Yes, there are those women who choose to cover up. But, there are just as many women who do not want to and are FORCED to by their father, brother, or husband. In the KSA, the will be arrested by the religous police if caught not wearing an abaya. They cannot leave home without a male relative (guardianship law).
Their husbands can marry up to four wives, including women for a “one night stand”. That is called a “muta marriage”. That sanctifies the adultery for the Wahhabists in Allah’s eyes.

If a woman here in the U.S. chooses not to wear a covering and her husband insists, then there is no choice. To not obey her husband means to receive a beating! If you live in the U.S., please do not assume these women are wearing the garb to insult us or to intimidate us. More than likely, it is the man behind the women intimidating her and our culture!

Is this an example of an Obamism? I so miss the Bushisms they made me smile, as the Obamisms don’t.

I wish all people’s who think that women should cover up, would instead have to walk around with closed eyes, so as not to see women without burqas and hijabs.

It would be funny to watch them bump into walls and trip on cracks in the sidewalk.

Obama is an ignorant man and I would like to see him be the first to walk around with his eyes closed because that to me is how he views the world.

1) Your Statement: [Last reply to Miamaman # 57]

I hope to hear from’ya again! (excuse my Fargo, Paul Bunyan, accent).

2) Your Statement: [Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ral.), the sheikh with whom I have studied for many years, has said, “Unity is love without attachment.” I’m not sure what outrage without attachment is, however.]

Outrage without attachment is like going to a ball game, yelling, jumping, even throwing an empty beer can, without caring in the least who wins.

3) Your Statement: [The point of love in your heart, and the point in mine is, I think, what President Obama is aiming for.]

Touché! I wish I could concur with you here.

4) A Comment on Mahatma Gandhi (did not have time before): He was verily a Mahatma (In Sanskrit Maha = Great and Atma = Soul) and a saint. Unfortunately he was a little “Loony Tunes”. He must have died a broken man, for not a single one of his teachings was being followed in Nehru’s India:

a) The Charka (spinning wheel) was discharged. He wanted everyone to use a Charka daily to provide for clothing in the 20th century (outsourcing?).

b) His bucolic view of India was rapidly discharged, and India went full speed into industrialization.

c) Celibacy. Apparently not followed either, as India went full speed into overpopulation.

d) Ahimsa or Not-injury (In Sanskrit the prefix “a” negates, so Himsa in injury): At his core the Mahatma was a Christian, not a Hindu. He did not hesitate to commit violence on his own body by fasting to bend others to his will. He read the Baghavad Gita, but did not understand its teachings. When Krishna, on the plain of Kurukshetra, told Arjuna to fight, He meant it.

Obama is obligated to work to improve the state of women for the very same reason he espoused the rights of all women to be educated: Because women’s rights are critical to transforming the Muslim world and that transformation is key to the possibilities for peace, which means peace for the United States. That said, I’m afraid you’re right about the blame assigned Obama in the general comments. I wish it were not so, but when so many comments are so filled with anger and hatred, there has to be more than a simple speech. Most of the comments written here were probably already in mind before he ever gave his Cairo speech.

I agree that women should not be discounted or treated like trash or property, nor abused in any way. But get real girlfriend. It’s not President Obama’s job to save the entire world. It’s his job to make sure that we are safely protected by laws, and that women HERE don’t get treated with such callous disrespect. That’s all. All other blame you assign to President Obama is merely political and/or racist backlash.

It would be great if Muslims Sufism and if Christians followed Christ and if Jews followed Moses and the prophets and if Hindus followed the teachings of Krishna or Murugan, and if Buddhists followed the way of the Buddha. Then we would be one family. I suspect Jesus and Muhammad and Moses and Krishna and the Buddha would all embrace as brothers and wonder at the inanities spoken and atrocities committed in their names.

Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ral.), the sheikh with whom I have studied for many years, has said, “Unity is love without attachment.” I’m not sure what outrage without attachment is, however.

Peace.