Why is it men always feel able to judge and comment on what women choose to wear and what not where? What’s it too them?

Why do women is some Islamic countries see Australian women being oppressed because they don't wear it? Because when women in Australia do where it in public they are subject to being spat on and open to all kinds of name calling, (not to mention school yard bullying), post 9/11. The Victorian police have some good stats on the rise of racial abuse of Australian women for wearing a head scarf in public.

Women should have the genuine freedom to where what they want without public harassment for wearing the short skirt to a head scarf.

Which Australians see the wearing of a hijab as a symbol of oppression for Muslim women? It is doubtful that many Australians care whether or not Muslim women are oppressed. If they are oppressed, let them do something about it for themselves; particularly those living in Australia, where there are laws to protect them from oppression. What goes on in other countries, Muslim or otherwise, is no concern of ours.

This hijab, headscarf argument has already been done to death on OLO a long time ago. Headscarves in Australia look stupid, attract attention – some of it dangerous – and alienate their wearers from the rest of society, which is probably want scarf-wearers want anyway.

If some people want to look different, let them. It’s their ‘funeral’

Mr Right

“Headscarves in Australia look stupid, attract attention – some of it dangerous – and alienate their wearers from the rest of society, which is probably want scarf-wearers want anyway” So according to your logic women who wear short skirts are uncovered meat that deserve whatever happens to them as they want it anyway?

How the hell do you know what these women want – ever bothered to talk to them??

Actually the headscarf IS an innocent piece of clothing. Not so long ago we ALL wore our headscarf's,-(HM Lizzie STILL wears hers..) No problems there Kees...?

It has nothing to do with 'headscarf's'-(YOUR terminology),-has it? It has EVERYTHING to do with the TYPE of headscarf;-and WHO is wearing it.

Your objection, first of all, IS based on that fact;-yet scarves on the head have been worn by western cultures for a long time.

Secondly,-your concern about 'Muslim' women being 'forced' to wear it. (The tedious all or nothing logic again). How do you KNOW that ALL of your selected group ARE forced to wear it?

Can you even entertain the idea that some Muslim women PREFER/CHOOSE to wear THEIR type of headscarf?

Or does that FACT detract from your REAL message?

What exactly DO you mean about a headscarf being 'no innocent' piece of clothing?

I would like to ask how many Muslim women have been asked about this issue by the author. Judging by personal experience most Muslim women in Australia wear a hijab out of respect for their religion and/or other personal reasons. Indeed, I even talked to one girl who's family was opposed to it.

Do you know why they were opposed to her wearing a traditional headscarf? They believed that their daughter would feel the prejudice that seems to be prevalent in Australian society against Muslim women.

This "all or nothing" view about Muslim women is wrong and is indeed a view that is wrong for most, if not all, issues. A great book to read on this type of issue is "Does my head look big in this?" by Randa Abdel-Fattah. It's a book that describes how an Australian Muslim girl's life changes when she decides to wear a hijab of her volition.

My mother didn't leave the house with a scarf on her head for 40 years, no-one told her too but she wanted to keep her hair nice. Who for no-one has ever been able to fathom because no-one gave a toss.

What about centuries of nuns, or orthodox jewish women who must wear wigs or scarves, or Exclusive Brethren and other religious sects?

You boys really need to stop getting your jocks in a twist - it is a small piece of material. Nothing more.

And this is no innocent comment! I love the headscarf and I hate the way it is demonised by writers like this. The dignity of this garment and the demeanor of those wearing it brings a grace to dress which has long been lost to western women. I bet they don't have the problems with skin cancer and premature aging which are rife amongst Australians. Religious belief and ideas about modesty apart it's probably the most practical fashion accessory possible for our climate. I think it should be encouraged for all of us!

There is a health problem associated with wearing Muslim dress. Women do not always get sufficient contact with sunlight - which is as bad as too much contact. There is a vitamin D deficiency and a local exercise class for Muslim women has a number of women have associated medical conditions.
I know Muslim women who are happy to wear their headscarves and others who do not. I also know a number of women who are required to wear them and resent that fact.
Perhaps it becomes a problem when women are required to do something against their wishes or when they believe that they do not have an alternative.

"You boys really need to stop getting your jocks in a twist - it is a small piece of material. Nothing more."

Meanwhile, back in the real world....


TEHRAN, April 17, 2008 (AFP) - Iranian police will confront women in private offices, or even socialising in cafes, whose dress is deemed improper, as part of a continued morality crackdown, Tehran's police chief said on Thursday.
Police have been enforcing the crackdown for the past year and its morality patrol officers have handed tens of thousands of warnings to women on Tehran's streets.
Including offices and cafes -- which so far have not been targeted -- would mark a major expansion of the drive

I guess it is a bit like the swastika. In days of old the swastika was symbolic of good fortune, or something like that. More recently it has become symbolic of something twisted, thanks to Hitler.
Same with the headscarf more recently. As more and more people discover how mentally insane Muhammed’s message is (Islam), the headscarf will also become symbolic of something twisted.

There are also those who wear only the head 'scarf' as a political statement.

There's a lot of anti-islam sentiment these days and some of them do the 'loud and proud' thing for effect. And good for them.

Oh yeah, men like to comment on womens clothing much in the same way that a women will tell you 'clothes make the man' and that shirt doesnt go with that other bit.

Looking at the large number of politically correct responses to this thoughtful article, responses which aim at distracting from or suppressing any real debate on what is a very real issue reminds me of Stephen Fry's comments:
"If I had a large amount of money I should found a hospital for those whose grip on the world is so tenuous that they can be severely offended by words and phrases yet remain unoffended by the injustice, violence and oppression that howls daily."
The wearing of the Hijab is nothing to do with fashions statements (like the wearing of scarves) or health (protection from the sun). It is a statement about women's (subordinate and inferior) place in society. No amount of shallow and/or, may I say, less than honest, in a intellectual rigour sense, argument about asking what the women who wear it think, can change that fact. The fact that someone can suggest that one should ask the women who wear it shows quite clearly that they do not have a clue about the issue or the society/system that imposes it on their women. The fundamental point that has been missed in that is that, apart from a rare few, the women who are forced to wear it are not allowed by their men to speak out.
Getting back to Stephen Fry, most of the responses here take the politically correct line and strongly argue that we can argue about the fact that we should not be arguing about it because we do not understand the Muslims but we cannot argue against the howling oppression inherent in the forcing of women to wear it.

yay, another feminist

Author> "Why do “Muslim countries” think Australian women are oppressed?"

How dare they!, right?

> "The only thing I can think of is that Western women are perceived as objects of desire."

That's called human biology, not oppression.

> "wearing the veil is based on the idea that women are dangerous"

I love this, because it's extremely hypocritical and symptomatic of the disease of western righteousness.

IN AUSTRALIA, women are FORCED to wear chest pieces to "protect" us men and other women from harm caused by looking at the breasts. THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. Also, looking at western civilisation, it has had the exactly the same hangups as the middle east. Nothing is unique to Islam here. Nothing.

> "But selective quotes like the above only enforce the view that is forced upon the public by all politically correct media: i.e. the view that we are not to engage in any debate on the headscarf because all Muslim women wear them out of their own free will."

And now he tries to foist his own political correct feminism onto others... hilarious...

I hope my next discussion is not 'censored' by the adminstrators.

Indeed. When you think about it, virtually everything that's been written in this thread about the headscarf could have been said about the Wonder Bra - and with similar profundity.

I really don't care what Muslim women do.

A good article indeed.

The wearing of the headscarf or hijab has nothing to with a woman’s modesty but rather, is linked to the teaching of hate in Islam. Women without the headscarf is viewed as immoral, a prostitute -- worthy of hell. The idea is to indoctrinate Muslims to hate women not wearing the headscarf.

In fact, it is not surprising to read of many Muslim men raping and murdering non-Muslim women.

Hear about this teaching from an ex-Muslim himself, Tawfiq Hamid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA

BenL.

See “the Infidel” by Ayan Hirsi Ali.

It’s just laughable to suggest that women in Muslim countries like Saudi or Pakistan believe western women are being oppressed because they don’t wear the scarf. How would anyone even know what women in Saudi want? They are reduced to the status of treasured family pets. Can anyone honestly suggest that womens rights in virtually all Islamic countries are not centuries behind what we have in the west?

The scarf is one thing, but what about the Niqab or the burqa?

1) Do you understand that Muslim women are supposed to wear such things to reduce their desirability to men because women can’t be trusted with their sexuality?

2) What excuse is there, then, for making children wear the scarf?

3) Do you understand that the wearing of scarves and other accoutrements has coincided with the resurgence of extreme pan-Islamism.

4) Do you realise that many young Muslim women without any history of scarf wearing in their families have suddenly taken up the habit.

5) Can you explain young Asian Muslim people wearing the traditional dress of Saudi Arabia as is becoming increasingly common?

It isn’t about respect for religion. It is about support for a particular brand of Islamism which is currently experiencing a massive resurgence. This new, literalist, pan-Islamic strain is as incompatible with western liberalism as Nazism. I’m certainly not suggesting that all Muslim women who wear scarves are devotees of literalist Islamic orders.

However, we as a society need to know more about the types of Islam which are being practiced. I certainly accept that mystic Sufism is a religion of peace. However wahabism, deobandism and other virulent strains of extreme and literalist Islam are finding many new adherents across the Islamic world; particularly in the west with second and third generation migrants. The scarf itself is merely a symbol and an irrelevant one, in and of itself. However the resurgence of hidjab is a pointer to the change in religious life among muslims. Unfortunately the change is not a favourable one; for the west anyway.

"......and strongly argue that we can argue about the fact that we should not be arguing about it because we do not understand the Muslims but we cannot argue against the howling oppression inherent in the forcing of women to wear it."
Posted by Plaza-Toro, Friday, 18 April 2008 6:57:53 PM

.......er,...right....

You write departmental policy don't you?

"1) Do you understand that Muslim women are supposed to wear such things to reduce their desirability to men because women can’t be trusted with their sexuality?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless#Cultural_and_legal_issues_in_the_Western_world

"2) What excuse is there, then, for making children wear the scarf?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless#Cultural_and_legal_issues_in_the_Western_world

"3) Do you understand that the wearing of scarves and other accoutrements has coincided with the resurgence of extreme pan-Islamism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless#Cultural_and_legal_issues_in_the_Western_world

"4) Do you realise that many young Muslim women without any history of scarf wearing in their families have suddenly taken up the habit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless#Cultural_and_legal_issues_in_the_Western_world

"5) Can you explain young Asian Muslim people wearing the traditional dress of Saudi Arabia as is becoming increasingly common?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless#Cultural_and_legal_issues_in_the_Western_world

Steel,

How Illuminating. At least we now know you can copy and paste. What a waste of a post. But let me try and reply anyway.

>> “IN AUSTRALIA, women are FORCED to wear chest pieces to "protect" us men and other women from harm caused by looking at the breasts.”

Just how many women do you think there are who want to go about without a shirt or bra? Bra’s themselves serve the very useful function of supporting a women’s breasts allowing her greater freedom of motion. They also prevent the third world effect of having breasts around your waste by the time your thirty. I’m all for allowing women to go topless if they want. I’m not sure how many actually want to.

I don’t care about the headscarf. If all it was, was a piece of cloth I wouldn’t care. However the rise in the number of women wearing headscarves has very closely followed the rise of strict literalist and Pan-Islamic sects. I challenge you to deny this.

“ >> symptomatic of the disease of western righteousness”

To compare the wonder bra to the burqa is a bizarre and extreme but not completely unreasonable action. But to suggest that the plight of women in Saudi or under the Taliban has any real commonality with that of women in the west is a breathtaking act of stupidity or ignorance.

Ok You don’t like western values. Fine. But don’t pretend for a second that there is any equivalence here. Your soft left rhetoric is typical of those who criticize western cultural values whilst fully enjoying its fruits.

If you can’t see that womens’ and minority rights in Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, are hundreds of years behind the west then you are an apologist and sad one at that.

You would be absolutely appalled if someone in your workplace was to treat a woman in the way women are regularly treated in the middle east. And that makes you a HYPOCRITE.

BTW if you have a website in mind by way of a reply, don't bother.

Tend to agree with those who liked the article.

We all trooped off at uni a couple of years ago to hear an Imam who had come up from Sydney, talk about Islam, the students on campus were running an Islamic "awareness week." So one of the handouts they gave out had a bit of an FAQ section.

to the question "I live in a hot climate and the hijab is not comfortable to wear, should I have to wear it?" ... the leaflet said "it may be hot where you live, but not as hot as the burning fires of hell!" (or very similar).

Which raises two points. Firstly, when you have people like this doing your PR, you have a problem. Secondly and more seriously, the gist of the literature and discussion on head (and more) covering was as others have stated on this thread - men are basically incapable of controlling their baser instincts and therefore need to be prevented from the sight of exposed female flesh. Which concurrently reduces women to the status of horseflesh that needs to be covered from prying eyes lest they attract unwanted attention.

All of you apologists for the hijab/burqua, make no mistake. A percentage of muslim women are browbeaten into wearing it for fear of sanction (I would not want to speculate a percentage worldwide but the type of event in that Reuters article is not isolated in the Islamic world). Hilali's "uncovered meat" comments represent an accurate portrayal of a proportion of the Islamic community, and though I have not seen research on this topic, I suspect it is not an insignificant one.

Marilyn

Your views on Jews are really a bit wonky. Orthodox Jewish women do not have to wear wigs or scarves, that is only by a minority sect. The Jews of Spanish and middle Eastern background have never worn them. Nor have the mainstream European orthodox. For those few Jews who do wear them, the men wear even more outlandish clothing. They would be the equivalent of the Amish. Mainstream Jews orthodox or Progressive criticize them for their attire.

In the case of the headscarf I have seen a woman in sweltering heat wearing one while her husband was comfortably attired in an open neck short sleeved shirt. This didn't seem fair to me. It is a very warm piece of material. I wonder if your mother wore one in mid-summer. If so she would have been very unusual.

Certainly my mother, grandmothers or great grandmother (who I just remember from her days in Parkville) never wore one, or a wig for that matter. And except for my mother they were orthodox.

I wish Paul L was wrong in what he says, but I get the impression he’s right. Apart from the breast excursion, his post stands uncontradicted.

If he’s right, what do we conclude about Muslim women’s head-gear? It seems to me that, in the West, these women (many of them, anyway) are being used. From what I’ve seen, there seem to be more scarved women than bearded men around. The majority of Muslim men seem to travel incognito. Interesting that it is the women being pushed by their brave men towards the bayonets of local disapproval. Imagine being oppressed into invisibility, and then being required to be conspicuously “invisible” in order to make some point. The point? I don’t know, maybe “We’re here!” “We’re right!” I’m guessing about the point.

A strange sort of invisibility, to be sure.

Pax,

Ginx

You are right - the piece you quote was very clumsy and looked a bit like public servant gobbledegook. My apologies - I am not a public servant.

I do not write departmental policy - indeed I despise the distortions in governmental departmental policy as they reflect much of the politically correct nonsense that has been written in the posts responding to the original article.

What I wrote was a rather clumsy attempt (I admit) to suggest that too many posters to this list are trying to avoid the real issue, the huge elephant in the room (the link between renascent radical Muslim and the increasing emphasis on the need for women to wear the hijab, thereby reinforcing their subordination) by politically correct comments or arguments which are way off the point. I was trying to do so without being as blunt as I am now.

As Daniel Barenboim said a couple of years ago (in, I think, the Reith lectures) - to be politically correct is an act of intellectual cowardice because it allows a person to take part in a conversation without having to form their own opinion, an opinion for which they may be criticized.

All veils in Muslim culture cover the “sexual abandon” and profligacy that womanhood embodies, and the temptation to man can only be stifled by not being able, at least temporarily, to see it. But in our modern times with the exodus of many Muslims from their own countries into the sexually promiscuous West the headscarf has a second life with a new meaning. It has become a sexually pure SUBLIMATED projection for Muslim women for their real oppression. In contrast to the apparently promiscuous women of the West, Muslim women can feel PROUD of their sexual “purity” and display it by wearing the hijab. Thus, being slaves in their own households they feel to be “queens” in the domain of the Western world.

This is Shakiras Hussein’s irresolvable problem. But its solution is very simple: Cast away this false sublimation by throwing out the hijab and be a free woman.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

In response to Paul L.'s post specifically but to all who posted in support of his post or the article afterward, if you had read the wikipedia article you would know that many women in the west are indeed oppressed by being forced to wear a covering on their upper body.

Whether you agree with this or not in our society women are punished with fines and imprisonment if they do not comply. The reason? Same as Islam. It's "offensive" to men and other women in the west. It's "debasing".

Sure you can link it to some Islam but I can also link similar practices such as I've described with the spread of Christianity. A Christian drive, the same rhetoric the same goal. An example has been posted on this forum while this discussion has taken place... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1701

"A male christian friend of mine also says he has trouble in shopping centres with all of the boosums hanging out and with dresses half way up the backside."

Replace christian with muslim and you will hear an unnerving resemblance between the two religious voices (islam and christianity) that everyone is so 'outraged' about. Outrage that is not very consistent, nor logical. It's easy to miss all this when your attention is being directed at judging others (in different sovereign states) and you are assimilated into your own culture.

Shakira Hussein describes herself as being a “Muslim Secular Feminist”. I am learning to expect such obfuscation from the MSF.

Hijab is not headwear. Take a good look: hijab-wearing ladies are covered head-to-toe. See Communicat’s post about associated health-problems. Clearly, this is not the same jaunty little Hermes scarf that Lizzie wears with flair (while riding or shooting).

PaulL: No argument from me!

I’ve written on this topic before in this forum. Muslim women WANT to wear hijab. Want, want, want!! But more importantly, they NEED to wear hijab. All the comments about uncovered meat, preached to Muslims young and old, as written in the Qu’ran. We should be asking why the little girls need to wear hijab too.

Ms Hussein may have taken some liberties with the “being oppressed” claim, however, Muslim women living in Muslim-majority countries are very realistic about what happens to women who walk around in a “provocative” state of undress.

Marilyn Shepherd: There is a big difference between women adopting a uniform for the sake of modesty, to deny their sexuality, and therefore to devote themselves to a religious life, and the above.

Patricia WA: <demonized by writers like this…>

The author is very clear that he is questioning a vague, unsubstantiated claim by a writer who should know better, a Muslim writer.

<it brings a grace to dress>

I’m not critical of your fashion choices. I truly believe you should wear whatever you please, within the bounds of decency, which granted, varies from person-to-person. Let’s say within the acceptable limits as imposed by law. I value freedom of choice. The young Saudi girls I saw in Jigsaw recently were dressed in hijab: of the figure-hugging jersey fabric variety. Young muslim women have found a way around the hijab, and it is not “grace”.

Themistocles: elegantly argued. Shakira, take note: this is what a true MSF should be advocating!

Steel: too much here for one post. The sexualisation of girls in the West IS a real issue, from any point of view.

Kees Bakhuyzen: I look forward to hearing more from you.

KatieO said: "Hijab is not headwear. Take a good look: hijab-wearing ladies are covered head-to-toe. See Communicat’s post about associated health-problems. Clearly, this is not the same jaunty little Hermes scarf that Lizzie wears with flair (while riding or shooting)."

Hi Katie.. are you thinking of the burqa as the head-to-toe jobbie? I looked this up out of curiosity, the term hijab seems to be loosely used to refer to a head scarf but apparently its true meaning is more about an Islamic philosophy of modesty of dress, rather than a specific garment... the quote from Wiki says this:
"In some Arabic-speaking countries and Western countries, the word hijab primarily refers to women's head and body covering, but in Islamic scholarship, hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy, and morality. The word used in the Qur'an for a headscarf or veil is khim&#257;r)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

Islam should be outlawed in liberal democracies to protect Muslim women from their male counterparts.

Recently in Canada, a Muslim man murdered her daughter because she refused to put on a hijab, the Islamic headscarf. According to Islamic jurisprudence her father acted correctly and legally but was charged with murder in the eyes of Canadian law. The father is a responsible and hardworking man any employer would be proud of, but he is also a devout Muslim and has to ‘honour’ his ideology.

If a man can kill his daughter in the name of Islam, he would stop at nothing to getting rid of non-Muslims if he can’t get his way with his ideology.

“What the westerners do not understand is that Muslims have different values, which are diametrically in contrast with western values”, says Ali Sina an ex-Muslim.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/Ban-Hijab-for-Aqsa-Parvez.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN

Perhaps we need to look at the actual symbolic value attached to the Islamic hijab, and compare this with other head covering faith positions ?

ISLAM

"HIJAB"

1/ Symbolizes 'Islam' (and all that goes with it)
2/ In the Islamic context it symbolizes every Quranic and Hadith reference to wearing one. The reasons and alleged benefits.
The relative position of Males and females in Islam is outlined in surah 4:34

<<Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means.>>

It's a pity that the above verse ends with "if you fear disloyalty.. do this,...this,... then beat them"

...which is taken from the specific Surah about 'Women'.

CHRISTIAN. (cross/haircovering)(including the E.B.'S)The New Testament is not ambiguous in declaring that women should wear some kind of hair covering in meetings.(not 'head' covering) this also symbolizes the values expressed within the Faith.

The values do sound similar at first glance to Islam "Wives respect/obey your husbands" etc..but it ends quite differently "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her" There is no reference whatsoever to 'beating' or discipline of any kind, which would imply a physical dominance, rather than a selfless giving as the Bible clearly indicates.

NUNS/CATHOLICISM. I guess in this case they reflect not only the New Testament idea, but also the Catholic History and accumulated traditions.

CONCLUSION. I don't see much to be gained by trying to count how many hijabs can fit onto a feelings_pinhead.. or how individual Muslims 'feel' about wearing it, or how they view western women.
If we are talking about the "Hijab" lets limit it to the symbolic value and significance.
The author makes a moral judgement on it, 'no innocent piece of clothing'..I presume he is thinking here more of the historical expression of Islam. In which case we can talk Cross,'Hijab' 'Headscalf' 'Swastika' etc.

Surely lots of laws and mores against something indicate that there must be an awful lot of IT going on. The idea that modesty, chastity and virtue will result from covering up the wimmin is junk thinking. It indicates the opposite.

Let's solve lust by wrapping it in linen and labelling it freedom. Works for the useful idiots I guess.

Oh I am soooooooo grateful to be a woman living in a christian nation.

Why, I hear you ask? Because at least I don’t have to cover myself neck to knee, or wear a scarf unless I CHOOSE to.

Gee, ain’t Christianity grand?

Do women have equal status to men according to the Holy Bible?

No we don't; in fact, we women, have exactly the same value according to both Quran and Bible. That is, we are worth exactly half that of a man - any man, even the really dumb ones.

So while Christianity could be seen as the lesser of two evils: I choose neither. Both religions suck, both have been used for violence and both place men as more important than women.

The following post is an extract from:

http://littlurl.com/gy4d1

Cont'd...

Women’s Status: Bible vs. the Quran

Don't you love it when the Bible and the Quran agree (more or less) on something?

They go at it from slightly different angles, but come up with the same answer. A woman is worth about half as much as a man.

BIBLE:

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver.... And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. Leviticus 27:3-7

So, depending on their age, females are worth 1/2 to 2/3 as much as males.

QURAN

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. Quran 4:11

... unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Quran 4:176
And the Quran tells us just how much we should trust a woman's testimony: it's worth half that of a man's.

And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women. Quran 2:282

The Bible and the Quran agree: a woman is worth half as much as a man.

Themistocles, Interesting. Certainly, I get the impression that some point is being made. Perhaps, as you suggest, it’s about superiority – moral, spiritual, being on God’s side, compared with the godless West. Although pride might be part of the mix, I still find it unimpressive that the women have to do this work, and take the heat for it – you know, the dark looks etc.

Steel, Do you really think the comparison is reasonable? Assuming you’re right that the Western oppression you speak of is Christian-based, it will be derived from some idea of modesty – some distinction between what is private and what is public. Do you think there should be no such distinction? Do you think modesty – in dress, conduct, whatever – is of no significance at all?

The difference is in the degree of “precautions” a woman must take, and in the consequences of her failure. I can’t imagine hunting down under-dressed women in a tray truck and beating them with baseball bats. But, all Islam knows is crime and punishment. There is no mercy. Remember, it’s very primitive.

I also think men are responsible for governing themselves, and should not be permitted to abdicate. The hijab and burqa encourage this abdication.

If you really think Western/Christian censorship of clothing is as oppressive as its Muslim counterpart, are you saying you’d just as soon live in a Muslim theocracy as in Australia? If not, then I suggest that Christianity has either fostered, or at least not effectively opposed, a lot of freedoms that Islam will eradicate if given half a chance.

Fractelle, Posts like yours actually make me wonder if atheists (which I infer you to be) are capable off adding value to a comparative religion discussion. Is it because your hatred of all religions, because of the God delusion sitting behind them all, trumps all other considerations? Anyway, you seem to struggle in appreciating even quite significant differences. If you were free to live in any country/culture of your choosing, which would it be – West, East, Middle-East, Africa ….?

Great post, katieO.

Pax,

Father killed dauhter in Canadian hijab[Islamic headscarf] case
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1151774720071211

Fractelle

The Old Testament Bible and Quúran probably do say the same things about women and their value but most Christian based societies have moved on in the intervening centuries and no longer insist that women abide by primitive subordination rules (which, when first developed may have had good protective reasons - societies were much more primitive, blood feuds were all the go and women were fair game for any man who could get them, especially in unsettled times).

But most Christian based societies no longer live in primitive, blood feud societies and, with much struggle, have developed (often with much kicking and screaming) and are in the process of developing behaviours which eliminate subordination behaviours and mores.

The renascent radical Islam has not moved in this regard from behaviours prevalent in Mahommed's time, in times of really primitive and, with respect, savage behaviour (attacking and slaughtering your enemy was not unusual - just look at Mahommed's struggle for dominance and the savagery that he used at the various atages of that struggle).

I am not comdemning all Muslims - all I am saying is that a comparison of the valuation of women given in the Old Testament (a rule book of a desert tribal community and which is over 2000 years old) and that given in the Quuran (a rule book of a desert tribal community which is over 1200 years old) is not really relevant to the discussion as to whether the wearing of the hejab is a political act, a political act which loudly and clearly asserts the subordination of women.

The argument about women in the West having something similar imposed on them by having to cover up their breasts (not yours Fractelle) is also a bit shallow. Sure, there have been times when that happened but if you really want to test whether it is a valid comparison in the context of tis discussion just compare community attitudes and actions re women's swimming costumes and Islam's attitudes to women wearing the Hijab in the 1920s and in the 2000s. There is just no valid comparison.

katieO: " Steel: too much here for one post. The sexualisation of girls in the West IS a real issue, from any point of view.

Don't assert your own agenda so into my statements. I definitely do not agree with your words here at all. I don't even believe the premise. Let me say a couple of quick things about this though. The new generation rejects your ideology just as you disagreed in turn with your own generation. Parents have responsibility over their children, not the government nor you (and it should be that way where it isn't). What is most sad about your bigotry is in raising the "child" spectre, when this is about adults (but on the topic, it is you do-gooders who are responsible for making pedophilia mainstream...no male in their right mind will go near a child if he is a stranger, for fear of being called a pedophile...and children of the new generation have suffered)

Plaza Toro > "The argument about women in the West having something similar imposed on them........Sure, there have been times when that happened but....."

There "have been"? There IS. NOW. I linked to the phenomenon. I am perplexed how presumably thinking adults can outright ignore information that is presented to them. Are you saying women are not forced right now into wearing clothing on their chests with your past tenses? If so, you need your head checked.

Plaza Toro > "... if you really want to test whether it is a valid comparison in the context of tis discussion just compare community attitudes and actions re women's swimming costumes and Islam's attitudes to women wearing the Hijab in the 1920s and in the 2000s."

Beach Policeman: 1922 http://www.shorpy.com/node/1070?size=_original

Regardless this is not about swimming costumes. This is about clothing requirement in all public areas.

"If you really think Western/Christian censorship of clothing is as oppressive as its Muslim counterpart"

I'm not saying it's the same. It's simply extremely hypocritical and ironic with the rhetoric about oppression. Both societies force women to comply. Both have a religious basis.

Goodthief

Again it's a projection of their real inferiority, that has been rendered to them by the Words of Allah inscribed in the Koran, for an idealistic DUD superiority. While Muslim men chase heavenly virgins since the earthly ones are evanescent, Muslim women pretend to keep intact their earthly vulnerable virginity by wearing the hijab.

The pride of being sexually pure has an invaluable price, even if at the end, because of the nature of women provided they are not sexually mutilated, has to be paid with a "promiscuous coin".

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

I do not think reasonably modest dress or the head scarf matter any more than an Indian woman's choosing to wear the sari. Neither mode of dress is remarkable.
But it is a different thing when it comes to that loathesome black cover all. In it's own way it is as odious on our streets as someone wearing only a penis guard ala New Guinea native.
Out of place and outlandish

Dear Fractelle.

The reference to Leviticus and relative 'value' of male and female, actually has a context. Historical, and literary.

Considering the historical, and the fact of it being an agricultural society, the 'PRODUCTIVE' ability of a female was most likely less than a man.. in fact definitely so.
But then, we could consider the RE-productive ability of a female..and on that score we blokes arn't worth much, but women are invaluable. Sure.. we make our little 'contribution' but in the end, the children come from the woman and are mainly nurtured by your fairer sex.

I think you are extrapolating much too far on the 'relative shekel' estimation. You have not determined if it is an 'intrinsic human value' difference or a productive ability difference.

Then, there is the aspect of 'cultural balance'. You will find that in the end, the women of that day had their place as did the men.
Men were the ones who protected not just the women but the whole society. Protected the women from the very thing Ruby Soho was speaking about from Deuteronomy i.e. the women and children being taken as slaves.

If women were estimated on the military capability, then clearly they will be 'worth' less than the men. But I'm sure there would have been many areas of life then, where the women surpassed the males.

Remember, Israel had a 'boss' who was female Deborah.. I hardly think that would have happened if women were TRULY and universally regarded as being worth 'half a man'....

The Quran is 100% relevant to social rules today.. the Bible is not so straight forward.. rely first and last on the New Testament teaching please.
If you want to have a whinge about that, I'll point you to the hardest verse so you don't have to scrounge through Skeptics annotated Bible.
Its 1 Timothy 2:15 :)
cheers

Steel,

>> “Both societies force women to comply. Both have a religious basis.”

Riiiight!!. I wasn’t aware that in the west we had a religious police to ensure women wear what they are told. Maybe you could point them out to me next time you see them.

You are saying that the only difference between us and the Islamists is one of degree. But Islamist sensibilities don’t stop with differing understandings of what constitutes acceptable modesty for women’s clothing. In many Islamic countries, women are not allowed to be in the company of men other than their husband, they are not allowed to drive; they are not allowed to pray in the mosque, they are not allowed a full education

In Saudi, women may not testify in court unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men. The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. Women cannot be admitted to a hospital, examined by a doctor, travel abroad or leave the house without the express permission and/or company of an immediate male relative.

If you can’t discern the difference between the social disapproval of immodest behaviour in the west (which is very rare); and the corporal punishment, jailing or murder carried out under Islamic Sharia law, then there’s something wrong with you. What you are suffering from is a total lack of perspective. It is typical of the moral relativism of the left that refuses to acknowledge the faults of any culture except our own. This bizarre viewpoint leads soft-lefties to the insipid perspective of the proponents of the “noble savage” school of thought. This couples the deliberate romanticisation of primitive cultures with an extremely simplistic condemnation of their own societies.

However what is most shocking about this debate is the lack of feminist voices being heard. For politically correct reasons, western feminists seem incapable of addressing this matter. It’s disgraceful and any woman who considers herself a feminist should be manning the barricades at this new attempt to bring 7th century Arabian sexism into our modern liberal societies.

Why must women who enter a Roman Catholic church, have to have their heads covered.

The wives of foreign heads of state, when they meet the Pope are clothed in black and wearing a black veil on their heads.

In 2008, there appears to be a lot of ancient hocus pocus still around!

Steel, your argument lacks legs (despite an abundance of mammary glands). Isn’t that what the author of the article is concerned about… flimsy, unsubstantiated claims? A wiki link is not compelling evidence. Specific instances of a “few Western “juristictions” (sic) enacting legal statutes….” are unreferenced.

I did raise the ugly spectre of institutionalized pedophilia in connection with young girls having to wear hijab for their own protection, however not in connection with your post.

Sexualisation is the bombardment of sexual messages and the effect that this has on society as a whole whether it be a relaxed dress code at the mall or the impact of pornography. An issue for concerned parents, health experts and society at large.

The UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6376421.stm

The USA:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=22070

Australia:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84468.php
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/index.htm

The West is not without it’s problems – thus Muslim women are not rushing to adopt western dress. However, a man in Australia is fully aware that he can’t act out his fantasies without being punished under the full extent of the law (unless he is Aboriginal and in a Far North Queensland court). This is a sufficient deterrent for most, which is why Muslims in western democracies are pushing to have disputes solved in a sharia court of law. Islam punishes the VICTIMS of rape (male and female) for their licentiousness, not the perpetrators.

Paul.L: I agree with you on almost everything. It will eventually become obvious that the failure of feminists to speak out against Islam is symptomatic of the failure of feminism as an ideology.

Fractelle: From the dwindlinginunbelief blog which you gave above, read on to the “Discipula said..” bit for context and clarification of the biblical text.

Kipp: Trawl back through the discussion, it has been addressed.

The Victorian police have some good stats on the rise of racial abuse of Australian women for wearing a head scarf in public.

Sorry Billy haven't even read past this statement on this thread but your wrong.

They are not Australian women they are islamic women, living in Australia and choosing the parts of our culture that suit them.

Did you know that a motor cyclist must remove his/her helmet when entering a retail outlet or a bank.

I am not racist but my point is, IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR COUNTRY AND OUR WAYS - LEAVE!

Steel, I think you should only use a word like “hypocritical” if you can demonstrate that the two regimes you're comparing – Sharia Law and the New Testament – are pretty much the same when it comes to oppressing women. So much the same, in fact, that any attempt by Christians to draw a distinction between the two is so far-fetched that it has to be insincere.

True, both systems (Muslim and Christian) have rules that must be complied with, and both rules have a religious base. But, there are significant differences, aren’t there. Very significant.

For a start, the modesty standard is not the same. See Mickijo’s post. In fact, they are so different, that it’s hard to see how the full black burqa can be seen as merely a matter of modesty. It’s so bizarre that something else has to be going on, don’t you think?

Then, even if an Australian woman is immodestly dressed, there is nothing to be done unless she has broken the law. She must be reported. No-one can take the law into their own hands.

Then, guilt is not automatic: someone would have to credibly say they’re offended, and would have to establish that a reasonable Australian person would be offended by the under-dressed spectacle – you know, like some of the soft porn billboards we are often treated to.

I don’t know when this last happened, but I know it would have been widely reported, and I suspect that stonings and beheadings in Iran are more frequent. Come on, steel, even being a man in a Muslim theocracy would suck!

Paul.L, I wholeheartedly join you in regretting the absence of feminist voices here. I know it’s what happens when one subscribes to the leftist package indiscriminately. Culture is fashionable at present, even clearly dangerous cultures – more fashionable than gender. Real feminists would speak. Leftist feminists are bound to silence. I wonder if Muslim strategists are aware of this difficulty: I suspect they are.

Pax,

katieo>"A wiki link is not compelling evidence. Specific instances of a “few Western “juristictions” (sic) enacting legal statutes….” are unreferenced."

Are you kidding?!? You dispute that women here in Australia can't walk around their cities and towns topless? OPEN YOUR EYES!

PaulL>"Riiiight!!. I wasn’t aware that in the west we had a religious police to ensure women wear what they are told."

The role has been secularised. Regular police have this function.

katieo>" ....however not in connection with your post."

Then why did you specifically name "girls and their sexualisation", in response to my comment as if in agreement? I did not mention girls.

It certainly seems like it was a shameless opportunity to promote your agenda, judging from your similar response here where some links are provided without reason since I already addressed this claim of sexualisation explicitly. I will refer you to those same comments in response and say that those "experts" in those media releases are exactly like you. They simply have feminist agendas and the promotion of them (to the degree where it compromises the image of their professions). They are uninterested in viewpoints that discredit them, much like proponents of intelligent design.

I refer you here for minor detail i can't list in this limited space:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1701&page=0#33163

Btw, katieo, are you a foreigner?

goodthief and PaulL.I'm not debating other cultural differences with the islamic countries. I'm correcting the notion that here in Australia women are as liberated as men. Yes, islamic women have more restrictions but women are oppressed here for the same reasons.

paulL>"If you can’t discern the difference between the social disapproval of immodest behaviour in the west (which is very rare)"

I can't believe this denialism. Don't you people live in Australia? I challenge any woman here to walk in their city topless as if they were not oppressed. And then to resist policemen who may approach in defence of your 'right' to not wear these clothes.

goodthief said: "I also think men are responsible for governing themselves, and should not be permitted to abdicate. The hijab and burqa encourage this abdication."

I think this cuts to the core of the issue more than anything else that has been posted here. The head/body covering and the associated religious explanations I have read, allow men to cede their responsibility for their actions, in the presence of "uncovered meat".

Kipp said: "Why must women who enter a Roman Catholic church, have to have their heads covered."

Simply not true, I don't know why you said this? Did you mean more specifically with the heads of state scenario or generally RC churches?

Steel said: "I can't believe this denialism. Don't you people live in Australia? I challenge any woman here to walk in their city topless as if they were not oppressed. And then to resist policemen who may approach in defence of your 'right' to not wear these clothes."

You are right to the extent that our society does not permit this freedom. Just to bring you back from la-la land for a monent though, who cares? Seriously, how many women feel aggrieved by this lack of freedom? Yes, the requirement for breast-covering may be religious in origin, but were it not, would it make any difference? Surely the point of all this is - "who is being unreasonably prevented from dressing in a manner they would prefer?"

This has been very edifying.

Had I restricted my criticisms to Islam only, I very much doubt any of the the Christian posters would've had any degree of problem with my posts.

But I deigned to criticise both religions regarding their attitude towards women. Is there not a single Christian who can look at their own religion objectively and note that women are not regarded as equal to men - in both the Old and New testaments.

Yes, it is a matter of degree; Islam is still somewhere in the 12th century, whereas Christianity is probably circa mid 19th.

There is not a single religion on this planet that treats women as fully human equals to men. Not even Buddhism - will there ever be a female Dalai Lama?

The headscarf is not innocent - it is as much a symbol as the shaven patch of a friar, the yarmulke, or that pointy pope hat. The significant difference between male and female attire is that the female's is about modesty. The reason for this is that many men use religion to both subjugate women and project their own sexual desires onto women.

Can anyone imagine George Pell calling for ordination of women priests at this point in time?

So, yes it is a matter of degree. Yes Islam is arguably the most primitive of the three Middle Eastern religions.

However, that doesn't make christianity a valid alternative, while the majority of sects still place women as subordinate to men, or denies education to women (Exclusive Brethren).

From the responses here to my posts, Christians as are reactive to criticism as are their Islamic cousins.

Steel, there isn't a connection between sexualisation and pedophilia, except for an over-emphasis on the word “girl”. Substitute “young woman” or think about “girl” in a more generic sense. I’m not making a link here and I apologise that my choice of words was misleading, it was unintentional. My links on sexualisation have a healthcare slant, with a focus on teens.

Women tend to go topless when they think they are in a zone of privacy, like at the beach while lying on the little piece of sand that is staked out, temporarily for private use, by a beach towel. Tops go back on when they get up and go for a swim, in the “public” domain. Breast-feeding, which has a less exhibitionist and more functional purpose, may be more socially-acceptable in public but still attracts disapproval, see Kirstie Marshall's experience:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/26/1046064087977.html

Women being topless in public all the time is linked to primitive cultures: an outward display of the sexual availability of the women to all the male members and the feeding accessability for the children of the group. And before the incidence of holes in the ozone layer, skin cancer and Western European migration to the hot zones, there were fewer environmental reasons to cover up.

Thanks Stickman! It is not our legal system, our moral police, or our “secular” police force which keep our tops on, even if the law can be heavy-handed in preventing public displays of toplessness from time-to-time:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676971584.html

By and large, the problem is self-regulating.

Fractelle: Reactivism to criticism is also a matter of degree. I have only attempted to provide a context and asked for the courtesy of disciplined exegesis. When a Christian refers to the Bible, it is in the context of the whole work. Heresy and schism result from selective quoting and it is worthwhile to exercise caution or care when calling on biblical authority. However, it doesn’t take any courage to sling mud at the bible (the inquisition was always unbiblical), and that is a beautiful thing.

I am a feminist and concerned about women who feel they must cover themselves to be modest. I agree wholeheartedly with the posters who state that male sexual responses are the responsibility of men and not of women. I also agree that no religious tradition can claim the high moral ground when it comes to the treatment of women, they all relegate women to second class status and expend a great deal of their energy pontificating about what women should and should not do, say or wear. That's why I believe they are all clearly man made.
Modesty is not about hiding or erasing your physical presence, in essence it is about something much more important than that - humility. Interestingly, a naked human is probably more likely to be closer to their humility -their lack of individual grandeur - than any such human clothed.
When I hear the argument that women incite men to rape them simply by displaying their natural shape, I hear a breathtaking lack of logic. Does Islam - or any other religious tradition - therefore claim that the rich incite the poor to rob them and that the wealthy must therefore hide their riches to avoid inflaming the poor? No, they do not, in fact, they do just the opposite. The thief is always the wrongdoer, no matter how flagrantly the richer victim may have flaunted their wealth.
Mind you, while I am disturbed by the rationale behind wearing the veil ( what, after all has"purity" got to do with virginity, surely one can be a virgin and black hearted, cruel and rotten, and as sexually promiscuous as all get out and kind, generous, honourable and charitable) and would vigorously - but respectfully - argue with anyone who wore one, given the opening, that does not mean I condone banning it, ripping it off the heads of the wearer, or abusing women who wear them.
Women, like men, have the right to wear, say and believe whatever they like and I, like everyone else, have the right to argue with them about it.

Well we better strip the scarves off the nuns, the catholics who see the pope and all the other people who wear a scarf for fear the poor little darlings don't have a mind of their own.

The Afghan, Pakistani, Iranian and Iraqis I know who are muslims are the least oppressed women I have ever met.

I just don't care what they wear you see unlike you men who get your balls in a knot over a piece of material.

That says a lot more about your tiny minds than the women wearing the scarves.

And Logic, I am aware that it is a small minority of Jews who behave like that, the Haredis among them.

Katie

I am far from the first person to use examples from texts such as the Quran, or the Torah or the bible. I note that you don't take issue with my referencing the Quran, only the bible. In addition, Boaz David quotes (cherry picks) from the bible relentlessly and yet you don't criticise him.

While Australia remains a democracy with freedom of speech I will continue to illustrate my POV with appropriate quotes from any book I deem relevant. Such as the following from the NT:

"Corinthians 11:3-10

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head.

5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.

6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. "

...which is the best evidence yet we should take the new testament with just as much a grain of salt as the old one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:

Do you see any irony in a thread that criticizes women for 'covering up',- and another that criticizes women because they don't?

:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Marilyn Says

>> "The Afghan, Pakistani, Iranian and Iraqis I know who are muslims are the least oppressed women I have ever met."

OMG I din't realise you had entirely taken leave of your senses.

Well i guess that must be because Afghanistan, Pakistan Iran and Iraq are the least oppressive countries for women. Maybe if we had sharia law here all of our women would be less oppressed as well.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my whole time on OLO. Thaks for the laugh Marilyn.

Whilst I can empathize with bennie on that one, we must be fair. Jews, Christians and Muslims all interpret the Bible (Koran). Orthodox Jews certainly don't take a literal interpretation of a book written in a very ancient language. They rely on Rabbinical views formed over at least three thousand years. Problem in all faiths come from literalists, frequently relying on their own translations.

So I understand do main stream Christians and Muslims.

Fractelle: In another thread I discussed how BD uses Islamic sources to qualify the relevance and context of the Qu’ranic passages chosen. As his usage of the Qu’ran is consistent with Islamic scholarship, I am in no position to argue.

The link below is a hard slog, however, understanding the bible – including this challenging passage from Corinthians - is accessible to everyone. You don't need a degree in theology but you do need to drill a bit deeper. The author demonstrates:

1) credibility – he is not pushing a particular doctrine or agenda
2) context - historical and cultural
3) meaning - using the original language
4) relevancy – of other scholarship, both ancient (Plutarch) and modern
5) consistency – through extensive cross-referencing
6) application – in the context of modern life

SEE:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2820

CONCLUSION:
“We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture. The fundamental principle is that the sexes, although equal, are also different. God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role…. Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.
Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion…. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership…. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.”

You quote something out of context and then others quickly jump in and agree with your hasty assumptions, proving only that ignorance spreads virally.

Marilyn: The Malaysian, Lebanese and Iranian Muslims that I know live in Australia.

Marilyn, it must have been the freedoms they endured at Baxter that made them all so unoppressed. Just wait till they see the other side of the razor wire. Awesome dude.

katieO: << "Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership…. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.." >>

To me, this is just good old patriarchal hogwash. It's only a tiny step of credulity from this twaddle to the burqua.

What really interests me is the degree of sophistry deployed by the religious crusaders to assert that their version of patriarchal myth is better than the others - rooted as they all are in the myths and legends of primitive Iron Age goat herding tribes.

Those who rattle on about headscarves worn by Muslim women seem utterly blind to the similarity in form and function to the headscarves worn by women in many societies, including until quite recently our own.

This is not an issue on which Christians in particular will get much traction. Just look at Nuns, Exclusive Brethren and the Mormons who've been all over the news lately, for obvious examples of their own patriarchal clothing fetishes.

KatieO quoted: "Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership…."

Right.. OK.. so this is a GOOD thing?? I am confused.. you are presumably a woman KatieO? Yet you used the passage above to illustrate your point that somehow it is good (or relatively so) to be female in the Christian faith?? Bloody hell..

Steel, Very sporting of you to respond to so many.

I’d be surprised if anyone disagrees that there is a dress code in Australia, enforced by disapproval and eventually by the law.

Why does it exist? I suggest, not in order to oppress anyone but because modesty is generally valued. I suggest that, although no two people are likely to agree on exactly where to draw the line, it is a good thing to maintain the distinction between what sights and behaviours belong to the private realm and what are appropriate in the public realm. This isn’t oppression, it’s common sense.

Does it apply only to women? No, according to the law itself. In fact? Harder to answer. Men are often enough disparaged for wearing tight trousers, and brikkies' bums always get a mention at such times. Still, the issue seems more one of female exposure. Why, I can’t tell you. My guess is that it’s part of the general primal ritual and it is well understood that men’s appreciation of their environment is largely visual. Some idiots see underdressed women as signalling immediate and general availability, and some idiotic judges have been known to agree with them. However, these men are regarded as oafs, or worse, not as righteous upholders of the law. Cf Sharia Law.

Is there a hard line? There was a very sympathetic article in Melbourne papers recently about a female streaker of some time ago. Years ago, when she streaked(?), she was probably prosecuted. She was running around naked at the MCG. From recollection, she wasn’t beaten up by bystanders taking the law into their own hands, or later beheaded or stoned.

Do you think there should be no virtue of modesty – no observance of a distinction between private and public? I think it helps us manage our lives, especially in a community setting.

ena, I like your point about the rich "inflaming the poor" with desire. Usually, the virtues have a positive point, and are not just playing defence.

Pax,

Dear Fractelle....

you said:

"Is there not a single Christian who can look at their own religion objectively and note that women are not regarded as equal to men - in both the Old and New testaments."

This is worthy of a whole thread by itself.

There are many assumptions and dimensions to the ideas contained in your statement.

1/ You are pre-defining 'equality' in a specific way.

It appears you are saying it must mean males and females only differ by their reproductive hardware, but in every other respect they are identicle.
This is clearly not the case. The simple fact that females have the babies, should be the most obvious major difference. We blokes just goto the bank and make a deposit... the interest accrues and bingo..new person after 9 months... then, be virtue of your 'design plan' you have been provided with 2 glands which give the very best start in life to that new person. The bonding...the nurturing..the comforting.. its all bound up in what you 'are' as a female.

So, I prefer to use the term 'complementary' when it comes to the genders.

2/ You assume that the world has always been as it is now, and that just because we are not living in villages where the distinct possibility exists of a raiding party from 'our enemies' coming over and killing we blokes, and taking you women as booty.

The rule of nature is 'survival of the fittest and strongest' The rules we currently live by, 'rule of law' are only ultimately enforced by that first one. 'brute force'.

The concept of 'equality' trotted out by feminists is really a very naive one.

SYMBOLS... HEADSCALVES...CROSSES.

Now.. if I rock up to.. hmm lets say Lakemba Mosque with a very large CROSS printed on my front and back, does anyone doubt that some folks might find this a tad offensive? Doing nothing more than just standing there. If I waved an Auzzie flag at the same time.... hmmmm I hope you get it.

Headscalves are just as 'symbolic' to me.

DIDN'T FINISH THE THOUGHT.. sorry..

Fractelle..

"just because..... 'raiders, booty etc'..." (continues here) you seem to think it never was that way or could be again.

Don't ever look to Christians (or any religious mob) for a socialist/marxist/determinist-psychological view of male/female identity.. we utterly reject such ideas.

I believe the concept of male female roles in Scripture (O.T./N.T.) are quite wonderful.

The difficult parts of the NT, about women being silent in meetings, is really not that big a deal. There are 2 views on this, it was for cultural reasons, (but this is negated by Paul linking it to creation)
or it was for theological reasons.
I hardly think Paul was saying "Women must not engage in social intercourse with men" because Paul actually wrote personal things to women in the Church. So... while the actual service might not have any females speaking publically, after the service they can go for broke.
In ours, we often have females sharing up front, and I suppose one could justify this by the example of a female evangelist sharing her exploits, as Lydia or Priscilla (converts of Paul) would have done in their house churches.

For a large number of Australian Muslim women the scarf symbolises power, presence, liberation. They choose to wear it and are not forced to. The reason it is liberating is because Australia is a non-Muslim country and to wear such a visible symbol of Islam is to "come out", in much the same way as a gay person does when they decide they they can longer live a life feeling ashamed of who they are. It is also a strong statement of power - I am not afraid to wear it, I am not of afraid of what you think, we are here in your parks, on your beaches, in your affluent suburbs, in your country towns and coastal villages and you will have to accept us.

Stickman, CJ: I never said this text wasn’t problematic in isolation. In fact, I keep saying the opposite. The principle drawn from the passage which Fractelle quotes (1 Corinthians 11:3-10), is qualified in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:

“..neither sex can boast over the other because the sexes are interdependent…Verses 11-12 demonstrate that Paul would utterly reject the notion that women are inferior or lesser human beings….Women are created in the image of God, and men have no greater worth because of their God-given responsibility to lead”.

“Those who focus only on verses 11-12 effectively shut out verses 3-10. It is a mistake to exclude either teaching; we must hold them together as Paul did”.

(http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2820)

Verses 11-12 are the great equalizer. As a woman and a Christian, the lesson is not to adopt a “feminist” distortion of Paul’s teaching, rebel over my God-given role, or encourage a blurring of the genders (through dress, manner or assuming authority). Submission in 1 Corinthians is that of man AND woman to God. Not patriarchal, but monotheist.

This passage is concluded with a warning: 1 Corinthians 11:16:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God.”

logic: take note. The Bible is not reliant on the powers of human “interpretation”. There is only ONE meaning, a revealed meaning, understood in the totality of scripture. However, there is a plurality of Churches. Certain practices, such as the ordination of women, do not sit comfortably with this passage, thus there is a division of opinion within the Church. The ordination of homosexuals, when applying the same passage, has the potential to create schism. This passage needs further support from other biblical writing before applying to a modern context.

I am not doing PR for Christianity. I would simply encourage a deeper understanding of the Bible and this is not going to be achieved by latching onto the passages which are problematic for feminists or bleeding-heart lefties, or by glossing over them.

"For a large number of Australian Muslim women the scarf symbolizes power, presence, liberation. They choose to wear it and are not forced to. The reason it is liberating is because Australia is a non-Muslim country and to wear such a visible symbol of Islam is to "come out", in much the same way as a gay person does when they decide they they can longer live a life feeling ashamed of who they are. It is also a strong statement of power - I am not afraid to wear it, I am not of afraid of what you think, we are here in your parks, on your beaches, in your affluent suburbs, in your country towns and coastal villages and you will have to accept us."
Posted by DJS, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 9:44:54 AM
______________________________

HELLO?...................YOO-HOO?..is anyone listening??

No of course not.

Katieo and your ilk;-you can write a decent speech I'll grant, but all you people are doing is trying to score points. Did ANY of you register the above post...? NAH!!

Because the whole point is to prove that you are RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG!

Here you have someone telling you WHY she wears her scarf proudly,-and you ignored it!!

" I don't care if you can see it on the shelf; the computer says we haven't got any" !!

Forget reality,-just strut your stuff...........

Katie0

Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating the many contradictions in the bible.

So if Passage X is neutralised by Passage Y - then what is the point?

For centuries 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 has been deliberately used to control the manner of dress of women and their 'place' in the community.

People like Boaz use it all the time. He has repeatedly said that men answer to god and their wives (no place for single women) answer to their husband.

And that's just the bible, the Koran is no better (in fact worse) and Jewish men thank god for not being created female.

Philosophy does it a whole lot better - without the supernatural element.

In fact moderate christians manage to take the bible not as literal but as a source of wisdom. To take everything in the bible as truth requires a mental duplicity that is dishonest for both the reader and the rest of us who do not believe.

Rhian put it very succinctly here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7210&page=0#110844

It is when people try to force their beliefs on others that religion becomes a problem. You are an apologist for Boaz, that is a shame because you appear quite intelligent – more than Boaz. Yet, if he was your husband you would have to answer to him, would you not?

Back to the headscarf, I have already stated that it is a religious symbol, like the yarmulke. Yes, to wear it in a secular country where it is not law, is indeed making a statement. I am glad I am here and not in an Islamist country, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have issues with religion in general. Islam illustrates the extremes that religion can go to, it is a mirror of what Christianity used to be. And if people like Boaz had their way, would be again.

I conclude with the following quote, it applies to any fundamentalist irrespective of religion.

A fundamentalist is someone who hates sin more than he loves virtue.
John H. Schaar

Hi Fractelle

Just a point of clarification about the Bible and the Koran and Islam being “in fact worse”. I would argue that Koran has historically been better than the Bible for women’s rights. It has the first recorded statement that a woman has the right to own to own property in her own name, not her husband or father as was the case in the West until the Women’s property ACT of 1880. That’s over 1,000 years before western women. It also gives women inheritance rights and divorce rights, (including to divorce a man for not satisfying her in bed), with property settlement rights.

Like most religions it’s all in the cultural interpretation and selective application. I would have thought that JC saying, (and I paraphrase here), treat other people as you yourself would be treated would put and end to all the sexist crap for Christians – but as you can see even from this forum - through cultural interpretation and selective application this is not case.

Billy C

I am not well versed enough in the Quran to know whether it has a more enlightened view of women than does the NT. If it does it is certainly suffering from the same misinterpretation that afflicts the bible. And I have to admit I find the idea of the hijab and burqa very worrisome. As a woman, I am proud to be who I am and the idea of shrouding myself simply because of male problems and issues is offensive.

As for the 'do unto others...' - clearly that has not resulted in fair and equal treatment for women or gays or any one else who is regarded as N.Q.R. Also the golden rule of treating others as you would prefer to be treated yourself is a common one throughout many cultures and cited well before Jesus' time.

We still have a long way to go.

Hello DJS, Thank you for posting. I don’t know exactly how you feel reading threads like this, but I imagine it’s unpleasant. So, I really admire your decision to participate.

Despite the concerns expressed on this thread about head-gear, and despite even greater concerns routinely expressed about Islamic extremism, I think everyone knows we must accept Muslims in this society. This society is designed to accept. That’s one of its main virtues. One of its main strengths, and one of its main dangers.

Are you prepared to discuss the scarf issue further? For example, you say a large number of Australian Muslim women choose to wear a scarf. So, do you know some who don’t choose, but who must wear it? How do they feel about this, do you know? What would the consequence be if they decided not to wear it? How do you feel about their lack of choice?

I'm also interested to know what you think about the discussion of Islamic scriptures. For example, do you think they have been misunderstood?

I hope you will feel free to respond, or not to respond, as you prefer.

Pax,

Hi Fractelle

I find the idea of women being forced to wear anything, including the hijib and burqa worrisome & something that is fundamentally unjust. But many Islamic women are not “forced” and the wearing of the burqua culturally relative, (the idea of wearing the burqua would be just weird to a say a Bangladeshi Islamic woman as to an Australian Christian woman.

In the Victorian era Indian women wearing sari’s seeing British colonial women wearing heavy dresses – covered from neck to wrist to ankle – would have perhaps thought this style of dress to be bazaar and forced, (as it was in England at this time when a woman not covered in this way in public could be arrested for indecency).

I have also read Islamic women talking about how freeing wearing the buqua can be – not to be judged on how fat or thin you are, not to have men staring at your breasts in the street etc. There have also been links made between the incredibly low incidences of eating disorders and the wearing of the Buqua in these cultures. Oh and wearing the burqua has been associated with the development of the idea of “romantic love” where a man & a woman fall in love – and for the man it is not just for the woman’s looks but her mind. It is also worth remembering that the idea of “romantic love” in the west came from this Arabic tradition and spread through Morocco to Spain and to Europe around the 16-17 centuries, ( at time in west where marriages were arranged between families along class lines, in fact marriages were seen as only necessary to secure inheritance rights for children produced by these unions i.e. legitimate – for centuries the poor did not marry as there was nothing to inherit)

I agree we have a long way to go.

WOWWWWWW...

BILLY C you first.. the Bible NEVER EVER NOT EVEN HINTS... that you can discipline your (property owning wife) with VIOLENCE..!

The Koran.. DOES! read it yourself Surah 4:34. and don't believe the '(lightly) in brackets it's NOT in the Arabic.

FRACTELLE.. ..In terms of the authority structure of the family.. Christ the head, then the man, then the woman. But in terms of access to God... they are equal.

DJS... (GINX are you reading?) you have shown the very problem of the Hijab..which is what I've said all along. It symbolizes "Islam"
Now.. you say "I don't care what you think" ok.. I should come to Lakemba mosque with a BIG cross boldly printed on the front and back of my clothes.. no offense? "I don't care what you think"... is a pretty poor attitude.

If you want to 'not care what we think'...then be alerted to the fact that I "think" that it symbolizes:

-Child sexual abuse legitimized by Surah 65:4
-Sexual abuse of captive slaves in Surah 23:5-6
-A man (Mohammad)who mutilated living prisoners, hacking off their hands and feet after poking their eyes out with hot rods...and denying them water to increase their suffering as they died.
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/004.sbt.html#001.004.234
"...If you love Allah, then follow me (Muhammad)..." (Sura 3:31).

err.. really? then we should mutilate prisoners ?

-Domestic violence against naughty wives. (4:34)

-A man who claimed unlimited sexual privilege for himSELF but denied it to the 'ordinary believers' (surah 33:50)

-CURSING of Christians and Jews (Quran 9:30) and repeated cursing of us in hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:

-Declaration of war against non believers (such as Ginx, Fractelle, Vanilla, Katie0 and myself) (Surah 9:29)

So..if you wish those things to be advertized all around our parks etc..then by all means wear your hijab.
If you want to debate those specific issues.. go for it. I can support each one with context, Islamic scholarship and history. (really!)

Yeah I'm reading BOZO. Your usual rambling dirge replete with the usual punctuation, capitals, biblical and YouTube references.

Just save time and put the same into doc's and c/p it for each post. Nobody would know the difference.

Alternatively, you could just slam your face shut, padlock it , and throw the key away...........

This discussion is pointless because it presupposes that the word WOMAN has the same human connotation in Islam as in the rest of the modern world.

According to their Prophet, a woman is deficient both intellectually and in all religious matters – simply because her testimony in court is worth half that of a man and that she menstuates (unclean) one week every month.

A woman is viewed as an object or goods of commerce – to be handed (sold) by her father to a husband in marriage (contract of sale).

After all women in Islam were only created for men’s pleasure and to do housework and raise children. Men can simply discard them by divorce when they stop satisfying their needs.

Their prophet also said that there are three things that spoil a man’s prayer: a passing dog, a donkey or a woman.

Women are an OBSCENITY that must be covered from society. She is the sum total of major obscenities (breasts, vagina, etc) and minor obscenities like her face, hands, feet…

Girls as young as 5 and much less are regularly being sold in marriage in the Muslim world.

Lest we forget that their prophet married a 6 year old child when he was in his fifties.

But I agree that covering is very much a political statement – a way to gain acceptance by the general public becoming more accustomed and less shocked by seeing walking tents everyday and everywhere.

Corporations run with a hierachial structure, so do universities, armies, organized crime syndicates and countries. This works to help carve up the division of labour but also, so that someone, somewhere in the chain is held responsible. I don’t want to waste my whole post on private enterprise theory, I’m hoping that others can at least see the efficiency of “headship” and the idea of a “labour contract”.

As a Christian woman, it is my duty to build up and support Christian men in leadership roles. When Christian men take the burden (not privilege) of responsibility, then naturally, I am encouraging. That doesn’t make me an acolyte of BD, goodthief, runner (assuming they are all male) or others, but a woman accountable to God.

Fractelle: There are other accountabilities. When Christian men abuse their position, they will be asked to leave, as scripture insists, after the appropriate warnings. If BD was really not walking the walk, then I (goodthief etc) would spot it a mile away.

I’m trying to open a doorway into not just scripture for you, but a Christ-centered life. Is this really pontificating or theorizing? After 38 years pursuing wisdom and knowledge in the world, on a fairly typical path (undergrad, postgrad, work, travel, study, marriage, work, undergrad again, motherhood, work, motherhood), I know that it is not found there.

Conversion aside (which accounts for the last 4 years), as a product of the Australian education system, a student of history and an interested citizen, BD’s posts just plain make sense to me.

Billy C, on the other hand, is an absolute product of apologetics. But let’s call that for what it is: lying. Taqquia. Historical revisionism. For the sake of Dawah. As authorized by the Qu’ran.

Ginx: already noted that Muslim women want to wear Muslim dress by choice. See stickman’s definition of hijab, and the relation to Islamic philosophy, for starters.

In a country such as Australia, as a male I think it is highly offensive that women cover themselves up like that so as not to tempt us. If their own men are so untrustworthy and scary fair enough, but do not introduce these divisive gender attitudes here, please. And WTF is this "no hand-shaking" business?

Billy C

Your points about cultural influence are entirely valid. And I can understand in a society where the norm is to be covered from head to foot, that any stare from a man would be very unsettling. In an egalitarian society men are expected to take responsibility for their behaviour, such as we have here in Australia. However, in the M.E. countries attire is cultural, religious and political. Very difficult for women to change even if they want to.

On the topic of culture, I have never found the Indian sari as particularly demeaning to women, in fact I think it is very flattering, where as the burqa just looks like a tent; it is cumbersome and restrictive. Repressive and crippling fashion such as foot-binding is now in the past - hopefully the burqa will fade into history too.

Restriction and objectification of women through fashion in Western culture are stiletto shoes - damaging to feet and posture as well. The only way to wear high heels is seated or lying down, and are more appropriate for the boudoir than anywhere else. I'm a Doc Martens kind of woman.

Being a liberal by nature, I cannot condone banning either hijab or burqa, banning never works and simply reinforces an ideology. But I don't have to like it either, all I can do is remain optimistic, that as the 21st century progresses more women will receive higher levels of education and learn not to fear nor be ashamed of the fact that they just happened to be born women.

Katie0, I have learned from your posts, that you take the bible as literally as Boaz, therefore I would never expect you take issue with Boaz. However, there are plenty of Christians who see the bible more in terms of parables and philosophy as I used to when I was a child. However, since then, I have found the real world a more enlightening and exciting place to be without the constraints, dogma and bigotry that accompanies ALL religions.

KatieO said: "I’m trying to open a doorway into not just scripture for you, but a Christ-centered life. Is this really pontificating or theorizing? After 38 years pursuing wisdom and knowledge in the world, on a fairly typical path (undergrad, postgrad, work, travel, study, marriage, work, undergrad again, motherhood, work, motherhood), I know that it is not found there."

Katie - I think what you meant to say, is that YOU couldn't find it there. Plenty of others have, and will continue to. I am happy that you have found whatever it is that was lacking from your life in the arms of Christianity, but not everyone is in that boat.

DJS,

Says >>” we are here in your parks, on your beaches, in your affluent suburbs, in your country towns and coastal villages and you will have to accept us.”

Well you know what DJS?. We don’t actually have to accept it. The French have led the way in banning the scarf etc. in schools and that is one option open to us. Another option would be to limit the amount of muslim migration to this country. But we could also look to the example of the Muslim world in its treatment of religions other than Islam for solutions. I really hope we don’t have to do any of those things.

Do you deny that the rise in the wearing of the scarf has been inextricably linked with the rise of so-called literalist streams of Islam? It honestly wouldn’t bother me if hidjab merely meant the wearer was peacefully devout in her faith. But what it really now means for a significant proportion of young muslim women is that you don’t believe in the Islam of your parents and grandparents generations. The growth of Hizb-ut-Tahir and similar organizations has seen a concomitant rise in the wearing of beards and scarves, has it not?

I certainly agree that the wearing of the scarf symbolizes power and presence; the growing power and presence of Islamist organizations. And by Islamist, I mean fundamentalist or literalist Islamic organizations. The liberation refers to the liberation of moderate muslims to a more fundamentalist stream of Islam. Moderate Islam is being squeezed out isn’t it?

Do you further deny that Muslim women all over the world are forced to wear the scarf or the burqa or the jilbab and face physical punishment if they disobey?

Correction

Paul S stated "The French have led the way in banning the scarf etc. in schools and that is one option open to us". But what he did not say is that they have also banned the wearing of any religious symbolism - even small gold crosses and the ban is only in public schools. This secular tradition of public life dates back to the revolution.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of this person's paranoid xenophobic (raciest?) statements with a reply.

Agreed Billy C.

Plaza toro; I find your argument a bit vacuous as it is built on the erroneous premise that all foreign women are repressed. I lived for 11 years in Indonesia. I used to ask my radical Marxist feminist friends why they wore the veil. Because, they told me, Soeharto had turned women into commodities. His brand of franchising capitalism did not appeal so they opted to wear what is known as a jilbab. In the evening they would take off the veil and languidly talk about Muslim women's right to orgasm and the right to divorce a husband who didn't satisfy them. Others admitted sheepishly that they were not too good at religion so if they got the dress right the rest might follow.
I have not met an Indonesian Muslim woman who complies with the stereotype you present. Last year they demanded the right to pornography! Feminist Tunisian friends told me they loved the hijab as they could rise from their bed naked and duck down to the souk for a coffee without recognition much less the need for knickers.
There is also a global rise in costume culture. The wearing of clothing that signifies who one is. The weird curls and undertaker garb of the Hassidics, the turban of the Sikhs, the boringly sheepish following of Australian fashion.... conformism is a powerful fetish.
I agree with Islamic scholar Zaiuddin Sardar that it is a pre islamic practice with origins in elite Sassanian culture - pale skin was sign of wealth.. a practice and belief system still with us.. Note all the whitening jars and potions on sale in Asia. I find this dermatological class structure to be as pernicious.
I am not naive enough to deny that in Wahabiist and nascent Shia states, the hijab is a tool of gender oppression (why does it have to be black?), but the challenge is to nurture moderate Muslims like Nawaal Sawadi and Zaiuddin.. not slander the religion. I used to be forced to wear a hat to church during my childhood in Australia..

I haven't read all the comments but thought I'd add one more anyway. It seems to me we are avoiding the real issue - that of womens bodies. I read once that women dress for each other, not for men. The idea that the body is evil, dirty, ugly and sinful is an old testament one still held by the faithful. The flesh is weak so why not just cover it up. Muslim women are not alone in believing this old testament cr'ap.

How pious art thou, well you can see by my headscarf and dress how modest and godly and asexual. You can't tell if I am fat or thin. Good lookin or as ugly as sin. My breats may be small or large as a ball, my as's as slim as my chin. But one thing for sure my skin is as white as a pearl, no wrinkles, no sun tan no premature aging. Under my garb there could be a beautiful body.

Denial of the body is a mass neurosis affecting mainly women. Eating disorders affect mainly women. I believe that Muslim women wear the veil and the garb for a number of reasons but mainly to deal with the shame of being the female gender as pointed out in their scriptures. Women, according the the good book, just ain't up to God's idea of perfection. Only men fill that role. Are women being political, showing the flag by wearing the veil so to speak. Well, the argument is a good defence mechanism to shore up flaggin self esteem. Do women who wear the Islamic costume feel shameful about themselves or are they secretly wearing french knickers? The idea that you can liberate yourself by going around in a sack is a bit hard to believe.

Some of us are old enough to recall European immigrant women who usually covered their heads and, if widowed, tended to dress only in black.

Nobody appeared to be threatened by them and the custom has since faded.

I don't remember ever seeing the late Benazir Bhutto hiding her face behind a veil but only wearing a simple headscarf. Likewise Megawati Sukarnoputri quite often wore no scarf at all.

Now if Indonesia and Pakistan - by far the largest Muslim communities in the world - don't enforce the wearing of burkhas and leave the wearing of headscarves more-or-less optional, perhaps what people are getting worked up about are CULTURAL matters rather than religious ones. These are cultural relics from certain societies that are generally repressive - but not universal practices.

Belly dancing is acceptable in Turkey - no more repressive than many things in our own society.

Amish don't wear buttons, dress modestly and always cover their heads but we don't use them as a template for the majority of Christians in the world.

Actually, the wearing of headscarves in the Middle East is a hangover from Byzantine Christianity and Judaeism. All the women in religious paintings seem to be wearing them.

Islam teaches compulsory head covering of Muslim women. If not the women would be severely dealt with.

In Canada a Muslim father killed his daughter (Aqsa Pervez) for refusing to wear the hijab. She was a bad Muslim and refused to practice Islam. Thus her father carried out a “fard” of Allah (4.89) and sunna of Mohammed by killing her thus he guaranteed a place in paradise for himself according to the following aya:

Q 9.111; “Allah guarantees paradise for those who kill or are killed for Allah”

Read about Islamic teaching of head covering in Koran and the hadith.

http://www.islam-watch.org/ayeshaahmed/cair-lies-about-aqsa-parvez-death-burqa.htm

“Moderate Islam is more deadly because while the terrorists are clear enemies, the moderates make inroads into `infidel’ lands, and deceive the host cultures until the terrorists could do the dirty work. Without the moderate Islamic façade, the terrorists cannot survive because they will be quickly exposed. History is replete with example after example of this typically Muslim deceitful strategy of advance”. Dr. Habira, a London professor and an ex-Muslim

Billy Z,

I don’t actually see how you figure it is a correction. There was absolutely nothing incorrect in what I said. I’m happy for the banning of all religious items at schools.

As for the rest, Paranoid, xenophobic, racist. Do you always resort to calling names when your intellect fails you? If so you must have a pretty big supply.

I challenge you to deny any of what I have put to DJS.

Even though I post confrontational letters all the time, I am not surprised that the idiot soft left would call me a xenophobe or a racist when I address a muslim in the same manner.

In fact it is you that is the racist. I didn’t for one second considers DJS race or religion when I wrote my post. However it seems that you think there should be different rules for posting to Muslims. Should I have been nicer than I normally am because of her religion? Because that is a racist idea.

By the way I’m not xenophobic or racist in the least. I fully believe in the importance of offering safe haven for refugees. I also believe in normal migration. I just happen to believe that if you want to come to Australia, you should make some commitment to becoming an Australian. And that means leaving behind any customs which are in direct confrontation with ours. Its called Assimilation.

But I imagine a brainless soft-lefty like yourself wouldn’t understand. Calling people names is much easier.

Ginx

Not agreed.

Melody, I do think we could put a different spin on the “comparative” freedoms enjoyed by your Muslim friends. Sure the Tunisian friend is liberated from underwear, but her small gesture only serves to emphasize how repressive the outer garment is.

Whole generations of western women dress conservatively (despite what the magazines are flogging), to suit comfort, climate, wallet, conformity to workplace regulations, or to fit a perception of what is appropriate. Western women may be “fashion victims” but the “victimhood” is metaphorical and voluntary, not real or enforced. (Steel’s insistence aside).

Once upon a time, Tunisia was seen as the flagship of women’s equality in the muslim world. This interview with Kyadija Cherif emphasis that the equality laws were only there for the sake of appearances.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/A-setback-to-women-s-rights-in,3002

Her group, the oldest female right’s organisation in Tunisia, even published a press release calling on women to recognize that “the veil is a symbol of imprisonment”.

The concept of adopting the clothes and hoping the religion will follow, is hopeful but shallow. I could try putting on a bikini, but my pre-pregnant body won’t result.

I valued your insight as a Muslim, I hope you value mine:

Christian women dress conservatively as an outward expression of their faith, in an unassuming way. You wouldn’t pick them out in a crowd. When we get together as a group, we share, pray and read the bible. We don’t talk of divorcing our husbands, we pray for our relationships to endure. There is no concept of “private” and “public” Christianity.

Could fashion choice become a salvation issue? For example, if I was buying something for the express purpose of seducing someone else’s husband or to be offensive or to impersonate a man or even as an outward expression of my vanity. Yes, fashion may become a stumbling block on the slippery slope toward disbelief. The question is, do I acknowledge the work that Christ has done to secure my salvation? For in the end, I am saved DESPITE of what I do. This is true freedom

Katie0

Could you please elucidate: "The question is, do I acknowledge the work that Christ has done to secure my salvation? For in the end, I am saved DESPITE of what I do. This is true freedom."

Freedom from what exactly?

But I imagine a brainless soft-lefty like yourself wouldn’t understand. Calling people names is much easier.

Ginx
Not agreed.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 25 April 2008 1:27:34 PM

"...a brainless soft-lefty/..calling people names is much easier..." (Quote: Soft-left-Paully)

Well.., you got that right!!

(Time for celebration; that's one out of....er,..um..).

Go back to bed. That really must have taxed your Hard-Right brain.

There is a lot of naivety being expressed here. Right now in our own universities Islamofascism is taking root. The Griffith University Vice-Chanceloor has even been caught plagiarising from Wikipedia to push a pro-Wahhabist agenda because Griffith's new Islamist Centre is being funded by the terror-financiers Saudi government!

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/queenslands-professors-of-terror-or.html

Hi,
This is Shakira Hussein, coming belatedly to this forum. I've been preoccupied by a family health crisis.
On a personal note, the SMH article (which was based on a telephone interview) contains a few errors - eg, my mother is taken aback at being described as Pakistani (my father is Pakistani, my mother is Australian). And I studied Urdu at university, rather than learning it from family. I'm pretty sure that I would not have mis-stated my mother's country of origin, and a lot of the other quotes don't really sound like me, so I wouldn't read this article as a too literal account of my views.
On the lines cited by Kees Bukhuyzen - media quotes of verbal interviews are seldom exact, having been edited so as to read more clearly in print. I don't expect to be quoted word for word in such circumstances. But my thoughts are more complicated than the quote in the SMH would suggest. To clarify: my fieldwork was in part with Pakistani Islamist women. One of the aspects of my discussions with them that struck me most forcefully was how these women - who believe that women in Muslim countries should be legally compelled to cover their hair - cite "hijab debates" in the West to support their arguments: Muslim women in the West are having to fight for the right to wear hijab, so Muslim women in Muslim countries should feel fortunate to have governments who encourage/mandate hijab. This is not the view of all Pakistani women, only of these particular women. And it is not a view that I endorse. I am troubled by the fact that when Muslim women in Western countries legitimately defend their choice to wear hijab, their voices are appropriated by those who don't believe in choice at all.
As I recall, the quote cited by Kees Bakhuyzen is based on a reference to Pakistani Islamist women in particular, not Pakistani women in general. I have written elsewhere at greater length about Muslim women in both Pakistan and Australia.
Shakira Hussein

Hi anarkali

<<I have written elsewhere at greater length about Muslim women in both Pakistan and Australia.>>

Are your articles available in the internet? Links please?

@ Shakira Hussein: Thanks for your comments and explanation. Looking forward to read more of your articles in this and other discussions - Kees Bakhuyzen

I would like to take issue with those who applaud France for being a wonderful model of secularism for banning the wearing of religious symbols. This was a knee jerk reaction from France, a country that doesn't know how to deal with its own religious mix.

A truly secular country would not see the need to ban what people wear, which is a part of our freedom of expression. This is not a true act of secularism, as they are really just applying and reinforcing another religion, that of atheism.

Turkey is possibly falling into the same trap. I hear that Turkey is banning female university students who want to study wearing head dress.

True secularism should be able to see past what people wear or don't wear. Australia is a better example of secularism than France, in that we haven't got our knickers in such a knot about such things (at least at the legal level).

Dan S de Merengue said "This is not a true act of secularism, as they are really just applying and reinforcing another religion, that of atheism."

Sigh.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to (seemingly) intelligent people that atheism is not a religion? It is the absence of religion. It is the absence of "faith" - belief in the undemonstrable. The French know from a hard fought revolutionary war, how dangerous unfettered monarchy/theocracy are. Good luck to them in their campaign to prevent religious symbols being used to drive a wedge between citizens, whose first allegiance after all, SHOULD be to harmonious co-existence with their fellow citizens and the laws that govern all equally - NOT to the supernatural figment of their imagination's choice.

stickman, you say -

<atheism is not a religion>

Supposing that’s right, according to a God-focused definition, perhaps that’s not the point. Atheism is still a belief, even if atheists don’t agree about anything else. And it’s still a belief that can be imposed. A belief that is now immersed in its own litany – “delusion”, “evidence”, “reason” etc. And, as we’ve discovered in recent times, a belief that can be accompanied by contempt for theists, or “religionists”. Further, as much of the 20th century showed, once atheism gets caught up in an ideology, it can be just as dangerous as anything else: we all saw that ditching God didn’t make ideology safe.

So, supposing you’re right and it’s not a religion, so what? Why not respond to the real point, which is that (arguably) what France is doing is to impose atheism (whether it’s a “religion” or not). One of the mistakes atheists make is to think they are somehow neutral. Many of us used to agree, but I think the strident arrogance of many new atheists has cured us all of this delusion. I’m not referring to you here: your posts seem quite moderate in temperature.

I wonder if France would ban an atheist symbol, if one emerged from current discourse – eg a symbol based on evolution from ape to man. If they did, then they would be truly secular. Perhaps they will.

Pax,

goodthief, methinks thou dost protest too much.

>>Atheism is still a belief, even if atheists don’t agree about anything else<<

Only in the most abstract sense.

To twist the statement "I believe there is no god" into being a belief of its own is to stretch the language a step too far.

"Believe" in this sentence is a synonym of "I consider", "I think" or "I have come to the conclusion that..."

In the context of religion, "believe" takes on a different dimension, in that it sets aside the cognitive process of "I think" in favour of "I have faith, without the need for evidence"

>>once atheism gets caught up in an ideology, it can be just as dangerous as anything else: we all saw that ditching God didn’t make ideology safe.<<

Interesting angle. Atheism is "just as dangerous" as religion, eh? Which might also be phrased "religion is as dangerous as atheism", proving nothing more than that it is we humans that are dangerous.

>>Why not respond to the real point, which is that (arguably) what France is doing is to impose atheism (whether it’s a “religion” or not)<<

It is not possible to "impose" atheism, and this clearly is not what the French are trying to do. You are (probably deliberately) confusing this with the contortions of a secular State attempting to exclude religion from its agenda. Not easy, given how sensitive religions are about each others' symbols.

>>I wonder if France would ban an atheist symbol, if one emerged<<

Now you're being silly, aren't you?

Atheists do not need symbols, since (once again) we are talking about an absence, not a presence, of belief.

Also, very few atheists believe that religion should be banned, since it is used by so many as an emotional crutch.

But we all believe that religion should not be used as a weapon, or a motivator to hatred, or as a tool for the repression of ideas.

If atheism is a belief then black is a colour.

Pericles,

You seem to be saying that someone who says “I don’t believe in God” is not uttering a belief. I don’t know how to respond to this. I think this is agnosticism. I’d say atheists say “I believe there is no God”. This is a belief, even though it’s a belief which, on its own, doesn’t really go anywhere. (This latter point is not a criticism of atheism or atheists: I imagine they all realise they need some positive, dynamic beliefs in order to live at all competently.)

The evidence point is simply about the path to the belief. Most atheists are empiricists, so they only recognise or acknowledge or respect the evidence path. People like me also respect our own faith as a legitimate basis for belief. Each has a belief, but they have a different reason or basis for it. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and I believe in God. I have more evidence for the former, but they are both beliefs.

Yes, I agree, religion and atheists are equally dangerous. Because human beings are dangerous. But, it’s worth recognising because so many atheists seem to think only religion and “religionists” are dangerous.

I’m not saying France is imposing atheism. I’m saying that stickman went off-road. I think that, if it is possible to impose a belief at all (rather than impose some external form of behaviour that signifies a belief) then it is possible to impose atheism. I think people like Dawkins would impose atheism if they could.

Most people like symbols, but my reference to an atheist symbol was just hypothetical, and then speculative.

Hatred is awful. No-one should encourage any hatred by one human for another. It’s not just a religious problem, though. Dawkins et al strike me as bonnie haters. Some atheists I’ve met are at least as contemptuous of my religious beliefs as any person I’ve met from a different religion. I willingly admit all of religion’s faults.

Pax,

It is interesting to note that some writers will involve themselves in responses to their views when these are published on OLO.

That is very much appreciated. Thank-you....to them.
I only wish that more authors of published work here would do the same thing.

I note though, that THIS author chose to respond to only one person;- Shakira Hussein who was mentioned in his piece.

Your responses run to 17 pages KB;-how sad that you have seen only one poster as deserving of a response.

goodthief said: "Atheism is still a belief"

Hi goodthief. Respectfully, the above is quite simply, wrong. Theism (of your choice) is a belief. The absence of it, cannot be said to constitute a belief, I don't care how you try to spin it. The only reason you are tempted to describe it as such, is that belief in a deity, is so prevalent a phenomenon, that people who don't join in are somehow perceived to be believing in something. Please explain to me how my lack of cooperation in joining with this dominant culture of belief is somehow a belief in itself? Seriously. I am not defined by my lack of belief in Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot and I am most certainly not defined by my lack of belief in your god, whoever it is. I am interested in how society is best run and how to make it better.

Atheists may have additional beliefs about other people's religious beliefs - that is a separate matter.

goodthief said: "we all saw that ditching God didn’t make ideology safe."

Interesting. I assume you refer to Mao, Stalin, Hitler et al. While totalitarian leaders eschewed the established churches (they weren't interested in sharing their absolute power with anyone else) and were thus nominally atheist, they simply removed god and inserted themselves at the centre of the universe. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..

(cont)
goodthief - Your post reeks of loathing for the current crop of (for want of a better word) atheist best seller writers, probably Dawkins and Hitchens. Words like strident and arrogant to the fore.

I fail to see how theirs is in the same league of arrogance as the religious man who believes in his version of deity, and "knows" that his ancient sacred text (filled with contradictions and shocking violence, whichever religion you choose) is the RIGHT one and that everyone else's combination of deity and sacred text is therefore wrong, consigning alternative belief holders to the eternal cosmic dustbin. I'm not saying this is you, but there are plenty of religious with this worldview.

It hurts to have your core beliefs challenged. But rather than respond with insults, I would be more interested in hearing you take an argument from Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennett and tell me why it is wrong.

Pericles - well said.

Interesting how all the 'smart' ones want to compare Christianity with Islam and yet not one of them would be willing to live in an Islamic country under Sharia law. They would not be allowed to display their God hating and sin loving ways in those countries. Still I suppose the most dangerous place for anyone these days is in a mothers womb thanks to secularism.

runner,

I wouldn't want to live under strict Christian law either, and I know many christians who wouldn't either. You are confusing a system of governance with a religion.

Absolutely.

>>I wouldn't want to live under strict Christian law either, and I know many christians who wouldn't either<<

For a start, you'd have to determine which version of Christianity is to become law. That alone would produce enough dissent which would ensure a christian State is never established.

But runner's observation is already based on a falsehood.

>>Interesting how all the 'smart' ones want to compare Christianity with Islam<<

"Interestingly", runner, it is most often Christians who want to compare Christianity with Islam. No atheist I know could give a proverbial damn about either, in their raw form. It is only when they become militant and start to make/break laws that we become involved.

And goodthief, I think stickman has said most of what needs to be said on the topic of belief. But I must take direct issue with one of your statements.

>>You seem to be saying that someone who says “I don’t believe in God” is not uttering a belief. I don’t know how to respond to this. I think this is agnosticism. I’d say atheists say “I believe there is no God”<<

I specifically did not use the phrase "I don't believe in God", so please don't set it up as something I "seem to be saying". I did however use the phrase "I believe there is no God" - which takes it into atheist territory - to make my point that construing this as a belief in itself is contradictory.

You even make my point for me:

>>This is a belief, even though it’s a belief which, on its own, doesn’t really go anywhere<<

That it "doesn't really go anywhere" should provide a clue. How can there be a belief that "doesn't really go anywhere" - even in your book, this must on its own disqualify it.

I'd be interested to hear the basis for this opinion, too:

>>I think people like Dawkins would impose atheism if they could<<

If this is code for "ban laws based purely on religious interpretation", I'd probably agree. But I don't think that's what you have in mind.

stickman and Pericles, if you’re still around, sorry for the delay.

A good deal to respond to here.

When I say “I believe God exists”, I utter a belief. When asked, “Which version of God? What does it matter? How has ‘God’ asked you to live your life?”, I respond by expressing my other beliefs about God.

So, when an atheist says, “I believe there is no God”, that person is uttering a belief. When asked other questions, the atheist will answer by expressing other beliefs which make no reference to God, and God won’t be heard of again in that conversation.

This is how I’m using the word “belief”. I’m not using it to mean “belief system” or anything like that, but simply the apprehension of a fact – for me, the fact that there is God, for you the fact that there is no God. If I were an atheist, I too would not wish to be defined as such: I’d rather be known for my positive, substantive ideas, such as evolution. Similarly, I would not normally be known as a theist, as that alone doesn’t say very much about me, whereas the word “Christian” (for better or worse) says a good deal.

Meanwhile, I share your interest, stickman, in making society better. I’ve even tried a few times to put the deeper matters aside, so we can “all” focus on that. I tried to get people to agree to humanism as a starting point. Didn’t work: many atheists online are evolutionists and could not agree that human beings are especially high in value.

Pax,

(cont)

I’m a bit taken aback by “Your post reeks of loathing” for the new atheists. Simply because I describe Dawkins as “strident” and “arrogant”? This means I loathe him? It means it so obviously that my post “reeks”? Surely you don’t mean it. I would have thought that the most superficial reading of The God Delusion would lead to the conclusion that Dawkins is strident and arrogant. I can’t see how the conclusion is to be avoided. It’s enough that he uses the word “delusion”, implying that people like me are mentally impaired. He annoys the cr@p out of me, but it doesn’t occur to me to loathe him. My last para a few days ago was devoted to decrying hatred: I’m agin’ it. Several atheists I’ve spoken to agree about Dawkins, and they’re embarrassed by him just as I’m embarrassed by some pretty alarming or ridiculous Christians. These atheists regard Dawkins as strident, arrogant and correct (about God and about religion).

Yes, I believe Dawkins would impose atheism if it were possible to do so. He would call it “insisting on reason and rationality”. However, it doesn’t matter whether or not I’m right about this. I don’t like him; you do; fine, we needn’t get in a twist about it.

As for the arrogance of [some] religious people: this is old news, not controversial as far as I’m concerned.

To explain why Dawkins’ arguments are wrong – or even just one of them – will take time. But, perhaps I should have a go at it. First, I’ll say his main problem is his unexplained assumption that empiricism (observation) is the only legitimate or acceptable path to a belief or knowledge. If he could establish this, he would have a basis for calling people like me irrational. He should either establish his assumed basis or stop using the word “irrational”.

Pax,