"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!).