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.