Chesler Chronicles

September 14th, 2009 1:02 pm

Hijab (The Headscarf)—Yes; The Burqa—No

Banning the burqa in the West might be one way to ban Islamist fundamentalism and the barbaric subordination of girls and women in certain immigrant communities. For this reason, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and French Minister Fadela Amara have again called for this ban. Earlier today, French immigration Minister, Eric Besson, called the burqa “debased.”

I would hope that the French take their argument further. In the past, they have mainly cited security concerns: Burqa wearing women might be “racially” attacked or burqa wearers themselves might be terrorists or criminals who are planning to attack or rob civilians.

I would hope that the French also argue for such a ban on women’s rights/human rights grounds, as I have already proposed. Thus, clothing which completely covers the face and head in a way which muffles speech, hearing, and vision, which limits or prevents all human communication and identification, and which, in effect, functions like an isolation chamber is, by definition, a violation of human rights.

None of this applies to hijab, the Islamic headscarf, which has already been banned in France in school and which is the subject of protest and controversy across Europe.

With all due respect for the good intentions of the French, perhaps Western governments should not automatically or necessarily ban hijab for women; the matter is tricky and complicated for girls as we have seen, as city after city across Europe has discovered. Indeed, this is a complex and challenging matter.

Today, in Holland, in the very country that is putting the sober and very brave parliamentarian,Geert Wilders on trial for exercising his political free speech—another bright Dutch light, Trouw historian Tineke Bennema has called on “women who were born in the Netherlands to voluntarily put on a headscarf ‘out of solidarity’ with the hijab wearers.” You know, like the Danes allegedly once wore the yellow Jewish star.

Bennema: This is not the way to atone for all the Dutch Jews who were so cheerfully handed over to the Nazis.

One can argue that looking “different,” wearing clothing that represents only one religion may, indeed, arouse prejudice and fear and lead to ostracism, especially among children. Visually representing one’s religion in the public square may also interfere with one’s ability to be seen neutrally in a courtroom, (as a judge, a witness, a plaintiff), classroom, hospital, (as a nurse, doctor, or patient), office, etc. For this reason, an American judge told a priest to remove his clerical collar before testifying in a court case.

However, in order to ban hijab in an even-handed way, one would also have to ban the Catholic hijab worn by nuns, the Jewish headscarf worn by ultra-orthodox and Chasidic women, and the various Hindu and Sikh head coverings. Doing so might interfere with the separation of religion and state that many Western governments hold dear.

But there is another reason to consider not banning hijab for adults. I spent last week in Rome, at the International Conference on Violence Against Women, An Initiative of the Italian Presidency of the G 8. I am deeply grateful to the Italian government, specifically to the Italian Minister for Equal Opportunities, the Honorable (and beautiful) Maria Rosaria Carfagna for this opportunity. Here is where I spent time with a dynamic, truly amazing group of religious and secular Muslim feminists. Three wore hijab, two did not, and one wore it sometimes, but not always. Most agreed that headcovering is more of a custom than a religious commandment and that one can be a very good Muslim without it.

Page 1 of 2 Next ->

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

104 Comments

1. George Jochnowitz:

The world is a complicated place, and burqas are not hijabs. Thank you, Phyllis, for reminding your readers of the difference.

Sep 14, 2009 - 1:49 pm 2. David W. Lincoln:

Phyllis, you are making progress in the right direction regarding piety, and how it can liberate, rather than brow beat.

I am curious to see what the ladies you mentioned in your piece, what they have to say in the future.

Sep 14, 2009 - 2:19 pm 3. MiamaMan:

As a correction, Danes never wore the yellow Jewish star, story unauthenticated, it is true the Nazis wanted to issue the order, but king Christian threat to wear it was enough for them to back down.

You differentiation between Burqa and other Muslim head covers is very appropriate and correct.

It would be enough, a great victory for freedom, if even the Burqa were to be banned in France, followed by other European countries, but I am not hopeful, as Europe is paralyzed in its fear of the vocal and militant Muslim minority. This minority, mind you, wants to change the majority, and that’s the problem. Point in case, the twisted logic of the Tineke Bennema example.

As per your new friends, with or without hijab, I wish them the best, will see. There is always a certain Stockholm-like syndrome influence left after ebullient conferences and travels of the sort you experienced. Hopefully the case of the wolf in sheep’s clothes does not apply here.

As for me, risking mimicking His Excellency Slick Willy, I always repeat to myself: “It is the Islam, stupid”.

Sep 14, 2009 - 3:45 pm 4. Jillian C. York:

While you are right to differentiate between the burqa and the hijab (they are obviously different and worn for different reasons and have different places in society and history), I do not believe that you are right to discriminate against women who desire to cover their faces or bodies entirely.

I believe that in an ideal world, pious Muslim women would choose the hijab (following the example of the friends you pictured), but it is not my place – nor yours – to demand that they do.

Sep 14, 2009 - 7:22 pm 5. Hans Mast:

Amen, Jillian! I am an American (my ancestors immigrated to America from Germany and Switzerland hundreds of years ago) who is a staunch political conservative who has lived in a Muslim country in the Middle East for five months; I taught English to Muslim Arabs. I understand the incredible abuses–many told me their personal stories–and I decry them. However, in the Western world, existing laws deal with spousal abuse. Laws that ban the burqa or hijab are an infringement on religious freedom. (The parallel we see in the US is “hate crimes” (i.e. thought crimes) legislation that are supposed to address an issue that is already covered by existing laws, but which infringes upon free speech and religious freedom.) The government isn’t supposed to decide what’s good religion. By the hundreds, my ancestors were burned at the stake and drowned by the Catholics and the mainstream Protestants of Europe because we didn’t follow the Bible the same way they did. They fled to America to escape that religious persecution. That persecution is springing up again. We have forgotten the lessons of the Reformation and Inquisition.

Government should not make decisions about what is acceptable religion and what is not, unless that religious practice forcibly harms people who try to choose otherwise. Government should preserve the freedom from coercion in religion–whether that coercion is carried out by religion or by the government. (And no, familial pressure is not the kind of coercion I’m talking about. Killing someone, is. Putting someone in jail, is.)

Government should not make decisions about what is acceptable religion and what is not, unless that religious practice forcibly harms people who try to choose otherwise. Government should preserve the freedom from coercion in religion–whether that coercion is carried out by religion or by the government. To say otherwise is to forget the painful lessons of my own people’s history and our collective history as a nation.

Sep 14, 2009 - 10:10 pm 6. Persia:

I know Extremists wearing Hijab, therefore the Point doesn’t convince me. And: Islamic Headscarf is often compared to the Nuns’ Headscarf – in Order to fully justify its Wearing in (our) Societies -. This is a totally unappropriate Comparison, since the Nuns’ One is a precise Life’s Choice – it is a Sort of Professional Clothing -, and we all know the true Innocence of a Nun. Behind an Hijab there still is the Islamic Ideology, which includes Genital Mutilations and “Honor” Matters, as well as Oppression (and Liberty’s Suppression) and Slavery, and they call it “Morality”. Being grown up in the West, in a whole Civilization which invented many Things, (that Islamic People/Communities are benifitting of), and having gotten a full Education (not a Sectarian or a CULTural One), which is still evolving, I dare to say that (Islamic) “Morality” has Nothing to do with Ethics, and that Ethics is What our World and Humanity needs. About the Subject, it is a Lack of Ethics that Islamic Males’ Perception of Women, as inferior Beings and Sort of tempting Devils. Hijab doesn’t help Men becoming more ethical, and I would say, it doesn’t help Men (neither Women) to grow up, and evolve. (I know, Islam has a Problem with the Word Evolution and the Concept of Evolution self, but maybe this is the Point that People need to discuss about). Here a very beautiful Text about Women’s Equality: it is based on United States’ Situation, but it definitively touches the worldwide Ones. Kindest Regards and all the Best to (Children – Girls and Boys -) Women/Females – Girls, young Women, Adults and Elderlies – (and Men/Males – Boys, Youngs, Adults and Elderlies -)! http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:womens-equality-global-challenge&catid=100:imm&Itemid=58

Sep 14, 2009 - 10:20 pm 7. Ed Drain:

The US judge you spoke of, who ordered the priest to remove his collar was wrong to do so. Even priests have 1st Amendment rights in this country. And wearing a collar is fundamentally an expression of who he is as a priest.

Sep 14, 2009 - 10:35 pm 8. Cat:

“Some of the headscarves were highly fashionable, colorful, eye-catching, and very viewer-friendly.”

Ahh, the “Orientalist” gaze. How attractive the emblem of her submission! How pleasant to my eye!

This is beyond disappointing for a feminist professor. The theological background for hijab is easily accessible. The reason why muslimahs cover their hair is because in most Islamic analysis it is “awrah” — it is a forbidden, shameful, sexually-loaded physical possession that belongs only to the Muslim deity and their husbands, and forbidden to everyone else except close relatives and eunuchs. Imam after imam state right now that a woman with uncovered hair is “asking for rape,” that she is “uncovered meat,” that her hair gives off “vibrations” that drive men insane with lust. Want the citations? Google and YouTube are right there. See for yourself or get your interns to do it.

Whatever self-serving excuse these supposedly smart, educated women give you boils down to this patriarchal mythos of female irresistibility. It’s a pathetic submission to absolute control over a significant personal feature, designed, like the abayah, jilbab and burkah, to gradually eradicate any identifier of a woman as an individual person and turn her into a fungible female animal. Perhaps wearing the head-bag is what allows these women’s Islamic male owners to allow them to do what they do — it is the signifier of their basic, core submission to Islamic memes of male ownership and control. The owner can go to his mosque with his head held high — his female is publicly obedient.

I don’t give a shit about “nuance” when it comes to Islam. I call bullshit when you say they’re as “personally powerful” as free women — get over it, they’re wearing the flag of degradation and inferiority, a flagrant allegiance to a creed that says women are a “step below” men, that they are dirt (”tilth” to be plowed), that they have lesser rights in everything from inheritance to court testimony to divorce to child custody, that they can be raped by their husbands because Allah says that’s their job, that they are merely part of a wife squad that can be dismissed by a text message if they are in the least displeasing.

I know what the Koran and the hadith say about us, I’ve read the damn things. I know how the Muslim prophet treated women (he captured and imprisoned rape-slaves, just to start). No highly fashionable, eye-catching, and viewer-friendly head-bag is going to make a bit of difference — and no matter how swank the convention, or how good the falafel.

Sep 15, 2009 - 12:14 am 9. Pajamas Media » Hijab (The Headscarf) – Yes; Burqa – No:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Sep 15, 2009 - 1:56 am 10. Persia:

Please, let me know, was my Comment banned due to what I argued or due to the Link I provided? Thank you. [I wanted to go on, adding more about the Nuns' Professional Veil which differentiate them from "normal Christian Women", and about Religious Professional Clothing, compared to Ideological/Political Clothing, which more or less affects the Society's Life in the West aka free World, but this Argument will turn to be "out of Context" without the previous Comment. Therefore, please again, let me know].

Sep 15, 2009 - 3:04 am 11. steve:

Since Islam obligates ALL Muslims to whenever possible either convert, kill subjugate or enslave all nonbelievers there is a very simple solution to this problem.

BAN ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION INTO U.S.!

To let them migrate into our country in record numbers is insanity. Muslims are finally achieving what they could never do in 14 centuries, a successful invasion of the West.

Eight years after 9-11 and you can’t find a politician or talk show host who has read the Islamic texts.

I’ll give you a hint they fall in 3 categories. Are you familiar with them? If not, why not?

If you don’t know your enemy how could you possibly fight him or elect someone who does?

Sep 15, 2009 - 4:05 am 12. Martin Knight:

The extreme ignorance on display about Islam here (in the comments – especially by “Cat” and “Persia”) is depressing.

Contrary to what you may have read; there is no right to rape one’s wife in Islam (heck, being a Muslim, I know for a fact that a woman can sue for a divorce if her husband mistreats or fails to satisfy her sexually), Muhammad (SAW) never slept with anyone than his wives, female genital mutilation is bid’ah (innovation in religion – which is unequivocally forbidden in Islam).

The fact that someone calls himself an Imam and issues Fatwas like an ATM issues cash doesn’t make it Islam anymore than Jim Jones’ theology is Christianity.

PS: I’m constantly in Muslim heavy nations and I have seen women in hijabs at the pinnacle of success in business and government – if they are oppressed, they sure as heck need to be informed of it because they certainly have no idea. Khadijah, first wife of Muhammad (SAW) was a renowned businesswoman of her time as were many others of his wives after her.

Sep 15, 2009 - 5:45 am 13. Parabellum:

This is not tricky at all, only one simple law is needed and it will apply to everyone:

No masks in public.

That’s it.

Sep 15, 2009 - 5:55 am 14. tanstaafl:

I will endure the hijab ONLY if women are free NOT to wear it in every country on the planet. Remember that the penalty for not wearing the hijab (even in the west) is death in many Muslim families.

Sep 15, 2009 - 5:55 am 15. Ann:

I would very much like to know if women in the west wearing the full islamic head and body gear drive cars. I live in the middle east for the present time, unfortunately, and women here drive cars and are an absolute nightmare as they have no peripheral vision and are a danger to all on the roads. Come to think of it, they’re no different from the men here who wear the dish-dash headdress, hence the driving all over the middle east is the worst in the world and has the highest accident numbers. Women and men wearing such islamic headgear should NEVER be allowed to drive in the West as they are not only a danger to themselves, but to the rest of us. and Mr. Sarkozy would do well to include this reason for not allowing the hijab. All hands to him though as he is really sticking his neck out a long way.

I have noticed time and time again that muslim women are NOT required to remove headscarves when travelling on planes, neither are they required to remove jackets, but I, a western woman of 68, must remove my shoes, my jacket and anything else the little hitlers ask me to remove. By the time I get through security I am shoeless, jewellery-less, jacket-less and feel almost naked and feel thoroughly degraded especially after being groped by some macho woman. Any other time this would be considered a personal attack and a violation and worthy of a court case. What about my human rights I ask?

Thank you for an excellent and informative site.

Sep 15, 2009 - 6:02 am 16. Marie Claude:

first impression, these gentle women that still promote the veil, are privilegied women, they benefitted of an educated family background, which was more permissive than the average for their girls.
But this isn’t the real fighting for woman rights, this is still to keep women into the condition of subordination to the whole tradition BUT with an apparent form of tolerant civility, but under control ! Yet, one want to built a mosquee in Berlin, where where potatoes sacks will be forbidden, yeah right, one has to adapt to the occidental world, but not quite !

Sorry, but the woman that is the real fighter for women rights is Fadela, she comes from the very plebe that undermines girls and women, she raise herself against these abusive traditions and decided to create the association “ni putes, ni soumises” to defend these girls that were abused and beatten by their families.

She is for the ban of all the signs of submissions.

Do get seducted by these apparent openminded well educated women, they still represent the power of a muslim world.

The muslim countries women are watching us, how we can make evolveing the tradition for them in our occidental countries, and they are for the ban of all their submission signs.

Sep 15, 2009 - 6:16 am 17. Marie Claude:

Hi Miamaman

about Danemark, Robert O Paxton says that the jewish community was small, that 98% of the Jews (8 500) were sent to Sweden in 1943, and that, besides, the Danes were great suppliers of goods to Germany, and that the State representant Scavenius collaborated into the alliance anti-Komintern in november 1941

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ahess_0395-2649_1993_num_48_3_279156

Sep 15, 2009 - 6:49 am 18. Marie Claude:

uh ?

Sep 15, 2009 - 6:55 am 19. Ddc:

Hijab comes in handy on bad hair days. All kidding aside I find it ridiculous that the women in hijab wear an amazing amount of makeup. A bit hypocritical don’t you think? Nuns, last time I checked, never wear makeup. So calling BS on “being religious” as a motivation to keep wearing the head scarf, fits.

The ban would be a help to women and girls who do not HAVE the choice, but to wear the full garb. If laws do not profit the weakest of us – they protect no one. The hard steps have to be taken to make a clear difference and one can only hope that in making this hard decision it leads the way to real empowerment of these women. Let’s not forget, religion is man-made with “man” being the operative word. That said, even wearing the hijab is still submission to men. It’s THAT kind of realization that seperate the real independant, strong women from those who would just give lip service.

There are really so many conflicting statements within you article that it’s difficult to see the real intellectual honesty both with these women and with your portrayal. I’m still a fan of yours though.

Sep 15, 2009 - 7:36 am 20. Laurent:

In the US you can wear any decent type of clothing you want; the only issue is that for official pictures (driver’s license, passport, etc.) the face must be fully visible. If the Saudis subsidise fanatics, then prosecute the fanatics if they actually break the law. Otherwise, ignore the issue of clothing, and those who seek attention will have to find some other way to attract it.

Sep 15, 2009 - 7:40 am 21. tanstaafl:

To the readers of Martin Knight’s post – a cautionary moment. Every Muslim or Muslimah is allowed to lie (taquiyya) or even deny that they are Muslim (kittman) to kuffars (unbelievers) in order to advance Islam. Every infidel who is reading this blog should understand that according to the Qur’an, the aHadith and the Sira we are unclean and not considered human beings by Muslims. It is legal under Sharia to kill us without any penalty.

Why would a believer in this Islamic supremacy hesitate to deceive us regarding the dark commandments of their faith?

Remember what the prophet said – “War is deceit”. “Your wives are your fields, go into them when you want.” “Hell is filled with disobedient women.”

FGM was sanctioned by the prophet and the only male issue he had was from one of his wives’ slave girls (Mary the Copt).

I advise anyone who is interested in the truth to visit the websites of apostates from Islam. (these brave people face a death sentence for leaving Islam) Or read the Qur’an on your own. I am told that it is an equally boring read in Arabic, but as I can testify that it is boring in English. However, while you read the Qur’an, bear in mind that a proper Muslim regards it as the word of Allah and that it cannot be modified, interpreted or questioned.

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:11 am 22. Bohemond:

“Muhammad (SAW) never slept with anyone than his wives”

Gee, doesn’t wives, plural, tell you something right there? Got cognitive dissonance?

However, it remains the case that under the First Amendment even symbolic hate speech must be allowed: swastika armbands, Klan hoods and hijab are all protected.

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:12 am 23. Lynn:

The head covering and various body sacks represent a Deity that teaches that woman are half the value of men, on par with domestic animals, the majority occupiers of HELL, and candidates for physical violence if disobedient.

Sorry, that is a fact that can’t be covered-up by a week-end in Rome. They are enjoying the fruits of the modern world while their less privileged sisters are groaning under the weight of the heavy yoke that was placed on them by the founder of the faith of Islam, Mohammad and it’s Deity Allah. The threat of the sword always brandished above their heads always ready to strike. There goes another one sent to Hell the perpetual burning while the swordsmen enjoy the fruits of their labor in paradise, willing virgins and little children as pearls strung through the sky.

Glad they had a good time in the Western World. It is understandable why they would sing the praises of their decorative yoke, but we can’t be deceived because the truth is they are not free and they love a god that does not love them back.

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:24 am 24. Mike:

Banning any article of clothing by the government is fascist and violates the U.S. Consitution.

The way to defeat Islam is through education not by enacting dumb draconia laws that are unconstitutional.

Fundamentals of SIOA
September 14th, 2009

by D. L. Adams

SIOA is a non-violent group of concerned and knowledgeable Americans.

Our foundational motives are compassion and love.

We have overflowing hearts and deep compassion for our innocent dead of 9/11 and all other Islamic jihad attacks that have been launched against us before and since. We have compassion for the families of all those who have lost loved ones in this ongoing war of aggression against us. This war of civilizational annihilation is waged against us for one reason alone – we are kafirs (unbelievers/non-Muslims).

We have boundless compassion for the suffering of those around the world who are victims of the cruelty, brutality, and intolerance of political Islam.

http://sioanetwork.com/

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:48 am 25. Mary Jackson:

The headscarf is compatible with modern living and female idependence. More extreme forms of the hijab are not. The niqab is an abomination.

Sep 15, 2009 - 9:10 am 26. Peggy:

Phyllis,

I would just love to spend more time discussing this. But at the moment I can’t. I hope to be back later. But in the meantime, I just wanted to make one correction to a rather glaring error in your otherwise very thoughtful piece.

The habit of a nun is in no way the equivalent of the hijab. It is NOT the “Catholic hijab.” The theology behind it is completely different starting with the fact that there is nothing in the Christian religion which can be construed as equating a woman’s hair with her other sexual organs which then must be properly concealed for modesty’s sake. Neither is a nun’s habit some kind of shield from the eyes of men. Neither would it be a personal shame for her to take it off in the presence of men if she had to although I am sure they would prefer to keep it on if at all possible.

The nuns habit is a powerful reminder to them, that they are the brides of Christ and that their attitude is to be one of constant prayer. It is far more a sign of humility than it is a sign of modesty.

I personally do not like the equation that is sometimes made between it and the hijab as it obscures very real differences between the two faiths.

Sep 15, 2009 - 9:24 am 27. Laura:

“I believe that in an ideal world, pious Muslim women would choose the hijab”
………………………………..
Why? What kind of nonsense is this? Why don’t you cover your own head if you think its so wonderful? In an ideal world islam would not exist. It is by its very essence, oppressive.
============================================
“Laws that ban the burqa or hijab are an infringement on religious freedom. (The parallel we see in the US is “hate crimes” (i.e. thought crimes) legislation that are supposed to address an issue that is already covered by existing laws, but which infringes upon free speech and religious freedom.)”
……………………………………..
Bull! islam is not like any other religion. It is not merely a personal faith, but a totalitarian political ideology which seeks domination over us. Yes burqas, hijabs and niqbas ought to be banned in the west. I’m shocked at the number of people here defending islam and the oppressive practice of women being covered. Pajamas Media isn’t what it once was.

Sep 15, 2009 - 9:40 am 28. Laura:

“Banning any article of clothing by the government is fascist and violates the U.S. Consitution”.
……………………………………
islamic coverings and what they represent are themselves fascist.
==========================================
Our foundational motives are compassion and love.
………………………………..
Compassion and love aren’t going to defeat islamic jihadists. They need to be ruthlessly fought. The west has become so soft and wimpy. Even the so-called conservatives. Is it any wonder why the islamic jihadists are gaining ground.

Sep 15, 2009 - 9:47 am 29. Hans Mast:

Exactly, Mike!

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here and I personally know of the pain and oppression that so many in the Muslim world face and I support working to eradicate those things, but banning an outward symbol is not going to fix the underlying heart and attitude problem. The Chinese government is learning a bit late that religious persecution tends to increase religious fervor rather than decrease it.

Beyond simple efficacy, I’m horrified that so many otherwise intelligent people have forgotten the lessons of our founding and our history. It doesn’t matter how repugnant something is, when we start making judgment calls about the kinds of religious clothing is or is not legally allowed, we are no better than medieval Catholicism/Anglicanism/Protestantism, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, or even Ahmadinejad’s Iran which persecutes Christians.

Sep 15, 2009 - 10:02 am 30. Calatrava:

Dear Phillis:

I follow you columns with great interest. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I have one question and a comment:

Question: Why do you maintain that wearing hijab/burka/you_name_it is not a Islamic religious prescription when it is written in the Koran that:
“Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better. They will not be annoyed and molested [Koran 33:59].”

Comment: the whole issue I believe is the freedom to wear the clothes you choose. Nuns CHOOSE to wear a uniform when they join an Order (not all Orders require uniform), and, if they decide to quit, nobody will kill them. Most Muslim women are FORCED to cover themselves.

Sep 15, 2009 - 10:22 am 31. Persia:

MARTIN KNIGHT

I’m sorry for you dear, but it seems that you are Ignorant about Islam, and I understand this according to your Words.

If you feel depressed facing Reality, I understand you, Islamic Reality is depressing, and anguishing.

Anyway there is a Solution, which is, fighting for Human Rights, of Children, Women, and Men. You’ll feel better and believe me, you’ll understand that it is Ignorant to depict either Cat or Persia as (extreme) Ignorant about Islam!

I totally agree with PEGGY

Hijab could have to do with other Ortodox Clothing, but Nuns and People like them do not belong to the Mass of Believers. They did a special Choice: not every Hindu goes around like Sadhus, or every Christian Man goes around like Priests, or (don’t know much about Rabbis), and so on. And Hijab hides an Ideology which is similar to the One hidden behind the Swastika (Religious Symbol! Holy Symbol of Hinduism!) adopted (sic) by Hitler. Jewish Ortodox don’t proselitize and are not meant (correct me please, if I’m wrong) to go around killing Infidels or conquering Others’ Lands (like Islamic People did and still – trying to – do).

Hijab (and other Islamic Clothes) is the Symbol of Submission to the Dictature of AlLah (Mohammad), and therefore in the free World it should be accurately banned, not for the Headscarf itself, but for the Ideology behind it.

LAURA

100% true.

Yes, a Problem we have is that it seems we disregard Logics, and Wisedom, which are, at the Opposite, very important Points (of/for Human Life).

Logics, Ethic and Aesthetic are all very important and connected together. It is silly and unintelligent to state Something else. Who said we are based on “Compassion and Love” is an immature and ungrown Person.

Sep 15, 2009 - 10:23 am 32. Marie Claude:

“The Chinese government is learning a bit late that religious persecution tends to increase religious fervor rather than decrease it.”

These clothes are a traditional habit, not a religious obligation, this has nothing that means religious persecution !

for those that say that this ban of a middleage behaviour is contrary to what is written in their founding father’s constitution, god luck !

there was no such a threat when the founding fathers wrote their civilised words

Sep 15, 2009 - 10:32 am 33. Calatrava:

Mr. 12. Martin Knight said: “Muhammad (SAW) never slept with anyone than his wives.”

Dear Mr. Knight: You are dead wrong. The Hadith describes that Muhammad had several SEX SLAVES (besides his 11 to 24 wives, depending on the source).

Have you ever heard of Rayhanah?

After exterminating with the Jewish tribe of the Bani Qurayza (oh, those Jews again), Muhammad killed all men and sold the women and children as slaves. But he kept the 17-year-old beautiful Rayhanah for himself. Rayhana, whose father, brothers and husband, Muhammad had killed, did not accept Islam and did not agree to marry the prophet. She remained in his household as a sex slave until he died and forbidden to remarry after that*.

Did you hear: sex slave!

* BTW: This is the meaning of “Submission”: to be systematically raped by the man (Muhammad) that kills you father and sells your mother, sisters and little brothers into slavery)

Sep 15, 2009 - 10:44 am 34. Ddc:

And the point of wearing any of these, hijab, burqa, nijab? Because to do otherwise would be to entice men. Men, unable to control their sexual urges, might otherwise be tempted to rape. Therefore a Muslim woman in western clothing is simply asking “for it” and will “get it” and be punished for it. The rapist released from any responsibilty. This has little to do with piety and much more to do with female sexuality since with burqa or without, Muslim women STILL get raped.

As was said before…religion is man-made for the protection and advancement of men over what men considered (and still consider) lessor than themselves, children, animals and women. In that order.
To ignore that fact and still wear the headscarf in the name of Piety is to be completely ignorant of what it means to think independantly of men. These women are fooling themselves.

Just ban all of it in public. What they want to do at home or in the mosque is up to them. The French, while not having many things right – are right on the ban of such costuming.

Sep 15, 2009 - 10:58 am 35. AVe:

Here are the results from the Netherlands What a pity you do not understand Dutch!

Fadela Amara

“The burqa represents not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation
of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principle of equality
between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic,”
Fadela Amara said.

According to her [and to me] also the headscarf is a symbol of
oppression: The burqa and headscarf to her “are the same thing. It is only a matter of centimetres of fabric.”

In Dutch:

Over de boerka

De Franse (moslim)minister van Stedelijke Zaken Fadela Amara:

“Het [de boerka] is niet een teken van religie, maar van een totalitaire politiek die de ongelijkheid van de seksen nastreeft en absoluut ondemocratisch is”, zei minister Amara. Volgens Amara is overigens ook de hoofddoek een symbool van onderdrukking: ‘Het verschil is wat centimeters stof.’ “

Sep 15, 2009 - 11:14 am 36. seguin:

No dress codes.

Liberty is Liberty is Liberty…either you believe in it as the primary virtue of our nation or you don’t.

Banning clothes is ridiculously unAmerican in concept. It makes the Government the sole judge of appropriate attire – it gives goverment the power and the door to even more restrictive rules regarding personal expression.

This isn’t to say that hijabs aren’t used to dominate and oppress, but this is a shallow and hollow attempt at a solution to that oppression. It, in the end, means nothing.

This whole government control of the individual is disgusting. Leave it on the other side of the Atlantic.

Sep 15, 2009 - 11:23 am 37. Lynn:

May I suggest as in “The Sneetches” that we invent a machines like the ones Sylvester McMonkey McBean had, but call it the Hijab On Machine and Hijab Off Machine.

“until neither the Plain nor the Hijabies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one… or what one was who.”

Perhaps Allah/Mohammad himself will get confused and abandon his command to his faithful that they kill the unbelievers wherever they find them.

Yes, we must take back the scarf as a fashion accessory, rather than a statement of Allah/Mohammad, who is just not that into women anyway.

Sep 15, 2009 - 11:56 am 38. Theo Goodwin:

Simply get Muslims to accept a Western style hijab that is a decoration rather than a piece of required gear.

If they object to wearing a western style decoration then tell them to leave the west.

Sep 15, 2009 - 1:00 pm 39. scythe:

Why doesn’t each and every country in the West simply BAN THESE POPULATIONS! Why are they coming to the West and then attempting to colonize the host country as if it were their own? If their cultures are at war with the predominant culture why so they still arrive? It must be assumed they are arriving for nefarious reasons and should be kept out for the protection of the citizens of the host country. Immigrants in the past made every attempt to blend and conform at least outwardly while keeping their culture and traditions alive in their homes and in their insitutions. But those immigrants were not so culturally different as to threaten the mainstream culture. Mulitculturalism is a marxist construct pushed to achieve a marxist agenda and in the year 2009 we should all have the courage to say some cultures are far beter than others and we should not tolerate that which destroys all that has been accomplished in the West re human rights/civil rights. Because we have been told that to express pride in our culture and to judge others as not being quite as good as ours is wrong and bigoted too many have shut their mouths to the obvious and we are at the point we are today. Western culture has given the world a far better foundation, culture, laws etc. than any other culture since the beginning of time. The third world pours in and when they get here they want home. Stay there. I don’t want to live in a third world toilet any more.

Sep 15, 2009 - 1:21 pm 40. poetcomic1:

Hijab is almost impossible to ban without extreme discrimination. Burqa can be banned as a public threat and should be. Another reason I haven’t heard voiced for banning the burqa (I noticed this in UK) it TERRIFIES small children.

Sep 15, 2009 - 1:53 pm 41. Mary in LA:

Arguably we can’t categorically ban the wearing of some particular clothing, but by the same logic, neither should we stand for the enforcement of the wearing of some particular clothing in a free country.

I’ve said it before here: Women who wear the full burqa don’t get enough Vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is one cause of depression. Vitamin D deficiency in a pregnant woman is a risk factor for schizophrenia in her child. It’s a public health issue.

Sep 15, 2009 - 2:04 pm 42. Blackwater:

Ban it all. The head scarf is just as disgusting. End muslim immigration as well and deport the radicals. There’s hundreds of islamic jihadist terrorist operatives living here in Northern Virginia alone according to state officials.Get them the hell out of my country permanently. Have we learned nothing from 9/11?

Sep 15, 2009 - 2:28 pm 43. homer:

For those of you who have some difficulties in following what is going on between Phyllis Chesler and Naomi Wolf, I summarize their respective points of view:
Wolf: “allow the physical oppression of women by muslim males; it is nice and beautiful”.
Chesler: “allow a symbol of the oppression of women, of the superiority of men over women, and of the supremacy of islam; after all, it is not so bad or ugly as you might think”.
However, having made the opposing views so clear and simple, I wonder what still prevents me from making a choice between the two.

Sep 15, 2009 - 2:42 pm 44. Hans Mast:

“Simply get Muslims to accept a Western style hijab that is a decoration rather than a piece of required gear.”

And that’s already happening. As I traipsed around the UAE, Egypt, Iraq, the West Bank, and Turkey (it’s not happening nearly as fast in Syria or Oman, though), I saw that happening in stunning numbers. The clerics are straining to hold the line against Westernization, but Muslims are ravenous for Western clothing, music, and movies. Part of that has been that the hijab in many places has become a highly stylized, and at times bejeweled, fashion accessory that takes its place along with ultra-tight dresses or jeans & shirt and heavy makeup. As a follower of Jesus, I find it quite disgusting–something that is supposed to symbolize modesty (yes, modesty that has its roots in a very twisted mindset of the woman having sole responsibility for the sin of sex outside of marriage, but modesty nonetheless) has been hypocritically worn along with sexually provocative clothing. But I’m sure it makes the feminists happy to see them following not only the strengths of Western culture but also the weaknesses–selling themselves as sex whores rather than as a complete person.

All that to say, yes, that’s happening, Theo.

Sep 15, 2009 - 2:49 pm 45. Hans Mast:

Homer, I’ve been following this back and forth and I’d summarize it a bit differently:

Chesler: “Wolf is wrong because there are a lot of abuses in the Muslim world.”

I really agree with both.

Both, because of their biases, paint an incomplete picture.

However, Chesler is right in pointing out that Wolf only told half the story. In many cases it’s an engine of abuse. Chesler is wrong in her conclusion that since there is abuse, it invalidates all of what Wolf said. Wolf’s sin, if it can be called that, was one of carefully caveating and avoiding half the story. But it’s arguable that this was no sin at all because she was telling the untold half of the story. We already know about the abuses. Wolf was thankfully shedding some light on the willing adoption of the veil. It was also entirely right that Chesler put Wolf in context with the other half of the story, however.

What isn’t right is the blame that’s been flying back and forth. Both are adding important bits of info to the conversation.

We in our arrogance think that everyone in the rest of the world that doesn’t behave and think as we do must be oppressed. That’s wrong. Most Americans are totally clueless about Muslims. My worldview about Muslims was totally changed by actually living with them for five months, hearing their stories, and sharing meals in their homes. When we realize that they are people too with real hopes, dreams, and fears–when we realize that they’re people just like us–it becomes much more difficult to simply shove them into boxes and sit in mass judgment. Some of the ignorant overgeneralizations in the comments here make me simply roll my eyes. Haven’t we progressed far enough to realize that these are fallacies simply by their breadth and simplicity, let alone a close study of the actual facts?

Sep 15, 2009 - 3:32 pm 46. Martin Knight:

tanstafaal et al.

I guess I’m not a good Muslim then … since I’m pretty certain that I’ve never killed anyone and a great number of my friends are not Muslims.

Look … I can’t engage in good faith with people who believe that by virtue of my religion, I have to be a mass murderer and rapist. Especially when it’s obvious you went searching for information that confirmed your biases and using that as evidence that it is true.

FGM is not a part of Islam – you’ll discover that many of the countries in Africa where it’s practiced it was in existence before Islam. Forced conversion is expressly forbidden in Islam – it’s in one of the Surahs (Kaffirun – the Disbelievers) in the last ten of the Qur’an. Rape is not allowed in Islam – whether it be a stranger or one’s wife. Murder (including so-called “Honor Killings” which are an Arab cultural artifact) is not allowed in Islam.

For everyone screaming that Islam hates women, prior to Muhammad (SAW) and his Message, female newborns were buried alive in the desert sand! And considering that I live amongst Muslim women, educated, working, (and hijab wearing) and “unclitorectomized”, I think I should know … cause I’m living what you all are only reading about.

Bottom line; we’re not homicidal maniacs, rapists or cannibals. You may not like that, but guess what? We’re human. Deal with it.

Sep 15, 2009 - 3:47 pm 47. tanstaafl:

“Islamic” clothing is nothing more than the oppression of women. Banning it is nothing more than banning the swastika. Western audiences need to understand that this oppressive clothing is mandated in the Islamic world. Muslimahs and infidel women living there have NO choice but to wear it or to be treated as prostitutes.

No muslim woman is “free” to choose to wear the hijab. Muslimahs are lying to you when they claim that they are free to choose to wear it.

Sep 15, 2009 - 5:02 pm 48. Hesiod:

“Most agreed (hijab is not a) religios commandment”? They agreed wrong, Phyllis, and it would behoove you to do a bit of due diligence on that. In a hadith, M specifically points to face and hands as the only body parts to be exposed and all schools of Islam mandate it. It is a symbol of the submission cult. Some men or women used to and might now sport red armbands with a symbol from India known as swastika in Sanskrit. Would you have a problem with it?
P.S. I don’t think either hijab nor swastika shd be banned but know for what they are. The cult that the former stands for has been much more successful, is older and hence more “mainstream” than the latter.

Sep 15, 2009 - 5:45 pm 49. Hesiod:

Martin, it is not for us to say whether you observe Islam’s dicta or not (although if you take kaffirs as your true friends you fail at least one of those dicta). You are doing the same swap that people did back in Cold War days saying to the honest description of communism — “so you are saying all russians (or even all soviet communists) want to take over the world?” No, but the political ideology does. And if you choose Submission as your credo, you ought to look just what it is that you subscribed to and where your zakat money goes. And deal with that.

Sep 15, 2009 - 6:41 pm 50. MiamaMan:

Please allow me to write to you in English, as I have been forbidden (verboten! ja, ja) from writing in other languages.

You info. about the Jews in Denmark seems correct. German military authorities often sided with the Danes and even some in the Gestapo did not hesitate to warn them about some of the extreme designs of Heydrich and Himmler (Hitler, as usual, was behind the push to get those 8,500 or so Danish Jews, among them the highest price of all: Nobel Price winner Physicist Neils Bohr). And yes, they shipped the majority to Sweden in all kinds of fisherman’s boats from both nations, after being forewarned of a raid by the Abwehr. Only a handful were rounded up, what makes Denmark the only nation that refused to handle their Jews to Hitler; besides Bulgaria, who did not handle even one Bulgarian Jew to the German. However, Bulgarian’s hands dirtied in helping Alois Brunner to round up the Sephardi community from Greece in Salonika, approximately 45,000, who were sent to Auschwitz, and only a few hundred survived. Salonika was handed over to Bulgaria and at that time was under German/Bulgarian occupation.

Sep 15, 2009 - 7:24 pm 51. MiamaMan:

Hans Mast:

Religious freedom? Yeah, sure, the “problemo” is that the Muslims want to impose the Burqa on us, their Sharia law, and then some. Following your logic, yes, this Burqa harms women, it is a symbol of repression and backwardness, and the government should ban it.

Martin Knight:

[The extreme ignorance on display about Islam here (in the comments – especially by “Cat” and “Persia”) is depressing.]

Yeah, Maese Martin, we are all very ignorant of the Muslim Mein Kampft called “The Quoran”. We get the info from ignoramus like Daniel Pipes, PhD; Jamie Glazov, PhD; Dr. Chesler, David Horowitz, and witness the Fatwas against Rushdie and others (yes, to kill them). May be in the cave the Prophet had taken some Hashish before riding heavenly horse Harak Taxi and flying first-class over Jerusalem.

Sep 15, 2009 - 7:43 pm 52. Marie Claude:

“I have been forbidden (verboten!) ja, ja,”

aber nein ! du kannst machen was du willst, du bist ein verdammt anarchistischen !

BTW did you read the whole link ?

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:11 pm 53. Hesiod:

Miama man — umm, not over Jerusalem, over the “far mosque”. The idea that the trip was over Jerusalem is a much later addition.

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:15 pm 54. Laura:

Wolf: “Even though the Islamphobic West immediately thinks of all those women oppressively forced to wear veilings they don’t want to wear, that’s not always the case. There are many that wear the veil voluntarily and appreciate the role it plays in preventing their sexual commoditization and exploitation.”
…………………………………
As Phyllis stated, covering does not prevent women in muslim countries from being raped, exploited, it doesn’t stop prostitution or pornography.
===========================================

Wolf is right (as I can tell you from talking with Muslim lady friends of mine from the Middle East) to state that there are many Muslim ladies who gladly wear the veil and would be horrified, insulted, and feel quite vulnerable and naked to go around in public without it. Westerners are often ignorant of this.
…………………………………
Too damn bad. Then don’t come to the west. Let them stay in their muslim countries, we want no part of this. Why is it that western women when visiting certain muslim countries are required to wear a head covering? Do they ever consider how insulted, horrified and vulnerable that makes us feel? Why is it a one way street where we must adhere to their ways in their countries but they can keep their muslim ways when coming here? You are a typical western liberal that believes that we are the ones who always have to accomodate and be open to other cultures but other cultures are not expected to reciprocate.

Sep 15, 2009 - 9:22 pm 55. Malcolm:

I note from your references to “separation of religion and state” that you are still bound by a certain secular American heresy. We in the British Commonwealth know that it is quite easy – and desirable – to be democratic and still do without it. The original vision was of “freedom of religion”, which originally meant that other Christians, and later, non-Christians could worship as they pleased without being persecuted by the authorities. It short, it meant that error should be tolerated.

“Separation of religion and state”, however, implies that error must be recognized, and the state should be religiously neutral. This is bad policy, as well as being morally wrong. The rulers of the country, whether they gain their position by birth, force, or election, are just as much subjects of Almighty God as the rest of us, and are morally obliged to promote His cause.
This has practical consequences as well. For instance, the reason the French Government banned crosses and skull caps in schools as well as head scarfs was because they felt they had to be neutral in religion. They thus penalised Christians and Jews, who had caused no-one any harm, in order to suppress the bad influence of Islam.
Let’s face facts: we are, or should be, a Christian nation. The Government should be promoting Christianity, without forcing it on people. But Islam is a threat, and should be recognized as such.

Sep 15, 2009 - 9:27 pm 56. Kinvara:

I would like to respond to various comments by Martin Knight:- Female Genital Mutilation is expressly encouraged by Muhammed in this Hadith, reporting of Muhammed’s conversation with Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed.Having seen her, Muhammed asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: “unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it.” Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.” Muhammed is also cited in the aHadith as saying: “Circumcision is a sunna (tradition) for the men and makruma (honorable deed) for the women.” (Of course, FGM is not ‘cicumcision’ by any stretch of the imagination, it is the mutilation of genitalia, not simply the removal of outer skin as in male circumcision, and children (being the ones on whom it is perpetrated) have no choice. Islam, through its slave trade in Africa over almost 1,400 years (since mid 700sAD) exerted enormous influence on the peoples; consequently, the prevalence of FGM among Africans and also the common misunderstanding by Westerners who assume this simply to be a ‘cultural custom’ rather than, as it is, directly from Islam. FGM, for example, occurs in over 90% of Egyptian women and exists also among non-Moslems who have lived under Islamic domination sometimes for centuries.
As to Knight’s contention that Islam does not force conversion and his reference to the Koran to support this, he is employing taqiyya and kitman in his remark. He refers, probably, to the infamous Sura (Chapter) 2, verse 256 usually truncated as “Let there be no compulsion in religion” to support this falsehood and which is a favorite verse used by Moslems to imply Islamic tolerance. In fact, that verse, and over 120 others in the Koran, are abrogated under the Doctrine of Naskh (Abrogation) referred to 4 times in the Koran, by which ‘allah’ sends verses which are ‘better’ than the preceding and which take precedence. (In reality, Muhammed simply presented new ‘revelations’ from his deity as the circumstances of his career as a ‘prophet’ and tribal leader dictated). Sura 2:256 and these other verses are abrogated by the Sword Verse (Koran 9.5) (Ayt al-Sayf, the Sword Verse): “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Rape is condoned and encouraged in Islam, in the Koran, the aHadith (Bukhari, the foremost of the transmitters of aHadith and regarded as sacred text along with the Koran), and the Sira (M’s biography, where he specifically tells his men not to practice ‘coitus interruptus’ because only ‘allah’ determines who will be born, so rape is permissible, and was a principal means of extending control and increasing their numbers).
I would like to reply separately on the thread’s subject but felt it necessary to offer these corrections to MK’s comments.

Sep 16, 2009 - 4:52 am 57. Kinvara:

Re the thread’s subject: As with everything in Islam, Muhammed is the source, through the Koran but, more importantly, the aHadith (relating his words, actions) which help to explain the Koran. “Ali reported the Prophet (Muhammed) saying: “Women have ten (’awrat’: shameful orifices). When she marries, the husband covers one and when she dies, the grave covers the ten.” Woman, herself, is ‘awrah’, her very being is ’shameful’. As a warlord, Muhammad and his army took captives (usually women and children, the men being generally slain unless they agreed to convert to Islam). The women were either ransomed, sold as slaves, raped or ‘married’ (always requiring conversion to Islam for the latter). The covering of a woman, especially Muhammed’s own ‘wives’, was the means to establish ownership of that woman; if left uncovered, this signified the woman was to be a sex slave, not a wife. Muhammed restricted his wives’ lives completely “Narrated Aisha (his child bride of six): The Prophet said to his wives: “You are allowed to go out to answer the call of nature” and, upon being seen to do so by a Moslem man who brought this to Muhammed’s attention, Muhammed then ordered them to “cover up” meaning fully so (the Koran, for its part, has varying degrees of coverage, reflecting this change in apparel). This is related in aHadith Bukhari (Vol 1, Bk 4 No 148, Bk 8, No 395 and Muslim, Bk 26, Nos 5395-5397 and Muslim. Thus, Moslem female apparel has its origins in a demeaning and disparaging view of the female as inherently shameful, and as a possession of a man and, significantly for non-Moslem women, those who are not so covered, are regarded, and to be possibly treated, in a denigrating and sexually violent manner.

Sep 16, 2009 - 5:10 am 58. MiamaMan:

Marie Claude:

[du bist ein verdammt anarchistischen!]

Ha, ha, that’s my girl.

No, I did not read the link as I probably know more than it.

BTW, when Niels Bohr escaped to Sweden, he was spirited to London right away, and then to the US and Los Alamos to work on the Manhattan Project (Atomic Bomb) where he was known as Nicholas Blach (according to Amercian Physicist and Nobel Price winner New Yorker Richard Feynman).

Sep 16, 2009 - 5:20 am 59. MiamaMan:

Hesiod:

[Miama man — umm, not over Jerusalem, over the “far mosque”. The idea that the trip was over Jerusalem is a much later addition.]

OK, my mistake, there was no first class then, over the “fart mosque” as you say.

Sep 16, 2009 - 5:23 am 60. Kinvara:

Female covering in Islam is, therefore, designed to promulgate and enforce the Sharia, the jurisprudence and way of life in Islam which is based upon Islam’s (and Muhammad’s) inherent inequalities between a Moslem and a non-Moslem, a man and a woman, and a free man and a slave. It was the Muslim Brotherhood which began pushing in Egypt and elsewhere for the return to the Islamic view of female clothing and identity as the way of strengthening Islam in predominantly Moslem countries and in spreading it in the West, under the guise of ‘individual freedom’ when, in reality, that is denied to woman at its source as a political ideology. Moslems realize that, if they can get Western peoples and governments to accept this Islamic dress for females (and thereby, a key ingredient of Sharia, its ‘world-view’), then they will be well on their way to domination and eventual triumph.

Sep 16, 2009 - 6:22 am 61. Marie Claude:

#55 Malcom

I bet you’re wrong

Separation of state and religions were ment and are ment to avoid that religion interfer in states affairs as it was the case with catholics Bishops and the pope, don’t forget that France was annointed “elder daughter” of the church since the middleage. the protestants had no word to say they still were invisible, and their discretion remained until the seventies. I remember having a protestant girl in my state high school, and she was still pointed as being of a “devil” religion, though she wasn’t and the girls had some difficulties to talk to her.

the reason the French Government banned crosses and skull caps in schools as well as head scarfs was because they felt they had to be neutral in religion. They thus penalised Christians and Jews, who had caused no-one any harm, in order to suppress the bad influence of Islam

you’re WRONG, this was for the republican principle of equity !

again before that the fondamentalist muslims tried to impose their scarf, and not burkas (to conturn, and reverse the veil law), pupils could wear whatever cross or medals as their religious appartenance, but they weren’t stigmatised, and reather taken as jewels !

Sep 16, 2009 - 6:39 am 62. Marie Claude:

“and NOW burkas” was ment

Sep 16, 2009 - 6:43 am 63. Lynn:

What a relief that ‘little’ girls instead of being buried in the sand as in the past are kept alive now that Mohammad ushered in a more kinder gentler treatment of females.

Women are worth less than men.
Women’s testimony is worth half.
The majority occupiers of HELL are women for being ungrateful.
Women who are disobedient are to be struck.
Women’s have a job in Heaven and that is to be sexual beings for the men believers.

Ah, what an improvement and such a joy to look forward to living. dieing then living again in the wonderful world of Mohammad/Allah. What so cool is if you start with that premise, the other cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, honor killings, lack of medical care etc., fit nicely into this faith. What do you expect your worth less. Your lucky that you weren’t buried in the sand.

Deal with it.

The real cover-up is pretending that a women’s cover-up is an improvement over burying little infant girls in the hot sand until they die.
Under the teaching of Mohammad/Allah their is so much to live for after all. You get to wear a piece of material so the whole world knows that you agree with Allah/Mohammad.

Oh and those lucky few who enjoy a full free life, working and playing among the infidels. Well that’s a cover-up too for the millions of women who as we are speaking suffer all sorts of indignities, humiliations, cruelties and death under the shadow of the sword.

The hijab should not be banned so the whole world sees what Islam thinks of women, and what even their own sisters think of them. The privileged few always seem to escape from the heavy burden they place on their fellow humans.

Deal with it. No it’s your deal, and many don’t want to play the game that was rigged by a prophet and a god that hides too many cards under the table.

Sep 16, 2009 - 7:53 am 64. David S:

Banning religious garb is not the answer. It is simply a poke in the eye.

Peace.

Sep 16, 2009 - 8:17 am 65. Persia:

DS: I really do not think it is a Poke in the Eyes. HERE we are in the West, if you/we are still remembering it, and mysoginist Ideologies are not wellcome. It is a Poke in the Eyes if Someone or Something (Islam) comes in the West and expect to throw Everything under its totalitarian Dictatorship.

Martin Knight: Islam has been violent since its Beginning, and still be the same up to Now. It is Abusive in most Parts of the Worlds, where it persecuted and still persecuting NATIVES.

I dare to remember you that Islam came on VII Century, picked up from other Cultures, put its own Koran together, set Everyone under the Dictatorship of AlLah and Muhammad, and more expects that Everyone still submits to it.

Even if the Rest of the World is far more evolved than it.

Not we have to step back for Islam: Islam has to move Forward to join the Rest of Humanity and the World.

“Equality” and “Non-discrimination” is certainly Something that Islam ignores, and that it has to learn. It has to learn.

Phyllis Chesler: sorry for I thought you banned a Comment of mine. It was just awaiting for Moderation and I just did not realized it. Thank you for Understanding my rough Reaction, and sorry for that!

Sep 16, 2009 - 8:39 am 66. David S:

Banning religious garb is unconstitutional, immoral, and pointless. It serves no productive purpose. Fanning the flames of religious discord is not helpful – please stop. Thanks.

Peace.

Sep 16, 2009 - 8:56 am 67. tanstaafl:

“tanstafaal et al.

I guess I’m not a good Muslim then … since I’m pretty certain that I’ve never killed anyone and a great number of my friends are not Muslims.

Bottom line; we’re not homicidal maniacs, rapists or cannibals. You may not like that, but guess what? We’re human. Deal with it.”

Readers of this post – this is classic taquiyya. Whoever this poster is, a practicing Muslim does not have kuffar friends. He or she can pretend to have kuffar friends (this is an example of taquiyya), but it is present in scripture and Islam exgesis that a Muslim should NEVER seek the friendship of unbelievers. The practice of Jihad does not require Muslims to kill the kuffar, but engage in the struggle to make the entire world submit to Islam. “Martin Knight” is practicing Jihad right now but using taquiyya to try and convince kuffars (that’s you, folks) that Islam is a peaceful religion instead of an harmful ideology that only offers kuffars three choices. A kuffar may convert to Islam, live as a dhimmi (that is an non human without rights in a Muslim society) or be killed by the sword of Islam.

Just a by the by, I did not have to go “searching for information that confirmed your biases and using that as evidence that it is true”. My sources are from the Qur’an, the aHadith and the Sira. These are the orthodox foundation for Islam. They are hardly biased against Islam. All I am doing is telling the truth. I do admire Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, in that they make no excuses for Islam. They are homicidal maniacs and rapists, but are openly honest about it. “Martin Knight” knows that it is perfectly alright for him to kill kuffars, rape their wives and daughters and sell their children. (This practice has been applied during the 1400 years of Islamic history. In fact, it is estimated that Islam has killed 270 million people during that period of time.) The fact that he has not killed or raped a kuffar, does not mean that he will not in the future. In Islam, it is halal (permitted) for him to do so.

FGM – the prophet himself said that it was permissible but “not to cut too much”. Furthermore, it is not practiced in civilized nations (it is a crime) and it is in countries ruled by sharia (Islamic law). The reader may draw their own conclusion.

“Martin Knight” is engaging in even more taquiyya when he claims that forced conversion is forbidden in Islam. Forced conversion of Muslims to other faiths is forbidden. The fact is that the only reason large groups of Muslims practice Islam is that one of their ancestors had a sword held to their throat and the ancestor was given a “choice” of submitting to Islam or being killed. Rape is also not allowed, IF you are raping a fellow Muslim’s wife or “right hand possession” (This is a slave). Raping kuffar women is halal, or permitted.

The old saw about pre-Islamic Arabia killing female children has never been established. What can be learned, just from reading the Qur’an, is that prior to Mohammed, Arabian women enjoyed rights that the prophet himself rescinded when he seized power.

In short, because of the religious principles of taquiyya and kittman, we unbelieving infidel kuffars should take whatever statements a Muslim makes as propaganda to advance the ultimate goal of Islam – the conquest of the world in name of Mohammed.

Sep 16, 2009 - 8:59 am 68. Lynn:

Banning religious garb is not unconstitutional if that clothing is used to hide weapons, bombs, etc., that harm the constitutional right of citizens to live without fear of being harmed by other citizens.

As in the case of the students who wore dark trench coats to hide weapons that were used to bring rifles and guns to school, or the banning of overly baggy clothes that prove to hide weapons that do harm to citizens, the rights and safety of the majority trumps the rights of a few.

People should not be afraid to discover and learn the teachings or beliefs of a religion, cult, or political system. To refuse to discuss or discover knowledge about these systems of belief would truly be a poke in the eye causing a person to become blind and not see clearly.

A false peace.

Sep 16, 2009 - 10:19 am 69. David S:

@68. Lynn:

Yes, it is unconstitutional. There is no basis for a blanket ban on a piece of clothing. You can ban the brandishment of certain weapons (within due respect for the 2nd amendment), but no court of law is going to accept a burqa ban.

There never has or will be a blanket ban on trench coats or baggy clothes. The school environment is vastly different from any other context, as the state is operating in loco parentis. There is no reason to expect this would be permitted on a wider basis.

Certainly learning about the teachings and beliefs of others is a good thing. But banning a piece of clothing, especially one with religious significance, is still unconstitutional.

A false peace.

That’s all that is possible when religions antagonize one another. There is only one long term answer.

Peace.

Sep 16, 2009 - 12:29 pm 70. dck:

I do admire your courage and your real integrity in taking on this issue.

It is serious, it is legitimate, it is basic, and it is not easy.

Sep 16, 2009 - 3:20 pm 71. MiamaMan:

David S:

I notice you are an apostle of peace, great, me too.

According to Rishi Sri Aurobindo, the only way to bring peace on earth is by the manifestation of the Supramental Truth. Manifesting God on earth. A new man. Until them man is unfinished in a balancing act between a god and a beast. A pulling and tugging, frustrated, manifesting the original flaw.

While this phase continues it is dangerous not to oppose evil. Alas, it can be fatal, as the success of this Laya (this time around) is not vouchsafed.

So saying peace, peace, peace, only, is fallacious.

A story: Guru explains to disciple that everything is Brahman, Satchidananda, Truth-Consciousness-Bliss. Disciple, while crossing street, sees elephant approaching and elephant driver (mahout) on top waiving him away. Disciple does not yield, elephant breaks his leg. In hospital, disciple narrates episode to Guru, complaining that elephant, who is Brahman, harmed him. Guru answers: you failed to heed the advise to yield by the Brahman mahout.

Sep 16, 2009 - 3:20 pm 72. Marie Claude:

there’s a new revolt among the high schools girl students, they are forbidden to wear shorts and or miniskirts too.

So seems that behaviours are the topics, one can’t forbid veils and authorise miniskirts !

http://bit.ly/8LwQc

Sep 16, 2009 - 3:41 pm 73. David S:

@71. MiamaMan:

Peace is an excellent mantra. It has been proven quite successful over time. Despite the interruption of occasional conflict, in point of fact, the ultimate state of the universe is…

Peace.

Sep 16, 2009 - 4:53 pm 74. Lynn:

When one’s head is buried in the sand, often what is thought of as peace is in reality, one’s head buried in the sand.

A false peace.

Sep 16, 2009 - 6:36 pm 75. Cat:

A few corrections:

The Muslim “prophet” Mohammed absolutely kept sex slaves. Rayhanah (imprisoned in an offensive raid) was one; Maria the Copt was another; and as sahih Bukhari relates: “Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Banu Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day and raped her.” Umm Ayman, the poor sex-slave who ended up drinking the prophet’s urine by accident, was yet another imprisoned victim.

Martin Knight is quite correct that his prophet did not have sex outside marriage. He had sex outside “nikah,” which is the Muslim simulacrum of marriage. Nikah is simply the contractual purchase of the exclusive use of a woman’s sexual organs. It has very little to do with the promises of exclusivity, loyalty, love, and mutuality that Western marriage, in its ideal, has to offer. However, sex-slavery is explicitly approved in the Koran itself, and was enthusiastically practiced and enjoyed by Muslim men.

Knight is also correct in saying that marital rape is not explicitly approved by the Koran. I meant to say “wife-beating.” My apologies; I got tangled up in the hadith threatening wives with angels’ curses and hell if they refused their husbands’ demands for sex with Allah’s explicit word that Muslim men may freely beat their wives if they “fear disobedience.” (Surah 4:34).

There is no evidence from archeology or otherwise that Arabs buried daughters aside of Muslim religious truth-claims. And if they did, it appears they’ve simply moved the murders later to the teenage and adult years.

Finally, given that the United States has constitutional promises of freedom of practice of religion, there is absolutely no basis to ban the hijab until a hijab-hidden necklace-bomb is developed and implemented — in which case the head-bag will become a security risk like the abayah and burkah. After the deaths, of course.

I remain hideously disappointed with Professor Chesler’s approval of the degrading Muslimah head-bag. Its existence can be ignored. Those who persecute, harass, or abuse women who wear it, in the U.S., should be busted and prosecuted. (Isn’t life hard enough already?) But it should never, ever be approved or smiled over by anyone who knows what it means, its symbology, its basic degradation and removal of human individuality and agency — and the effect it has on free women, when enough hijabis gather in an area to embolden Muslim men to see us as “uncovered meat.”

Sep 16, 2009 - 11:03 pm 76. Cat:

Had to add this.

All the “I’ve lived in Muslim countries, I’ve visited Muslim countries, I have a Muslim friend, I’ve seen how happy the women are, how they defend their clothing” always reminds me of some stuff I read in college.

It was a collection of letters from women who’d visited pre-war Southern plantations. “The slaves are so happy,” they’d report. “Some of them run the houses. And during the day I can hear them sing in the fields.”

Sep 17, 2009 - 12:04 am 77. Jeannette:

While the wearing of hijab isn’t analogous to the Catholic nun’s veil, it is comparable to Catholic women who wear a veil (mantilla); it’s making a comeback and not only at Mass. If the hijab were banned, traditional Catholics would be affected also.

Sep 17, 2009 - 7:00 am 78. Ddc:

#66. David S.

How naive a statement. Apparently you, and for that matter -we, who are non- Muslim fan the flames simply by not converting. Where have you been all these years and more importantly have you been listening?

Is Honor Killing unconstitutional? The same Islamic book that condones the murder, rape and beating of women is the same Islamic book that punishes a woman for disgarding her headscarf and burqa. Please use critical thinking. Your concessions towards Islamic radicalism is the same concession that prevents the Dutch from criticism of Islam, and those who do live in fear due to death threats. Maybe you can learn something from the women who risk their lives going without headscarf as a protest for human rights. Either you are for these women or against them. What is Unconstitution is the acceptance of the status quo.

Sep 17, 2009 - 7:19 am 79. MiamaMan:

Brother DS:

[Peace is an excellent mantra. It has been proven quite successful over time. Despite the interruption of occasional conflict, in point of fact, the ultimate state of the universe is…Peace.]

Amen, you are correct. Shanti mantra very effective, individually and universally.

Shanti part of Ananda in Brahman, as such Shanti part of Universe upon realization of Brahman, otherwise in the Ignorance (Avidya) universe in constant conflict.

Goal could be to escape, dissolution, into the Brahman to experience Shanti (Moksha, Nirvana), or stand your ground and contribute to the triumph of the Spirit on earth.

I choose the latter.

Sep 17, 2009 - 7:41 am 80. MiamaMan:

Marie Claude:

[there’s a new revolt among the high schools girl students, they are forbidden to wear shorts and or miniskirts too.

So seems that behaviours are the topics, one can’t forbid veils and authorise miniskirts!]

Wow, Marie Claude, wow. A matter of behavior only? Ha, ha. “Les Parapluies de Cherbourg”, let’s have Lesby Madame Deneuve approve this.

[So seems that behaviours are the topics]

Sure, behave bad and you are buried to the neck and stoned to death.

Marie Claude, please finally come to visit America, a land you seem to admire, loath, but never understand.

Sep 17, 2009 - 7:55 am 81. Kinvara:

I think you will find that, if you read the US Constitution (and, indeed, the Declaration of Independence) that Islam, by virtue of its mandate to kill apostates (thereby denying freedoms of speech and conscience); by its Sharia (with a jurisprudence which mandates for, and upholds as legal, inequalities between Moslems and non-Moslems, male and female, and free man and slave — the latter also being a contravention to the Constitutional acknowledgment of the Abolition of Slavery); by its Doctrine of Jihad as mandated actions, violent and non-violent, to establish Islam as the sole ideology thereby replacing any legally constituted jurisprudence; by at least two of its Five Pillars (including its statement of ‘faith’ that “NONE has the RIGHT to be worshiped but Allah alone and Muhammad is His Messenger”) and its other Pillar of Zakat (requiring funds to be collected for Jihad — Allah’s Cause — which includes violence and, therefore, terrorism); by its ‘holy’ texts which call for genocide of a particular group (Jews) — I think you will find, therefore, that a potent case may be made that Islam is essentially a seditious ideology which is antithetical to many of the foundational precepts of the US Constitution and therefore a case could be made, legally, for proscription.

Sep 17, 2009 - 8:29 am 82. Hans Mast:

“Your concessions towards Islamic radicalism is the same concession that prevents the Dutch from criticism of Islam”

This exhibits the most glaring and repetitious non sequitur and strawman on this thread. Most of y’all bashing Islam make the strawman leap that because some of us are defending the freedom of religion of Muslims that we somehow approve or don’t criticize their beliefs and abuses.

Trust me, I’ve lived with Muslim friends and heard their stories of debauchery, abuse, and repression. I criticize that. I don’t think the burqa is a good idea and I would like for it to disappear. However, the idea that I should go out and force my Muslim neighbor to not wear it is beyond ludicrous.

My ancestors were burned at the stake in Europe because they didn’t practice religion the way the majority did. They fled to America to escape that. I sincerely hope we won’t have to flee (or that America will be part of making other people flee) somewhere else in a few years.

Sep 17, 2009 - 9:16 am 83. Ddc:

#81 Kinvara,

Very concise and well presented picture of why headscarves should be banned as it is simply another glaring representation of the scourge that is Islam today.

In a world that has been trying so hard to INCREASE human rights, Islam stands in deadly defiance against it. One needs to ask…why, and to what ends?

Sep 17, 2009 - 9:29 am 84. Marie Claude:

Miamiman, I know Miami from the seventies, enjoyed the trip then, but I wouldn’t do it now anymore !

Spain, Italy, Croatia… are much more convenient and fun !

besides, what do you mean that “miniskirts revolts” are apart of a decent society behaviour ?

Sep 17, 2009 - 9:44 am 85. shizza:

the problem is that Islam has been distorted in many forms so as to present it as a radical and violent faith. One such example is the Taliban, who are killing in the name of Islam innocent people majority being muslims themselves. Another example are those who claim to be muslims yet exercise practices that are not islamic at all.
Though there are Muslims who commit violent acts and justify themselves through Islam. They treat their daughters and wives badly and then call it islamic. my point being, just because the muslims practice ill deeds doesnt make Islam a violent religion.
Islam told the parents to raise their daughters in such a manner that they cover themselves out of islamic influence when they grow up. It is a wrong practice to not teach the child Islamic values at first and then when they are old enough force them to practice them.
According to Quran “there is no compulsion in religion” so nobody should be forced into anything.
Iam a practicing muslim woman and am not forced into anything by my family or my faith. I am not oppressed in any form as i am receiving education from the best institute of my country and I can see my future shining brightly.
Islam is a religion of influence not enforcement.

furthermore, the Hadis on FGM is false and has been classified among the unauthentic Ahadis in the sahih and also has a broken chain of transmitters. A consensus of the muslim clerics has resulted in declaring the hadis unauthentic and thus declaring FGM to be against Islamic Values.

Sep 17, 2009 - 11:01 am 86. MiamaMan:

85. shizza:

Please, kindly tell us the country where you live. Could it be a Western country? It is about the only place where Muslim women are nor systematically harassed, one way or another.

[the problem is that Islam has been distorted in many forms so as to present it as a radical and violent faith]

Really? Tralalalalala, lalalala. Isn’t Mr. Mohammed the one who put together that book that Winston Churchill compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampft, what’s name?

We seem to live in different worlds, dear Shizza.

FGM, who cares what the Hadis says? Or Humpty Dumpty? The litmus test is: IS IT HAPPENING? And what is the answer? YES.

Sep 17, 2009 - 3:10 pm 87. Hans Mast:

Ddc: “Very concise and well presented picture of why headscarves should be banned as it is simply another glaring representation of the scourge that is Islam today.”

When I first read this comment, I laughed at your cleverness because I thought you were parodying Kinvara for engaging in the strawman that I just talked about, but then I realized that you were serious, not a parody.

Despite your seriousness, you bring it out excellently with humor: people are (successfully) making the argument that Islam is (many times) a scourge and making the illogical leap that it (and its symbols) should thus be unconstitutionally and immorally banned, baby out with the bath water.

Because of the Crusades, Inquisition, etc should Christianity and Christian symbols be banned? Because of 9/11 should Islam and its symbols be banned?

Despite the fact that Goths often do school shootings, we can’t ban Goths.
Despite the fact that Coca-Cola poses a public health hazard, we can’t ban Coke.
Despite the fact that ignorant rednecks want to run around in white sheets, we can’t ban white sheets.
Despite the fact that smoking is a really stupid thing to do, we can’t ban smoking.
Despite the fact that stupid fascists run around with swastikas, we can’t ban swastikas.
Despite the fact that adultery is wrong, we can’t illegalize adultery.
Despite the fact that stupid lefties want to run around with commie flags, we can’t ban commie flags.
Despite the fact that Code Pink… Obama… ACORN… Pelosi… You fill in the blanks…

What part of nanny-state don’t you understand, fellow-conservatives?

Sep 17, 2009 - 3:20 pm 88. Ddc:

Hans,

once tobacco was found to cause cancer, haven’t you seen the evolving ban? Workplace, airlines, in theaters, restaurants etc.? The same is happening with the recent findings of High Fructose Corn Syrup. Why ? Because on average, where there is MASS consumption of something harmful it inevitably affects us all, e.g. Heart disease and obesity eating up our healthcare revenues. You get the idea about mass consumption don’t you? Apply it to the mass consumption of a population of the More insidious tenets of the Koran. You get the drift.

Goth? The Virginia college killer was not goth. Timothy mcvey was notgoth.
They were mentally ill ideology. No thousands of followers. No countries that stood behind them. Islam has the countries to stand behind
and the funding To advance THEIR ideology.

Christianity, btw, has long surpassed Islam in the “enlightenment” category. Been there done that. Islam is LONG overdue. Banning symbols (headscarf) of their ideology in the western world might just be the impetus that moves their younger people to change the dinosaurs of the older generation.

Sep 17, 2009 - 5:22 pm 89. charlze:

Scythe’s comments are just about the only ones that hit the mark. Discussing the finer points of Islam and Islamic head-covering is akin to discussing which type of cancer one would prefer. Whether they wear the burka or the hajib, they all adhere to a philosophy that calls for the destruction of Western civilization. This distinction is ludicrous.
There is no reason not to BAN THESE POPULATIONS as scythe recommends. Muslims have never had any intention of living in peace with any other population. If Muslims wish to live in an Islamic society, there are, as our President has pointed out, fifty seven Muslim states; which, by the way, take no consideration for any other religion.
This hand-wringing about how to best accommodate those whose stated mission is to destroy Western Civilization defies any definition of logic.
Also, to Hans Mast: The Crusades were a good thing they are a large part of the reason the West is not Islamic today; and as for the Inquisition, I don’t think any of the participants are alive today and exhorting their followers to continue to pursue it. Those examples are completely irrelevant and moronic.

Sep 17, 2009 - 5:40 pm 90. Lynn:

If person’s were walking around in white sheets with pointy hoods robbing banks, hiding weapons and bombs and demanding public institutions allow them to wear white sheets that cover their faces for photos etc. then the United States certainly has the right to require they not be worn.

If a religion is forcing another to adhere to unreasonable demands such as wearing clothes that are unhealthy, denying medical care, threatening with harm for apostasy, the United States has the absolute obligation to protect it’s citizens with freedom of religion. And yes that means freedom to leave a religion.

What part of protecting the citizens from enemies both here and abroad don’t you understand?

Sep 17, 2009 - 5:59 pm 91. MiamaMan:

87. Hans Mast:

Your name should be Hans Christian Andersen instead, in la, la land.

Hello? Christianity evolved and doesn’t burn or torture people anymore. Hasn’t done it for a while, dude.

Islam, well, you know (like John Lennon repeated in his song Revolution), well, you know, Islam…what can we say pal? Just look around, no need be an Einstein to figure it out bro.

Sep 17, 2009 - 6:55 pm 92. Hans Mast:

I would be proud to be called Hans Christian Andersen, however, you seem to have gotten the name of my temporary place of abode wrong. The Arabs call it il-Quds and the rest of the world calls it Jerusalem. I lived in a Muslim neighborhood for five months, teaching Muslims English. I saw their abuses and their strong points.

Now, MiamaMan, how long have you lived in a Muslim country? How many weeks have you spent studying Arabic? How many weeks have you spent studying Islam, both from Muslims and from critical sources? How many weeks have you spent working to reconcile actual beliefs and stated beliefs of Muslims?

I would like to end with a quote and a question.

MiamaMan: “Goal could be to escape, dissolution, into the Brahman to experience Shanti (Moksha, Nirvana), or stand your ground and contribute to the triumph of the Spirit on earth.”

Who is living in “la, la land”?

Sep 17, 2009 - 11:56 pm 93. Reflections, Day 25, 26, 27 & 28 « 760 Days in Morocco:

[...] [...]

Sep 18, 2009 - 6:16 am 94. Lynn:

It’s Jerusalem.

I will end with a quote about Jersalem.

“It is the House of Hashem.”

and a question.

How does changing the name of Israel and changing the name of Jerusalem change anything?

It’s too late, we remember.

Sep 18, 2009 - 6:37 am 95. Hans Mast:

Lynn, my apologies. As soon as I submitted my comment, I realized that I was being unclear. When I said “you seem to have gotten the name of my temporary place of abode wrong”, I was not talking about Jerusalem vs. il-Quds. I was talking about “la, la land” vs. Jerusalem. I was trying to be clever and it seems I failed miserably.

(For the record, I call it Jerusalem and believe that the Jews have a historical and spiritual right to that city.)

Sep 18, 2009 - 7:39 am 96. MiamaMan:

92. Hans Mast:

Nice, Brother Hans, yes, it is true, I live in La, La, land. Don’t tell others, please.

1) [Now, MiamaMan, how long have you lived in a Muslim country?]

I have lived in India several times, isn’t that a Muslim country? Where the Hindus are second class citizens, although a majority.

2) [How many weeks have you spent studying Arabic?]

My loss, Hansy, I have spent years studying Sanskrit, which I read and write, but can hardly pronounce.

2) [MiamaMan: “Goal could be to escape, dissolution, into the Brahman to experience Shanti (Moksha, Nirvana), or stand your ground and contribute to the triumph of the Spirit on earth.”]

This ain’t La, La, Land, but Brahman Land. Why is this difficult to you? AVIDYA, which is…THE PERCEPTION OF THE NON-EXISTENT OR THE NON-PERCEPTION OF THE EXISTENT.

Sep 18, 2009 - 8:21 am 97. Hans Mast:

MiamaMan, I’m sure your Sanskrit, both written and spoken, far exceeds my Arabic. And yes, areas of India are indeed Muslim-majority. What area did you live in? I’m glad to see that you do at least have some personal experience with Muslims.

I was simply objecting to be labeled as being in “la, la land” being that I do have some firsthand experience in the matter. I am not close to the final word on Islam, but I do have some practical experience. An American or European who has never lived in a Muslim country might be legitimately labeled as being in “la, la land”, but I have a hard time applying that label to myself.

As for Brahmanism, that’s an entirely different realm of “la, la land” and is not relevant to this discussion. I shouldn’t have brought it up.

Sep 18, 2009 - 9:02 am 98. MiamaMan:

97. Hans Mast:

My brother Hans. Thanks for the answer.

[What area did you live in?]

I have been fortunate to travel extensively in India, never as a tourist, always living in Ashrams. 2 areas, almost poles opposite, I relate to:

a) North, Rishikesh. Shivananda Ashram. I was so fortunate to have had a relationship with Swami Krishnananda (he passed away in 2001), one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Rishikesh is so, so beautiful, besides Mother Ganga.

b) Down to Tamil Nadu, Dravidian Southern India: I have lived in Ramanasraman in Tiruvannamalai. Have gone up and down Arunachala hill many times. But I am a follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, and as such, I call my home base Pondicherry.

I am not talking about Brahmanism, no. I am referring to Brahman, the Almighty Father, the Divine Mother, the Prince of Peace, whom the Hebrews call Adonai and Elohim. The One Without a Second.

There is nothing that He is Not.

Sep 18, 2009 - 9:18 am 99. Eowyn:

Headscarves, burqas etc. are all about denying female sexuality so the poor men don’t succumb to temptation.

Pretty p**s-poor rationale, if you ask me.

Sep 18, 2009 - 9:52 am 100. Lynn:

#95. Hans Mast

Accepted,

and Jerusalem is indeed a noble sacred place (Al Quds), in the Land of Israel.

For the record, I call it Jerusalem and believe that the Jews have a historical and spiritual right to that city.”

Yes, though it seems that many in the world think they have no place at all, even in the place of their Hashem.

Sep 18, 2009 - 10:33 am 101. Poor Citizen:

Telling people what to wear and not to wear?. I can have an opinion about what they wear, but I cannot see banning it. Where would it end?…. Ridiculous people, in any culture, look ridiculous. But that is as bad as their sin can ever be….

Sep 18, 2009 - 1:24 pm 102. Hesperado:

Comments #6 by Persian and #8 by Cat are excellent and sum up virtually everything I wanted to say about this repellant piece by Phylis Chesler.

Shame on Ms. Chesler: She has drawn a veil over her once luminous intelligence, and has allowed herself to become benighted by her encounter with a few charming Muslimas. What Chesler seems to forget is that every one of those Muslimas by whom she was so ridiculously smitten revere Mohammed, the Godfather of Islamic misogyny. That by itself disqualifies any Muslim woman from the honor of being a feminist. At best, such a woman would be a grotesquely confused victim in need of psychiatric help and intensive debriefing for several months from the cult that has so deformed her — and not fit to be in the movement until she has kicked the addiction of Islam by which she is beholden to the preposterous, outrageous paradox of revering Mohammed while at the same time fighting for feminism. It would be like a person continuing to revere Hitler, while now supporting the cause of Israel. The insanity of it alone should disqualify such a person.

Sep 19, 2009 - 11:38 pm 103. The Weekly Wilders Round-Up « Defend Geert Wilders:

[...] [...]

Sep 20, 2009 - 8:36 am 104. Richard:

Phyllis-
Have you seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48&feature=channel_page

Sep 20, 2009 - 12:39 pm