pressure that religion forces upon us must be stopped, so that our society can continue to function as it should. Rather than slowly be taken over, whilst the politically correct fluff themselves up, as our society goes down. We must have standards that reflect and protect our culture, or else we will end up like Israel, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, England, a lot of Europe and the world.

For all the politically correct, just look at what is happening in Europe regarding Islams infiltration. Better still go there, it is an experience to behold.

It is equally oppressive to force a woman to take off her veil as it is to force her to wear one. The difference between a free society and others is that we let people, even women, live and let live. If anyone wants to walk the streets in a loin cloth or a plastic bag or a sailor suit, I really couldn't care less.
However, it is not acceptable for male members of another religion, who live here, to refuse to shake my hand, or to obey the instructions of a female teacher. Like the Dutch Minister, I would also cancel a meeting with men who refused to shake my hand. Respect must work both ways. I respect your right to wear a hijab and I expect you and the men of your faith to respect my right not to.

Hmmm it's a tricky one - because surely an individual has the right to choose who will physically touch their body.

ummyasmin, fair point but enaj is not trying to force touching on anyone - rather saying that she exercises her right not to deal with someone who treats her with what is by local standards gross disrespect. Well that is how I read her post.

Society will not function without some framework of cultural norms, personally I prefer them to be fairly loose but still expect some to be there. Living in any society is a balancing act between living by your own views and acting in a manner which shows some respect for the others we deal with.

Generally here a refusal to shake hands with someone is a sign of
- you have very dirty hands and don't want to pass the grime on
- your low opinion of the other person
- your mental health issues
- or we have finally been hit with a pandemic and you want to stay alive.

R0bert

Enaj... UmmYassin's response to your comment about 'shaking your hand' is classic.... and sooooo "Islamic".. i.e. "and Allah knows best" is frequently appended to many portions in the Quran to give the preceeding statement a 'holy' ring to it.

Ummyassin should not couch her response in 'Individual liberty' terms, (we can decide who can touch our body's)because she is speaking as a muslim. (?) If she does not wish to shake a man or womans hand in Australia, due to religious reasons, she should say so, and then we can get on with the task of educating the public more about the social/cultural incompatability of Islam to our Anglo/Euro prevailing culture.

It is the absolute height of cultural insult, to not shake the hand of a person (male or female) in Australia.

If Umyassin does not wish to participate in our culture, then she should leave Australia and go to some country where here faith is compatable.. I suggest Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.

The 'point' of Culture is so everyone knows how to act.

If you goto Saudi, you can then become the blessed '1 of 4' wives of some prince... thus assigning you a value 25% that of monogamous cultures. In the home/birthplace of Islam, your prince has the Quranic right to slave girls and to have sex with them. I'm sure you would feel more 'culturally comfortable' with that idea..right ? (sura 23.5-6) (And remember "Allah knows best")

Think twice about the Islamic rights of your husband. Strange..I don't read anywhere that a woman can have 'slave men' and have sexual entitlements to them.... makes you wonder. What 'is' it about Islam which entitles a man to have 'free reign' with the women he has captured as 'war booty' ?

Its quite notable this. Men can 'capture' women, (but only in 'defensive' actions.. (I wonder how many 'women' there are in invading armies? ) So.... one has to ask, 'where do the captive women come from ? ooops... now I get it.. 'defensive' Attacks.. thats it :)
Yep.. like Banu Qurayza... and various others.

Thanks Robert, you have interpreted my post correctly.
Ummyassin (sorry if I've misspelled, doing it from memory), it is grossly insulting in this culture to have your proferred hand rejected. It symbolises as Robert points out, that you are unclean and unworthy of respect. The point of my post is that I am genuinely prepared to respect any groups choice to wear, say, believe, eat, worship and think any way they like, but the same respect needs to be returned. If you cannot shake my hand, then we simply cannot do business. And, I will be hardpressed to think favourably of you, understandably, I think.
And what about the refusal to obey instructions from, or even look at a female teacher? This is not acceptable either. But it is not only Islam where this is problematic. I have sat in a meeting with a male Japanese client who refused to address any word I said to him and spoke only to my male (but junior) colleague. It was deeply insulting and quite bizarre. Needless to say, no useful business was done. It is not okay to treat someone rudely because of their religion, dress, age, race or gender, religious or cultural beliefs not withstanding. If you will not touch me, look at me or listen to me, I interpret this to mean you discount me as a human being. How else am I supposed to take it?

There might be a little confusion in the comments about shaking hands. Muslims are not barred from shaking hands with non-Muslims. The question concerns whether men may shake hands (or otherwise touch) with women, and whether women may shake hands with men -- which ones, on which occasion etc. Also before we get carried away and contemplate deporting Muslims for failing to shake hands, note that Orthodox Jews will not shake hands with those of a different sex (there is an interesting discussion of this question at http://www.aish.com/societyWork/work/The_Jewish_Ethicist_Discriminating_Against_Discrimination.asp).
My point is not whether this is acceptable or not, to whom and in what circumstances, but simply that this is not a peculiarly Muslim custom or requirement, as some of the comments seem to imply.

If I hold a dinner party, I could just serve bleeding steaks to everyone, because that's what we eat in my house. However, I think it is courteous to ask those I invite if there is something they don't eat, or drink -- EVEN IF they are guests in my house (which is not what Muslims and Jews are in Australia!).

Open Season on Muslim Women
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 1, 2005

Can wife-beating be justified under any circumstances? According to some in Australia, yes - if the couple is Muslim.
The Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau has published and distributed 50,000 copies of an 82-page handbook for Australian police officers, directing them on how to deal with people from all the unfamiliar cultures that an Australian policeman may encounter. A Sikh, for example, may receive a three-day reprieve from arrest if the arresting officer happens upon him while he is reading his holy scriptures - a practice that takes fifty hours, and must not be interrupted. And Muslim husbands who beat their wives must be treated differently from other domestic violence cases, as a matter of cultural sensitivity: "In incidents such as domestic violence," says the handbook, "police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."

Muslim husbands, of course, can point to Qur'an 4:34 to justifying wife-beating: "...good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them..." This sanction has become culturally ingrained: the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that today over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually - for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child.

Brides of Islam
The Australian, By Trudy Harris, August 6, 2005

Australian embassy Lebanon.

A 14-year-old girl had shown up on their doorstep alone, with her suitcases. Through tears, she said she wanted to return home to Australia to her mother, after being imprisoned at the home of her new husband's family.

She revealed to embassy staff she had arrived in Lebanon a year ago with her father, ostensibly for a holiday. But that was a ruse. Despite protests, she was married to an older man, a distant cousin.
"Dad just couldn't cope with Western life, the independence of Australian life," a government official with the case says. "He became concerned that his daughter may be running around with boys, so took her to Lebanon to protect her."

The embassy has handled 12 cases, seven of them involving minors, in the past two years. Australian teenagers fleeing arranged marriages set up by their parents -- ambassador Stephanie Shwabsky says, "each case is different, and involves intense negotiations with local officials and families. The cases that come to our attention are very serious. The young people involved are very upset and want our protection."

Arranged marriages are an important part of many Middle Eastern cultures, the practice has long existed in multicultural countries such as Australia. Concerns have arisen that marriages are being arranged in Australia for teenagers too young for such commitments.

Welfare workers say there are several hundred cases mostly in Sydney and Melbourne, of girls dropping out of school to get married. Although it varies from state to state, the average legal school-leaving age is 16. In Australia people under the age of 18 need a court order to marry legally.

Concern centres on Australian-Arab communities, although not all the teenagers involved are Muslim. Some girls happily consent to these arrangements. Australian embassy staff eventually put the 14-year-old girl on a plane back to her mother in Australia. The girl says her husband never touched her sexually and agreed to end the marriage. But other cases are not so simple, sparking long, bitter legal battles. ..."
At http://www.asiansexgazette.com/asg/middle_east/middleeast04news44.htm

R0bert: Another option to add to the list is:

- The person follows a faith which asks them to refrain from physically touching an unrelated member of the opposite sex.

After all, it's also the practice of Orthodox Jews; traditional Indian cultures; Buddhist Thais among others.

Having said that, while I respect the right of another Australian to observe a religious and/or cultural practice such as refraining from shaking hands, personally for me as a Muslim it really isn't a big deal. Apparently even the head of al-Azhar (if you want a Sunni 'pope', he's it) shakes hands with Westerners who proffer them, female or not. My practice is to not offer my hand straight away. If someone offers it, I shake it, if not I don't. It's not that hard really!

BOAZ: Your response is about as knowledgeable as some bigoted 'Muslim' stereotype of all Westerners as alcoholic adulterers who spend every night drinking beer, watching porn and invading foreign countries. Get used to the fact that Muslims are here to stay and that Islamic culture is part of the diverse fabric that makes up Australian life.

Enaj: well to be honest, if your cultural allergen level is so sensitive that you simply cannot bear a different manner of greeting, then you're right - we probably wouldn't do business. Try giving your Japanenese collegue the benefit of the doubt - you can only be insulted if you choose to be. If you come across someone ignorant, then fine I would suggest you don't conduct business with them. But it may be simply a matter of walking a mile in another's shoes and extending past your comfort zone a little.

Philo: Hmm well if I flick onto Jerry Springer, I can get a fair sampling of what Western married life is like too... or not.

ummyasmin, thanks for the reply. I had not realised how much many groups have some adherants who follow prohibitions against touching.
Obviously no easy answers to some of these issues.

I did like enaj comments about using religion as a basis for treating others badly.

For the same reasons I agree with not discriminating against people on the basis of their faith I disagree with those who use their faith as a reason to discriminate against others. Refusing to shake hands with someone may not be discrimination but it is difficult to spot the difference sometimes.

R0bert

ummyasmin,
What cultural or religious values is Jerry Springer espousing? He is usually dealing with disfunftional uncultured people.
Quote, "Philo: Hmm well if I flick onto Jerry Springer, I can get a fair sampling of what Western married life is like too... or not."

Springer or his guests are not encouraging a cultural or religious practise unless it is by negative exposure; by shame. What Western book of social ettiquete or religious culture underpins the behaviour of his disfunctional guests.

Burka wearing Muslim women uphold the primitive desert beduown garb because it disguises their sex and makes them unnatractive to passing men. Today we live in a modern society where self denial ought to be practised and genuine care for others above our base gratification ought to guide our lives. Those obsessed with self gratification see our open culture as a feast for their perverted minds. Obviously such men are obsessed with their own gratification and cannot keep their unwanted hands of Western women.

Umyassin... with all due respect, I don't speak from ignornance.

Um.. Sura 33:49 [33:50]

<<O prophet, we made lawful for you
-your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry,
-or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD. (captive slaves)
-Also lawful for you in marriage are
-the daughters of your father's brothers,
-the daughters of your father's sisters,
-the daughters of your mother's brothers, the daughters of your mother's sisters, who have emigrated with you.

Also,

if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies ONLY TO THE PROPHET, and
NOT to the other believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment.
-GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. >>

Now, I've displayed a verse from his book, in regard to his position on women. How many, which types etc. (with some critical emphasis in caps)

So, I ask you this question, did you know this was his 'revelation' before you embraced Islam ? or.. where u 'born' a Muslim and simply accepted your cultural background ?

If you knew this about him prior to becoming a Muslim, would you have second thoughts ? Or.. if you did know it, are u 'fine' with this description of his 'exclusive' rights to women ? (while everyone else is limited)

It is often said, that Mohamed did the things he did as an 'example' e.g to 'show' that it is ok to marry your daughter in law after her husband divorces her... so, why is he not an 'example' in the numbers of women Muslims can have ?

To be honest, he would be the very last person I would consult on issues of modesty and sexual restraint.

R0bert: "Refusing to shake hands with someone may not be discrimination but it is difficult to spot the difference sometimes."

I agree. One famous Islamist (Qaradawi) advised that if a Muslim publically greeting a person (of the opposite sex) of a culture where handshaking is normative – and it would be impolite and embarrassing for the other person not to shake their hand – then a Muslim should shake hands. Later they can privately explain they would normally refrain for religious reasons.

So, cultural sensitivity *should* go both ways.

Philo: "He is usually dealing with disfunftional uncultured people."

My point precisely.

"Burka wearing Muslim women uphold the primitive desert beduown garb because it disguises their sex and makes them unnatractive to passing men."

Actually, the burqa was not the cultural dress of Bedouin Arabs but mostly worn by upper-class, noble Afghan women and women from the sub-continent (today Pakistan, parts of India and parts of Bangladesh). That it was a sign of class distinction can be gleaned from the fact that working, rural women in those agrarian societies did not wear it.

It’s interesting to note, however, that we’ve moved discussion from the simple headscarf, to one of the statistically rare forms of Muslim cultural dress.

BOAZ_David: No Muslim will argue that the Prophet and his wives were given special rights but also had to bear special restrictions. For example, his wives were more restricted in terms of movement and dress than other Muslim women, but were promised double the reward (punishment) in the afterlife. If they didn’t agree to those conditions, then they were not forced to remain his wives.

I converted most of the way through my undergraduate degree in Islamic studies, so I was more than familiar with the scripture, history, tenets and practices of Islam. I was particularly familiar with the context in which the Prophet Muhammad lived. That of a seventh century patriarchal, tribal society in which polygyny and slavery were endemic. After a twenty-five year marriage to Khadijah, except for A’isha, all his wives were divorcees or widows, many elderly. They were largely undertaken for legislative purposes, to strengthen kinship and tribal ties, and to protect widows of close companions. Hardly the stuff of Arabian nights harem fantasies, if that’s what you’re implying. Furthermore, they were all contracted before the Qur’anic revelation restricted polygynous marriages to four, and he did not contract any more marriages once that verse was revealed by God.

The Qur'an does not endorse patriarchy, polygyny or slavery - it merely notes their existence and provides legislation for where it does. It's underlying weltanschauung, however, is one of egalitarianism. That is the ideal goal of shari'a.

ummyasmin,
You appear naive on how Islamic shari'ah law works out in Muslim societies today. Indonesian Muslims find it OK to murder Christian men, take their wives and daughters as sex slaves, mutilate the private parts of the women and children all while announcing "Allah is Great!"

Where is the existence of slaves in Indonesia before the Qur'an? It is the Qur'an that gives them their sanction. It is a barbaric and primitive religion.

Quote, "The Qur'an does not endorse patriarchy, polygyny or slavery - it merely notes their existence and provides legislation for where it does. It's underlying weltanschauung, however, is one of egalitarianism. That is the ideal goal of shari'a."

I suggest you read the Qur'an again. It forbids sex outside marriage but sanctions sex with those women captured as slaves. This is happening today in Indonesia to young chaste Christian women being taken as sex slaves by Muslim murderers.

Qur'an: “5. And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) 6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,.. for then, they are free from blame” [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-6]

Philo,

The Quran equates men and women (my previous response to BD on 'blaming the cultural bogeyman; thread) and people of different races and languages. In addition, the following examples from the Quran are clear on dealing with the 'slavery' that existed during the revelation of the Quran:

2:177…righteous is he who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels and the scriptures and the prophets; and giveth his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free; and observe proper worship and payeth the poor-due…

5:89 Allah will not you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to oaths which you swear in ernest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy with the average of that wherewith ye feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave, …

90:11-13 but he hath not attempted the Ascent* Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is* (It is) to free a slave* and to feed in the day of hunger* An Orphan near of kin* Or some poor wretch in misery.

You got the picture: in brief “freeing a slave” became the norm to repent from repeatable sins or want to be a true believer.

According to your scripture slavery is defined as a an acceptable status quo. Slavery existed under religious Christianity in North America until 2 centuries ago.

Almost all religions condone slavery and approve the control and oppression of women and children. My scepticism about religion's supernatural origins (as opposed to faith) is partly due to how conveniently their rules and taboos seem to be designed to keep those in power, in power.

What a miserable lot you religious are. All you can do is argue about a lot of very dubious words. Whilst the world burns under your constant wars against each other and everyone else. The hijab is a religious weapon of war, it is war against equality, and war against those that don't bow down to Islam.

Both Muslim and Christian proponents credibility is constantly challenged and always fails. People get into these threads in the hope that they can make the religious see how despotic and down right selfcentred they are. Those that have sense to see, realise how stupid and demonic the expression of religious beleifs are.

You start when people are young and susceptible, you brainwash them and threaten them until they will go and do your evil bidding in the name of an illusion and get killed. Get a life and accept that the majority if this country want you all to go away and take your violent stupidity with you. That goes for all fundamentalist, evangelist and enslaved followers of god.

<clap, clap, clap, clap, clap....> 'encore alchemist! encore!'

Though I may not agree with some of your sentiments Alchemist, you boil it down so well. If religion is the bringer of peace and love to this world, what an utter failure it is...

Thanks Reason, there are also times that I do not agree with what I say here. But there are those times, when one has to take the bit and stick it right up em.

Religious discussions all always come down to "I've got a better invisible friend than you". When I hear of people referring to themselves as "good muslims" or "good christians" I'm afraid I don't find it at all reassuring. To the contrary, I think to myself "here's another intolerant zealot".