This is a pretty easy one to figure out.

Anyone who singles themselves out by any means will always be a "target" of the "mob". This goes for religion, sport or any activity which engages a collective activity. If you're on the "other" side (despite whether it's a 2-sided activity or a many-sided one).

What is curious is that the religious groups seem to find it offensive when people find their particular form of differentiation [whether it be headscarf (muslim), other headwear (Jew), cross (Christian), turban (Seikh) or nakedness (Hindi Sadhu)] confronting. Such strong statements of belief by outward demonstration can only elicit some sort of reaction by "non-believers".

One should seriously question the motives of people who parade their (extreme) belief systems as socio-political statements. This list would include football loonies, motor-sport petrol heads, rabid eco-greenies, consumption-capitalists and religious zealots.

The REAL question is, why should I defer to anyone JUST because THEY have a different belief system to mine? Chances are I would have to defer on an individual basis to everyone on the planet ! (No I'm not talking about human rights or commonly held decent humanist principles here.) A good read of Gulliver's Travels and the Big-Endians and Little-Endians would be appropriate at this point.

Frankly I don't care whether a person believes if there is a god or not, and whether their particular deity will save them, guide them or redeem them or whatever. If it makes them happy - good. Just don't ask me to believe the same twaddle and to bow to their misguided demands to support their belief system.

Belief systems should works both ways. Get used to it!

Lynda,
Society's difficulty is with any kind of garment which does not appear "normal".
We accept all kinds of uniforms; football jerseys, school clothes, sunglasses worn on top of the head etc., but let somebody step outside our narrow band of conformity, then suspicion arises because that person is "different".
We don't trust those who are different, do we?

In my childhood, I remember women in the shops, public transport and streets wearing their hair in rollers covered by a head scarf.
Probably, to make them look beautiful for later on.
To me, they looked ludicrous, not suspicious.

To many folk, dress is a form of branding; it categorises a person into one of society's pigeonholes of acceptance. It says something about that person's lifestyle, attitude, aspirations (read a few T-shirts), psychographic, and much else.

I am glad that you overcame conditioned prejudice during your research - even gladder that you raised the head scarf topic here.

Eventually, I myself wore the headscarf several times in the course of my research, as a sign of respect to the people I was with.

This I think says it all, respect is earned, would one kow tow given the circumstances? Bow when meeting another, curtsy, cross youself when meeting the pope.
Find an identity another way, I like scarves, I don't need them to signify an identity.
fluff

I don't think anyone has a real issue with someone wearing a headscarf. What it does symbolise to many is the oppressive way Islam treats women. There are numerous current day examples of women being stoned or severely punished after being raped by muslim men. People might not like Christians but most understand that a person can only be a Christian by choice. In many parts of the Muslim world women and children don't have a choice what they wear..

It is not as simple as a scarf is it?

Islam is a political movement and the scarf is a flag symbolising separateness - that is the whole idea of it, to be an obvious, constant reminder.

How appropiate would it be to always wear a headband with another country's flag, because that is what the scarf is intended to be.

This is a secular state and we are right to be concerned about our democratic institutions and freedom.

Simply put, before 9/11 it really wasn't much of a problem, after that it has become a problem. I will say no more!

Lynda,

Your predicate that people find Muslim women's scarf threatening is deeply frauded in the first place.

The Islam religion is threatening, NOT a piece of cloth material.

Your old precept that "...women wearing headscarves were foreigners to me." were as ignorant as your naive presumption that "...these women would be submissive...oppressed.."

Your inexperience is further highlighted by a WOW 'discovery' that: "most of the girls I spoke to...were extremely independent and career-driven... outspoken... what they wanted and where they were going in life."

The fact is, all those girls have stuck to an ideology and determined to be different. They have gone through a mental challenge as a coherent squad that made them strong, and now their mental strength is reflected on your lack of experience.

They are even more proud to know their strength is making an impression on people, someone likes you.

My challenge to you is - Show some strength yourself by responding to comments on your article, and hopefully learn a few things through a two-way dialogue.

Cornflower: "Islam is a political movement and the scarf is a flag symbolising separateness - that is the whole idea of it, to be an obvious, constant reminder.
How appropiate would it be to always wear a headband with another country's flag, because that is what the scarf is intended to be."

To some, yes. To others, no. You're generalising about more than a billion people. The NSW election was held on friday. One of the parties involved was the Christian Democratic Party (CDP).
This is religion as a political movement.

Now, I appreciate that much more of Islam is politicised. There are plenty of Islamic governments, and at this point in history, Islam certainly appears more threatening than Christianity does.

But Cornflower, allow me to put a hypothetical argument to you - say the CDP did become a majority party in Australia.
If New Zealand then moved to ban the cross, because they saw it as people expressing loyalty to a foreign political party, rather than the religion, would you agree?

runner - yes, we get that in many parts of the world Islam is used as a justification for oppression. What you fail to take into account, is the views expressed by the women in the article.

In assuming they are nothing but oppressed people, you aren't giving them due credit.

I like scarves, they're colourful and they can keep hair from ones eyes, as they do for soccer players who prefer long hair.
The hijab is another thing altogether, hiding expression of the face assists misinterpretation.

Seeking personal identity by wearing any apparel is immature, similar to that of a foxtail and red stripe on a car, bellbottom trousers, alright maybe for a teenager but little more.

Islam is anti democratic, like communism or nazism, and is bound to attract democratic disapproval. If wearing a scarf is to identify ones politics do it at your risk, partiularly if that belief is in a democratic country, like posting your political beliefs on a blog. Should it be so? of course not but until something better comes along
I will defend democracy by ignoring testament which is anti democratic
fluff

I have to admit that I am somewhat intimidated by an overt proclamation of a person's religious conviction be it a headscarf or any other headgear. I wonder whether they would feel the same way if I paraded around with atheiest tatooed on my forhead. Would that be a recognition that I don't recognise their faith and they would be intimidated by it ?
I suggest that no one feels comfortable with anyone who doesn't hold the same opinions or attitudes that he/she does. I am not comfortable with any religion be it the Hillsong mob, Evangelist, Sunni, Morman, Quaker,Jew,Catholic, Protestant or anyone who would like to make a political decision based on their faith, and their dress is a reminder of that fact. Let's face it, they all have an agenda whether its abortion, euthanasia or simply teaching intelligent design in schools. So I'm glad that I live in a secular society where religious dogma doesn't have too much influence.......yet.

Goodness me. The nations where Islam is a repressive political force are often those propped up by the USA. Democracy in Iran was killed by USA interference. The Ayatollah was a reaction to the repressive regime of the Shah, whose secret police, SAVDAK, were funded by the CIA. Saudi Arabia is also supported by the US. Sukarno in Indonesia was undermined by the USA.

Some Islamic fundamentalists repress woman. Some Christian fundamentalists repress women. Here instead of the scarf, we sexualise pre-pubescent children, & encourage anorexia. There are child prostitutes in brothels. They are just hidden. Can Christians claim superiority?

The basic tenets of all religions are those of enlightenment values. Religions have always been used by political parties to stir up popular support for wars & power grabbing & Empire building. I guess it's easier to be offended by women on our streets wearing head scarves than to be offended by the hundreds of thousands of dead Islamic civilian women in Iraq. Howard has implanted his racist agenda well hasn't he?

"How appropiate would it be to always wear a headband with another country's flag, because that is what the scarf is intended to be.."

Sorry, are all Australians required to wear 'appropriate' attire now? I must have missed that memo.

I wear what I want.
Others wear what they want.

Now be happy that we're all free to do this.

HAPPY! NOW!

I don't find the wearing of the head scarf threatening so much as sad. Women round the planet are fighting for equal rights and autonomy but here we have women who want to advertise the fact that they are submitting to the patriarchy as per the Koran, where husbands are given permission to punish disobedient wives, or to marry multiple women etc etc - never vice versa of course. Women, including myself, have worked hard for decades to win the vote, equal pay, right to keep children after divorce, the right to work in any chosen profession, and so on, and I personally find it tragic to see women who want to reverse the progress we have worked for. In a way, the wearing of the head scarf looks to me like an affront to women who want to live as full human beings, not as chattels. Our struggle has not been easy and is not over yet, but these women want to go backwards. Pity their daughters ! Also I know that Muslim women who do not want to wear the head scarf may often be regarded as sluts by Muslim men and certain other Muslim women, therefore I know that in many cases it would take some strength of character to refuse. So congratulations to those with courage enough not to be pressured into adopting the badge of submission.

This seems to be more about a need to be accepted within their own communities than an effort to be different or to set themselves apart from the wider community. However, being unwilling to come to terms with this reality only causes them to be shunned and denies them the opportunity of becoming more fully integrated.

Anyway, I have chosen to likewise ignore them along with catholic priests, rabbis, clergymen, nuns and all the other overtly religious weirdos in our midst. I feel sure the sentiment is mutual which only gladdens me.

I don't see strength in covering up. The wearing of the regulation scarf appears intended to discourage those who are not similarly attired from approaching and, like nuns they are normally seen only in the company of their own kind.

Isn’t it strange that in our society, women are free to use their bodies to sell cars, magazines, clothing, sex and cosmetics but if they want to appear modest in public, then they have somehow become a threat and have obviously been oppressed by men?

I don’t recall feeling that way about those nuns who chose to wear a habit.

I actually feel less intimidated by group of women in scarves than a crowd of yobbos in beanies or with Aussie flags draped around their shoulders.

Headwear is not universal among Muslims and more cultural than religious, and more widespread in parts of the Middle East than in other Muslim countries. It’s actually banned to be worn in Turkey and Tunisia on State premises and the former President of Indonesia was often seen in public without a head covering.

I suspect the recent increased popularity of the hijab among younger Mulim women is more a sign of their defiant independence than their oppression.

The head scarf may be a symbol of "independence" for some female Western Muslims but the fact remains it is a symbol of state-enforced opression for most Muslim women throughout the world - see Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Those women don't have a choice about whether to wear it.

Also, I have lived in a Muslim area in Sydney and in my experience if you have it drummed into you since birth that good Muslim girls cover themselves, then whether you are really making a free choice to wear it as an adult is a moot point.

Here we go again - hordes of presumably non-Muslims prattling on about Muslim women who choose to wear head scarves. What business is it of theirs anyway? I have always been under the impression that, within the bounds of common decency, Australians are pretty well free to wear whatever we like.

Isn't that exactly the kind of 'freedom' we're supposedly defending when we send our soldiers off to far-off lands to participate in the so-called 'war on terror'?

Personally, I'm far more worried by men in ties than women in headscarves :)

IT IS A DILEMMA, ISN'T IT? TO ME IT LOOKS SILLY, IN MY EYES, THESE LADIES MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK SO SILLY AND LOW CLASS. IF I WERE TO GO AROUND WEARING SAY: "BUCKETS" ON MY FEET, I'D BE STARED AT AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE QUITE LOGICAL. BY WEARING ONE'S "NATIONAL" COSTUME FOR EVERYDAY WEAR IS SO STUPID THAT IN THESE INSTANCES, THE LADIES MUST EXPECT TO BE STARED AT AND LAUGHED AT. THESE COSTUMES SHOULD ONLY BE WORN IN THE HOME OR AT THEIR OWN CLUBS OR FUNCTIONS.
ARE THESE PEOPLE HARD OF HEARING OR BLIND OR DUMB? DON'T THEY KNOW THEY RESIDE IN AUSTRALIA? I DON'T GO AROUND WEARING MY LACE CAP AND MY WOODEN CLOGS EITHER, DO I? I WOULD IF I DID NOT WANT TO BE ACCEPTED INTO AUSSIE SOCIETY FOR THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND IT IS PURELY THEIR OWN FAULT, NOT OURS!

Vankleef.. I don't know where to begin with what's dodgy about that post.

1) "IN MY EYES, THESE LADIES MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK SO SILLY AND LOW CLASS"

If this issue were just about making impressions on people, might I suggest not using caps lock next time.

2) IF I WERE TO GO AROUND WEARING SAY: "BUCKETS" ON MY FEET, I'D BE STARED AT AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE QUITE LOGICAL. BY WEARING ONE'S "NATIONAL" COSTUME FOR EVERYDAY WEAR IS SO STUPID THAT IN THESE INSTANCES THE LADIES MUST EXPECT TO BE STARED AT AND LAUGHED AT. THESE COSTUMES SHOULD ONLY BE WORN IN THE HOME OR AT THEIR OWN CLUBS OR FUNCTIONS.

National costume? What nation might I ask?
Besides, if you want to talk stupid items of clothing, perhaps you can explain to me, the function of a tie. I've yet to figure out why they're worn, and they seem like a useless dangly bit - but perhaps it isn't my place to tell people they should only wear them in their own homes.

ARE THESE PEOPLE HARD OF HEARING OR BLIND OR DUMB

None of the above.

DON'T THEY KNOW THEY RESIDE IN AUSTRALIA?

I wasn't aware we had a national uniform.

DON'T GO AROUND WEARING MY LACE CAP AND MY WOODEN CLOGS EITHER, DO I? I WOULD IF I DID NOT WANT TO BE ACCEPTED INTO AUSSIE SOCIETY FOR THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND IT IS PURELY THEIR OWN FAULT, NOT OURS!

Okay... but by that logic, I'm allowed to insult people with funny accents, those who eat foreign food, or people who dress in anything I don't consider 'normal' actually, pretty much any activity that isn't anglo-saxon sanctioned could be targeted.

"This is a secular state and we are right to be concerned about our democratic institutions and freedom."

=> Excuse me. Have some faith! Do you honestly believe that our democratic institutions are threatened by a piece of cloth? Have you completely lost the plot?

=> We are a secular country. We are not a country which stops people from expressing their faith so long as it doesn't involve breaking the law. How on earth does a Muslim or Jewish or Sikh woman wearing something on her head break the law?

"How appropriate would it be to always wear a headband with another country's flag, because that is what the scarf is intended to be.."

Then, you may find the following story interesting perhaps:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Young-Muslim-women-wear-Aussie-hijab/2006/03/21/1142703347588.html

These are positive steps in multiculturalism. When people feel integrated into a national community, then we have the best chance to learn from each other's cultures, not by aggressive stances that say what others "must" do.

It is entirely disingenuous that people will somehow wish to become more "Australian" by force of dislike alone.

-- M. Randwick

Irfan,

If you cannot reason logically, please... the least you can do is show a little integrity in your posts.
Has anyone (other than yourself) suggested that: "... democratic institutions are threatened by a piece of cloth" ??

You asked: "How on earth does a Muslim or Jewish or Sikh woman wearing something on her head break the law?"
Simple - If there is a law prohibiting Muslim (or anyone) wearing something on the head, then wearing such thing on that person's head is breaking the law. But if there is no such law, then doing so is not breaking a law.

Next time think more carefully before you wantonly dish out stupid rhetoric !!

( Perhaps a BS lawyer is the type criminals need the most )

The headscarf is the symbol of victimhood,therefore the avenue through which minorities suppress the rights of the silent majority.

It is now a political tool of fear through which once an obsecure faith struggled for the slightest breath of recognition in Western Society.

Born from fear,chaos and violence,it will be our deathnell as we stive to placate this evil in the name of tolerance and understanding.

Any belief system that defies the laws of the universe in the name of it's imaginery god is a contradiction to all logic,which has raised the consciousness of our humanity beyond simplistic awe struck troglodytes.

We suckle at the comfort dummy of religion at our peril.Religion is the tool of suppression and power used by inadaquate men to hide their own ignorance and cowardice.

"These are positive steps in multiculturalism."

Multi-culturalism with Islam? First, you can eat all types of their food but they can't eat yours (assuming you are not a Muslim) because it is not halal. Then you need separate utensils for eating and cooking because you non-Muslims are declared unclean by their "God".

Koran in the fifth Surah and verse 51, specifically teach Muslims to be hostile towards Christians and Jews, .."take not Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors..."

A Muslim book for kids in the UK teach that "Christians and Jews as pigs and monkeys".The Director of the school was given the opportunity to condemn the book but she does not intend to do so because she is a Muslim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/tuesday_6_february_2007.html

You, a non-Muslim is welcome by the Muslims to convert to Islam but when a born-Muslim leaves his/her religion, he/she must be put to death or disown by his/her family. So multiculturalism in the Western world becomes determined by the narrowest and most prejudiced practices of Islam.

The Muslim can criticise other religions and political systems but non-Muslims can't say anything bad about Islam or else it will send the Muslim world running amuck destroying buildings, properties, etc. or cutting off heads of Christian girls like they do in Indonesia.

But when Arabic Muslims in Sudan commit genocide against their fellow black African Muslims, there is almost absolute silence from the Islamic world, especially the Arab countries.

Islam and multi-culturalism are contradiction in terms.

The head scarf is threating to Howard-esque aussies because they haven't yet left the 19th century, still think it is 'their' (white anglo) country, and live extremely bland and insular lives (i can remember when vegetarianism was a subversive communist plot, lol).

With News Corp hacks and Liberal party brownshirts daily pumping more hate and ignorance directly into the minds of gormless ockers its no surprise that symptoms emerge on the street. The Iranians i used to work with (at a major university) WERE dangerous, because they demonstrated how pig ignorant and lacking in skills and learning 99% of aussies (including this 5th gen. anglo aussie) are. The mob hates to be reminded of its baseness. I'd love to say Australia is coming around, becoming less racist, but actually i think we are on a prefascist path and pogroms may not be that far away (over to you, Alan Jones)

I don't find a scarf or a Hijab "threatening" in itself (one can argue the same for the cloth worn by the KKK). But the “threat” lays in what the veil represents.

As a Christian, I feel deeply moved with compassion for the lost souls that wear them. These women sincerely and innocently believe that they are representing a true religion and a true belief in The True God (found only in the Bible). Most of them don’t really understand the symbolism behind the veil. They just follow blindly all the masochistic precepts of the self-proclaimed prophet of Islam. The most perfect man that ever lived (?).

A piece of cloth would have been quite innocent and acceptable if Islam was not such a political threat to Australia – (similar let's say to what Communism once was - except Islam is much more aggressive in its approach and inherently violent of course).

Any symbolic representation of a political movement that is so contrary to our way of life is a threat to our national safety and to our liberal democracy. Hiding behind a religion does not make it less of a threat but all the more harder to combat.

I would not say the same for any other religious symbolism or any other national attire. Most do not pose a direct threat to Australia. But Islam does. (Just see what is happening in Europe).

I’m sure the Muslim headscarf is worn by different women for different reasons, even within the relatively small Australian Muslim community. Perhaps older women wear it mainly for traditional or modesty reasons, but some young women in their teens and early adulthood no doubt use it as a group identifier. Other groups also use clothing to state their allegiance to a certain group and ideology; Goths are a non-religious example of this.

I have noticed some young women wearing the headscarf, and then wearing figure-hugging pants and tops that cannot by any stretch be called “modest”. In these cases the scarf cannot be anything other than a symbol, a statement of difference, like a curtain of separation drawn between themselves and others.

Internationally, I have heard that Islamic dress is undergoing a resurgence (among both sexes), even in countries like Turkey and Indonesia where it was not so common in the past. I believe this is because of the increase in hostile attention which has been focused on Islam in the last few years; as a group feels itself threatened, it begins to define itself more strongly.

And of course non-Muslims’ attitudes to Islam will determine their attitude towards the visible symbols of that religion.

Unfortunately, I think it sometimes happens that when groups feel threatened by each other, they start to act in ways that reinforce each others’ suspicions.

PS - I wrote the above before reading coach’s post; now that I have, it seems like supporting evidence for my last couple of statements!

There's nothing like a refreshing post like Liam's to remind us who society's most dangerous enemies really are.

Not Muslims in general, but rather that particular breed of university leftist who genuinely believes that "99 per cent" of his fellow white Australians are scum. This sort of genocidal racism trumps anything ever visited upon dark-skinned minorities in this country.

I imagine it's hard for many to believe that some people really think like this, especially since a casual observer would note that this sort of person doesn't get out much amongst the general Australian population anyway. But it's that sort of isolation that breeds such contempt.

These people hate democracy, because the majority decides, and in their sick world view, the majority is always wrong.

I believe the "scarf" was developed to keep the hair from blowing in the desert wind and to keep the sand out of ones eyes.
There is nothing nicer in this world (for a man) then to look at some woman's hair,mouth and eyes, for (saint)pete'sake women were created to be looked at.Just because one is married to a jealous man and when you are looked at by other men, does't mean that the husband shouldn't feel pleased with his choice of woman? Or am I being old-fashioned?
Muslim women miss out on a very important and natural feeling,I reckon.
If you move out of the desert,you should change your habits,whether searching for food,clothing,men,women or housing.

BTW TurnRightThenLeft:

VanKleef is talking about a dutch folkdress,which in many different parts of holland is worn on special occasions and festivities.Like fishermen/women used to wear a different dress compared to farmers etc.like in hungary russia poland etc.Folk dress- No Religious dress!
Christians were burned on the stake whilst wearing crosses around their neck, ongoing wars about religions have been with us for donkey's ages as is expansionism. Why do muslims come to australia? Religious freedom,probably, like the "hugenoots" and jews were cleansed out of their territory and like the palestinians now. Dress different and you will be noticed! If policies change you'll be the first to be stopped,look at history! Religion is not worth losing your precious life for,I'd say.

I was brought up to believe that true religion is demonstrated in your deeds and works of charity rather than your dress. Your piety should be seen in your strength of your character, not the strength of your headscarf, or other outward appearance.

If Muslim women want to wear a scarf for modesty’s sake, then okay. But even modesty goes beyond a piece of cloth on your head, but how you conduct yourself in society. If Muslim women who choose not to wear a scarf a frowned upon by their fellow Muslims, then it shows their religion has a bit of growing up to do.

And to Snake and others, who seem threatened by any form of religion whatsoever – get a life! The great majority of people down through the ages have shown religious expression. It is part of how we are programmed. It is part of being human. Atheists are the exception. If you can’t handle this, then grow a backbone. You probably just need to get out a bit more.

grn, actually i think the 'gormless ockers' i referred to amount i hope to less than a quarter of the population, 99% was my wild assed guess for the proportion of aussies who have less learning than the multilingual musical muslim scientists i was recalling. The small proportion of the truely dangerously ignorant aussies is little comfort however, given their aggressive (because self serving) adherence to RightThink.

I personally have no problem with a head scarf, there is in any case no guarantee that the wearer is necessarily a Muslim. Even if they are so what? If it offends anyone I say get a life.

Face covering is a different matter. That reminds me a bit of a gangster or robber, and makes me uncomfortable particularly being part of a society where facial expression is an important part of our culture. But there are very few of these. I also get offended my by those occasional clerics of all faiths who decry the way most of us dress.

But let people do what they will and don't read into it something that is not there. The second generation will share values with the rest so stop fussing about nothing.

WOW!

What a wonderfully heated debate.

Well guys, the thing I've noticed most about these posts is the HUGE generalisations.

"They do this". "They do that". Whose they? Muslims? Hmmm.

imagine a group of people coming together to talk about, say, Christians. "Christians hate muslims and homosexuals" well there's certainly a lot of evidence to that. "Christianity deems women lesser than men" well, most christian churches dont let women be priests, don't allow abortions... In fact in Deuteronomy 20:10-14, God actually tells his followers to go and rape women. hmm..

People could easily use this evidence to generalise. but they'd be wrong, right? Or are all 2,039 million Christians the same?

Are all 1,226 million muslims the same?

How many of you, who seem to know so much about Islam, actually know a single Muslim? Have you ever even spoken to a Muslim? Ever had a muslim friend? oh they're probably to seperatist to talk to right? Have you even tried?

And for those who are not religious, well, neither am I. I think religion breeds ignorance and intolerance. But you guys seem to be showing far more intollerance than any religo-nut i've ever spoken to.

Have any of you read about the Islam womens-rights movement? It's been going on for a long, long time, in all those dirty muslim countries none of you seem to know the names of. But hey, who needs facts when we have racial hatred?

Linda actually went out and took the time to visit Mosques and talk to Muslim women and even walk a while in their shoes. And for this you call her a demon-lady. And then you say Muslims are seperatists. Were you being ironic?

I believe the Hijab is a tool of oppression (like so many things that come from religions). That's what I think and I'm open to suggestions. But the very moment I start telling someone what they can and cannot wear and demonising people who don't do as I do, well then I've kind of lost the plot haven't I?

Next we'll be burning books...

Sahr,

HUGE generalisations?

I think no one here generalised more than you just did.

1. Please tell who had called Lynda a "demon-lady"?

2. Are you kidding to suggest people here may not even know a single Muslim? How about me who actually had a Muslim colleague performing daily prayers beside my office desk for a couple of years?

3. Had anyone supposed that "1,226 million Muslims" are the same?

4. Notwithstanding your intepretation of Deuteronomy 20:10-14, how about I say no Christian believes God tells his followers to go and rape women today? Can you find out whether they did raped women in accordance to God's 'intructions' in Deuteronomy days?

Gee, you are right too I have not read about the Islam womens-rights movement that you mentioned. Please advise in specific terms how that will reform Islamic culture? If women are able to reform a male-centric religion then it is useful to know.

Nevertheless, may I suggest you and Lynda learn the true nature of Islam by visiting:-

http://www.faithfreedom.org

(That "Understanding Islam" on Lynda's ActNow website is just academic stuff and practically quite useless).

Perhaps you will realise when people tell the truth about Islam, it is not mere generalisation per se.

In 1965, when my mother was a teenager, she was refused entry to one of the George Street (Sydney) cinemas because she was wearing a tailored (long) pant suit. The cinema considered pants to be immodest attire for a woman. Later, when my mother was heavily pregnant and traveling on a bus she was verbally criticized for drawing attention to herself by wearing red ribbed tights (in winter). She was at that time quite poor, red was all she had. On another occasion she was criticized for traveling on a public bus while visibly pregnant. The norm at the time was for pregnant women to be hidden from public view. It was immodest for a pregnant women to be in public. When I was in high school in the 1980s I was not allowed to wear pants to school and once had my legs felt up by a teacher and was punished for not wearing pantyhose with my summer school uniform (bear legs were “immodest” – but so were pants). Later that decade I was warned against wearing pants to a job interview – the norm for women was to wear skirts. As a new mother in the early 80s, my aunt fought for the right to breastfeed her daughters in public – at that time she and other new (vulnerable) mothers were vilified for doing so. As a new mother now, for the last eight months I have breastfed my daughter in public. I have never been criticized, I have always felt comfortable and supported. I don’t do it because I wish to get my breasts out in public. Years of cultural oppression mean that I am painfully embarrassed every time I do and I move with carefully planned speed to try to avoid exposing my nipples. (see next post)

(from previous comment)Its not such a long time since Western culture demanded women cover much of their bodies when in public – with long skirts, with stockings, with hats, with gloves, with headscarves, with confinement (while pregnant). The association of shame with women’s nudity (or pregnancy) remains a strong part of Western culture. The association of sex and women’s nudity is still virtually unchallenged and relates to the notion of shame. I aspire for my baby daughter to grow up to live in a world where she can be comfortably naked in public, that this is not thought of as sexual but rather as simply comfortable and that nobody regard her nudity as “immodest”. I likewise aspire to live in a world where my daughter may be comfortable with her sexuality and that she never be considered “immodest” for the enjoyment of her sexuality. I aspire to live in a world in which men may enjoy their nudity publicly also. Where, if they wish to swim naked in the ocean they won’t be arrested for public indecency. Where, women with prominent nipples or high cleavages are not instantly labeled “immodest” if they fail to wear clothes that disguise these features of their bodies. I also aspire to live in a world where women or men who wish to clothe themselves in any attire that is different from the cultural norm – be it a headscarf, a loincloth or a kilt – may do so with the full extent of public support that greets my breastfeeding today. But shame on you Lynda for presenting this as a simple journey - you’re a scholar not a school kid. Shame on you for presenting the notion of “modesty” uncontested.

Excellent post Shell, the best in this thread so far. There is a severe lack of perspective on this issue. The headscarf to me highlights a much wider issue on how people in our culture are judged by their appearance and attire.

One of my housemates is a punk of sorts. Bulky build, crazy hair, spikes on the jacket etc. He's actually an incredibly friendly and non-violent person, but because of preconceptions towards this style, many find him intimidating. It is intense the reactions he elicits out in public. Security guards follow him around shops. Drunk males want to fight him because they think his very image is a challenge to them.

It's incredible, there is literally nothing different about him to anyone else aside from: a) the music he listens to, and b) the clothes he wears. Yet our perception of how people should present themselves is so narrow that the slightest variation (say, a piercing and a melvins t-shirt would do it) can incite immediate distrust, fear and anger.

Another example: if a man feels like he wants to wear a skirt - in itself no great variation from the norm (the fabric is just stitched differently, yeah?), he better be prepared for all kinds of abuse.

The headscarf is only a hot button topic because Muslim hating is in vogue at the moment. But there is in fact no practical difference between it and the examples I've given.

Unfortunately, as a society we cannot say we are free from prejudice until the day comes that a person can wear whatever they want (or not wear, thankyou Shell) without any assumptions being made about them.

It's just bits of fabric arranged in different ways. And put on different places.

But keep the collar of your t-shirt down guys...that just looks stupid.

Muslim hating is not just something in vogue. It is of course partly a reaction against anything different and Howard has made much political capital by encouraging it.

But a very small group of extremists Hilali et al plus the suicide bombers have fed that fear of strangers in a way that has now become a major problem. So many people have characterized all Muslims by the regrettable actions of a few. Unfortunately suspicion divides and the dynamics make it worse and worse. Our political leaders have worked to increase the divide for their political ends instead of providing a needed circuit breaker.

The head scarf, no problem to me now becomes an issue. I recall a woman wearing one at Southern Cross station asking me for directions. My polite and friendly response produced an expression of gratitude in her. I am sure her body language indicated relief that I treated her as a human being, until then she was tentative. If only all of us would do just that.

Am I hoping for too much?

This is what I dislike about the scarf:

- it is visual reinforcement of the March of Islam. Along with mosques, Muslim beards, bedsheet couture, and foreign languages, headscarfs cause an "us and them" mentality.

Fred Nile reckons the non-Muslim birth-rate is 1.7 and the Muslim birth-rate is 6.8. It is no wonder people in parts of south-west Sydney are feeling like strangers in their own towns.

- all foreign appearance hits the subconscious with microshocks. Typically the young people readily cross the cultural barriers. The adults rarely do. And when you get to be a creaky old bugger, your tolerance for such things goes out the window. In a day and age where "accessibility for all" is a benchmark for a fair society, the public spaces are being polluted by foreign appearance (with respect to the beauty of each within its own kind). It a nutshell, the old folk stay at home - the turtle effect. Their access to public space is denied.

- when a community visually differentiates themselves, and their birth-rates explode, they expand in a wave that bulldozes existing communities in their path. No-one likes being a minority. People are forced to move, their communities and history are bulldozed.

Banning the scarf and other visual differences would relegate Islam to the status of other religions i.e. an invisible personal faith. Imagine if Muslims looked like Aussies, all spoke English, and went to a place of worship that was architecturally compatible with the surrounds. There would be less chance that the militant side of Islam would take hold. We would be one.

Integration is, first and foremost, visual. It is an essential part of reforming Islam that will need to take place unless we want to roll over and play dead to the Islamic conquerors.

In my part of Western Sydney, there seems to be more hijabs every day. And even full-face veils are appearing. When the couture goes faceless, it is the death of a town. You laugh at first, then you get sad, and then you get angry.

To Shell,

I appreciate your Eden like vision for unashamedly throwing off our scarves, bras, pants, and all else, not worrying about such useless and sentimental hindrances as clothing, and to be fully free to express our sexuality in public. However, I suspect that it will not be so easy to get back to Eden.

All societies have standards of modesty. As I said above, there are certain things that are part and parcel of being human. Clothing is one. Norms differ around the world but no culture is free of them. Even in such places as the New Guinea highlands, where little was worn, people had definite standards as to how and when you show various parts of your body.

To Sahr,

When you reference the Bible accusing God of encouraging rape, do you count on people not actually looking up the reference you cite? The book of Deuteronomy says no such thing.

To Spendocrat,

Does your friend enjoy having drunks pick fights with him in bars? If not, why doesn’t he just change his jacket? Are the spikes on his jacket so precious to him?

'This is what I dislike about the scarf:..'

Wow, do you really think this is about what you like and don't like? I don't like white shoes or pre-faded jeans, can we ban them too?

Mick V: my friend wears what he wants. I wear what I want. We aren't going to change the attire we like and feel comfortable in because brainless morons lack the neurons to comprehend that some people don't like to appear the same as everyone else. Thats their problem, not ours.

So in answer to your question, yes, the spiky jacket becomes very important. An expression of freedom in a society where most have forgotten what that means.

SYMBOLS........

Swastika...

its only a little drawing.. why should we be so scared of it ?
Aushwitz
Belsen
Dr Mengle
Millions of people murdered.

Hammer and Sickle...

its only a picture,...why should we be so scared of it ?

-21 million murdered in Stalins Purges and programs.
-Near Thermo Nuclear War over Cuba.
-Korean War
-Vietnam.

Islamic Head Scalf....

-Genocide of a whole Tribe of Jews (Systematic beheading of Banu Qurayza Males)

Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."

-Justification of sex slavery. 23:5-6

-Cursing of other specific religions and races (Jews and Christians)9:30
-Death for simply insulting their prophet. -Death for rejecting their prophet after you have accepted him. (hadith references)
-A man driven by lust and misogeny- producing a culture of the same character. 33:50
-Justification of wife beating. 4:34
-Prostitution re-packaged as 'temporary marriage' and justified for males.4:24
-Child exploitation/ sexual abuse of female children. (Aisha)

Nah..nothing to worry about or fear or be offended or insulted by.... not at all.

Was that an April Fool's Day joke, Boazy?

Very droll.

David, those things occurred over 1000 years ago. Should we find the Cross scary and ban it because of the Crusades?

I remember from my young days Anglo-Australian women wearing head scarves to the footy on windy days. It is hardly a particularly Islamic thing.

Thanks logic, you got there ahead of me.

While putting together your little list of rants, Boaz, you conveniently omitted the Cross, didn't you?

The Christian Cross

It's only a symbol, isn't it?

Germany 1096: "In the spring of 1096 several crusading bands made their way through the Rhineland, the most notorious of which was led by Count Emicho of Leiningen. In Speyer, the bishop was able to shelter the Jews from the crusaders. Only eleven lost their lives. In the subsequent cities, resistance was much weaker. Massacres occurred in Worms, Trier, Mainz, and Cologne. The Chronicle of Solomon bar Simson gives a vivid description of the carnage in Mainz:

"The enemy arose against them, killing little children and women, youth and old men - all on one day. The priests were not accorded honor nor the elders grace; the enemy showed no mercy for babes and sucklings, no pity for women about to give birth."

Jerusalem 1099: Christians slaughtered almost the entire population - "the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." ... "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins"... "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."

London 1262: Civil War used as an excuse for Chrsitians to kill Jews: 1,500 murdered in London alone. "In 1279 all Jews in the city were arrested on the charge of debasing the coin of the realm. After a London trial 280 were executed. Edward I ordered those remaining out of the realm by All Saints Day, 1290. The Jews’ possessions fell to the crown. In October, a month before the deadline, 16,000 left for France and Belgium, some finding death on the way, even as close as the Thames where a sea captain allowed many to drown."

There are many, many more, of course.

Now, what exactly was your point again, Boaz?

Dear critics.

There is a 'fundamental' difference between Islamic symbolism and the Cross as a Christian symbol.

The events you refer to in your attack on my post, are predictable but in error.

The Swastika was symbolic of Mein Kampf.
The Crescent (and head scalf) is symbolic of Islam (Quran and Sunnah)
The Cross is symbolic of Christ and the Gospel.

What was your error ? Very simple. You failed to distinguish between the "Fundamentals" and the "Fanatics".

Symbols have an 'inherrant' meaning based on their origin, and HISTORIC meaning given by those who use it rightly or wrongly in the course of their own lives.

CLEARLY- failure to distinguish between inherrant meaning and historical would be intellectually irresponsible and bordering on bigotry.(Or to use the words of Justice Higgins "Religious Vilification")

The Cross is 'inherrently' about self sacrifice, humility and Gods love. History can give it any meaning it likes depending on how it is used.

National Socialism and Islam are not like this. The horrors of these cults are inherrent in their doctrines.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_19_Islams_Holocaust.Islam
Quote:
The reason Allah approved rape, involuntary sex with prisoners, in the 33rd surah was because Muhammad was about to indulge.
SOURCE.
Tabari VIII:38 "The Prophet selected for himself from among the Jewish women of the Qurayza, Rayhanah bt. Amr. She became his concubine. When he predeceased her, she was still in his possession. When the Messenger of Allah took her as a captive, she showed herself averse to Islam and insisted on Judaism."

COMMENT (from Prophet of Doom)
"Imagine the horror of being the sex slave of the man who had murdered your father and your brothers. Imagine being forced to have sex with a man who had given your mother up to be raped and had sold your sisters into slavery to buy swords so that he could torment others. It’s chilling - perversity on an unimaginable scale. Muhammad may well have been the most vile human to have ever lived." endquote.

I report, you decide.

What was your error ? Very simple. You failed to distinguish between the "Fundamentals" and the "Fanatics".

How exactly do we do this DB? Do we only look for muslim fanatics, or do we accept that fanaticism can spring from almost any part of society?

Boaz, to many, your posts would appear to be fanatical - they are couched in religious verse, and I imagine if you were to substitute biblical tracts for those of the Koran and include some heated monologue, they would be treated very harshly by wider Australian society.

I don't say this to insult or incite a response, rather, for you to consider for a brief moment what the situation would be like, were you to be a practicing muslim.

Yes - the problem here is fanatics. How would you feel if christian fanatics were taking hold of Christianity?

I've seen muslim posters here be asked to give up their faith - in some cases, they've been told that they are better people than their faith would have them be.

Whilst I've no need for any religion, I can't help but wonder if you'd be willing to give up christianity and accept a command to conceal the cross, solely because some yahoos had hijacked your faith and the rest of us were getting a little skittish.

A predictably nonsensical response, Boaz, logical only to your good self, I'm afraid.

We were talking about symbols, and their power. You selected a few that you felt symbolized something by illustrating some acts that you determined were performed under their influence. In that context, it is totally appropriate to point out a few deeds that were perpetrated under the influence of the cross.

You are once again being selective in your presentation of evidence to support your views. A familiar aspect of your rabble-rousing tendency, I'm afraid.

For example:

>>The Swastika was symbolic of Mein Kampf<<

Oh, puhleeaze!

Take a quick look at Wikipedia and discover the true historic significance of the swastika. The fact that it was hijacked in the twentieth century by the Nazi party is merely a footnote to its history.

>>The Crescent (and head scalf) is symbolic of Islam<<

So, in your logic, you would be unsurprised if the eleventh century Saracens were to march to war under a banner depicting a headscarf?

Yeah, I'm certain that would have the troops fired up.

Symbols are easily manipulated by fanatics, as you have illustrated perfectly with your post. The Christian's symbol is the cross, the Jews' is the star of David, and the Muslims' is the crescent moon. All have been used and abused throughout their history.

>>failure to distinguish between inherrant [sic] meaning and historical would be intellectually irresponsible and bordering on bigotry<<

That is utter nonsense, and you know it. There is absolutely no inherent meaning in a symbol, only that which is attributed to it - as the history of the swastika clearly and unequivocally shows. To pretend otherwise is to act under a massive delusion.

>>I report, you decide<<

No you don't, my friend, you present a one-sided picture that tries to glorify your own religion and denigrate others.

Pericles wisely noted:

“There is absolutely no inherent meaning in a symbol, only that which is attributed to it”

Brilliant.. absolutely correct and spot on. I have not the slightest bit of disagreement with that statement, which on closer inspection fits in perfectly with what I am saying.

What I neglected to emphasize sufficiently in my previous post was this.

ATTRIBUTED_BY_WHO..and FOR_WHAT? this is probably the more important question.

This is where I would have to agree that the Cross (which is not ‘the’ Christian symbol, it is ‘a’ symbol) holds any “official” position as a physical object as such, in terms of New Testament teaching. The Church and the Body of Christ would be not the slightest bit more or less healthy if there were no ‘symbols’ allowed by a government. The meaning of the Cross is in our hearts, not as an emblem amblazened on our backs.

The Swastika was given a particular meaning by the Nazis ‘separate’ from its original and thus became ‘their’ symbol with a dominant meaning to all today. This is different from the Cross having true “Christian” meaning based on Christ then flawed of historic ChristenDOM.. People can spot the difference.

ISLAM and SYMBOLISM. I suggest that while it can be convincingly argued that the cross has been given some dark meaning to non Christians by the Crusades, the same cannot be argued for Islamic symbolism. i.e. Islamic symbolism has inherent darkness and evil associated with the symbols from the very outset of the religion and the behavior of its founder. It has not accrued such darkness by later misdeeds of its followers, that was already set in concrete by Mohammad and the Caliphs.

That is also the core of my argument. (and has been all along) So, while it may be argued also that the Cross was given flawed meaning by misdeeds of’Christendom’, the Crescent (and associated symbolism such as headscalf/burkah/mosque) had it from day 1.

Mohammed (himself)=Militant_expansion+torture of prisoners/apostates on earth. (based on earliest sources)
Christ (Himself)=Compassion and forgiveness to the repentant. (based on earliest sources)

Can you disprove this ?

Gawd - not only is Boazy an expert in Islamic hermeneutics and functionalist anthropology, but he's an authority on on semiotic analysis as well! What a legend!

Just out of interest, Boazy - what in your analysis does the headscarf routinely worn in public by your Exclusive Brethren cousins symbolise? I've seen numerous photos of EB women, resplendent in frumpy 19th century dresses, and always sporting headscarves.

Is this another symbol of pernicious Mohammedanism - or is it just good old Abrahamic patriarchy expressed sartorially?

It has just been revealed that George Bush, in a last role of the dice, will attack Iran in four days time.

Should this happen, no doubt John Howard with little Alex at his shoulder, will meet the press and announce the US action has his full support although he had yet to receive orders from Washington concerning increased military commitments. However, due to increasing vulnerability of Australian warships in the Straits of Hormuz to missile and torpedo attacks, it may become necessary.

Should these events unfold, will Australia become more or less likely to suffer a terrorist attack at home or will the Muslim community be more or less vulnerable to reprisals from fascist elements in our midsts?

Boaz, you are becoming a past master of logical tap-dancing, for which I has to tip me lid.

But even the lightning speed of your bespoke Capezio Coppolas can't get you out of this one.

>>I have not the slightest bit of disagreement with that statement, which on closer inspection fits in perfectly with what I am saying<<

On the closest possible inspection, Boaz, you have been caught out. You cannot both insist that "[s]ymbols have an 'inherrant' meaning based on their origin", and then agree with me that "[t]here is absolutely no inherent meaning in a symbol, only that which is attributed to it”

Sorry, but these are absolutely 100% mutually exclusive.

So, please decide. Is the symbolism of a headscarf inherent in the object itself, or is the symbolism merely attributed to it by the wearer, or the observer?

>>What I neglected to emphasize sufficiently in my previous post was this. ATTRIBUTED_BY_WHO..and FOR_WHAT? this is probably the more important question.<<

You are perhaps a little closer to the truth here, Boaz, but unfortunately it still supports my "no inherent symbolism" point, rather than your proposition that they "have an 'inherrant' meaning based on their origin".

The wearer attributes to the headscarf their own symbolism which, if I read it correctly, has more to do with dressing modestly than waging war.

You, on the other hand, attribute to it a series of ancient crimes, and hold it to be an abomination in your sight.

There is no, repeat no, symbolism inherent in, for example, a leek, shamrock or thistle. But to the Welsh, Irish and Scot it contains a wealth - watch their eyes mist over as they contemplate their national symbol.

Incidentally, I'm fascinated at your suggestion that the cross is not ‘the’ Christian symbol. Certainly the message never got through to the happy folk who built all those churches, nor the Christians I know who wear it around their neck.

Perhaps you have an alternative in mind that means more to a Christian than a cross?

A pair of Capezio Coppolas, perhaps?

An insightful article by Paul Sheehan today:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/small-fry-in-irans-big-picture/2007/04/01/1175366077772.html

<<.... The first sign of what was to come arrived within days of the mullahs and their followers taking control of government. Women were "invited" to wear the veil. Those who declined found themselves beaten and abused by the gangs of self-appointed revolutionary guards who roamed the streets....>>

I enjoyed the article but not many of the posts - except the one about breastfeeding - lots of good points made there.
I have a prejudice against women who wear the headscarf, I wish I didn't and I know my assumptions are ignorant - but I have to be honest, I feel distanced and alienated from women who wear it.
To me, as a fellow female, they symbolise the success all religions have had in making women feel ashamed of just being the way some God is supposed to have made them.
If men are supposedly driven wild with desire at just seeing me (though at almost fifty I chortle a bit at that as a genuine possibility) - my face, hair or ankle - how is that my responsibility? Surely it is theirs? Why should my natural shape and features be something I need to hide or cover? Why are they seen as "immodest"? What is so shameful about being a woman and looking like one? The passive acceptance of religious based shame is at the root of my prejudice against wearers of any kind of veil -including nuns. Mind you, I would not ban headscarfs or attempt to take one from anyone's head, but I do reserve the right to argue vigorously with the wearer about why female "modesty" is so important. And rape is no answer, there is just as much rape and sexual abuse in countries where women dress modestly as in countries like ours. It just isn't talked about so openly. Well, it wouldn't be, would it, if you risk being stoned to death or ostracised if raped.

Sometimes a head scarf is just a head scarf and keeps the wind from blowing hair all over the place. Sometimes a headscarf is a symbol of religious modesty before the eyes of God. And sometimes a head scarf is a social-sexual restraint imposed by one sex upon the other in the name of religion. I would think it would be up to the individual to determine the "why". Now if we're going to talk about burqas, total body covering, that's another story. To me that just shouts "Hide thee from my sight woman".

<< Muslim women are like their men - They speak with a forked tongue.

They are coached/trained to always reply to non-Muslims that - to cover up from head to toe is 'very liberating' because they 'stop being a sex symbol' when they don the hijab. A very effective argument to ward off criticism and leave you speechless.

On the other hand those not wearing a hijab, looking every bit modern and complete with lip-stick, will mock you - she is a living proof that you misunderstood what it means to be a Muslim woman.

Whatever you think of them, there is always one who can offer a contradicting argument that you are 'wrong'. Like Muslim men, they are as hypocritical as their twisted sense of logic gets. Their deceptiveness will leave you numb.

So I do not regard any Muslim woman as a lady. I do not wait for them to get out of a lift, I certainly do not open door for Muslim women. >>

GZ Tan: "So I do not regard any Muslim woman as a lady. I do not wait for them to get out of a lift, I certainly do not open door for Muslim women."

So who coached/trained you to be such a rude, offensive bigot?

Well said CJ.

GZ Tan - if indeed muslims were the nasty types you portray them as (and I don't believe they are) then you are no better than them for behaving that way. In fact, the behaviour you describe can just as effectively be applied to you for that nasty admission.

Why not lead by example?
Instead you behave in a gutteral manner that I would hope most people grow out of by puberty.

I bet if a muslim said that about women of other beliefs, you would be the first to condemn them (and that condemnation would be deserved).

But to hear you pretend it's okay for you to be nasty... what a hypocritical double standard.

CJ Morgan,

Try to ask any Muslim woman whether she is offended if I do not extend to her courtesy of the "western" kind.
Do you know, a Muslim woman is too modest to be offended like that?

TRTL,

Have you ever experienced life in an Islamic state?
I don't have to hear nastiness coming from Sheik Hilaly or any Muslim (including forked-tongued Muslim women) to make a judgement. Sure, Muslims appear to be nice, especially when they are a minority (like in Australia).

Are they nice Muslims who:
(a) chopped off the head of young school girls in Indonesia;
(b) lynched a teacher to death in Nigeria;
(c) plucked out eyes of a wife who refused sex (in France)?

Even if Muslims say nice things about women of other belief, my advice is - Do not trust them.
'Nice' Muslims are only the thin end of a wedge.

CJ Morgan,
Also ask your Muslim friends about atrocities I just mentioned. I think you are the type easily fooled by their forked tongues, that it is no fault of Islam/Muslims.

( Come to think of it... nasty people who honestly speak their minds are far better than deceptive forked-tongue creatures)

GZ Tan.

Yeah. There's bad muslim regimes. But instead of saying that, you're saying that every muslim is some kind of deceitful monster, just out to trick westerners.

Tell me, is this true of the Bahai faith, an offshoot of Islam? I know I've never heard any complaints about the Bahai. As far as I can tell, they're more inclusive of other beliefs than christianity is.

By your argument, every muslim in muslim-dominated indonesia is also some kind of plotter.
Kind of a shock when you travel there and encounter many very liberal muslims, who certainly aren't the conservative imams of the middle east.

By your argument, the many Australian muslim women, who have grown up in this country having been here for generations, are simply plotting against their homeland. I suspect a number of posters here would like to howl and claim they're not Australian. Many of them are the same who get annoyed by requests for Christians to keep their christianity out of Australian politics.

GZ Tan, you say: "Like Muslim men, they are as hypocritical as their twisted sense of logic gets. Their deceptiveness will leave you numb."

Isn't this one hell of a generalisation for a billion people (males and females of Islam faith)?

You also said: Try to ask any Muslim woman whether she is offended if I do not extend to her courtesy of the "western" kind.
Do you know, a Muslim woman is too modest to be offended like that?

Aside from the fact that I am beginning to doubt your experience of muslim people, I suspect they would be offended by being called "deceptive" and having "twisted logic."

GZ Tan

I have held high the torch for Israel on other posts, but I am appalled by your comments. Yes there are bad Muslims just as their are bad Jews, bad Christians, bad atheists. Certainly Islam has more than its share of bad dictatorial leaders. But whatever you think of Islam, or for that matter any other religion there is deep down inside all of them a capacity of good. It is not religions which are bad, just that bad people often hijack religions for their own evil ends.

TRTL & Logic ,
Are the ‘bad’ Muslims hijacking the religion or simply following it more closely/religiously than “good” Muslims?

It seems to me that a MODERATE Muslim is merely someone who is not following Islam -TO THE LETTER. They pick & choose ‘modernise’ what they practise: They are someone whose norms/mores fit more closely with our secural western norms( & I’m not arguing whether that’s good or bad-or unique)

But that would still leave a question mark over the creed
ie the architects blueprint, as recorded in its sacred book(s).

Is it inconceivable for a creed to be innately ‘bad’?
We loudly declare Nazism to be evil
We loudly declare certain cults to be evil
Why not a major monotheistic establishment religion?

As I said before, the only rule I see is if you get enough people believing in a creed it becomes respectable & improper (in PC circles) to ridicule it.

TRTL:
It might be enlightening for you to review the history/fate of the Bahia under Islam The Islamic authorities certainly didn’t treat it very brotherly!

[PS & from my point of view this not a Christianity V's Islam boxing match -so please don't employ the "they do it too!" argument]

Logic,
Do you delve deep inside Islam to only look for what little good there is, simply ignore the bad?
Belief that religions are all alike is deeply frauded. I wouldn't trust you if I were Israeli.

TRTL,
Islam is incompatible with ideals of freedom and democracy.
Muslim women's lip-gloss and logic that hijab/burqa is freedom/liberation will not change that !!

Has it ever occurred to you:
(a) "honest" Muslims are radicals/extremists who fearlessly speak their minds, thumb their noses?
(b) moderate/liberal Muslims who always white-wash Islam are actually deceptive?

First, "honest" Hilaly causes an uproar. Next, "deceptive" moderates sooth the wound.
From Islamic viewpoints, Hilaly is correct all along !!

It's easy (but naive) to indulge in fuzzy notion that Muslims grown up here for generations are somehow fully integrated, loyal to their homeland.

Have you heard an "unspoken" ethos in Malaysia, "Muslim first, Malay second, Malaysian third"?

To believe Muslims value allegiance to Australia above Islam is dangerously misguided. If anything, generations of Muslims have produced many off-springs (Muslims first, Australians second), accelerated the tectonic swift towards an undemocratic Australia.

"Why not lead by example?" is another fallacy. You cannot set examples not regarded as acceptable value in Islam. Islam doesn't care less about your western values and will not return tolerance in kind.

Islam and freedom/democracy are simply contradiction in terms. Would you trust any moderate Muslims to safeguard freedom & democracy? This is NOT generalisation (even if it sounds like one).

In Malaysia, one Malay maid (Muslim, of course) enjoys eating pork (forbidden in Islam). When picked up by "vigilante" Muslims on the street, her masters would pass her off as an Indian Hindu. Otherwise, she would be in great strife.
Can a Muslim be more "liberal" than this?
Still, one day she might get caught red-handed. Then not only she'll stop eating pork, she may turn to fervent devotion (to atone for her "Islamic sins").

It's non-Muslims who guarded a Muslim's freedom to eat what she enjoys.
The reverse is rare as hens teeth !!

Considering Muslim atrocities I mentioned, you're tail wagging the dog.

Please don't brand me as a starry eyer idealist. I am a 65 year old engineer, you don't follow that profession for as long as I have and remain impractical.

I am well aware of some structural problems inherent within Islam. And the lack so far of a successful reform movement. But there are so many Muslims I cannot believe that amongst so many people not one of them has been influenced by the enlightenment. Look at Salmon Rushdie for example. Vicious criticisms of Islam only throw the reformists into the traditionalist camp.

After all Islam was once very enlightened compared with medieval Christianity. By modern standards it still had a way to go in giving freedom to all. But somewhere along the line it just stopped. Surely it will start to move forward again and many, perhaps the majority are already moving down that path.

Pericles.. no, they are not mutually exclusive. Symbols can have meaning attritubuted them the AT their inception, AND they can be given different or additional meaning as time goes by according to their use. Now that wasn't hard was it ?

LOGIC.. my my :) I need to send you back to religious engineering school mate. You said:

"It is not religions which are bad, just that bad people often hijack religions for their own evil ends."

If I'm not mistaken, you are Jewish. and THIS is not offensive or evil or bad ? (Quran chapter 9 verse 30)

[SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! ]

Now.. this is the core of the apple.. the kernel of the nut.. the absolute "This is where it all happens" of Islam and this verse is calling on God to specifically destroy YOU.. I repeat.. "May Allah DESTROY them" (Jews and Christians)

The religion not 'evil' ? Christianity does not call on God to destroy unbelievers. It does speak about the utlimate fate of those who elect not to become part of the elect in Christ, but the emphasis in the Bible is 'Give them every possible chance' rather than 'destroy them because they don't believe'

So, Islam is in fact an "inversion" a reciprocal.... of the true revelation of Grace. Insted of carrot then stick, its plain STICK and a rough one at that.

Have a read of chapter 23:5-6 and then tell me it is not evil. (read some Islamic commentaries and see what they reveal)

I know of people who are planning a complaint to the EOC about religious vilification in the Quran, thats how seriously 'they' consider this. One of them is Jewish, and others are Christians.

Boaz, stop wriggling, you lost this one fair and square.

>>Symbols can have meaning attributed them the AT their inception, AND they can be given different or additional meaning as time goes by according to their use. Now that wasn't hard was it ?<<

Not hard, but wrong.

Remember, please, where this part of the discussion started. You raved on about

>>SYMBOLS........

Islamic Head Scalf....
-Genocide of a whole Tribe of Jews (Systematic beheading of Banu Qurayza Males)
Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."<<

The fact is, the symbolism of the headscarf is entirely in your head.

Think a little more clearly. The Swastika was intended by the Nazis to be used as both a motivator of supporters and to strike fear into opponents. All the horrors perpetrated in its shadow were not the fault of the symbol, but the people who manipulated it.

It had previously been used as a peace symbol - even its name came from the Sanskrit "svastika" - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.

As for the hammer and sickle:

"The two tools are symbols of the peasantry and the industrial proletariat; placing them together symbolises the unity between agricultural and industrial workers." - Wikipedia

Symbolism can in no way be inherent in an object. It's in your head.

If you disbelieve me, what meaning was attributed to the headscarf at its inception?

While you are about it, tell us when this inception took place.

So once again I ask, on what basis did you exclude the Christian cross from your list, given that any number of atrocities were carried out in its name?

While you're at it, Boazy you old rascal, would you mind answering the questions I posed to you last Monday:

"Just out of interest, Boazy - what in your analysis does the headscarf routinely worn in public by your Exclusive Brethren cousins symbolise? I've seen numerous photos of EB women, resplendent in frumpy 19th century dresses, and always sporting headscarves.

Is this another symbol of pernicious Mohammedanism - or is it just good old Abrahamic patriarchy expressed sartorially? "

CJ Morgan,

Who gives a damn what you or anybody wears.

Why is Exclusive Brethren attire of concern to you?
Is it because you think EB is a threat to freedom & democracy? If not, what are you on about exactly?

Do you have something meaningful to tell?

GZ Tan: "Who gives a damn what you or anybody wears."

It appears that our Islamophobic friend is not only rude, offensive and bigoted, but has also forgotten what the article was about (or is being disingenuous). Just to remind GZ Tan, it seems that the practice of Muslim women wearing headscarves is somehow threatening to various people who presume to lecture us about what the scarf supposedly symbolises, and how our society is under attack from these evil, untrustworthy Muslims.

GZ Tan: "Why is Exclusive Brethren attire of concern to you?
Is it because you think EB is a threat to freedom & democracy?"

I asked Brother Boazy for his semiotic analysis of the EB headscarf, because according to his learned interpretation, the "Islamic Head Scalf" (sic) symbolises:

"Genocide of a whole Tribe of Jews (Systematic beheading of Banu Qurayza Males)...
-Justification of sex slavery. 23:5-6
-Cursing of other specific religions and races (Jews and Christians)9:30
-Death for simply insulting their prophet. -Death for rejecting their prophet after you have accepted him. (hadith references)
-A man driven by lust and misogeny- producing a culture of the same character. 33:50
-Justification of wife beating. 4:34
-Prostitution re-packaged as 'temporary marriage' and justified for males.4:24
-Child exploitation/ sexual abuse of female children. (Aisha)"

Now, given that female members of the more extreme branch of his own sect habitually wear headscarves that are not very different from those that adorn Muslim women, I think that it's reasonable to ask Boazy what it is that practice means in the context of his own Abrahamic religion.

And yes, I do think that the Exclusive Brethren are a threat to our freedom and democracy, given the underhand and dishonest means they use to try and influence the outcomes of the democratic process in which they refuse to participate.

Why is it that their women are required to wear scarves, Boazy? What do they symbolise?

CJ Morgan,

You think Exclusive Brethren refuse to participate in democracy but (strangely) can influence democracy?

Are EB actually magicians that threaten freedom and democracy? Have you been to a psychiatrist?

You either talk nonsense or throw one-liners and gratuitous jibes at others.

No one here is "Islamophobic" because Islam is a proven threat to freedom and democracy. There is no illogical, exaggerated fear borned out of ignorance.

Since you care to quote BD's list of Islamic evils, perhaps you do agree Islam has a history of wicked atrocities.

Now my question to your "EB-phobic" self :

Can you justify your thinking that EB (other than being 'dishonest', 'underhanded'), constitutes a threat to freedom and democracy, MORE so than Islam?

Be warned your argument had better be logical, factual, qualitative and quantitative.

Failure to do so will prove you are a "EB-phobic" (possessing illogical, exaggerated fear and prejudice), and a hypocrite, a fool for labelling me "phobic".

What kind of head scarf is this?

see picture

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=485142007

Is this the young girls choice? Islam? Muslims? Iran's? A tool of terror and abuse? Or harmless fun in the name of world politics?

GZ Tan: "You think Exclusive Brethren refuse to participate in democracy but (strangely) can influence democracy?

Are EB actually magicians that threaten freedom and democracy?"

Unfortunately, it seems we need to add (wilful?) ignorance to offensiveness and bigotry in GZ's repertoire of defects. Exclusive Brethren don't allow their members to vote, but they seek to influence the electoral process by secretly funding political advertising and lobbying MPs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren for a full description of the sect and its skulduggery.

Amongst other religious absurdities, the EB require their women to wear headscarves in public. As it happens, our Boazy is a member of the closely related Open Brethren, yet he chose to claim above that the headscarf is symbolic of Islam, and illustrated it with a litany of negative quotations carefully gleaned from Islamic texts.

Again, I think it's quite reasonable to ask him to explain how the symbolism of the headscarf is so different for Muslim and EB women. As for your 'straw man' demand - I think that religious zealots of any description are threats to "freedom and democracy", whether they be Christian, Muslim or Calithumpian nutters.

GZ: "Have you been to a psychiatrist?"

Not lately, but it could be advisable for you to seek some help - your Islamophobia seems to be getting the better of you.

CJ Morgan,

You ought to worry about your defective and skewed reasonings:

1. Anyone, any organisation can secretly or openly fund political advertising or lobby MPs. You can do it if you have the money, time or ability. Do it legally, you may succeed in getting what you want. Do it illegally, your attempts may backfire and you end up in jail. So what's your problem with Exclusive Brethren exercising a right to influence politics? Are you being undemocratic?

2. You can report to police right now about any illegal activity EB might have undertaken. Obviously all you possess is prejudice, innuendo, irrational and exaggerated fear.

3. Any organisation, religious or otherwise, has every right to require it's member to wear a headscarf or uniform as a matter of policy or belief. It may be "religious absurdities" to you, but not to them. Disagree with the requirement? Then try changing it or quit the organisation.

Earlier your wrote:
<< ...it seems that the practice of Muslim women wearing headscarves is somehow threatening to various people...>>

Rubbish !! The author's frauded assumptions aside, all the posts suggest that no one here thinks (a) a headscarf, or (b) the practice of wearing a headscarf, is THREATENING. You've got yourself a strawman.

What is threatening is the ideology behind the headscarf - the religion ISLAM itself.

The scarf merely symbolises the Islamic threat. When we see more and more headscarves around us, we know that the oppresssive force of Islam is increasing with an expanding Muslim population.

Even if Exclusive Brethren members were to wear exactly the same headscarf as Muslims, so long as people can tell them apart from Muslims, then EB headscarf is a NON-ISSUE. Who cares what they wear !!

Go count the number of Islamic states around the world, then tell us how one day EB will trump them all one by one. I am sure your illogic can provide the argument you need.

btw, you have failed to provide the slightest proof that Exclusive Brethren is a bigger threat to Islam.

Now back to EB-phobe...

Pericles.. I don't believe I was 'wrong' on that. I think we had a communication glitch where I failed to provide sufficient information to fill out the picture. Ok.. I failed. Happy now ?

CJ. sorry.. I did answer.. "In my head" but not here.
Ok.. the EB scalf is nothing more than the headcovering that most Brethen of yesteryear wore, (whether exclusive or open) and that some Christian ladies still wear in other traditions.

In 'principle' it is an attempt to fulfill Pauls injuction in Corinthians about attire in Church. But then, we could look at other angles on this. (in the case of the EB)
1/ It symbolizes their particular (and often peculiar) understanding of practical Christianity today. Such as.. no email, no internet, no Tv (in most cases) So, thats the historical accrued meaning to the wider community.
2/ It could also be 'seen' as a symbol of very tight social control of members, the splitting up of families and a lot of trauma between family members.
3/ Strong discipline in the Church (EB) I'm guessing here, but I doubt any EB woman would be accepted into fellowship without a head covering.

Happy now ?

If I may revisit my original point. The Islamic headscalf is symbolic of "Islam" at it's fundamental level. The EB head covering is also symbolic of Christian teaching at its fundamental level. In the case of the EB, I believe they have added meaning which is outside Scripture. Muslims are not, they reflect the Quran/Hadith/Sunnah. There is no need to ascribe historical atrocities to the Islamic scalf, they are already present at the symbolic and historical roots.

Thanks Boazy. So the Muslim headscarf symbolises fundamentalist Islam and the EB headscarf symbolises fundamentalist Christianity?

I'll go along with that, but I'd further suggest that they are both worn by women to affirm their acceptance and membership of strongly patriarchal, anachronistic religious traditions that have a common putative root. So why is it that some people feel threatened by the hijab, but not apparently by the EB headscarf?

Perhaps it's because of their extreme antipathy to Islam - whether this is on theological grounds (as appears to be the case with Boazy and fellow travellers like GZ Tan), xenophobia, or for political reasons. It's an unfortunate fact that people are as free to hate each other in our society as they are to wear what they like, or believe what they like.

Personally, I feel sorry for those who feel threatened by others' superstitious beliefs and who rail on about them in forums such as this. As long as people stay within the law, I really don't care what silly beliefs they follow or what ridiculous clothing they wear. Such is the nature of a liberal democracy.

I am concerned, however, at the level of vitriol that emanates from Islamophobic members of our society, who take every opportunity to try and rabble-rouse the latent racism in our culture in order to spread their messages of hatred and division. Yes, there are a few Muslim lunatics who receive an undue amount of media attention, but their audience among their peers is minuscule compared with the increasing receptiveness of non-Muslim Australians to Islamophobic hate-mongering.

Like I said before, I'm far more worried by men wearing ties than women wearing headscarves.

CJ Morgan,

Still, you asked: << So why is it that some people feel threatened by the hijab, but not apparently by the EB headscarf? >>

I cannot believe this. Do you actually understand my posts? The answers are already there, Islam is a proven threat, EB is not !!

If I have "extreme antipathy" due to theological grounds, being xenophobic, or politically motivated, whatever, then shouldn't I be railing against each and every belief system? Why do I attack Islam, and Islam alone?

Get this clearly in your head. I say, Islam is the ONLY belief system that threatens freedom and democracy because it has the ideology and steadfastness. All it needs now is a critical mass of Muslim population.

I fully accept people are free to wear what they like, believe what they like. But people are also free to counter a threat and identify a falsehood. Afterall, Islam was only a hoax to begin with. A hoax that got out of hand.

I have the impression some self-righteous individuals like you can sit back and allow a hoax to slowly take humanity back to medieval era.

And stop dishing out disingenuous rhetoric like : "I'm far more worried by men wearing ties than women wearing headscarves."

If you have evidence against some men wearing ties then report to the police. Your innunedo serves no practical purpose whatsoever. When men who wear ties remove their ties, change into sportwear, pyjamas, swimwear. Do you then also worry about men with no ties, who wear pyjamas or sportwear?

What kind of phobia are you?

Classic.

>>I don't believe I was 'wrong' on that. I think we had a communication glitch where I failed to provide sufficient information to fill out the picture. Ok.. I failed. Happy now?<<

Your admission of failure, Boaz, would be more convincing if you also demonstrate some understanding of where you failed. Because later in the same post you say:

>>If I may revisit my original point. The Islamic headscalf is symbolic of "Islam" at it's fundamental level.<<

No, Boaz, it is not.

I thought we had agreed - implicit in your admission of failure - that there is not, and cannot be, any "fundamental symbolism" in a headscarf, a swastika, a hammer and sickle or - as you point out - a cross.

But you continue with your nonsense:

>>There is no need to ascribe historical atrocities to the Islamic scalf, they are already present at the symbolic and historical roots<<

I thought you had agreed this is not the case?

>>Ok.. I failed. Happy now?<<

Your insistence on continuing this argument long after you have lost it, is evidence, if only you were able to recognize it, of your unrepentant rabble-rousing habits.

But whether or not you do realize this, it would be sensible in future to confine yourself to arguments that have some consistency and logic to them.

Fat chance, I know, but it had to be said.

GZ Tan: "Why do I attack Islam, and Islam alone?"

Probably because you're an Islamophobic religious nutter. QED.

Now, do you have any comments on the actual article (which is about headscarves), or will you persist in trying to hijack the thread into a generic Islam-bashing exercise?

CJ Morgan,

Even your throwaway rhetorical one-liner : "I'm far more worried by men wearing ties ..." underlined a fact that you do not fear ties (or the wearing of ties) but worry about what wearers of a tie may do to you... as those may be men with power & influence and they may be subversive & nasty.

Islam has the ideology, power and influence to subvert freedom and democracy on a GLOBAL scale.

Precisely why emphasis should be on Islamic threat itself, not a headscarf or the practice of wearing one. The author has a frauded supposition to begin with.

No one here is threatened by a piece of cloth material. This discussion is drying up.

Perhaps to get a move on you can start commenting on : "The strength of a tie".

Horus:

"It seems to me that a MODERATE Muslim is merely someone who is not following Islam -TO THE LETTER. They pick & choose ‘modernise’ what they practise: They are someone whose norms/mores fit more closely with our secural western norms( & I’m not arguing whether that’s good or bad-or unique)"

To rebut this point, I say that all civilised religions operating within the modern world don't follow their religion to the letter.

Christians don't stone witches any more. In India, the more ghoulish practices of hinduism are restricted to the rural villages.

The idea that muslims are bad because their religion is bad hinges on the idea that all 'true' followers must adhere to the religion precisely.

The other religions have crafted more palatable interpretations, so why are the muslims who do this painted as not 'truly' following their faith, when the other religions are given more leeway?

Clearly, it is because there are a large number of backward muslim regimes. But to apply that to all muslims is wrong.

Yes, bahaism was oppressed by muslim regimes, but nevertheless, it is an offshoot of Islam.

My point is, it isn't right to judge all muslim people harshly, men or women, as GZ Tan seems quite prepared to do.

TRTL,

I understand your point it's wrong to judge all Muslims harshly. I do try targetting the Islamic ideology itself. And sure, most Muslims are moderates.

However the reality is not pretty, simply because Islam is incompatible with freedom & democracy - A proven fact.

If Australia population is majority Muslims, then granted that there will be NO freedom and democracy as we know it today, IRREGARDLESS of the proportion of moderate Muslims.

In other words, even if ALL Muslims are moderates, still there will be NO freedom & democracy. Slowly but surely, there will be no pop-singing, no ballet dancing, no Buddhist ceremony, no butcher selling pork meat.

Islam is uniquely different from all other religions ( Bahaism included) because Islam teaches that Koran/Quran is literally Allah's word (down to every punctuation).

Even moderate Muslims believe this fundamental idea. But being human, moderate/liberal Muslims may from time to time be "lazy" about theology, they miss prayer sessions, violate a few teachings now and then.
(You can choose to break some laws too. Just make sure not to get caught !!)

The vital consideration is, when radical Islamists come marching down your street to demand your submission to Allah... Trust me, no moderate Muslim friends of yours will come to your defense of freedom and democracy. They will only go as far as kindly persuading you that Allah is infinitely better than your "bad habits" under freedom & democracy.

It's in this context I say, you cannot trust Muslim, any Muslim, to safeguard freedom & democracy. It is non-Muslims task to safe-guard freedom & democracy for everyone (Muslims included) to enjoy.

I know, we are still a long way from a Muslim domination... But truth is truth, just keep eyes wide open to look out for a deception !!

To TurnLeftThenRight,

You criticise Christians for not following their religion to the letter. The example you use is that, "Christians don't stone witches any more."

Fair go, where in Jesus teaching did he say we were supposed to burn whiches? I remember where he said we were supposed to love others, our neighbours, our enemies, etc. I think you should read the book again of what Jesus taught.

If you are going to criticise Chritians for not following their own religion, you could probably find other examples of where they have fallen short of their calling.

I would be quite happy to say that it would be good thing to at least aim to follow Jesus' teaching to the letter. Would a 'moderate' Muslim be comfortable to say that about the teachings of Mohammed?

Fair enough, it wasn't literally, stone witches. Exodus, 22:18, though shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Pretty prescriptive, though I'm sure plenty of people have managed to craft more palatable interpretations.

Similarly, have a read of leviticus. Again, there are interpretations - DB's told us he believes this was just a guide for a particular society, not society in general - even if this is the case, it's implying tracts such as this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Are more pious. Basically, death to gays. There's plenty more in leviticus - basically, death to adulterers, death to people who sleep with their wives during menstruation, death to this that and the other.

Should we be taking this literally guy? No. We have more palatable interpretations.
But apparently when a muslim does that, he's no longer following their faith... so as I see it, unless Christians are putting gays to death, neither are they. Of course, there are those that argue that christians don't have to be as prescriptive, that the Qu'ran is the word of god and apparently muslims have to follow it to the letter - but guess what - muslims can follow their faith however they damn well want, and it isn't up to Christians to tell them otherwise.

Quite frankly, the rest of the us get quite sick of these faiths telling each other they're wrong. It's all ancient superstition and everybody reads what they want to see anyway.

TurnLeftThenRight
You say that you are getting a bit sick of people of different faiths criticising other faiths to try and make their own look a bit better. But I don’t see how that is much different to what you’re doing.

It seems your position is that all religions are just ancient superstition, and by implication they are all wrong. Does that make you an atheist or an agnostic? You highlight the strictest parts of the Levitical law, and say that this represents (or ought to represent) Christianity.

Are you not attempting to make Christianity look bad to help make your position look good?

It can be tiresome when non-believers are telling us what we ought to believe, or telling us erroneously what we do believe. But some criticism is healthy. It is good that the Christian faith can be treated as an open book. The Christian bible can be studied, analysed and criticised by anyone who cares to open its pages. Our faith has a literary foundation. Maybe I can’t speak for Muslims, but I think they say the same thing.

Plenty criticise the Bible, but I think it stands up well to all challenges.

As for Levitical law, Christians are guided in their interpretation of it by the New Testament, which is clear and consistent. For the last two thousand years, Christians have not been bound by Levitical law pertaining to sabbaths, circumcisions, food restrictions, etc.

We are bound only by the law of love, (e.g. Galatians 5:6) I invite you to read it again in this light.

And we are free to follow our faith to the letter.

Mick - what I'm trying to do, is point out all faiths have their ugly parts. You're probably right in saying that agnosticism and atheism share similar properties.

The sole reason why I highlight leviticus and sections of the bible, is to point out that Christianity must be interpreted in a palatable fashion, or it could very well be seen as including barbaric practices.

What bothers me, is when people single out these facets of Islam. I frequently hear posters here try and tell muslims that if they are moderate, "they are better than their faith would have them be."

That's rot to me - you can't tell someone of another faith how they should be interpreting their religion. I'm not telling you to take leviticus literally, but I'm saying it isn't fair to hammer muslims via a literal interpretation of the Koran.

I bring up ancient superstition, because many point out that muslims have to believe the koran because it is supposedly the literal word of god - the thing is, when it's all religion, who determines where the interpretation of ancient texts is gods literal word, and the word of those interpreting it?

Basically, I'm saying when religions criticise one another on these grounds, it's essentially throwing stones while in glass houses. It's hypocritical and unfair, because it can be applied to other faiths as well - though Islam is the current whipping boy, so it cops more abuse.

Mick, you say Christians follow their faith to the letter - which letter is the right one? Is it the church of the Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Protestants, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, that of the Uniting Church, Brethren, Exclusive Brethren...

TRTL.. to answer your question about 'which' ones are right :) Well of course its we 'Bretho's :)
Yessss...I'm kidding mate. We are just more right than all the rest 0_- ok..still kidding.

Regarding your interaction with Mick V he makes a strong point that the Levitical law was not set down for obedience for the Church and this issue was settled at the first Jerusalem Council which you can read about in Acts 15.

The NT is indeed our guide for interpreting and applying the Old Testament. The Levitical punishments tell us God's abhorrence for particular kinds of sin in the social context, and we would be wise to structure our societies to reflect this, but I would not advocate the specific punishments of Leviticus.

PERICLES.
-The "Islamic" head scalf is symbolic of Islam.
-The Islamic faith is what gives the "Islamic" headscalf its meaning.
-At the fundamental level of 'Islam' as a religion, we may take the Scalf as being symbolic of that.
-Individuals wearing that scalf may NOT neccessarily adhere to the fundamentals of Islam, but this does not change it's symbolic meaning.
-The "Islamic" head scalf has not been given any other meaning than that it symbolizes the wearers relationship to Allah 'VIA ISLAM'.
-The Swastika as you point out, had an original meaning different from the Nazi use. But this leads to the issue of CONTEXT. If a Swastika is displayed at a NeoNazi rally, we all know what it means.
-The NUNs Habit stands for both the 'Christian' aspect (in RC eyes) AND the Historical Catholic aspect. (good and bad)

You still don't get it, Boaz.

Try this little game. I have taken your words and simply substituted Christian for Islamic. Take a look at how it reads.

"The "Christian" cross is symbolic of Christianity.
-The Christian faith is what gives the "Christian" cross its meaning.
-At the fundamental level of 'Christianity' as a religion, we may take the Cross as being symbolic of that.
-Individuals wearing that cross may NOT neccessarily adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity, but this does not change it's symbolic meaning.
-The "Christian" cross has not been given any other meaning than that it symbolizes the wearers relationship to Jesus 'VIA Christianity'.
-The Swastika as you point out, had an original meaning different from the Nazi use. But this leads to the issue of CONTEXT. If a Swastika is displayed at a NeoNazi rally, we all know what it means.
-The NUNs Habit stands for both the 'Christian' aspect (in RC eyes) AND the Historical Catholic aspect. (good and bad)"

Does that help you understand that your arguments are going nowhere? While the above may be in some vague manner "true", it is also meaningless.

It also fails completely to support your earlier assertion:

>>Symbols can have meaning attritubuted [sic] them the AT their inception, AND they can be given different or additional meaning as time goes by according to their use. Now that wasn't hard was it ?<<

Or an earlier one:

>>Symbols have an 'inherrant' [sic] meaning based on their origin, and HISTORIC meaning given by those who use it rightly or wrongly in the course of their own lives.<<

Or your original assertion that the headscarf if symbolic of historic actions:

>>Islamic Head Scalf.... Genocide... Cursing of other specific religions and races... Death for simply insulting their prophet... Death for rejecting their prophet... Justification of wife beating... Prostitution ... Child exploitation/ sexual abuse of female children etc.<<

... an assertion that you proceeded to reject when transposed into the context of the cross, and crusaders' massacre of innocents in 1099.

Do yourself a favour. Walk away from this one.

Pericles not at all mate...

You problem is that you are tying to tie down a subjective issue in much too narrow terms.

Substituting the 'Cross' for Hijab is quite ok with me, because that list does not threaten me at all.

You fail to recognize that one major point which I've been harping on for (it seems like) decades now....

AT THE ROOT of Islam, at its core, at it's founder, you will find all those awful things which I've described ad nauseam. But at the Root, core and founder of Christianity, (Jesus and the Apostles) you will not.
You WILL find some unspeakable nasties in the history of ChristenDOM and I've never argued otherwise. I've even reported some in a recent thread.

I think its fair to say that in a Catholic Context, and to some degree Anglican (if one looks at the history of those faiths in England and the RC in older history (crusades etc)) Then this is the territory of 'historic' meaning and symbolic value. So, it depends to a degree on who is holding it, and what the current position of the Church is regarding various doctrines.

We can argue the toss about the accumulated or historically attributed baggage of the Cross, but there is nothing to argue about in regard to its foundational meaning in the Christian context.

Just as there is nothing to argue about for the Hijab/scalf in its symbolism of "Islam" (in contrast to it being simply a 'cultural symbol of nominal muslims).. the Hijab remains a strong symbol of all the fundamental and historically cruel aspects of Islam AT its absolute beginning, and this is where your own argument loses its wind.

You've gone to considerable trouble and effort to refute my position, and its made good discussion and enabled some reflection, but in the end I don't think you have laid a glove on my central point.
cheers.

The answer is still no.

>>the Hijab remains a strong symbol of all the fundamental and historically cruel aspects of Islam AT its absolute beginning, and this is where your own argument loses its wind<<

Those are good brave words Boaz, but they are not supported by any of your arguments to date.

>>Substituting the 'Cross' for Hijab is quite ok with me, because that list does not threaten me at all<<

Well of course it doesn't, that's the whole point. There is absolutely nothing in either paragraph that should disturb anyone. This is a fundamental recognition of the fact that a symbol only has meaning to the observer, and absolutely none in and of itself.

But the amazing thing is, you do actually understand and agree with what I am saying, it is just that you can't bring yourself to accept it.

>>You problem is that you are tying to tie down a subjective issue in much too narrow terms<<

That's the word, Boaz. It is a subjective issue. This means that there is no "objective truth" to be whittled from this raw stick of an argument, simply an acknowledgement of the way we feel, inside of us.

You feel threatened by the hijab. You don't feel threatened by the cross. Fine and dandy, and absolutely as it should be - it is your mind, and you will make your own evaluations and decisions.

But that does not give you leave to spread the notion that your fear should be everybody's fear. That your distaste for Islam, and by association the hijab, should be shared by the rest of the world.

>>You've gone to considerable trouble and effort to refute my position, and its made good discussion and enabled some reflection, but in the end I don't think you have laid a glove on my central point<<

True, there's no touching your "central point".

But since you have clearly and unequivocally come around to my point of view, there's no need, is there?